Is anyone else sick of Michael Newdow? I mean, come on! Does this guy have nothing else to do with his free time?
As I have written before regarding Christmas, I am shocked at the outrage that the leftists and secularists have over religious references in the public sector. Mind you, I would not likely be called the most religious guy in the crowd. However, in that regard, I am all for the freedoms granted to us by the Constitution. I am a huge proponent of the Second Amendment, given its ability in protecting an individual from danger and oppression and its support and bolstering of the rest of the Bill of Rights. More on that later.
My issue with Michael Newdow is his endless and tired ranting over being an atheist and how a reference to God imposes on him in some manner. By definition, an atheist denies the existence of God. So, what the hell is this guy's issue? He is pissed about something that (in his mind) does not exist? Maybe he can file a lawsuit to remove the Easter Bunny from shopping malls in a few weeks. That would be about as productive.
My point is quite simple. This guy can think and say whatever he wants, but isn't he really imposing his will on everyone else in the process? I must admit that he is a smart guy, seems to know the issue, and tries to make a compelling argument. But, he is an atheist! To me, that is where his case falls apart. If he actually had a religious belief, perhaps he could make a more compelling case. Michael, worship trees or something, but quit with the rant when your self-described "religious belief" is to deny the very existence of a deity. Are you going to argue that the moon is made of green cheese next?
I am in favor of individual freedom. I am against wasting taxpayer money on crap like this. And the publicity that this guy gets. I respect his position, but why give him the platform? And if he gets the platform, why even have a debate with him? Why doesn't a TV pundit just say, "I respect your right to believe as you do, however, I think that you are wasting everyone's time and resources and I also think you are a whiny, full of shit little baby"? Is that so hard?
If a President believes in God, then I damn well want him to put his hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution in the name of the God he believes in. It comforts me that a leader may answer to a higher order. If the ceremony throws a prayer or two in there, that is fine as well. As a free individual, I can sort through the content of any event and ignore what I don't like. Do I feel that this is establishing a religion? No. To me, it is the free exercise thereof. Is the United States suddenly evil because of this? Apparently to Mike it is, and that is his choice. God bless him for that. But please, do not force the "establishment clause" argument on me. I have yet to be forced to believe in anything, nor has anyone else. And if you deny the very existence of the Deity that you are questioning, then what is the argument all about?
My advice for Michael, buy a set of golf clubs. There is nothing quite so frustrating and challenging as chasing a little white ball around someone else's yard on your day off.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Exit Polls and Protests
Maxine Waters questioning the "blackness" of Ken Blackwell. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones piling on. Barbara Boxer crying. And the endless debate over the exit polls...when is enough enough? Can't the Left admit that Bush won?
Here is my very quick, yet well thought out take on the situation. Bush got more votes and won more Electoral College votes, thus he remains the President of the United States of America. Simple.
But wait, the polling data suggest....
This is the simple "solution/resolution" to the whole thing, the exit poll data, the recount, Ohio's "contested" election results, et. al. The Democrats and Lefties amongst us want to undo this in any manner possible. One of the greatest "claims" was something I heard regarding Ohio (but I am sure it was claimed elsewhere) regarding voter "irregularity". It was a claim that Democrats won in various [likely highly Democratic] precincts and yet Bush won presidential votes in many of the same precincts, etc., etc., you get the picture. My response...did anyone EVER consider the fact that there may have been quite a few Democrats who otherwise voted right down party lines, but voted for George W. Bush? Is the notion that farfetched?
Without going into a rant on how horrible John Kerry really is, why his Vietnam "service" was a sham (and a horrible campaign issue), and the reasons that many Democrats might just have liked Bush more, I just want everyone to consider that many Democrats probably voted their conscience and pulled the lever with one Republican name amongst all those Democratic names. Hell, maybe they even lied to the exit pollsters! Let's face it, both camps wanted to win their base. I am certain Kerry won the real whackos (i.e., Hollywood, the otherwise talented rock stars who think they know more than you do, and the elites in the media). But did he truly win the rank and file of the Democratic party? The unions? The African American vote? My answer is, debate as you wish, apparently he did not. Perhaps Oliver Stone and Michael Moore can team up on a blockbuster film on this one. [Let it be know that if they do, I have written the thought here, so I will definitely sue them if they pull it off and make tons of money.]
