Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Bad Taste and Disrespect for the Office of the Presidency

That's how I look at it.

The Bush-haters,
feel otherwise. Any surprise there? The fringe left moonbats have a history of abusing their First Amendment priveleges for the purpose of trampling and shouting down views that collide with their own belief system. They lack class and decency and pat themselves on the back while showing their intolerance for dissenting views. cindy Sheehan was in violation of a policy against demonstrations inside the Chamber.

Why are the Sheehan supporters so outraged by it? No Administration would have put up with it.

According to
Michael Moore's website,

"A civil suit will be filed against the federal government first thing tomorrow morning for violation of first amendment rights."

What utter stuff and nonsense. According to the AP report:

"Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said."

And the Washington Post adds:

"She was also boisterous, according to U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, and after she ignored instructions to close her jacket and quiet down, she was escorted out and arrested. Demonstrating in the House gallery is prohibited."

An update can be found in the comments section, thanks to the visit of an anon Kos Kid.

Update II: I'm not on my computer much today, but I just took a visit over at Sister Toldjah, and she has the best round up I've seen. Including this from Balloon Juice:

"Sorry to disappoint the Bush haters, but any and all kinds of sloganeering or demonstrating is strictly forbidden in the Capitol. A few of my friends and I once tried to have take a group picture (after a rally that had a permit ended) with the building in the background and were shooed away by the Capital Police for violating the rule merely by havign signs in our possession on the steps. As that happened in 1988 (when the other party controlled the Congress), I doubt George W. Bush had anything to do with it."

This appears to be the law in question.

Republican Bill Young's wife, wearing a pro-troop t-shirt, was also "ejected". So the police were equal opportunity enforcers of the law.

UPDATE III- Michael Medved will have on as guest, Lynn Woolsey, the California Democrat Representative who gave Cindy the ticket. 3rd hour.

UPDATE IV- Well...Congresswoman Woolsey made a very brief appearance on the Michael Medved Show (listen to the audio here) and....all I can say is, if this woman can be a member of Congress, then it's no wonder Cindy Sheehan thinks it's possible to run for office, herself. Lynn Woolsey is asbsolutely clueless on everything. No joke. No hyperbole. I think the Kos Kids have more intelligence and more sense than this California Rep.

Speaking of Kos readers, these
two posts are interesting as well.

The Capitol police don't work for the President; they work for Congress. It's ridiculous to conclude that President Bush is being a dictator because of the removal of Cindy Sheehan (and Beverly Young). But I am mystified by the Capitol Police official saying they "screwed up" and that Sheehan didn't "violate any rules or laws" and that "officers should never have approached Young."

And from the AP update:

“The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol,” Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

“The policy and procedures were too vague,” he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”


Breaking Wind While Shooting the Breeze

As Laura Ingraham discribed it on air yesterday, to paraphrase: "It's like someone took a pin and poked a hole in him to let all the air out."

He's so full of gas. Just watch the hot air wheeze out of him:

Congratulations Supreme Court Justice Alito!

And hat tip to The Political Teen Expose the Left for the video.

State of the (Dummy) Underground

*sigh*...I'm still in my cheap, juvenile humor mode. So I offer you this bit of DUmmies entertainment nuggets over at Flopping Aces. If you are drinking coffee....make sure it's nowhere near the keyboard.

Let me know how the State of the Union speech went today. I will be at work when it airs; although I'll probably catch the rerun late at night.

Monday, January 30, 2006

Media Watchdogs

The Political Teen is no longer.

But never fear: it is now known as Expose the Left. Always a great resource, along with CrooksandLiars.

Check out the sleek new look.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Heckler Thomas (A profile in self-importance)

Old and irrelevant is how I'd describe her.

Helen Thomas, "The First Lady Hag of the Press", is President Bush's biggest heckler. Since the time of the Kennedy Administration, she had been priveleged with a tradition of allowing her the first question at White House Press Conferences. At the end, she'd also say on behalf of the Press corps, "Thank you, Mr. President."

Since March 6, 2003, that tradition came to a screeching snub. And according to the Drudge Report, last Thursday was another day of making the venerable doyenne feel irrelevant during a 45-minute press conference where President Bush accepted questions from every reporter around her in the front row.

"He's a coward," she said later. "He's supposed to be this macho guy. He'll take on Osama bin Laden, but he won't take me on."

Based upon what she claims she would have asked the President that day, and guessing at what President Bush might have liked to toss back at her, I have constructed the following obscenely accurate, well-researched, question-and-answer session: Let's just pretend that President Bush did call on Helen Thomas for that oh-so, significantly insightful question she had cooked up for the President...

Isn't it obvious? In 1978, we didn't have the kinds of communication capabilities back then that we have today, from laptops and fiber optics and e-mail accounts, to cell phones.

"The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself,"-Helen Thomas

Quick! Let's impeach Bush!!!

Uh...yeah, right....just like Hollywood liberals kept their promise when saying they'd move out of the country should President Bush win re-election. What a miserable hag...

Labels: , ,

Friday, January 27, 2006

Bumper Car Wars

Last November, I made a post on bumper stickers. Below is the post I actually started back in August (and finished this past week).

Back in August of O-five, while driving home from work, this car in front of me caught my attention, navigating onto the 10 freeway: "Frodo failed. Bush has the ring."

If there's nothing that makes me roll my eyes more than anti-Bush bumperstickers, it's Lefties trying to claim Tolkien's work as supporting their political worldview. What could be a more conservative message than the acknowledgement that there is good and evil in this world? And that the good is worth fighting and even dying for?

As much as conservatives disagreed with or even hated Bill Clinton, the amount of anti-Clinton books and bumperstickers and such was never anywhere near what the anti-Bush market is like, out there. It almost seems like Bush-bashing is the "in" thing to do. It's expected. People out here in Los Angeles will openly bash President Bush in front of total strangers, assuming that everyone must feel this way. Rather than pro-Democrat, pro-liberal bumperstickers....why so many anti-Bush bumperstickers? I mean, there are a wide variety of them. Many being rather offensive, such as "No more Bushit"; and worse, involving real 4-letter words. I know liberals don't have a monopoly on inappropriate language and behavior, but why is it that it usually IS liberals who wear T-shirts with offensive language out in public and who sport around bumperstickers that say "f*** Bush"? Such class.

Of course, the pro-Kerry bumper stickers are sometimes worth a chuckle. I saw so many bizarre ones, like "Surfers for Kerry"...."Greens for Kerry"...."Plumbers for Kerry". What's that all about?

The funniest cars are those plastered from bumper to window, to body of the vehicle with the most vile, angry, and hateful conspiratorial bumperstickers against George Bush and Republicans in general. It's not a car, it's a moving billboard on wheels.

I found the following video segment from the popular show, Malcolm in the Middle. I thought it was hilarious when the one woman (who I think it would be reasonable to assume is a liberal) had on her car, "War is not the Answer", even as she engaged in senseless parking lot-rage violence.

