The Law of Conservation of Stupid

For the first time since I started this blog, I did nothing for it over the Christmas holiday. For the first time ever.

Let me tell you why.

When I first began this blog, I was a naive newcomer to the world of politics, and it shows. I was mentored by a really awesome blogger who retired the year after I got online. I kept going. Until last year.

Last year, Obama was re-elected. Like many Conservatives, I thought there was no way Obama would win re-election, but the Republicans nominated a nice guy who also happened to be a complete moron. When you have a voting district that goes 100% to one specific candidate, with no opposing votes whatsoever, you might have a problem. Did Mitt Romney question it? No. Did the Republicans question it? No.

Thank you for nothing, Geriatric Old Party.*

Anymore, I don't blog because nothing surprises me anymore. Unions demanding higher wages during a reception? You don't say. Obama raising taxes while families are struggling to get by? No surprise.

Today I was actually surprised by something, which is the only reason I'm back.

Obama's EPA is going to ban D-Con. In case you reacted like me, by staring dumbfoundedly at the computer, you read that correctly. Obama is going to allow the EPA to ban D-Con.

Via Gateway Pundit, who got it from the AP:

The Environmental Protection Agency is moving to ban the sale of a dozen rat and mouse poisons sold under the popular D-Con brand in an effort to protect children and pets.

The agency said Wednesday it hopes to reduce the thousands of accidental exposures that occur every year from rodent-control products. Children and pets are at risk for exposure because the products typically are placed on floors.

The agency had targeted a handful of companies two years ago, saying they needed to develop new products that are safer for children, pets and wildlife. All but Reckitt Benckiser Inc., manufacturer of D-Con, did so.

I'm not trying to say that it isn't sad that accidents happen with stuff like rat poison (though since I can find no statistics on deaths caused by rat poison, I'm pretty suspicious), but I smell, pardon the pun, a rat.

Rats and mice carry lots of nasty diseases and as someone who has had to deal with mice before, they are unsanitary, noisy pests. I'm sorry people are careless and accidents happen, but this is something that I would like to call the Law of Conservation of Stupid. It's stupid that he government would take D-Con away. Just because accidents happen does not mean that an effective product should be removed from consumers.

When did we get so pathetic that we need the government to hold our hands for everything? (And where are the statistics on children who have been accidentally poisoned by D-Con, anyway? I'm getting lots of articles about pets, but none about children.)

And what happens when these new products that are 'safer' don't kill mice and rats? What then?
--


*I'm aware I called them old twice, but I couldn't find a synonyms for 'useless' or 'foolish' that started with 'O'. Either way, it's time for the Republicans to go the way of the Whig Party.  If they aren't going to stand up to the Democrats, then what do we need them for?

Column Drop

Alright, I've got some columns that have been sitting up in my favorites bar for way to long now, so I'm going to give the link and sampling of each. What Would a Desperate Wimp Do?

At about this stage in the Carter years, I began to worry: the president was getting a reputation for being a wimp, the economy was going to hell, and his poll numbers were headed steadily south. The main enemy — the Soviet Union — was flexing its muscles, invading Afghanistan in December of 1979. This came amidst the Iranian hostage crisis, which began early the previous month.

We tend to forget that the U.S. military buildup, which ultimately played a big role in the successful outcome of the Cold War, was started by Carter in response to the Soviet move, but by the time it started, “the wimp” could not hope to recover his lost manhood by sending money to the Pentagon.

And so I asked myself, is there a point at which a president realizes that wimps don’t get reelected? And if so, what might he do to shatter that image? For the next two years I worried that Carter might overreact to some international crisis in order to make folks see that he was really a tough guy.

I thought this was interesting. See what you think. Next: Choosing Your Hill to Die On

For some folks, their one gear can best be described as CHAAAAAARGE!! In politics, every single thing that any Republican does that displeases them in the least is grounds to threaten to NEVER DONATE TO OR VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN AGAIN. Threatening total abandonment of politics (or voting third party, or for Democrats), is the only negotiating tactic these people know. Similarly, everything Obama and/or the Democrats do is the most shocking attack on capitalism and the Constitution that has ever been seen in the history of ever.

