Danny Bonaduce meets John Conner
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Sunday, December 17, 2006
The War on God
Why is it that Christians are reviled for saying Merry Christmas in public, but homosexuals can have Pride Parades?
Why can science professors in colleges across the nation openly bash creationism in class, but any mention of intelligent design theory lands its proponents in a courtroom?
Why are Christians prohibited from praying in public schools, but the same schools teach religious tolerance for Muslims?
Why do the words "One Nation Under God," lead to a court case in a court system founded on Natural Law, i.e. a philosophy that states our liberties are bestowed upon us by God?
Why are judges--members of the JUDICIAL BRANCH--penalized for displaying the Ten Commandments because of a Constitutional amendment that refers specifically (and solely) to Congress--the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH?
Why are Christians mocked for preaching abstinence, while sexually promiscuous individuals who contract AIDS are considered victims of an "epidemic?"
Why are students receiving state scholarships only allowed to study the Christian religion in programs that examine religion from historical and social perspectives and not as the revealed word of God, i.e. History not Ministry--when, by implication, the State is taking a position that declares religion's claims on truth and divinity are unfounded and thus affirm Atheism?
Why do we only see exposes on Priests who have been accused of sexual molestation and not doctors, lawyers, or teachers?
Why are parents forced to bus their children to schools far from their homes, but are not allowed to receive vouchers to send their children to parochial schools?
Why, because there is a subversive campaign taking place across America to attack, undermine, and ultimately remove religion from our Society.
The next time you hear a liberal bashing religion, consider that Marx wrote, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people," and, with these words in mind, tell me if their religion bashing sounds familar.
Why can science professors in colleges across the nation openly bash creationism in class, but any mention of intelligent design theory lands its proponents in a courtroom?
Why are Christians prohibited from praying in public schools, but the same schools teach religious tolerance for Muslims?
Why do the words "One Nation Under God," lead to a court case in a court system founded on Natural Law, i.e. a philosophy that states our liberties are bestowed upon us by God?
Why are judges--members of the JUDICIAL BRANCH--penalized for displaying the Ten Commandments because of a Constitutional amendment that refers specifically (and solely) to Congress--the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH?
Why are Christians mocked for preaching abstinence, while sexually promiscuous individuals who contract AIDS are considered victims of an "epidemic?"
Why are students receiving state scholarships only allowed to study the Christian religion in programs that examine religion from historical and social perspectives and not as the revealed word of God, i.e. History not Ministry--when, by implication, the State is taking a position that declares religion's claims on truth and divinity are unfounded and thus affirm Atheism?
Why do we only see exposes on Priests who have been accused of sexual molestation and not doctors, lawyers, or teachers?
Why are parents forced to bus their children to schools far from their homes, but are not allowed to receive vouchers to send their children to parochial schools?
Why, because there is a subversive campaign taking place across America to attack, undermine, and ultimately remove religion from our Society.
The next time you hear a liberal bashing religion, consider that Marx wrote, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people," and, with these words in mind, tell me if their religion bashing sounds familar.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
DNC Announces New Logo (hahaha)
After sweeping victories on the November 7th midterm elections, Chairman Howard Dean of the DNC has proposed a new logo in an effort to capitalize on his party's recent success and solidarity.
His efforts are also aimed at countering wide-spread criticism that the Democratic Party has no direction, plan, or platform. Dean has decided to appeal to Middle America by reaching out to unions and farmers with his platform and logo.
"It's essential that we capture the hearts and minds of people in the labor and agriculture sectors of America if we are going to also win the presidency in 2008," Dean remarked at the logo's unveiling.
For a peek at the new DNC logo look below:
His efforts are also aimed at countering wide-spread criticism that the Democratic Party has no direction, plan, or platform. Dean has decided to appeal to Middle America by reaching out to unions and farmers with his platform and logo.
"It's essential that we capture the hearts and minds of people in the labor and agriculture sectors of America if we are going to also win the presidency in 2008," Dean remarked at the logo's unveiling.
For a peek at the new DNC logo look below:
Thursday, July 20, 2006
My Political Profile
| Your Political Profile: |
| Overall: 90% Conservative, 10% Liberal |
| Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
| Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
| Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
| Ethics: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
| Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
Friday, July 14, 2006
A Disproportionate Use of Force
Today, France was one of the nations who voted in favor of a Qatar sponsored resolution that would have condemned and called for an end to Israeli military actions in the growing Middle East conflict.