I remember a time when I was on the freeway and some insane driver swerved in front of me without warning. Hanging from the rear window was the sign, "Caution: Baby on Board".

I found the video clip on Metacafe, having remembered this clip being e-mailed to me before...either that or I saw the actual episode on TV. What is bizarre, is reading through the comments section of the Metacafe video. Actually, most of the comments began flaming back and forth about "Stupid Americans". The few that did address the actual video, sometimes treated it as if it were real, and could not distinguish it as a TV comedy show. The flames that were defending Americans, were something along the lines of, "Quit stereotyping! Not all Americans are like Bush". Gee, thanks. And just as appalling was the spelling, from commenters who I am sure are Americans. Aaah...education in America...

I saw this one today:

You think this guy supports the troops? No...I think he's expressing his honesty, much the same as Joel Stein did three days ago.

I always love these "feel good" types:

Peace IS patriotic. That's why we went to war!!! Quit feeling like I'm attacking your patriotism all the time just because I think you are wrong..."methinks this car doth protest too much".

And to top off this post, I'd like to republish this from a post I made last week on a thread from DU:

I was leaving a grocery store once. It was really quiet there with no one in the parking lot and no store workers outside at all. There was a person— not in the handicapped area, not handicapped— just struggling with their groceries. I started to help, then saw the W sticker. I put the bag down and said “I’m sorry. Republicans don’t believe in helping people. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.” Then I walked off. They were stunned. Amazing what happends when their policies are shown to them on such a simple, personal level.
And there you have it folks! Enjoy a wonderful weekend...drive safe and avoid the road rage. Oh, and in case you like sporting bumper stickers yourself, might I offer a suggestion?

Labels: ,

Thursday, January 26, 2006

"Wiretap this!"

Days after the arrest of Abu Zubaydah, at the time the highest-ranking al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, Bush summoned CIA director George Tenet to the White House to ask what intelligence Abu Zubaydah had provided his captors. According to Risen’s source, Tenet told Bush that Abu Zubaydah, badly wounded during his capture, was too groggy from painkillers to talk coherently. In response, Bush asked, “Who authorized putting him on pain medication?” Risen makes the leap that the Bush episode may represent the “most direct link yet between Bush and the harsh treatment of prisoners by both the CIA and the U.S. military.”
-The Book Behind the Bombshell

The ACLU filed a lawsuit against warrantless wiretapping. Is anyone really surprised, here? Of all the perfect candidates for wiretapping, I'd say the ACLU stands at the top of my list of enemy living among us.

If you want to help fight the ACLU on this, you can start by clicking here.

And what is the reasoning behind Senator Dick Durbin's decision not to vote to confirm Alito to the Supreme Court?

“Based on his record, I’m concerned that Judge Alito will not be willing to stand up to a president who is determined to seize too much power over our personal lives,” Durbin said in a statement.

Excuse me....but I've had enough with the hyperbole and the scare-mongering. Dick Durbin.... i.e., TURBAN DURBIN....is the same U.S. Senator who compared the actions of U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo to that of Soviet Gulags, Nazis, and the Pol Pot regime.

Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot murdered around 50 million people. Out of the 70,000 battlefield combatants captured in afghanistan, only around 800- the worst of the worst- were detained at GITMO; hundreds have since been released. Those who remained at Guantanamo have been made to feel uncomfortable, such as listening to Christina Aguilera songs (ok...I admit, maybe that is torture...). On the one hand, we have Hitler committing genocide and at GITMO....we have.....all hell breaking lose because urine was accidentally splashed onto a Koran, thoughtfully supplied, with care and reverence of handling, by the U.S. military? What...in the...blue....hell...is the world coming to?! Has it lost its mind?! THERE IS NO COMPARISON!!!! You have, what was it again? 5 cases of alleged abuses? Minor, if I remember; and out of something like 27,000 interrogations conducted, only a handful of accusations of abuse? Not forgetting that part of the al Qaeda handbook tactic is to allege abuse even in the absence of it.

It just amazes me how the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the non-abuses at Guantanamo are inflated to inflame the world against us. The language used by many on the left would make you think that President Bush has taken over as dictator of the U.S. That is just plain crazy-think! Look at all the anti-Bush books out there; the protests; do you see Cindy Sheehan being thrown into prison? Harry Belafonte charged with treason? Democratic Senators targeted for assassination? Michael Moore put into a starvation weight-watchers concentration camp? No? Well then, have a hot cup of stfu!!!

Max Boot of the LA Times came out with a great op-ed last week:

If you want to see real abuses of civil liberties, read Geoffrey R. Stone's 2004 book "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism." It tells how John Adams jailed a congressman for criticizing his "continual grasp for power." How Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and had the army arrest up to 38,000 civilians suspected of undermining the Union cause. How Woodrow Wilson imprisoned Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs for opposing U.S. entry into World War I. And how Franklin D. Roosevelt consigned 120,000 Japanese Americans to detention camps.

You can also read about how presidents from FDR to Richard Nixon used the FBI to spy on, and occasionally blackmail and harass, their political opponents. The Senate's Church Committee in 1976 blew the whistle on decades of misconduct, including FBI investigations of such nefarious characters as Eleanor Roosevelt, William O. Douglas, Barry Goldwater and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

All you have to do is recite this litany of excess to realize the absurdity of the cries of impeachment coming from the loonier precincts of the left. Muttering about "slippery slopes" isn't enough to convince most people that fascism is descending. If the president's critics want that part of the nation that doesn't read the Nation to believe that he's a threat to our freedom, they'd better do more than turn up the level of vituperation. They'd better find some real victims — the Eugene Debses and Martin Luther Kings of the war on terror.

Civil libertarians thought they were in luck when a college student in Massachusetts claimed that two FBI agents had shown up to interview him after he had requested a copy of Mao Tse-tung's Little Red Book. Ted Kennedy cited this incident to warn of the Patriot Act's "chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom." Relax, Senator. Free speech is safe. The student lied.

The anti-Bush brigade hasn't had any luck in turning up actual instances of abuse, despite no end of effort. The ACLU compiled a list of supposed victims of the Patriot Act. After examining each case, however, Sen. Dianne Feinstein — no friend of the administration — said "it does not appear that these charges rose to the level of 'abuse.' "
Read the rest of the article.

The civil rights hysteria over what the mainstream press is mischaracterizing as "domestic" spying and wiretapping, is another example of how nutty things have become. This is not domestic spying. Under article 2 of the Constitution, the President as Commander-in-Chief has the legal authority to justify the monitoring of outside communications between what they believe to be al Qaeda operatives and contacts within our own borders. Based upon previous actions of Congress and previous Administrations, I believe the President is standing on solid ground. What is unfortunate, is that I think this has probably compromised the program, to an extent.