Another group of folks knows only the gear that we will call “Congress.” Another word for this gear is “retreat.” For these folks, there is always an excuse for capitulation, always a reason to bend to pragmatism, always a reason to not rock the boat. No matter what horrible thing the Republicans do, we dare not abandon them and be left to the Democrats. To these folks, we dare not risk provoking either a governmental shutdown or the teachers’ unions, no matter the stakes, for fear of bad polling.

Of course, the person who bluffs every hand is just as bad at poker as the person who folds every hand. At the risk of being labeled an enabler of Democrats, achieving success in politics takes a more nuanced approach. Sometimes you have to swallow a bitter pill of compromise and sometimes you have to pick up your torch and pitchfork and let people know you mean business, and knowing which situation calls for which is everything as both a politican and an activist.

This one I really enjoyed, and I had to admit that author has a point. The thing that bothers me is that it always seems to be the Republicans who are forced to bow the knee. The Democrats never have to. (Incidentally, I'd like to recommend that all Republicans be forced to read Ann Coulter's book 'Guilty.' They might learn a thing or two about the Dems.)

And the last one: How to Think About the Tea Party

On February 19, 2009, when the finance commentator Rick Santelli indulged in a rant against the newly unveiled “stimulus” bill on the CNBC cable network and called for a demonstration in Chicago modeled on the Boston Tea Party, he fired a shot heard round the country. Santelli’s diatribe was focused on the fact that Americans who had played by the rules, had saved much of what they had earned, and had paid their bills on time were being required to bail out fellow citizens who had gotten caught short in purchasing a domicile they could not afford or while speculating in real estate. In the weeks that followed, ordinary citizens spontaneously gathered in towns and cities across the continent to organize Tea Parties in protest against what they took to be an unjust redistribution of wealth from the industrious and the rational to the greedy and improvident.

I really liked this one, as it has kind of a history of the Tea Party in it. Check it out.

And that's all the columns. I hope you find something interesting up there!

Apocalypse WOW

Welcome to the reckoning. We have met the fiscal apocalypse, and it is smack dab in the middle of the heartland. As Wisconsin goes, so goes the nation. Let us pray it does not go the way of the decrepit welfare states of the European Union.

- Michelle Malkin

It's been a busy week, and I don't just mean because of college, which is enough to keep anyone busy. The news this week has been an explosion. First I think it was this week that Mubarak stepped down. Maybe it was last week. Who knows. Either way, there goes another US ally - thanks for nothing, Barack. I anxiously await the 2012 election, or, as I like to think of it sometimes, your Day of Reckoning.

That was the beginning of the explosions, but they just kept coming after that. I posted down

here already about Lara Logan's rape in Egypt. I heard through the blogosphere, but without confirmation, that the CBS execs sat on this story because they didn't want it getting out, lest it reflect badly on Obummer.

Well, turns out the blogosphere scuttlebutt was correct. CBS did indeed sit on the story. From Gateway Pundit, who got it from Jewish World Review:

A funny thing happened on the way to the glorious democracy ostensibly emerging in Egypt. CBS reporter Lara Logan, “covering the jubilation” as CBS put it, was surrounded by a mob of men screaming, “Jew, Jew!” who beat and sexually assaulted her. She is currently recovering in a U.S. hospital from injuries described as “serious.” Despite the fact that the incident occurred last Friday, CBS sat on the story until it became apparent that other members of the media had gotten wind of it. Why? The bet here is that this incident interferes with the mainstream media-established narrative regarding the true nature of some “freedom-loving” Egyptians. People yearning for democracy aren’t supposed to be anti-Semitic thugs or sexual predators as well. Thus, a genuine news item became an “un-story.”

