Forget the Mosque

Understandably there is great controversy over the building of a mosque at "ground zero" in New York City.

But what surprises me is that there's no more heard, or being discussed over the sale of 84 F15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, for $30 billion.

Granted they're being sold with no long-range weaponry installed. But isn't that like selling someone a gun and never thinking they'll find bullets for it?

I realize that that Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States, but are we not even considering what the official national religion of Saudi Arabia is? That's right, Islam.

We (the U.S.) has been at war for nearly 10 years now, not with other governments, or countries, but with Islamic terrorists/extremists. Islam is not at peace with the United States, despite some liberal views, but would love to dominate the world, especially the west.

I can't imagine how/why anyone thought this was a good idea, and why isn't the entire nation in an uproar over this? If you give a bad dog enough rope, he'll eventually be close enough to bite. It's a shame to think that the next attack against the U.S. could conceivably be made with our own weapons.

$30 billion is a lot of money. But when you really think about it, given the unbelievably huge national debt, will that even be felt? Where will that money go? Do we need the money so badly that we're willing to jeopardize our own security?

Maybe the mosque at ground zero, as offensive as it is, is really just a ruse to take our attention off of the real threat.

Politically Correct Warfare

On Thursday, April 29, 2010, the Associated Press news service ran a story with the following headline:

"Legal Questions Raised Over Drone Strikes"

The gist of the article was that the CIA's use of drone strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan and Yemen may be a case of "illegal assassination" as opposed to being considered legitimate self-defense.

The program has apparently come under fire by several "legal scholars" who argue that the attacks may violate international law and put intelligence officers at risk of prosecution for murder in foreign countries.

The obvious question here is (in response to the article): So?!?

Isn't this country currently at war against terrorists, wherever they may be found? I'm fairly certain that was the idea following the attacks on US soil on September 11.

If you follow the logic of these "scholars" it's okay for us to be at war with terrorists, just don't kill any of them. We're so worried about being politically correct in this country that is has even spilled over into the way warfare is conducted.

Come on! If we're not going to actually be allowed to kill those that we're engaged in war with, by whatever means we have available, then we may as well pack up all of our toys and go home.

Are we still living in the USA?

The passage of the "Healthcare Reform" bill on Sunday is the biggest travesty and abuse of power that this country has ever seen. It is wrong on so many levels, and involves so many people, that EVERY CITIZEN of America should be up in arms.

First and foremost, the government now has (?) the authority to force the people of this nation to buy something (health insurance) from the government. What?!?! Ladies and gents, this is in direct violation of the Constitution of our country, the same Constitution that Obama is an expert on, and taught on. The government of this country does not have that authority and is clearly abusing what power they think they have.
___________

Next is Mr. Obama's campaign promise that any bill that comes to his desk will sit there for five days and will be available on line for all citizens to view and read, before he will sign it into law or veto it. The president waited exactly 36 hours to sign this one. So much for integrity.
___________

Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I'm pretty sure that this country, its people, resoundingly voiced a big fat NO to this bill for many reasons (chief of which is taxpayer funded abortions). Yet the very representatives who are supposed to be speaking for their constituents VOTED FOR THE BILL! Again, this is an abuse of the power given to these men and women. If they don't legislate according to what their voters want, then why do we allow them to continue to sit in these offices?

If you live in WV like I do then you need to know that Rahall and Molohan both voted FOR this bill, despite the overwhelming number of residents of WV who were against it.

I am proud to say that Capito voted against the bill, along with every other Republican in the House.

The time has come, no, is overdue, to vote these people out of office. If they don't speak for us, why should they be speaking at all.

Sorry for the rant.

Free Speech...unless it upsets liberals

I heard an interesting item about an upcoming Superbowl ad that is already causing a controversy. That isn't unusual in itself, a lot of them are controversial. But this one is a little different from what we usually come to expect.

This ad, or commercial, is anti-abortion and features a popular college football player (Tim Tebow) thanking his mother for not aborting him, despite the advice of doctors to do so.

So who's offended? Why, the liberals of course!

Their reasoning (?) is that this type of message should not be played during the Superbowl because it divides Americans. According to them the Superbowl is a time when all Americans come together and airing this commercial causes us to divide.

Wait a minute...isn't the Superbowl itself a game between two teams? Is everyone pulling for the same team? Aren't we already divided when we sit down to watch the game? Maybe we need to narrow the season down to one team so we don't disagree on the outcome.