As far as I see it, the President of the U.S. does not have to go through FISA, created in 1978 and a dinosaur for dealing with today's technology of cell phones, lap tops, fiber optics. He's on good solid ground, under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. And even if he didn't have the legal authority to conduct these wiretaps, or the approval of Congress, he should be given the power to safeguard our country. To think that the NSA has any interest in wiretapping your average Dick and Jane is just delusional paranoia. Why not change the FISA law then and update it? Well, this program was "secret" (and briefed a dozen times to Congress- so it is amazing how politicized it has become, thanks to the NY Times) before a certain newsrag decided to go public with it (oh, and what timing! Just after the historic Iraqi elections, around the time when the Patriot Act would be voted upon for renewal, and just before the author of the expose, James Risen, had a new book coming out) ; to have gone through Congress, it would have become known to the terrorists, alerting them in a similar manner to how Osama realized that his communications were being eased-dropped upon, resulting in an end to his transmissions . We've also already seen how smoothly The Patriot Act has gone through Congress. So when John McCain says he doesn't know anyone in Congress who would not grant the President this authority...um, just where has the good Senator been, lately? Since the war, Democratic opponents to the President have behaved at every turn, as nothing short of alarmists, obstructionists, quagmirists, defeatists, and political opportunists.

For some of the best analysis on the NSA wiretapping, go to Hugh Hewitt and Flopping Aces. (I thought about linking to some opinions from the Kos Kids...but then I thought, "why waste your time?"

Fun, gratuitous "guilty pleasure" reads:
Our "Jack Bauer" President
George Bush is No Jack Bauer
We Need Jack
Jack Bauer's America
Blogs 4 Bauer.com

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Continuation from Yesterday's Post...

I didn't realize how much the Joel Stein article, which I blogged on yesterday, would get so much publicity and notoriety in the blogosphere. I think many who are knee-jerking to his insensitivity and ignorance toward the military, from body armor to American imperialism to no parades for returning vets, are missing the entire point of his piece, which was a good one: That those who claim to support the warriors, but not their mission, are wusses. that they are being dishonest with themselves.

Joel does have a vague sense of appreciating the military (insofar as he realizes we need one for protection, and insofar as he recognizes the bravery of enlistment). What he doesn't believe in, is our involvement in this war and in acting like the world police force.

To add to my update of yesterday, Just a Woman and Ex-Donkey also blogged about it. Nice to see that he is an all-opportunity offender, as he has the visceral ire of the Atrios moonbats lighting him up. They are the ones who should be taking the point of his column to heart: That most of them should admit that they don't really support the troops, by the actions they take which does harm to the military. I mean c'mon:...."We support the troops, but won't allow the military onto our campuses"....."We support the troops, but will inflame the Arab world with exaggerations on Abu Ghraib and false allegations on Guantanamo"....."We support the troops, but will slander and spin over white phosphorus in Fallujah"...."We support the troops, but will show the terrorists and insurgency that they may not be able to win a single military engagement, but just hang in there and we will help them win the propaganda war by pushing every negative story"...."We support the troops but will stand in front of Walter Reed and hold up signs saying you fought for a lie and an immoral war (*cough*Code Pink*Cough*)....

and on and on...

"but monkeys" from the moonbats...

Michael Medved is talking about it right now, top of the first hour, and is basically supporting what I've been saying, and taking it even further. That rather than being lynched by the right, Joel Stein's article should be helping us who are on the right-side of the war issue.

Mary also gets it.

Aaron's pictures are worth a laugh!

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Finally! Some Honesty on the Left!

They feel they must say this because the majority of Americans would find any other position unacceptable. Indeed, for most liberals, the thought that they really do not support the troops is unacceptable even to them.

Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans' patriotism, let it be clear that leftists' patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.

-Dennis Prager

There's been some heated exchanges since the war began, on what exactly it means to "support the troops". I'm still conflicted on it. I think some who opposed the war, do behave in a manner that is still supportive of the troops; but that the majority do more to harm; and that they are contradictory when they say "I support the troops, but not the mission." I think "supporting the troops" equates to supporting whatever means necessary to insure their victory as well as hoping for their safe return.

Certainly, dissent is a big part of what it means to be an American with the freedom to express your views. But what I find troublesome is in how people sometimes express their dissent. Is it really appropriate for Congressmen to call our President a liar? To compare a military detention center to Soviet Gulags, Nazi camps, and Pol Pot's regime? How is that "supporting the troops" for our Congressional leadership to bloviate irresponsible accusations out onto the Senate floor, in front of the whole world, where Dick Durbin's statements get top of the news billing on al Jazeera news for a couple of weeks, straight? And those on the Left take offense to be labeled "Defeatocrats" and defeatists? Do they honestly believe that what someone like Durbin said will insure victory in Iraq? That it helps the job of our troops by inflaming the Middle East with falsehoods against our own military? Protests before the war....fine. Public anti-war protests during wartime...that bothers me. Why? Because, like it or not, whether you admit honestly to it or continue deceiving your conscience to it, mass demonstrations and making a spectacle of your views in such a way as to gain worldwide attention, does give aid and comfort to the enemy. Let's be honest about it. How can it not? How can anyone honestly deny that Osama bin Laden's recent audio release does not sound a lot like Democratic talking points? I hear those on the Left warn, "Those who do not learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat them...". Apparently, those of Jane Fonda's generation and ilk came away from the Vietnam experience, learning all the wrong lessons. We know today, from the North Vietnamese leadership themselves, that they were defeated militarily; but they hung in there, because they saw that they were winning the propaganda war, thanks to OUR media, and the coverage of the anti-war movement. And what was the result of our pulling out of Vietnam and abandoning our allies in the South? Peace? Yeah, right. Peace activists really know the meaning of it, don't they? They never think about the actual consequences and domino effects of their actions: hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese incarcerated in camps, millions driven into exile; at least a couple of million Cambodians slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge.

Pacifism creates violence and wars as much as anything else ever has. The pacifists like to hold up images of babies killed from U.S. bombs. Where were they when Saddam for the past few decades caused the deaths of many times more in innocent men, women, and children lives? And if they had their way, how many more decades of the cruelty, the torture, and the murders would they have put up with? And after Saddam's reign...another generation of it, under his sons' rule? And there is no question that Saddam's regime sought possession of those weapons we failed to find. In a nuclear age, we cannot afford to wait until the threat becomes imminent. By then, it is too late to act.

Those against this war need to take a long hard stare at their conscience, and ask themselves how their actions are helping our soldiers, morale-wise and victory-wise.

What brought on this little rant was an article in today's Los Angeles Times, by Joel Stein, a man of the Left. his whole piece is chock full of things I disagree with; but...at least he is honest with himself:

Warriors and wusses

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.

And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

Hat tip to Dennis Prager for talking about this article.

For opposing views on Prager's own article back in July of 2005, see:
Prager Lies Again
Why We All Hate the Troops at One Point or Other

Rosemary posted on the substance of Joel Stein's opinion, itself; and she alerts me to the fact that Hugh Hewitt interviewed him on air today. Transcript and audio can be found at Radioblogger.

Flopping Aces has a roundup of others blogging on this, as well as venting himself.

Monday, January 23, 2006

(click photo)

Sunday, January 22, 2006

A Little SNL Humor Before Starting Out the Week...