…What is really going on in the Middle East? Upheaval–of a largely undefined nature. Where is it leading? Despite mountains of “expert” analysis, one really knows, not even the participants themselves. The American news media? A pack of Walter Durantys with narratives as tailored as those the NY Times Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter spun about the great “democratic reformer” known as Josef Stalin. A group of narrators as practiced in the art of taqiyya, which is defined as lying to protect Islam, as the Islamists themselves…

…And not just Islamists. In my entire career as a columnist, I can’t recall a time when so many members of the Fourth Estate were so willing to run interference for a president and his administration. Can anyone remotely imagine CBS spiking the same story if George W. Bush were president? Lara Logan would have been the poster girl for “unrealistic expectations of democracy in Egypt.” Bush would have been thoroughly excoriated for his idea that freedom is “G0d’s gift to mankind,” even as Barack Obama’s water-carriers have been characterizing the events in Egypt as “one the great triumphs of the human spirit” (Thomas Friedman, NY Times), or “a massive eloquent validation of the moral force and power of non-violent civil disobedience” comparable to the “legacies of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.” (Clarence B. Jones, Huffington Post).

The media actively obstructed the news. And they wonder why we're all getting our information from either FOX or the blogs. Hm. I can't fathom why. (<- Sarcasm.)

And then we have the Wisconsin boondoggle. For those of you who don't know the whole story behind this, let's go back to beginning and start from there. From Michelle Malkin:

The lowdown: State government workers in the Badger State pay piddling amounts for generous taxpayer-subsidized health benefits. Faced with a $3.6 billion budget hole and a state constitutional ban on running a deficit, new GOP Gov. Scott Walker wants public unions to pony up a little more. He has proposed raising the public employee share of health insurance premiums from less than 5 percent to 12.4 percent. He is also pushing for state workers to cover half of their pension contributions. To spare taxpayers the soaring costs of Byzantine union-negotiated work rules, he would rein in Big Labor’s collective bargaining power to cover only wages unless approved at the ballot box.

Malkin also posted the salary information on her blog. These screaming union thug teachers up there make about $50,000 a year in salary and THEN they get benefits. Nice. And these people are whining because they have to pony up a few extra dollars.

Oh, and they might also be mad because they'll lose their collective bargaining power, which if I am not mistaken means they can't control how much vacation time they work and how long they work in a day, never mind that no private sector employee gets to do that.

But no, the teachers got angry, and they had rallies, and then, in the strangest twist of the week, the Wisconsin Democrats fled. Right out of the state. They apparently did this to keep the Wisconsin police from rounding them up and dragging them back to the State house. Or jail, inasmuch as these Dems have now broken the law.

And then we learned that Obama and the Democrats were behind the union rallies:

Now folded into the Democratic National Committee, Obama’s campaign group Organizing For America is already actively engaged in Wisconsin and is beginning to ramp up organizing efforts in Ohio, though observers say the latter process is about a week behind that in Wisconsin. The group is also beginning to dig into Indiana, whose legislature is considering a bill to limit collective bargaining by teachers.

I can't imagine what they're going to try and do in Indiana, seeing as Mitch Daniels wisely got rid of public-sector unions when he came into office. I do know that there is a bill in the legislature here to do a school voucher program, and I support that. The public school teachers here hate it. I didn't know they had collective bargaining rights down here.

Governor Walker, the man in charge up in Wisconsin, told Obama that he was working on balancing the budget, and maybe Obama ought to work on balancing his. Three cheers for Governor Walker!!

It's been one heck of a week. I don't know what kind of plot twist to expect next in this story, though I hope in involves the Dems getting dragged back to Wisconsin to their jobs. Then after the vote, I hope they get tossed in jail. I'm tired of Dems being able to break the law with impunity.

One more thing I want to mention before I close: the House of Representatives voted to defund Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, which is good news. The lying Democrats though, are another story. Take a gander at this:

The House on Friday voted largely along party lines to prohibit funding for President Obama’s healthcare reform law and eliminate funding for family planning.

In a quick succession of two-minute votes, the House adopted three amendments to their stopgap budget bill that eliminates healthcare reform funding through the end of the fiscal year. The House also approved, 240-185, an amendment barring federal Title X family planning grants that was aimed squarely at Planned Parenthood.

The vote on the Planned Parenthood amendment from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) was postponed Thursday night after three hours of bitter debate during which Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) revealed she once had to have an abortion. She made the revelation on the House floor after Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) described in graphic detail an abortion procedure.