My thought is this: the 'anyone but Bush' crowd failed [miserably] and the electoral process did its job. Amid the reports of long lines, "voter intimidation", and "irregularities", our process prevailed. But since the fiasco of 2000, every "activist" feels the need to question every aspect of the process, especially when they don't get their way [again]. The darling of the left, Bill Clinton, said it best when he noted that everyone should "quit whining." [Was that the exact quote? Regardless.]
So Maxine and Stephanie, shut up. Ken is as black as you will ever be and likely more successful. Barbara, dry your tears. Jesse Jackson, those who represent the Kerry campaign [lawyers], and all of those who feel they got shafted, do what you claim to be all about...BE TOLERANT. And for God's sake, quit whining. Your emotional display over your loss [of power] is making me sick. The results are in and they are official. The red states prevailed and the country has spoken. Do us all a favor and think before you speak (or cry) and perhaps consider what the electorate is saying. It may be the most provocative thinking you've ever done.
Here is my very quick, yet well thought out take on the situation. Bush got more votes and won more Electoral College votes, thus he remains the President of the United States of America. Simple.
But wait, the polling data suggest....
This is the simple "solution/resolution" to the whole thing, the exit poll data, the recount, Ohio's "contested" election results, et. al. The Democrats and Lefties amongst us want to undo this in any manner possible. One of the greatest "claims" was something I heard regarding Ohio (but I am sure it was claimed elsewhere) regarding voter "irregularity". It was a claim that Democrats won in various [likely highly Democratic] precincts and yet Bush won presidential votes in many of the same precincts, etc., etc., you get the picture. My response...did anyone EVER consider the fact that there may have been quite a few Democrats who otherwise voted right down party lines, but voted for George W. Bush? Is the notion that farfetched?
Without going into a rant on how horrible John Kerry really is, why his Vietnam "service" was a sham (and a horrible campaign issue), and the reasons that many Democrats might just have liked Bush more, I just want everyone to consider that many Democrats probably voted their conscience and pulled the lever with one Republican name amongst all those Democratic names. Hell, maybe they even lied to the exit pollsters! Let's face it, both camps wanted to win their base. I am certain Kerry won the real whackos (i.e., Hollywood, the otherwise talented rock stars who think they know more than you do, and the elites in the media). But did he truly win the rank and file of the Democratic party? The unions? The African American vote? My answer is, debate as you wish, apparently he did not. Perhaps Oliver Stone and Michael Moore can team up on a blockbuster film on this one. [Let it be know that if they do, I have written the thought here, so I will definitely sue them if they pull it off and make tons of money.]
My thought is this: the 'anyone but Bush' crowd failed [miserably] and the electoral process did its job. Amid the reports of long lines, "voter intimidation", and "irregularities", our process prevailed. But since the fiasco of 2000, every "activist" feels the need to question every aspect of the process, especially when they don't get their way [again]. The darling of the left, Bill Clinton, said it best when he noted that everyone should "quit whining." [Was that the exact quote? Regardless.]
So Maxine and Stephanie, shut up. Ken is as black as you will ever be and likely more successful. Barbara, dry your tears. Jesse Jackson, those who represent the Kerry campaign [lawyers], and all of those who feel they got shafted, do what you claim to be all about...BE TOLERANT. And for God's sake, quit whining. Your emotional display over your loss [of power] is making me sick. The results are in and they are official. The red states prevailed and the country has spoken. Do us all a favor and think before you speak (or cry) and perhaps consider what the electorate is saying. It may be the most provocative thinking you've ever done.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Random Thoughts
Just some random thoughts, politically speaking.