The Jawa Report nabs him a terrorist scumbag!

Economic Freedom

"The economically freest societies are the most prosperous, and the most economically repressive societies are the poorest."
-Brussels Journal

Check out the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom.

"Wealth comes from the actions of people, not the actions of government, and the freer people are to direct their efforts to where they are most productive, the greater the wealth created."

"The countries with the most economic freedom also have higher rates of long-term economic growth and are more prosperous than are those with less economic freedom."
Of interest to me, is Estonia, which is ranked 7th. Apparently they have successfully implemented a flat tax system.

Also blogging on this:
Quintus Varus
Emotional Rex
Reformed Leftist
Ryan Jones Thoughts and Re-Thoughts

Hat tip to The Michael Medved Show for alerting me to this.

National Sanctity of Human Life Day

The Republicans should back off and let men marry men; women marry women, and totally legalize abortion. In three generations there will be no Democrats. -Ray's suggestion

Well....it's the 33rd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Here's how Daily Kos chooses to celebrate it.

This is how Mary at Freedom Eden chose to talk about it.

Me? I've always been conflicted on this issue. I have been leaning more and more conservative- especially in regards to Roe v. Wade. There is no privacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, is there? If Roe v. Wade ever gets struck down, I won't shed a tear over it, as I believe it is a Constitutionally weak ruling. Abortion should be voted on by the people, on a state by state basis. If I am wrong, tell me. I really haven't done much thinking or research on this.

I think what would clinch my positioning on abortion would be if anyone could ever satisfactorily answer this question: At what stage of development does human life truly begin? I mean human consciousness? A soul? When is the fetus a human baby, and not just so much tissue and goo?

Because I am lazy on this topic, and am only choosing to talk about it because of the anniversary, I will reprint what I've posted previously on a message board:

I have a problem with the terms, "pro-lifers"....."pro-choice". With the former, it implies the other side is against life.... the life of the fetus. This doesn't take into account the life of the woman as well as the lives of others who may be affected as much by the birth as well as by the non-birth of the child.

"Pro-choice" bugs me, because often, the more accurate term really should be "pro-abortion". The only good reason to be against abortion, is the belief that the fetus is a human life- not just some "thing" growing inside. It's easier to dispose of the fetus and support abortion if you don't acknowledge it as an innocent human being.

Given that one stands to be against abortion on the grounds of innocent life...why do some make exceptions in the case of rape and incest? Certainly, it might be terrible for the woman to be victimized every day by having to see a baby's face that reminds her of the rapist and the violence done to her. But it would not change the fact that the fetus/baby is still an innocent in all of this. It is a helpless victim, with zero say in the matter.

I think the crux of the argument really is this: At what point is that "thing" growing inside a woman's body, a living, feeling human being? It's easier to be pro-abortion if you "dehumanize" the fetus.

And why on earth wouldn't you want to place restrictions on aborting a fetus when it's in its last trimester? The only logical reason for aborting that late in the game that I can think of is if the mother's health is in jeopardy.

The 23 chromosomes of the sperm meet with the 23 chromosomes of the ovum and form a new 46 chromosome cell.

Within 30 hours of insemination the first cell division takes place.

From there the cell continues to divide at a rapid pace.

Within 5-9 days of fertilization the new baby will travel down the Fallopian tube and implant into the wall of the mother's uterus.

At 10-14 days the new baby sends the mother a message that she is pregnant by creating a hormone that suppresses the mother's menstrual period.

Four days later the little baby's heart begins to form and the eyes will be soon to follow.

At 20 days the foundations of the brain, spinal cords, and nervous system are laid.

At 24 days the heart begins to beat!

Only 1% of abortions are performed because of rape or incest;

1% because of fetal abnormalities;

3% due to the mother's health problems.

That's according to a pro-lifer and I'm not sure where she gets that from.

Planned Parenthood bugs the crap out of me. What parenthood? It should be "Planned UnParenthood". Why can't they push for the virtues of abstinence as hard as they do for condoms? Both are important.

I do believe that a woman does have more say in the matter of abortion because it will be the woman who bears the burden of carrying that child. I think there is no question that the woman has greater say in the matter than the father because it is the woman's body. She is the one who will endure carrying for 9 months. Not the father. He has it easy. He should have some say, but unless you can think of some sort of extraordinary circumstance, it shouldn't override the will of the woman. It's disgusting how many men just walk away scott-free of "burdening" themselves of parenthood, both financially and emotionally in their kids lives. How many single moms and their kids find themselves abandoned by a guy who does not understand what it truly means to be a man?

With all that said, I should make mention of Freakonomics, which contends that the rise in the number of abortions has contributed to the drop in crime rates. I won't go into it here, but the theory and correlation makes sense to me.

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
-Ronald Reagan

As a final note, and a deeply personal one:

I was born before Roe vs. Wade. In Phoenix, Arizona. If I was conceived around 1973, It's quite possible I might never have been born. There'd be no "wordsmith" posting at "Sparks from the Anvil". No college student wordsmith who helped feed the homeless with the UCLA hunger project for 4 years....who drove down to Watts every Thursday to help with Project Literacy....who today spreads the joy of paperfolding at schools and at cultural festivals, making kids and adults laugh and smile; I would not be around to make a difference in the personal growth of young children struggling through fears and insecurities as they pursue athletic excellence. In fact, it is very much possible that I would simply not be....

Instead, I was born before 1973.....and I was given up for adoption. I have no idea what the circumstances were, surrounding my birth and adoption. Only that I was raised by two loving parents who have given me everything a child needs: a stable home, nurturing environment, and opportunity to succeed or fail on my own merits.

And having just said that, I don't really go in 100% for the line of reasoning which goes something like, "If you abort that life....you could have just killed off our next Mozart....the future Babe Ruth.....the person who might have discovered the cure for cancer....." That's because you might just as well say, "We might have just rid the world of the future Hitler or future serial killer." Of course, I try to remain optimistic that all life is born with the spark of God in him, and is innately good. But then the realist sets in, and I realize that there are just some human beings who were born mean and would have always turned out evil. What if Hitler could have been aborted? If you could go back in time and kill him while he was a newborn, would that be just? After all, at that point in time, he has not committed any evil acts and is a newborn innocent.

This is an incomplete post and not well organized. But I did want to toss in what little say I do have on the matter...on this day.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Congratulations Congressman John Murtha!!!

Where will you go to next?
(Psst...click the photo, you pinko!)

Some Favorite Reagan Quotes (Or: "Why do Trees Hate the Environment?")

In light of the 25th Anniversary of Ronald Reagan's First Presidential Inauguration, I thought some post-celebration was in order, by sharing some favorite quotes (List your own favorites in the comments section, if you so desire):
“We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added”

“The most terrifying words in the English langauge are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

“You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by the way he eats jelly beans.”

“I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I'm in a cabinet meeting.”

“Some of you may remember that in my early days, I was sort of a bleeding heart liberal. Then I became a man and put away childish ways.”

“A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at?”

“Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”

That last quote can often be found on liberal sites deriding Reagan, and showcasing how "Republicans say the darn'dest things". But check out this from 4 years ago:

"Air pollution comes from trees," Ronald Reagan declared more than 20 years ago, soon after the start of his presidency. The remark earned him widespread derision as proof of his ignorance of environmental issues. Even his first press secretary, James Brady, teased him about it. Once when Air Force One was flying over a forest he grabbed the President by the elbow and, pointing down out of the window, said in alarm: "Look, Mr President: killer trees!"

But now new scientific research is showing that the former Hollywood B-movie star was at least partially right all along. For studies in both Britain and the United States have shown that some trees do indeed emit pollution and may even be killing forests downwind.

And then there is this more recently:

First, it was the discovery that forests absorb far less CO2 than previously thought. Now, the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, after careful analysis of which organic gases are emitted from plants, have discovered that plants release methane, a greenhouse gas with 23 times the global warming potential of CO2. Equally surprising was that methane formation is not hindered by the presence of oxygen. This goes against all previous assumptions. The researchers estimate that ...about 10 to 30 percent of present annual methane production comes from plants.
Hah...I do believe Ronald Reagan has been vindicated. God bless his soul....a man of vision, ahead of his time. Take that, eco-terrorists!!!


Democrat Terrorist Talking Points

Bos'un has a great little quiz by Rick Roberts, challenging you to distinguish which quotes were said by Osama bin Laden...and which ones from our fellow patriotic, way-out-in-left-field liberal citizens, and Democratic leadership. Can you tell the difference?

Further reading at Right Wing Nut House.

When Moonbats Attack

Daily Kos and its ilk are all frothing and foaming at the mouth over this. I listened to Jim Brady, the WashingtonPost.com editor, get interviewed by Hugh Hewitt yesterday. You can find the transcript at Radioblogger. Also check out his interview with Vice President Dick Cheney. I might post on it later, as I've been thinking of giving my 2 sense- I mean, 2 cents- on the whole "domestic" *cough, cough* *wheeze* wiretapping "scandal" (*hack* *blech!*).

The liberal moonbats are so rabid with Bush-hatred, that they've lost their mental clarity. Their desperation to gain any kind of political stranglehold on the Bush Administration has them grasping at loose straws on strawman arguments against This Administration. Anything that threatens to take away even that, from them, makes them all the more stir-crazed. Point out how they are wrong on Iraq, and they think you are attacking their patriotism; question how their judgment of today can be wrong, despite what they've done right in the past, and suddenly you are accused of "swiftboating" them. (What are they going to say, the next time they rally around a Hero to the Left, and he gets shown to be wrong, and his logic flawed? That we "sMurtha'ed" him?).

Great roundup of the Washington Post story and the moonbat meltdown, at Flopping Aces.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Of Minutes, Murtha, and Mudville...

I was going to give my analysis of last Sunday's Murtha segment on 60 Minutes, Sunday; but why bother when The Mudville Gazette has already done it so much better?

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit. (Check out the link trail).

Oh, and don't forget to check this one out:

Funny that Representative Murtha didn't pull that one out of his pocket as well, when he read the soldier letter to Mike Wallace.

Patriotic Mom comments.

"I'll link to that!"

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Devoted husband, loving father...AND....a great President

"What can you say about a man, who on Mother's Day sends flowers to his mother-in-law, with a note thanking her for making him the happiest man on Earth?"- Nancy Reagan

Many great posts can be found over at Mike's America, commemorating the 25th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's first inauguration. I'll leave it to others to point out his great accomplishments as our 40th President. What I'd like to do, is just make a brief mention of him as devout family man.

One of the things that has always stood out, is his devotion to his 2nd wife, Nancy Reagan. And in the twilight of his years, as his mind faded into oblivion, Nancy did not abandon him, but remained absolutely devoted to her husband, through his sickness as she had in his health, to the end of his days. When he learned of his illness, Ronald Reagan expressed the following:

"I have recently been told that I am one of the millions of Americans who will be afflicted with Alzheimer's disease... I only wish there was some way I could spare Nancy from this painful experience."

10 years, she suffered alongside him. This is what Nancy said, upon the passing of this great leader, and loving husband:

"If a death can be peaceful and lovely, that one was. And when it came down to what we knew was the end, and I was on one side of the bed with Ron, and Patty was on the other side, and Ronnie all of a sudden turned his head and looked at me and opened his eyes and just looked … Well, what a gift he gave me at that point... I learned a lot from Ronnie, while he was sick — a lot. I learned patience. I learned how to accept something that was given to you, and how to die."- ABC News

It's reported that throughout their life together, they always walked hand in hand; and often left love notes for one another. As a press secretary put it, "They never took each other for granted. They never stopped courting."

Ronald Reagan seemed to possess the same kind of charm, likeability, and eloquence in his writings as he did in his public speaking. I wanted to find a love letter to share with you. The following, is a favorite of mine...not to Nancy, but to his son, Michael. A father's loving advice to his son. It is the first letter that Ronald Reagan wrote to Michael Reagan just before the latter was to be married.

Dear Mike:

You've heard all the jokes that have been rousted around by all the "unhappy marrieds" and cynics. Now, in case no one has suggested it, there is another viewpoint. You have entered into the most meaningful relationship there is in all human life. It can be whatever you decide to make it.

Some men feel their masculinity can only be proven if they play out in their own life all the locker-room stories, smugly confident that what a wife doesn't know won't hurt her. The truth is, somehow, way down inside, without her ever finding lipstick on the collar or catching a man in the flimsy excuse of where he was till three a.m., a wife does know, and with that knowing, some of the magic of this relationship disappears. There are more men griping about marriage who kicked the whole thing away themselves than there can ever be wives deserving of blame.

There is an old law of physics that you can only get out of a thing as much as you put in it. The man who puts into the marriage only half of what he owns will get that out. Sure, there will be moments when you will see someone or think back on an earlier time and you will be challenged to see if you can still make the grade, but let me tell you how really great is the challenge of proving your masculinity and charm with one woman for the rest of your life. Any man can find a twerp here and there who will go along with cheating, and it doesn't take all that much manhood. It does take quite a man to remain attractive and to be loved by a woman who has heard him snore, seen him unshaven, tended him while he was sick, and washed his dirty underwear. Do that and keep her still feeling a warm glow and you will know some very beautiful music.

If you truly love a girl, you shouldn't ever want her to feel, when she sees you greet a secretary or a girl you both know, that humiliation of wondering if she was someone who caused you to be late coming home, nor should you want any other woman to be able to meet your wife and know she was smiling behind her eyes as she looked at her, the woman you love, remembering this was the woman you rejected even momentarily for her favors.

Mike, you know better than many what an unhappy home is and what it can do to others. Now you have a chance to make it come out the way it should. There is no greater happiness for a man than approaching a door at the end of a day knowing someone on the other side of that door is waiting for the sound of his footsteps.

Love, Dad.

P.S. You'll never get in trouble if you say "I love you" at least once a day.