This struck me as odd. Why, you might ask? We are talking about France. Their reputation for military might is well known. It seems natural that they’d condemn any resolute military action.
However, I did remember something from the not-so-distant past that seemed very similar to the Hezbollah attacks on Israel and the subsequent response.
I did some quick research. Please take a moment to read the following passages:
“Tension came to a head when the government of President Laurent Gbagbo launched air strikes on rebel positions in the north on November 4, breaking a cease-fire that had been in force since 2003. One of the raids hit a French military camp, killing nine French soldiers and a U.S. aid worker.France, the former colonial ruler of Ivory Coast, retaliated by destroying most of the small Ivoirian air force.”
This struck me as odd. Why, you might ask? We are talking about France. Their reputation for military might is well known. It seems natural that they’d condemn any resolute military action.
However, I did remember something from the not-so-distant past that seemed very similar to the Hezbollah attacks on Israel and the subsequent response.
I did some quick research. Please take a moment to read the following passages:
“Tension came to a head when the government of President Laurent Gbagbo launched air strikes on rebel positions in the north on November 4, breaking a cease-fire that had been in force since 2003. One of the raids hit a French military camp, killing nine French soldiers and a U.S. aid worker.
“An Ivorian government official claimed that French forces had killed at least 30 people… On Saturday, nine French soldiers were killed and 22 wounded when Ivorian jets bombed a French base in Bouake… On the orders of
“The U.N. Security Council, meeting Saturday in emergency session,
(Notice that they condemned the attacks on France, not France's response)
However, my favorite of passage follows:
"The
Under the resolution, drafted by France, the ban will last 13 months."
Oh, I get it. When France suffers a small attack from an aggressive nation, a strong, swift, and crippling response goes without question. They even use their influence on the Security Council to pass both a resolution of condemnation and an arms embargo against the Ivorian government.
Where’s the Security Council actions against Lebanon. There are none. Instead, the Security Council sought to condemn Israel—the nation defending herself.
Why does France even bother trying to hide it at this point? They just need to publicly align themselves with Syria and Iran.
Wait, that won’t work, because despite public support for the Arab terrorists abroad, they still
I say we draft a new UN resolution—one that officially establishes France as the most hypocritical nation in the world.
Just watch out—if we do, then their ambassador is likely to go nuts and run around the UN chambers head butting people.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Rising Up from the Ashes
Well, it happened. My blog got deleted. Nearly all of my pictures, posts, and responses were lost. However, I have found some of them stored on my computer and I decided to repost them.
Additionally, I am going to begin rebuilding the Elephant Riders and will make it better than ever. My first project will be a complete diary of my experiences in basic training. That's right I signed up!
I was sick of hearing the anti-war and anti-government criticisms raining down on the ears of Americans from the pompous heights of the liberal ruled media. I decided that the time was right to enlist and do my part.
Anyhow, I just wanted to drop a quick note. Hopefully, I'll be back in full force in no time. Until then--Happy Independence Day!
Response: Activist Judges Merely Applying Law?!
On Wednesday, Justice Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit Court, while participating in a discussion at Pepperdine law School explicitly ridiculed right wing values. To think there are no activist judges is hyper-naive.
You stated that "so-called" activist judges are merely applying the law as intended by our founding fathers? Well, in which cases and which founding fathers. Some founding fathers were very opposed to the federal government while others were very much in favor of it.
Additionally, framer's intent is nebulous at best. Take the separation of church and state clause…oh wait a minute—that language was never used in the Constitution, yet somehow these judges are merely applying the law as the authors suggested.
Well, what did they say: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
So let’s see, prayer is outlawed in public schools because Courts made the interpreted that that since tax dollars fund public schools they are in turn institutions of the state and therefore teachers are employees of the state and therefore a teacher asking his or her students to pray is, in essence, instituting a rule, or say a law for the sake of constitutionality, that respects an establishment of religion and unconstitutionally alienates those students who are not of that religion who choose to not participate
Well, to borrow from science, specifically Occam’s razor, which states, “that one should make no more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred,” it would seem that maybe a simpler explanation works here—they’re manipulating the Constitution to fit an anti-religious social agenda.