“I really planned to speak about something else but the gentleman from New Jersey just put my stomach in knots because I’m one of those women he spoke about just now,” Speier said. “I had a procedure at 17 weeks pregnant with a child who moved from the vagina into the cervix. And that procedure that you just described is a procedure that I endured.”

Jackie Spier is a liar. Do you know how we Conservatives know this? Read her statement again: “I had a procedure at 17 weeks pregnant with a child who moved from the vagina into the cervix. And that procedure that you just described is a procedure that I endured.”

I hate to give anatomy lessons, but a baby does not gestate in the vagina. She could have had an ecoptic pregnancy, but not if it lasted for 17 weeks, as she would been in agony or dead by that time. Liar.

Really, it's been quite the week.

If You Don't Like the American Flag, Move to Iran

I'm mad. And I know what you're thinking: TARNS, we had a great victory not long ago, why are you upset?

I'm mad because even though we've just spayed them, Democrats are still everywhere. I can't stand them, and I can't get away from them either. What really set me off this week was my reading assignment in my English Composition class over at college.

So I was reading this essay by a Democrat who was whining and griping about how white Conservative men are against single moms getting welfare, and how we need to raise minimum wage and make life easier on these welfare moms. (Good thing the idiot who wrote essay was nowhere in the vicinity, or I might have committed an act that the Tea Party would frown upon.)

I'm getting so sick of liberals (and Democrats, but those two terms are interchangeable.) They have this spiel that life should be fair for everyone. If life was fair, then I wouldn't be force-fed liberal bull crap every other time I went to do my homework. If I can't trust you to be fair in a textbook, then give me one good reason I should let you try and legislate my life to make it fair? No answer? Didn't think so. Would it kill anyone out there to put an Ann Coulter column in my textbook so I can have a palate cleanser of after listening to liberals carry on?

Anyway, this dumb prick in the textbook whined that we need to do better at teaching abstinence/safe sex and we need to raise the minimum wage. Ah, the classic stupid liberal arguments.

ABSTINENCE not only prevent unwanted pregnancy, but it also prevents the transmission of STDs. But no one teaches abstinence in public schools, or when they do it's taught right next to 'safe sex.' Heck, there are even fliers in the student lounge at my college about HIV/AIDS, and they tell teens that the best way to not get AIDS is to abstain, but if you don't want to abstain, then use a condom.

I have bad news: condoms are not fail proof. Sorry (except I'm not.)

And the minimum wage argument. This is where liberals truly prove that they have the collective intelligence of a box a rocks. They think it is SO great to up minimum wage. Well, I have more bad news. When minimum wage goes up and businesses are forced to pay workers more, there are two ways the businesses handle this increase. First, they fire people. Then, they pass the cost onto the consumer by raising the cost of their goods. So now your welfare mother is not only unemployed, she can't afford the now more expensive box of cereal to feed her kid. This is where the government comes in to help, and we get to start this miserable cycle all over again.

At this time, I would like to add that the author of the liberal spiel is also SEXIST, because I'm a white Conservative WOMAN who doesn't want to see the minimum wage go up. Just thought I'd toss that out there.

What actually drove me to carp about this over here on my blog is this report from Gateway Pundit that another dumb school is upset a kid had an American flag; this time the kid had it on his bike. You know, if you don't like what the American flag stands for (because believe me, it's not about the flag, it's about what that flag stands for) then you can leave. I'll pay for your plane ticket to France or Iran, take your pick. But it's only gonna be one way.

I know that some people don't like America, but I'm tired of it being the ones who live in America who don't like it. If you don't like it, stop dragging my country down. Just leave.

In fact, I'd really like it if you left. Then I wouldn't have to read anymore stupid liberal spiel in my textbooks.

Reagan on the Election

I think this quote from Reagan's speech on the eve of the 1980 election needs to be quoted in full as we go to the polls tomorrow.

"Consider these questions as well as you make your final decision:

Are you confident that our economy will create productive work for our society or are you less confident?

Are you satisfied that in inflation at the highest rates in thirty-three years is the best we can do? Are interst rates at 14 1/2 percent something you are prepared to live with?