Reagan Library for photos.
About marriage on Ronald and Nancy, for quotes.

Labels: ,

Sunday, January 15, 2006


Ok....after listening to Laura Ingraham and Michael Medved talk about this at great length on Friday, I made the mistake of watching the season premiere of 24.....goddammit.....I swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

*sigh*.....you'll know where I'll be tomorrow night, and every Monday night hereon after.

Last season, I only followed it sporadically, and once I missed episodes, I just lost track of it. But I always found it engaging.

One of my good friends is named Joel Bauer, by the way. I don't know which Bauer is more impressive....."Joel" or "Jack".

The Man Who Had a Dream

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."- Commonly ascribed to, falsely perhaps, to Winston Churchill

Mary at Freedom Eden reminds us that today is Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday. He died a couple of months after my birth. If he lived today, he would now be 77. But where would he stand politically? Some people seem to get more feeble-minded, entangled in the decrepid cobwebs of their own close-mindedness, as they hit old age, such as a Senator Robert Byrd or a Harry Belafonte.

If Dr. King had lived even 20...30 years longer, would he have gone the route of a Jesse Jackson? Or would he have evolved the way classic Democrats have, such as a Dennis Prager or a Ronald Reagan? The JFK of the 60's would not even recognize the Democratic Party of today as the Party for which he devoted himself to. Many who once called themselves liberal in their youth, have since matured into staunch conservatives.

Where would Martin Luther King stand today? What would he say? Would he approve of Bill Cosby's message to the black community? Or agree with Democrat Morgan Freeman's statement on 60 Minutes (watch the video)?

"You're going to relegate my history to a month? I don't want a black history month. Black history is American history."

Let's also keep in mind the following historical tidbit:

"Black History Month has roots in historian Carter G. Woodson's Negro History Week, which he designated in 1926 as the second week in February to mark the birthdays of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. Woodson said he hoped the week could one day be eliminated - when black history would become fundamental to American history."

15 years after his death, it was President Reagan, (much villified by those who claim that it is liberal policies which help the poor and which make life better for minorities- not the policies promoted by conservative Republicans), who signed the bill honoring Dr. King, as well as honoring the civil rights movement as a whole. Every 3rd Monday in January.

"[The Martin Luther King, Jr. National Holiday]is a time for rejoicing and reflecting. Dr. King's was truly a prophetic voice that reached out over the chasms of hostility, prejudice, ignorance, and fear to touch the conscience of America."
-President Ronald Reagan, 1968

I know not all conservatives are thrilled with Ronald Reagan's positioning on civil rights; and many liberals consider the Reagan Presidency to be the single worst period for racial progress in recent history. But, like all politicians, including George W. Bush who must sometimes moderate his conservative stance on key issues, sometimes you have to, in a sense: create a black history month, before we can arrive at the destination of no longer needing the crutch of a black history month.

4 Rows Back offers his remembrance.

Labels: , ,

Think the NY Times will ever print stories on our war heroes?

If nothing else, read about his background and how he feels toward the United States. -Wordsmith

January 04, 2006

Soldier awarded Silver Star

By William Cole
The Honolulu Advertiser

CAMP H.M. SMITH — Even as Master Sgt. Suran Sar charged multiple enemy firing at him in the mountains of Afghanistan, he knew it wasn’t his turn to die. But he came within a hairbreadth. As Sar burst into a windowless wood-and-earthen mountain shelter near the Pakistan border, an enemy fighter fired a burst from his AK-47 at point-blank range.

Two of the bullets missed. A third creased Sar’s Kevlar helmet and snapped his chin strap. Sar won’t give the specifics of what happened next, but the Army Special Forces soldier collected a handful of firearms — most of which weren’t given voluntarily. And yesterday a Silver Star was pinned on Sar’s chest.

Recalling the March 5 firefight, Sar said: “At that point, I knew I’m coming home.” He added, “I already know, if I’m supposed to go, I do believe, I’m Buddhist, and if I’m supposed to go, I’ll go.”
-Marco Garcia, AP photo

Sar, who is Cambodian and has been a U.S. citizen since 1986, that day flanked a ridge and surprised other militants who had his team pinned down, and is credited with saving the lives of fellow service members with Operational Detachment Alpha 732.

Yesterday’s recognition was the latest remarkable turn for the humble man who is based at Camp Smith but grew up under the murderous regime of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

“He didn’t want this,” Army Brig. Gen. David P. Fridovich, commander of Special Operations Command-Pacific, said of the ceremony attended by more than 100 command members and local media.

The attention was not intended to embarrass Sar, 39, which it did. Rather, it was to recognize his achievements and “what he has given back to the nation,” Fridovich said.

“You’ve already given us so much more in return than we could ever repay you,” Fridovich said.

Bronze Star in works

The Silver Star is the Defense Department’s fourth-highest award. Sar additionally received a Meritorious Service Medal, and a Bronze Star with “V” for valor also is in the works for the ‘Ewa Beach man’s involvement in another firefight in April.

The Army has awarded 37 silver Stars for Afghanistan service since the war started in 2001.

Thirteen other troops from the joint-service command also received medals for their involvement in efforts, such as Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines.

About 250 troops representing the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are assigned to Special Operations Command-Pacific at Camp Smith. Of those, about a dozen are deployed to the Philippines for anti-terrorism and humanitarian relief efforts.

Sar has been based out of Oahu since September. He was with the 7th Special Forces Group and on his second deployment to Afghanistan over the winter and spring, and he fought in the first Gulf War.

Sar said he doesn’t see himself as a hero. A hero to him is the weapons sergeant who was part of his team and was killed in Afghanistan in June. The soldier was a fellow immigrant; his father was from Mexico.

“The hardest thing I ever have to face was facing his mom, and that’s what I wear (these medals) for,” Sar said.

What happened March 5

The March 5 mission was to check out a suspected shelter on a ridge in Paktika province, a tribal and lawless area that locals call Waziristan where official boundaries between Afghanistan and Pakistan aren’t recognized.

As two Black Hawk helicopters landed early that winter morning, they came under small-arms fire. Sar bounded toward the shelter on the wooded ridge, at an elevation of 9,000 feet. Some enemy fighters dropped their weapons. Others did not. Altogether, there were at least 15 enemy forces.

As Sar entered the shelter, with a medic behind him, his helmet was struck by the bullet.

“It feels like somebody hit me with a small hammer,” Sar said, adding that he quickly found out he was OK.

The second team of six special operations troops was pinned down, and Sar was able to flank the ridge and catch enemy fighters by surprise, providing relief for his team. One other U.S. service member received a graze to the leg.

Hard life in Cambodia

Sar grew up in Cambodia under the oppression of the Khmer Rouge, which separated his family members by age, he said. His father was prosecuted by the Khmer Rouge and Vietnamese, and his older brother was executed by the Vietnamese.

Speaking in a quiet voice, Sar said his mom and two little brothers died of starvation.

He came to the United States in 1981, became a U.S. citizen five years later and has been in the Army for 20 years — the past 15 in Special Forces.