This has nothing to do with anything or anyone being divided. The pro-abortionists don't mind being divided.

What they mind is that this ad will have millions of viewers. Because of our right to free speech, those of us in favor of life will finally have some voice across not only this country, but abroad as well.

Isn't it amazing that the very one's who spout off whatever anti-life, anti-morality, and anti-God message they want, through the very media they're now trying to squelch, don't want free speech.

I'm sure they're still for free speech, as long as it's their speech that's being heard.

I wonder if they've ever asked all those murdered children what they think about it? I guess their free speech rights don't apply either.

When did we get this kind of power?

This statement is posted on the homepage for Hopenhagen.org regarding the upcoming conference in Copenhagen to discuss "climate change" (formerly referred to as "global warming").


"On December 7, leaders from 192 countries will gather at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to determine the fate of our planet."

This statement makes a couple of huge assumptions:

The first is that we (humans) are responsible for any change to the climate, or global warming if you're hung up on that. History, and science, has shown that the climate of Earth does change, without any influence from us, approximately every 500 years. Let's be honest, the technology that these folks are blaming the change on didn't even exist during the last cycle, yet change it did. And will continue to do so until this planet no longer exists; cooler, then warmer, every 500 years (or so).

The second assumption is the real doosie: that we have the power to determine the fate of our planet. First of all, we didn't create this planet; it was created for us. This planet will cease to exist exactly when The Creator decides it's time for it to end. Not before, and not after.

To assume that we can control the fate of something created by God, under the constant control of God, also assumes that we have the power of God.

That's an assumption I will never make, and anyone who does is treading very dangerous water.

Where is the liberal outrage?

Here is just one more example, a blatant one at that, of the hypocrisy of the liberals in this country, particularly those in “Hollywood”.

After being a fugitive from justice for more than 30 years for sodomizing and raping a 13 year old girl, movie director Roman Polanski was finally arrested in Switzerland. He was awaiting sentencing for the crime(s) he plead to when he fled the United States.

While some have termed the encounter between Polanski, then 44, and the victim consensual, keep in mind that she was 13 (unable to give consent by law), and had been given champagne and Quaaludes by Polanski. When he feared that she might become pregnant, he forced her to have anal sex.

The real “shocker” in all of this is the outcry from the Hollywood set, generally considered liberal and all about the rights of individuals, to set him free! They contend that this was a mistake, and that he’s served his time. They even use the fact that the victim, now in her 40’s, doesn’t want to go through any further testimony (which is true).

While listening to a call-in news show, the general consensus of the callers backed what the Hollywood crowd is calling for: it’s been 30 years, forget about it, he made a mistake.

Is this really the message we want to send out, not only to fellow Americans, but to the world, that if you can evade justice long enough, then no crime occurred? Why then don’t we apply that philosophy to everyone? After all, Osama Bin-Laden has evaded justice for 9 years now; let’s just let bygones be bygones.

Maybe this reasoning is why the liberals want us out of Iraq so badly. It’s been nearly a decade since the terrorists attacked New York and Washington D.C., isn’t it time to just let it go?

If that is the mentality of the majority of this country (which I hope to God that it isn’t), then we’re further down the road to destruction than I thought. What with the Government buying out banks and industry, trying to control healthcare, and now the justice system which this country’s laws are based on being worthless, we really don’t stand much of a chance.

May God have mercy on us.

Fact or Fiction?

So far there are as many myths, or at least semi-truths, about the president's Health Care Reform circulating as there are facts. You can go to numerous websites, listen to conservative (which I happen to be) commentaries, or even the news media and read or hear dozens of them:

Euthanasia committees, no option to keep your private health care plan, how it will be paid for, rationing of care, government access to private account records of those participating in the plan, and on and on.

What's really troubling about all the hype is that so far there hasn't been any single autoritative source to either quiet the rumors or confirm them, AND back it up with the actual reference in the bill. And to read the nearly 1,000 page document would require nothing less than a law degree to really understand the legalese in which it is written.

If the president is convinced that this health care reform is needed, then he should stand before this country and with the document in hand, prove or disprove each and every concern, citing the page and paragraph to back his claims, so that we may then read it and understand it for ourselves.

I'm not even sure he's read the bill he's trying so hard to push.

Until and unless that happens, there is NO WAY that anyone should support the reform.

Would you sign a contract that you didn't understand? If so, go ahead and support the bill. As for me, I kinda like knowing what I'm getting into.