Are you pleased with the ability of young people to buy a home, or the elderly to live thier remaining lives in happiness; of our youngsters to take pride in the world we have built for them?

Is our nation stronger and more capable of leading the world toward peace and freedom or is it weaker?

Is there more stability in the world or less?

Are you convinced we have earned the respect of the world and our allies, or has America's position across the globe diminished?

Are you personally more secure in your life? Is your family more secure? Is America safer in the world?

And most importantly - quite simply - the basic question of our lives: Are you happier today than when Mr. Carter [Obama] became president?"

And that, my friends, is what it all boils down too.

Koran Burning: Media Late to the Party

It's so hilarious to me that over the last four days, it's come to the media's attention that hey, someone's burning something other than an American flag! I've known this for like two weeks now.

As predicted, Muslims have proved once again that they are not a religion of peace. Where is the peace in threatening to kill people for burning a Koran? Adding to the irony is the fact that Muslims use the Bible as toilet paper. Hmm, which of those two things is less offensive again? Me personally, I'll take having a book burning.

A lot of things have happened around this story over the past few days. First, General Petraeus came out and said that having a Koran burning will make things worse for the soldiers in Afghanistan. the only thing is, NOTHING will make Afghanistan easier. The best thing to do would be to bomb the place and leave. It's a waste of taxpayer money to give those people roads and infrastructure and oh by the way, the Taliban will really appreciate all that when they come back to power. Yes, I do think they'll come back. And I think that after we waste billions of taxpayer dollars to improve roads over there, it'll be easier for the Taliban to move missiles around. Three cheers for being stupid.

Barack Obama only cares about freedom of religion/speech when it comes to Muslims building a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero. When it comes to a church's right to burn Korans, he's against it all the way. While we're on the subject of that mosque, the Imam in charge of it said that if it isn't built Muslims will attack. A little late for that, I'm thinking. Here's what the nutjob had to say:

“If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world…. If we don’t handle this crisis correctly it could become something which could really become very, very, very dangerous indeed.”

Wow. I'm terrified. Except it doesn't take much to set Muslims off, so I'm used to this now. Gateway Pundit had this response:

Imam Rauf, in all sincerity sir, you can take your victory mosque and shove it.

Ditto.

On the 9th of September, and about four pm, the pastor of the Florida church, Terry Jones, agreed to meet with the (Florida?) Imam, who promised that the Victory mosque would be moved. After that promise, Jones called off the burning of the Korans.

About four hours later it came out that the Imam had been lying all along and wasn't going to move the mosque. (Apparently the Imam was following the principle of taqqiya, or lying to nonbelievers.) This lie, however, was soon found out, and Jones declared the Koran Burning back on.

The media, of course, is having fits over this. No one should ever the malign the "religion of peace" but of course it's okay to malign every other religion. and freedom of speech is only for Islam, as they were in favor of this mosque and against the Koran burning.

This story just gets more and more bizarre. According to at least one report, the Westboro Baptist church has threatened that if the Dove Outreach Center doesn't burn any Korans, they will, and they claim to have done it once before. (For those of you who need a refresher, the Westboro Baptist church was the one protesting outside a soldier's funeral, and they got dragged to court for it.)

In another story, Donald Trump has offered to buy out one of the mosque investors in an effort to ends the whole controversy. You can read the whole story here.

Soldiers have already shot some protesters for throwing rocks at their base. Apparently there's no word on whether or not the soldiers were American or Afghan.

This story just gets more bizarre all the time.

FL Church Promises to Burn Korans, Muslims Respond in Typical Fashion

1 Corinthians 6:12a

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful."

First of all, Pastor, none of those things you listed are isolated incidents. Not one. they are all part of the Islamization of America. And I do agree that it needs to be stopped.

Second, if this doesn't make those idiots in the media shut up about 'religion of Peace' already, nothing ever will. See how this pastor is receiving death threats? You get two guesses as to who is sending them, and I'll give you two hints:

1. Not Christians.

2. Not Jews.

Christians don't send death threats. Muslims do, though.