“I tell you, I love this country more than my birthplace,” Sar said. “I came from Cambodia and I lost (a lot) of my family there, and nobody here can tell me what it’s like, the loss of freedom. ... This country gave me so much, and this is a small price to pay, the long deployments away from home.”

Hat Tip: PebblePie.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

A Full Moon Saturday...

I originally began this post on September 20, 2005 and never got around to publishing it. Since it's Saturday and the full moon is out, perhaps today is a good day to resuscitate it....

If conservatives have been given a bad rap for being vile, despicable, racist, narrowminded, hate-filled, intolerant, abusive, and violent, it is a reputation that is largely a handout from moonbat liberals. Leftist moonbats, however, don't get enough credit for some of the hateful venom that spews from their mouths. What am I talking about, you ask?

Well, I know both sides have their fair share of fringe elements and extremists whose language and actions can be said to be "over the top". But I really do feel that the most hateful, the most intolerant and close-minded language and perspectives are coming from those "progressives", those looney Leftists the likes of Michael Moore, Air America, and liberal activists who you encounter at your run-of-the-mill protests.

Do all liberals behave like the type of activists you might encounter in a Protest Warrior video? No, of course not. But if you were to compare conservatives and liberals, I'd say, hands down, the liberals corner the market on having the most active and vocal elements of hate and intolerance on their side of the fence. Try expressing your opinions to anti-war peace protestors, and you're more likely to have your life physically threatened than you would from the non-pacifist, pro-victory contingent. Who's more likely to use the "F"-word in their public discourse and as a part of their rhetoric in the public square? For proponents of free speech, how often have you seen a conservative voice shouted down and shut out from speaking at college campuses? I guess the concept of "free speech" means being allowed to use offensive and abusive language and behave inappropriately, even when children are present. I'll say it again, that I know this doesn't characterize all liberals. I'll put it this way: not all liberals are moonbats; but all moonbats seem to be liberals (with exceptions, of course).

I've been wanting to post about bumperstickers, but that one's not ready yet (that post, too, remains on the drawing board; however, I did end up creating another post featuring some bumperstickers); this thread from Democratic Underground I've also been wanting to post about; and it starts out with a bumpersticker being central to its story. I don't think I can post all the responses to the thread, but here at least, is how it begins:

Fri Sep-02-05 01:01 PM
Original message by Demgurl

I did not stop to help a * supporter today.

I had no idea how deeply my hate for that man ran. My lack of an interaction, with a * supporter is still haunting me a couple of hours later.
I was on my home and was on the ramp getting off the highway. I saw a mini-van on the side of the road. There was a lady standing next to the van and in her arms she held her child. I can only assume her mini-van had broken down. I don't know, perhaps with so many gad stations being out of gas, she had also run out. I slowed down and started to pull over to offer her a ride. At the very last second I noticed a "W" sticker on the back of her vehicle and I sped up and drove off. I feel really bad as a human being. That child is not responsible for their parent's belief system. They are innocent and do not deserve to be out in the heat. (It is warm but not so bad that they would even break a sweat) I try not to punish people for what they believe. On the other hand, so many hateful thoughts went through my head. I wondered how a person could see what was going on in NO and still have one of those awful stickers on their car. How could they support an awful excuse for a human being that has let our country down and is letting Americans die after they have made it through the storm? How can someone be so blind and so stupid? I thought that if she loves * so much, maybe he would come along and help her the same way he is rescuing all of those poor people in the weather stricken part of our country. Let's see what her hero can do for her. I never did go back. I was so upset with that sticker and with the fact that someone would support an idiot who is so clearly running our country into the ground. So why am I writing this? It is not to boast, I really feel bad about passing this child and not picking up their mother. Perhaps it is for a catharsis of sorts? That would be an educated guess. I suppose it is because I feel conflicted and I am writing this to try and sort through what I am feeling. There are two emotional sides, for me, on this incident and neither seems completely right or wrong to me. Even writing this, I am still not able to work through what happened. I feel like I am floating between right and wrong and am unable to grab either side. Thanks for listening.

Fri Sep-02-05 01:10 PM Response to Original message by musette_sf

1. I understand how you felt

Next time, maybe pull over, offer help, and discuss frankly how wonderful it must feel that fellow Americans will pull over to help strangers, and how awful it is that the Bu$h (mis)Administration has left thousands to suffer and die in America. Keep talking loudly and hit as many points as you can. Either the Bu$hBot will learn something, or the Bu$hBot can tell you to leave and refuse your help. Either way, you win and have done the right thing.

Fri Sep-02-05 01:13 PM Response to Original message by Waya

5. It's understandable.....

...emotions are running high - nation wide. However, especially in a crisis like this it is important thaqt we do not become what we hate. We hate Bush for not helping those who need it, unless they support him. Let's not become like that. Sorry, if I sound like I'm preaching - but I have noticed that this kind of mentality is so easy to adopt - I been guilty of it myself.

Fri Sep-02-05 01:14 PM
Response to Original message by fudge stripe cookays

7. I understand, demgurl.

Completely and totally.
The last few days have been REALLY difficult for me at work. I have been full of the most seething, white hot rage at these people-- the ones who were proclaiming their support for Bush before the election. Now they're all "Oh I sent so much to the Red Cross." I feel like snapping "It's the LEAST you could f**king do, you selfish bastard. It's because of you and your selfishness that this happened." One of them asked me this morning was I ok...I looked upset. I had just heard New Orleans' mayor on Air America in the car. I told her I was very upset about New Orleans and tried to turn around so my tears wouldn't show. "Oh I know..." she began, "but they're getting relief in there today...." And honestly, I turned around with HATE in my eyes, and through clenched teeth, said "That's NOT what I was upset about." We gazed at each other, and she knew EXACTLY what I meant. But I've been cautioned before about politics. So I bit my tongue until it bled and left it at that. Don't feel bad. We're liberals, but we're not stupid. I'm having a really bad problem with this too. Next time, stop to help, do everything right, be the bigger person, and then when you're ready to drive off say, "You want might be intersted to know that you were just helped by a LIBERAL. It's what we DO. HELP people."

Can someone help me pick my jaw up off the floor? Just...wow.

Fri Sep-02-05 01:29 PM
Response to Original message by Kerrytravelers

14. I can understand how you feel.

I was leaving a grocery store once. It was really quiet there with no one in the parking lot and no store workers outside at all. There was a person--- not in the handicapped area, not handicapped--- just struggling with their groceries. I started to help, then saw the W sticker. I put the bag down and said "I'm sorry. Republicans don't believe in helping people. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps." Then I walked off. They were stunned. Amazing what happends when their policies are shown to them on such a simple, personal level.

That is just rich! LMAO!

I don't regret it, but then again, it was a grocery store. Instead of lifting heavy bags, they could have taken the items out one by one and put them in the trunk.