A public school is not tantamount to Congress! And what about that whole “free exercise” clause that always gets overlooked. When Chief Justice Roy Moore was ordered to remove the 10 commandments from the courthouse in which he presided, his Constitutional rights were being violated.
The first amendment specifically refers to Congress and as all first-graders know the Judicial and Congressional branches are separate. Judge Moore is a free citizen of the United States and as such is free to express his views. He has every right in the world to display a symbol of the values that underlie his judicial philosophy. But no, he was stripped of the right to express himself by a court straying from what the Constitution actually says. Yet, somehow that equates to a fair application of law in accordance with the framer’s intent, but textualism is somehow radically conservative??
You stated that "so-called" activist judges are merely applying the law as intended by our founding fathers? Well, in which cases and which founding fathers. Some founding fathers were very opposed to the federal government while others were very much in favor of it.
Additionally, framer's intent is nebulous at best. Take the separation of church and state clause…oh wait a minute—that language was never used in the Constitution, yet somehow these judges are merely applying the law as the authors suggested.
Well, what did they say: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
So let’s see, prayer is outlawed in public schools because Courts made the interpreted that that since tax dollars fund public schools they are in turn institutions of the state and therefore teachers are employees of the state and therefore a teacher asking his or her students to pray is, in essence, instituting a rule, or say a law for the sake of constitutionality, that respects an establishment of religion and unconstitutionally alienates those students who are not of that religion who choose to not participate
Well, to borrow from science, specifically Occam’s razor, which states, “that one should make no more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred,” it would seem that maybe a simpler explanation works here—they’re manipulating the Constitution to fit an anti-religious social agenda.
A public school is not tantamount to Congress! And what about that whole “free exercise” clause that always gets overlooked. When Chief Justice Roy Moore was ordered to remove the 10 commandments from the courthouse in which he presided, his Constitutional rights were being violated.
The first amendment specifically refers to Congress and as all first-graders know the Judicial and Congressional branches are separate. Judge Moore is a free citizen of the United States and as such is free to express his views. He has every right in the world to display a symbol of the values that underlie his judicial philosophy. But no, he was stripped of the right to express himself by a court straying from what the Constitution actually says. Yet, somehow that equates to a fair application of law in accordance with the framer’s intent, but textualism is somehow radically conservative??
An Unjust Call for Rove’s Resignation
Democrats have demanded that strategist and political advisor to the president Karl Rove resign after invoking the tragedies of 9/11 during a speech at a New York Conservative Party fundraising dinner.
Mr. Rove stated that, “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”
As soon as word about Rove’s comments began to circulate Democrats began demanding an apology for his attempt to score political points at the expense of the 9/11 victims.
DNC chairman Howard Dean, ironically enough, accused Rove of using “cynical political attacks” in order to divide the nation. Say what Mr. All Republicans Are Christians Who Don’t Work?!
Senator Hilary Clinton, D-NY, even devoted time during Thursday’s Armed Services Committee hearing to persuade Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to denounce the remarks.
However, speaking of Sen. Clinton and partisan remarks directed towards the events of 9/11, on April 9, 2005, at the Minnesota DFL Hubert Humphrey Dinner, the Senator said:
“After the attacks of September the 11, we were united as a nation, and I was very proud of that…there were those in Washington who saw an opportunity, saw an advantage, a vulnerability in the body politic. They took the support that Americans gave to the War on Terrorism and they used it to advance the rest of their political agenda.”
Whoa! Wait a minute. I thought Ms. Clinton, along with the other Democrats said it was wrong, According to Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, who argued “[that] Dividing our country for political gain is an insult to all Americans and to the common memory we all carry with us from that day."
Where is the consistency? How is it so morally repugnant for Rove to make remarks about 9/11, which happen to be true, but Senator Clinton is allowed to do the same?
New York Governor George Pataki refused to criticize Rove’s remarks. Senator Clinton then impelled the Governor to condemn the statements made by Rove. Pataki responded by noting the hypocrisy of Senator Clinton who failed to repudiate comments made by Senator Dick Durbin that likened the American military to the Nazis.
This turn of events is absolutely indicative of the moronic hypocrisy regularly spewing forth from the Democratic Party. They are the party of duplicity. It is making me sick. They are constantly doing one thing and saying another.