Now this is controversial for many reasons, and I probably won't get to them all here. First of all, the question is, Is it a good idea for this church to do this? Part of me desperately wants to say yes because I'm tired of creeping Islam. Yes, this should be done. Everyone out at that book burning should be carrying a gun in case CAIR tries something and why are you just burning Korans? You haven't gone far enough. You'd better serve ham at this thing - bonus points if you cook it over the fire you make from the Korans, and you need to have instrumental music playing in the background, too. The Battle Hymn of the Republic, or something.

But the other part of me wants to know if this is the right thing to do. Is this a good testimony for us Christians? I don't know. But I do wonder, particularly when I remember the Crusades.

How much longer are we going to sit down and take it while Muslims demand that we
give them everything they want? I've blogged on here about the idiot Muslim cook who tried to sue his employers when they wanted him to cook pork. If you don't want to cook pork, then maybe you shoulda been a desert chef or something. Muslims are creeping into our culture and they are not assimilating - they expect us to assimilate to them.

I'm tired of Islam. Right now they're trying to build a VICTORY MOSQUE TO COMMEMORATE THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ON 9/11. Let's not beat around the bush, we'll call the Hamasque of the Usual Suspects what it is: a VICTORY MOSQUE TO COMMEMORATE THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ON 9/11. Okay? And I'm tired of it. Building a mosque in a business district - it's not because you need a place to worship, it's because you want to COMMEMORATE THE DEATH OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, well, you get the point.

And then, Bibles. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to own one of these. Oh, yeah, real tolerant religion going on there. Burn a flag, burn people to death, burn a church, burn a Bible, Muslims don't blink. Burn a Koran, and they scream like stuck pigs.(By the way, I think it's worth mentioning that church burning is the second-favorite pastime of Muslims.)

Now, there is endless debate going on now about whether or not this is the right thing to do. There is no easy now. The easiest thing to do would be to not let any more Muslims over here, ever. After 9/11 immigration from the Middle East should have been stopped, with the only exception being the Jews. Only Jews, not Muslims who lived in Israel.

Now, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful." It falls under free speech laws that these people can burn Korans, but is it helpful? Or will it be another black mark against Christians? At this point I would have to say that there's not much you can do that will make Christianity look any better in the media's eyes. Determined to make Islam the religion of peace, they've left Christianity to be transforming into a 'violent religion.' We're not, by the way. but the media will never listen to that.

As to whether or not the church should burn Korans, because I'm still evenly divided over what to do, I'll leave that one up to them. But one thing that I think is worth mentioning is the Crusades. At this rate, we're going to need a few more of these.

Contrary to what you've heard from your teachers or from watching Kingdom of Heaven, the Crusades were not a bunch of Christians going out to terrorize Muslims. the Crusades were a bunch of Christians going out to stop Muslim aggression and prevent said Muslims from taking over Europe.

Q: The Crusades are often portrayed as a militarily offensive venture. Were they?

Spencer: No. Pope Urban II, who called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095, was calling for a defensive action -- one that was long overdue.

As he explained, he was calling the Crusade because without any defensive action, "the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked" by the Turks and other Muslim forces.

"For, as most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George," Pope Urban II said in his address. "They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.

"If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them."

He was right. Jihad warfare had from the seventh century to the time of Pope Urban conquered and Islamized what had been over half of Christendom. There had been no response from the Christian world until the Crusades.

Huh. No response until the crusades. The media won't acknowledge Islam for what it is, and it'll take Crusades now to stop this spread of Islam. Methinks history might be slated to repeat itself.

Q: What are some popular misconceptions about the Crusades?

Spencer: One of the most common is the idea that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world.

In fact, the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution.

Early in the eighth century 60 Christian pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies -- except for a small number who converted to Islam.

Muslims also demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn't pay.

Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the tax on non-Muslims -- jizya -- that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction of their own children and fellow believers.

Early in the ninth century the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled for Constantinople and other Christian cities. In 937, Muslims went on a rampage in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.

In 1004, the Fatimid Caliph, Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim, ordered the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. Over the next 10 years 30,000 churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives.