Alberto Gonzalez...the Lefties want to make an issue over the "Torture Memos" and act like it is a big deal. I have two issues with that. First, the "tortured" are not protected under the Geneva Convention based on the definition of who IS protected. An enemy combatant in uniform, etc. who is a conscript for a foreign government is accorded protection. I'm sorry but terrorists are not...save the insurgent speak. Second, who cares if these "detainees" get some "special" interrogation techniques applied to them? Their comrades flew planes into buildings in our country and killed innocents, non-conscripts...or were they "insurgents"?
What is it with the post-war Iraq debate? I will admit that it may not appear to be going smoothly. But, I have a suggestion; read "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks. He admits the "novelty" of his approach to the war. Also, he admits that Phase IV, the post-war phase, would be long and difficult. We (especially the dissenters among us) should stop being Monday morning quarterbacks and get behind the Iraqi democratic process...and stand firm in the face of the "insurgents". By the way, the Epilogue of the book is right on the mark. The guy has some insight, for sure.
Why did George W. Bush turn the tsunami relief effort over to the UN? I won't go into how corrupt and politically bankrupt that organization is. That is for later. But why give the UN the fanfare? Granted, GW likely doesn't really want the fanfare because he really doesn't want the blame for anything that may go wrong. After all, this disaster was a natural act, an act of God if you will. And GW does believe in God, so the potential for it all being his fault is huge. Still, I think we should leave (or keep) the UN at bay. Maybe then we could just get rid of it.
PS. The UN complex in NYC would make great condos.
Back to Iraq...why go after Donald Rumsfeld? Like him or not, that guy can run an organization. The DC insiders hate him. I don't work for him, so I can say I like him. He seems like a "tell it like it is, no bullshit" kind of guy. What is wrong with that? Maybe he can be the next AD at the Ohio State University...yes, I am a Buckeyes fan.
The push is on for "reform"...social security reform, tax reform. Will it really happen? If it does in a manner that is not just political window dressing, but real reform, get ready to "live long and prosper."
Just random thoughts. Tell me what you think. More next time.
Alberto Gonzalez...the Lefties want to make an issue over the "Torture Memos" and act like it is a big deal. I have two issues with that. First, the "tortured" are not protected under the Geneva Convention based on the definition of who IS protected. An enemy combatant in uniform, etc. who is a conscript for a foreign government is accorded protection. I'm sorry but terrorists are not...save the insurgent speak. Second, who cares if these "detainees" get some "special" interrogation techniques applied to them? Their comrades flew planes into buildings in our country and killed innocents, non-conscripts...or were they "insurgents"?
What is it with the post-war Iraq debate? I will admit that it may not appear to be going smoothly. But, I have a suggestion; read "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks. He admits the "novelty" of his approach to the war. Also, he admits that Phase IV, the post-war phase, would be long and difficult. We (especially the dissenters among us) should stop being Monday morning quarterbacks and get behind the Iraqi democratic process...and stand firm in the face of the "insurgents". By the way, the Epilogue of the book is right on the mark. The guy has some insight, for sure.
Why did George W. Bush turn the tsunami relief effort over to the UN? I won't go into how corrupt and politically bankrupt that organization is. That is for later. But why give the UN the fanfare? Granted, GW likely doesn't really want the fanfare because he really doesn't want the blame for anything that may go wrong. After all, this disaster was a natural act, an act of God if you will. And GW does believe in God, so the potential for it all being his fault is huge. Still, I think we should leave (or keep) the UN at bay. Maybe then we could just get rid of it.
PS. The UN complex in NYC would make great condos.
Back to Iraq...why go after Donald Rumsfeld? Like him or not, that guy can run an organization. The DC insiders hate him. I don't work for him, so I can say I like him. He seems like a "tell it like it is, no bullshit" kind of guy. What is wrong with that? Maybe he can be the next AD at the Ohio State University...yes, I am a Buckeyes fan.
The push is on for "reform"...social security reform, tax reform. Will it really happen? If it does in a manner that is not just political window dressing, but real reform, get ready to "live long and prosper."
Just random thoughts. Tell me what you think. More next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