Apparently, demgurl is torn inside by guilt for not helping the stranger and vows to make up for it. That generates some response like this:

Fri Sep-02-05 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #17 by NCevilDUer

42. The difference between us and them is when we do the wrong thing, we do feel guilty about it. They never do.

Fri Sep-02-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message by jpak

18. I had a "Christian" cut line in front of me to day at the only gas station
open in my area.
There was one woman in front of me and she took ten minutes to fill up her car.

I asked her if the pump was working and she said "yes".

She stood there another 5 minutes with the nozzle in her tank after her tank was filled.

Then she started frantically waving to her friend.

A large V-8 pickup cut me off and a woman jumped out with two 10 gallon gas cans (which she proceeded to fill).

She was wearing a t-shirt with f--king Scripture on it.

I yelled "thats a fine Christan thing your doing there..."

They ignored me.
I yelled at her her again - they still said nothing. Finally, the attendant chased them both off (before they finished filling there 2nd container). As they left, one of them yells "Jesus loves you!!" and they both cracked up. unbelievable

Fri Sep-02-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message by lectrobyte

19. I'd have definitely done the same thing.

I don't know that it is good
for my karma, but that's the way I feel. They don't seem to care about the dead in Iraq, or much of anything except gays not marrying and the rich getting richer. The funny thing is, I always seem to get a lift or someone stopping to help when my car breaks down. Not republicans that I can remember, though, must be the DU sign and rainbow bumperstickers. I should "pay it forward" I guess...

Fri Sep-02-05 01:52 PM
Response to Original message by mitt Chovick

31. The freeptards found this thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1475713/posts

Fri Sep-02-05 02:31 PM

Response to Reply #31 by demgurl

56. I refuse to go over there.

If they want to read here, that is fine but I will not venture into their territory. I have already been told off by a brother-in-law who did not want to hear details of the torture in Abu. I have been told, by my father-in-law, that he is quite happy with the government torturing people and not to bother him with information about what the administration he voted for is doing. I have been nearly run off the road by a freeper and I have been told to leave this country and go somewhere else. I have no time for what they have to offer and am ashamed that I copied them. I am the one who always brings food to the food bank. I am the one who protests on the street corner. I write to the editor and try to help my fellow human beings. This is a new hour and a new start for me. I leave my hate behind because nothing can be accomplished with that. It is only when you truly forgive someone that you yourself are free. I will not subject myself to anything they have to say. demgurl

Fri Sep-02-05 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #35 by demgurl

41. Proud....

Maybe we can show them how to act if we act properly. When Laura Ingram announced she had breast cancer I did take the high road. I wrote to her and said that I was a Democrat but that I hoped she would be cured. I encouraged other people here to do the same and some said they would. Just because they act this way does not mean we need to reciprocate in kind. We are the better people. Perhaps we can change a few minds along the way. demgurl

Fri Sep-02-05 02:11 PM
Response to Original message by Fla Dem

40. Unfortunate decision.

Understand it was made on emotion, but your
intelligence should have taken over. Regardless of a person's position in life, ideology, etc, we all need to reach out a hand to help when another of us are in need. God forbid you are ever in a dire situation and you are not aided because of who you are. I thought this was exactly the type of lack of character we criticize the conservatives for---their lack of empathy for other human beings. Of course they would feel no guilt, whereas you do, hence the need for you to open yourself to criticism on this forum.

Fri Sep-02-05 02:28 PM
Response to Original message by flordehinojos

54. i would probably have done the same thing.

anything W is soo contaminated!
prior to sonny boy's sitting in the oval office, i'd always give money at the supermarket--money which was earmarked for the salvation army to help feed the poor. after sonny boy stole the chair at the oval office, a cashier once asked me if i wanted to donate money to help feed the poor... i told him, tell sonny boy to give feed the poor with my tax dollars which he just gave to the rich and unneedy! and angry too is how i feel about this collecting money from the private sector to help the stranded in NO. why isn't my tax dollar being used for that!?

demgurl vows never to allow this slip in decency happen again, because she as a Democrat, is better than that. Most of them support her action, but a few are like this:

Fri Sep-02-05 02:43 PM
Response to Original message by nothingshocksmeanymore

64. Sorry, but you did the same thing Bush did to New Orleans
He did not stop to help Kerry supporters this week

Fri Sep-02-05 02:47 PM
Response to Original message by samsingh

68. at least you feel bad - repugs and bush supporters would not even give you a second thought. After you help them, they'd still refuse to help others. i do feel bad for the child though. (!)

Fri Sep-02-05 02:51 PM
Response to Original message by Sentinel Chicken

70. You were kind.

In the mood I'm in I might have swerved to hit her. Apparently, I'm not the only one discovering the "worthwhile reading" of this thread, as a poster brings to everyone's attention that demgurl made National Review Online.

Fri Sep-02-05 03:09 PM
Response to Original message by Meldread

78. I would have done the same thing...except...

I would have done the same thing except I would have pulled over and asked her if she supported Bush. If she said yeah, then I would have said, "Then I'm only going to offer your baby a ride, not you." And if she refused, I'd tell her that she could call her little hero in the White House for help then. Then I'd speed off, leaving her behind.
Difference being I wouldn't feel any remorse. I'm beyond that. They are hateful people with hateful beliefs, and it would probably be best if the child was taken away and raised by someone else and she was left to fend for herself. In my eyes, Bush and those who still support him are not even Human. They do not deserve sympathy, pity or any other emotion devoted to humans. They aren't Human because they are incapable of feeling sympathy or pity for others.

Fri Sep-02-05 03:16 PM
Response to Original message by ferrisam21169

81. I feel so sorry for you
I generally don't post but this is so striking I was moved to. Given what's going on in this country today it's inconceivable that you would do this. How exactly does leaving a woman and small child stranded demonstrate your superiority over anyone? People are more than their politics. History is replete with tragic examples from the left and right when society forgets that. When we start denying a person in need their humanity because of a bumper sticker we are going down a very ugly road. Even if you could not 'lower' yourself to actually help them personally, why not call 911 on your cell? Who benefited from this non-interaction? Not that woman and her child and certainly not you. I hope your example is a cautionary tale for others.

Fri Sep-02-05 03:23 PM
Response to Original message by Betsy Ross

83. It is horrible that * is stripping us of our basic humanity. But the people in the south are more in need of help at this moment.

This guy is what he hates:

Fri Sep-02-05 03:45 PM
Response to Original message mondo joe

93. Would you have stopped for someone with a Swastika bumper sticker?
It's not very different. These people have declared a holy war on me, my family and my country. Too bad about the kid, but we each get the family we get and must live with it.

Fri Sep-02-05 03:51 PM
Response to Original message by Tim4319

95. That is the sign of a true Democrat!

You didn't help someone in their time of need, and it bothers you! To me, that is a sign of someone who heart is in the right place! It shows you have conscience! I am sure, if the shoe was on the other foot, and you were stranded, that same lady would not have given two thoughts about stopping for you. She probably would not have even looked your way.

The thread got locked down after this post.

So there you have it. A peek into the mind of liberal moonbats at work.

Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

© Copyright, Sparks from the Anvil, All Rights Reserved