In 1009, al-Hakim commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem be destroyed, along with several other churches, including the Church of the Resurrection. In 1056, the Muslims expelled 300 Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians from entering the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

When the Seljuk Turks took Jerusalem in 1077, the Seljuk Emir Atsiz bin Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered 3,000 people.

Another common misconception is that the Crusades were fought to convert Muslims to Christianity by force. Glaringly absent from every report about Pope Urban's address at the Council of Claremont is any command to the Crusaders to convert Muslims.

It was not until over 100 years after the First Crusade, in the 13th century, that European Christians made any organized attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity, when the Franciscans began missionary work among Muslims in lands held by the Crusaders. This effort was largely unsuccessful.

Yet another misconception revolves around the Crusaders' bloody sack of Jerusalem in 1099.

The capture of Jerusalem is often portrayed as unique in medieval history, and as the cause of Muslim mistrust of the West. It might be more accurate to say that it was the start of a millennium of anti-Western grievance mongering and propaganda.

The Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem was a heinous crime -- particularly in light of the
religious and moral principles they professed to uphold. However, by the military standards of the day, it was not actually anything out of the ordinary.

In those days, it was a generally accepted principle of warfare that if a city under siege resisted capture, it could be sacked, and while if it did not resist, mercy would be shown. It is a matter of record that Muslim armies frequently behaved in exactly the same way when entering a conquered city.

This is not to excuse the Crusaders' conduct by pointing to similar actions. One atrocity does not excuse another. But it does illustrate that the Crusaders' behavior in Jerusalem was consistent with that of other armies of the period -- since all states subscribed to the same notions of siege and resistance.

In 1148, Muslim commander Nur ed-Din did not hesitate to order the killing of every Christian in Aleppo. In 1268, when the jihad forces of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars took Antioch from the Crusaders, Baybars was annoyed to find that the Crusader ruler had already left the city -- so he wrote to him bragging of his massacres of Christians.

Most notorious of all may be the jihadists' entry into Constantinople on May 29, 1453, when they, according to historian Steven Runciman, "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination."

Finally, it is a misconception that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades. He did not.

There is no doubt that the belief that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades is widespread. When he died, the Washington Post reminded its readers "during his long reign, Pope John Paul II apologized to Muslims for the Crusades, to Jews for anti-Semitism, to Orthodox Christians for the sacking of Constantinople, to Italians for the Vatican's associations with the Mafia and to scientists for the persecution of Galileo."

However, John Paul II never actually apologized for the Crusades. The closest he came was on March 12, 2000, the "Day of Pardon."

During his homily he said: "We cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken toward the followers of other religions."

This is hardly a clear apology for the Crusades.

Don't think for one minute that if the Muslims could force us all to stop worshiping God and teaching each other - even each other! - about the Bible, they wouldn't do it. It would not surprise me if very shortly we are in for the fight of lives just to keep our freedoms.

I'm glad the Pope didn't apologize. At least someone has a brain.

In Europe things have already started to reach a breaking point. No one over there wants the Muslims anymore simply because of the way act and how they demand to be treated better then everyone else. Whether this is because their skin is brown or what I don't know or honestly care.

These people are already trying to infiltrate our culture and force us to play by their rules, and I don't appreciate that much. The Muslims are consistently doing outrageous things, so maybe it's time that the rest of us be just as outrageous.

Maybe. Maybe doing this isn't right at all.

Or maybe it's what we need - the beginning of another Crusade.

Whatdaya Know, the Healthcare Bill Kills Jobs, Too.

Why am I not surprised? From Gateway Pundit, who got it from the Washington Post:

The sun hasn’t exactly set on Solar Planet, but anxiety over the fate of the Arlington tanning salon has been running high ever since a “tan tax” took effect Thursday.

One of the less publicized measures in the new health-care law, the tax imposes a 10 percent surcharge on the use of ultraviolet indoor tanning beds.

Supporters — including the Obama administration, congressional Democrats and dermatologists — have argued that the tax will raise an estimated $2.7 billion toward the cost of expanding health coverage to the uninsured, while discouraging a practice that increases the risk of skin cancer by as much as threefold in frequent users, according to scientific research.