You know what is inappropriate—using the Armed Services Committee as a rostrum for partisan comments. Thousands of Americans have been killed in the efforts to bring democracy to Iraq. And what does Senator Clinton, who sits on the committee, devote a portion of her time to? Demanding the Secretary of Defense apologize for remarks made by an advisor to the President!
Senator Clinton is doing nothing more than grandstanding as she attempts to get herself into a prime position for a presidential run in 2008. Even worse than making virulent partisan remarks for your party’s gain is exploiting partisan remarks for personal gain.
Should Rove consider apologizing? Absolutely not! Well, maybe…if the Democrats demand that Senator Clinton apologize for the vituperative remarks she made in Minnesota.
Mr. Rove stated that, “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”
As soon as word about Rove’s comments began to circulate Democrats began demanding an apology for his attempt to score political points at the expense of the 9/11 victims.
DNC chairman Howard Dean, ironically enough, accused Rove of using “cynical political attacks” in order to divide the nation. Say what Mr. All Republicans Are Christians Who Don’t Work?!
Senator Hilary Clinton, D-NY, even devoted time during Thursday’s Armed Services Committee hearing to persuade Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to denounce the remarks.
However, speaking of Sen. Clinton and partisan remarks directed towards the events of 9/11, on April 9, 2005, at the Minnesota DFL Hubert Humphrey Dinner, the Senator said:
“After the attacks of September the 11, we were united as a nation, and I was very proud of that…there were those in Washington who saw an opportunity, saw an advantage, a vulnerability in the body politic. They took the support that Americans gave to the War on Terrorism and they used it to advance the rest of their political agenda.”
Whoa! Wait a minute. I thought Ms. Clinton, along with the other Democrats said it was wrong, According to Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, who argued “[that] Dividing our country for political gain is an insult to all Americans and to the common memory we all carry with us from that day."
Where is the consistency? How is it so morally repugnant for Rove to make remarks about 9/11, which happen to be true, but Senator Clinton is allowed to do the same?
New York Governor George Pataki refused to criticize Rove’s remarks. Senator Clinton then impelled the Governor to condemn the statements made by Rove. Pataki responded by noting the hypocrisy of Senator Clinton who failed to repudiate comments made by Senator Dick Durbin that likened the American military to the Nazis.
This turn of events is absolutely indicative of the moronic hypocrisy regularly spewing forth from the Democratic Party. They are the party of duplicity. It is making me sick. They are constantly doing one thing and saying another.
You know what is inappropriate—using the Armed Services Committee as a rostrum for partisan comments. Thousands of Americans have been killed in the efforts to bring democracy to Iraq. And what does Senator Clinton, who sits on the committee, devote a portion of her time to? Demanding the Secretary of Defense apologize for remarks made by an advisor to the President!
Senator Clinton is doing nothing more than grandstanding as she attempts to get herself into a prime position for a presidential run in 2008. Even worse than making virulent partisan remarks for your party’s gain is exploiting partisan remarks for personal gain.
Should Rove consider apologizing? Absolutely not! Well, maybe…if the Democrats demand that Senator Clinton apologize for the vituperative remarks she made in Minnesota.
One Unbelievable Dick
This week’s Ward Churchill award goes to none other than the Democratic Senator from Illinois Dick Durbin—emphasis on his first name. Sen. Durbin, on tuesday , likened Guantanamo Bay to Nazi Germany and Soviet Gulag.
Read his remarks for yourself: “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”
Pol-Pot?! Pol-Pot was responsible for killing more people per capita than Mao! Don’t believe me, well then, read this, “On a per capita basis the Khmer Rouge "revolution" is easily the deadliest in modernAsian history.”
It is so nice to know the good Senator thinks so highly of the men and women dedicating their lives to the protection of our country. The media constantly cries about the prisoners held up in Gitmo. What about the soldiers? Do you honestly think they would rather be in Cuba of all places having to extract information from people that want Americans dead?
No! They want to be home in the good ole’ U.S. of A. enjoying a fine summer, seeing their family, and having barbecues. Only they can’t—they have to spend their time surrounded by terrorists. They have to spend their time with those people who want to see American families dead. They have to attempt extracting information from people who would rather die than betray the goals of their holy crusade. And they do it to keep this country safe.
Are they thanked? Are they rewarded for their sacrifices? No! These patriotic souls get called Nazis. Sen. Durbin really does our nation pride. A few weeks ago the Democrats harped on Republicans for wanting to bypass the intention of the Constitution to insure free debate and ultimately destroy the Senate. However, do you really think the framers of the Constitution intended the Senate floor to be a platform for soldier bashing and treasonous speech?
Yes, I said treasonous. Perhaps the Senator should consider changing his last name to turban, because it seems like he’s on their side more than ours. Why do I say that? Just check out Al-Jazeera online.
That’s right! The first line people who hate the U.S.A. will read is, “A US senator has refused to apologise for comparing the actions of US soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis.”
Can you see it now? The shock. The horror. The indignation welling up in some insurgent’s face, “I knew it!” he’ll exclaim—right before loading a new cartridge into his rifle and tromping off to snipe some American boys—feeling fully justified the entire time. Why? Because a United States Senator said they’re Nazis and who isn’t just in ridding their land of Nazis? Good one Dick.
It’s about time our elected representatives remember just that—that they’re representatives of the people—the people of the U.S. and not the people who want to see our country destroyed. Our tax dollars pay them a very nice salary with very nice benefits—much better than most of us will ever see. I am sick of paying for that kind of garbage to be spewed on the hallowed floors of our Senate.
We need to begin holding our representatives accountable. Forget ignoring the situation simply because you do not live in that Senator’s state. The Senate makes decisions that affect the entire country and as such it is the entire country’s duty to let them know when they have crossed a line.
I suggest every patriotic, red, white, and blue spirited American email Sen. Durbin and let him know that what he said was an immoral desecration of our Senate. However, do so with tact, intelligence, and civility, i.e. everything lacking from the Senator’s remarks.
Read his remarks for yourself: “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”
Pol-Pot?! Pol-Pot was responsible for killing more people per capita than Mao! Don’t believe me, well then, read this, “On a per capita basis the Khmer Rouge "revolution" is easily the deadliest in modern
It is so nice to know the good Senator thinks so highly of the men and women dedicating their lives to the protection of our country. The media constantly cries about the prisoners held up in Gitmo. What about the soldiers? Do you honestly think they would rather be in Cuba of all places having to extract information from people that want Americans dead?
No! They want to be home in the good ole’ U.S. of A. enjoying a fine summer, seeing their family, and having barbecues. Only they can’t—they have to spend their time surrounded by terrorists. They have to spend their time with those people who want to see American families dead. They have to attempt extracting information from people who would rather die than betray the goals of their holy crusade. And they do it to keep this country safe.
Are they thanked? Are they rewarded for their sacrifices? No! These patriotic souls get called Nazis. Sen. Durbin really does our nation pride. A few weeks ago the Democrats harped on Republicans for wanting to bypass the intention of the Constitution to insure free debate and ultimately destroy the Senate. However, do you really think the framers of the Constitution intended the Senate floor to be a platform for soldier bashing and treasonous speech?
Yes, I said treasonous. Perhaps the Senator should consider changing his last name to turban, because it seems like he’s on their side more than ours. Why do I say that? Just check out Al-Jazeera online.
That’s right! The first line people who hate the U.S.A. will read is, “A US senator has refused to apologise for comparing the actions of US soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis.”
Can you see it now? The shock. The horror. The indignation welling up in some insurgent’s face, “I knew it!” he’ll exclaim—right before loading a new cartridge into his rifle and tromping off to snipe some American boys—feeling fully justified the entire time. Why? Because a United States Senator said they’re Nazis and who isn’t just in ridding their land of Nazis? Good one Dick.
It’s about time our elected representatives remember just that—that they’re representatives of the people—the people of the U.S. and not the people who want to see our country destroyed. Our tax dollars pay them a very nice salary with very nice benefits—much better than most of us will ever see. I am sick of paying for that kind of garbage to be spewed on the hallowed floors of our Senate.
We need to begin holding our representatives accountable. Forget ignoring the situation simply because you do not live in that Senator’s state. The Senate makes decisions that affect the entire country and as such it is the entire country’s duty to let them know when they have crossed a line.
I suggest every patriotic, red, white, and blue spirited American email Sen. Durbin and let him know that what he said was an immoral desecration of our Senate. However, do so with tact, intelligence, and civility, i.e. everything lacking from the Senator’s remarks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)