But outraged tanning salon owners worry that the levy could deal a death blow to an industry already reeling from the recession.

“In 26 years of business this is the worst I’ve seen it,” said Scott Shortnacy, owner of the Arlington Solar Planet as well as six other branches in the Washington area. “Normally for people who tan, it’s a part of their lifestyle. They keep doing it even in a recession. But everybody has been looking for ways to cut back on those areas. … Our sales are down 20 to 30 percent.”

According to the Indoor Tanning Association, an industry trade group, most of the nation's 19,000 tanning salons are small businesses owned and staffed by women. Shortnacy said all but two of his several dozen employees are women. With business so slow, he opted against hiring the 10 to 15 seasonal workers he normally adds during the spring high season.

This is beyond stupid. This is just so, incredibly, stupid. In the last paragraph, a tanning salon owner points out how he didn't hire additional workers for the spring season. That's fifteen jobs out the door right there. And more jobs will follow; to avoid paying that tax, people will cut back on tanning, and when the patrons go, people who work in tanning salons are going to lose thier jobs.

So thanks, Democrats. Thanks for killing more jobs that people could have used. Thanks for nothing.

U.S. Marine vs. Democrat

Thank heaven for people like this Veteran. We could use more like him. Hat tip Transsylvania Phoenix:



In honor of this, I now have a new tag: patriotism. As for the video, it speaks for itself.

Imminent Threat To Your Health!!

It's called Socialized medicine, occasionally disguised as National Healthcare:

Today, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus is meeting with the other members of the committee to discuss options for expanding insurance coverage. The slides they are using to guide their discussion — available here — are illuminating to say the least.

Among other things, they indicate that the committee is considering a requirement
that, if an Obama-like plan were to pass, all health-insurance plans would have to conform to one of four benefit designs: lowest, low, medium, and high. That's it. Four options for everyone in the United States, determined by the federal government.

Of course, the committee is cognizant of President Obama's promise that Americans who like the insurance they have today will be able to keep it. So they create a carve-out for "grandfathered plans." Existing insurance can stay just as it is, they say.

Except that's not really true. Because elsewhere in the document, the committee makes it clear that existing insurance arrangements that do not comply with government requirements cannot enroll new entrants. Nor can any enrollees get the new premium subsidies the committee is contemplating. Consequently, no "grandfathered plan" will be viable, or at least not for long. Understandably, many people would want to leave them to get government's money, and the pool for spreading insurance risk would become less stable as people exit for a host of reasons (like when they switch jobs or get married) but cannot be replaced with a new entrant.

Regarding "affordability," the committee is apparently looking at providing new premium subsidies to everyone below 400% of poverty. For a family of four, that's about $88,000 per year. A very large segment of the working-age population falls below that threshold. If enacted, it would be a massive new health-care entitlement piled on top of the unaffordable ones already on the books.

And then there's the government-run insurance plan. The committee outline suggests four options: a Medicare-like plan; a plan which looks like Medicare but pays higher rates to doctors and hospitals; a plan that tries to create some distance from the government with "third-party" administration; and a state-based public plan. (The committee also notes that it is possible the legislation would not include a new government-run option at all.)

These alternative design options for the "government option" are really a distraction because it really doesn't matter what such a plan looks like at enactment. What matters is what it will become over time. Safeguards today can be easily overridden later. When the government micro-manages health insurance, it is inevitable that arbitrary price-setting will become the favored method of trying to control total costs because it creates the illusion that beneficiaries are protected. It's only the doctors and hospitals who are getting paid less for each service rendered, politicians claim. Of course, that's the first step down the slippery slope to waiting lists.

There is one word that effectively describes the government: Inefficient. These people can't do anything right, other then spend money. Eventually it will come down to whether or not your life is worth saving. The Post Office is bankrupt, every bailout has failed or been wasted.

Everything the government touches, it destroys. The government also appears to be absolutely incapable of learning from other country's mistakes. This has been tried in other countries, and it always ends badly.

Great Britain:
- A 22 Year old woman dies while waiting for an MRI. Turns out, she had cancer. She may have had a fighting chance if she hadn't had to wait thirteen weeks for that MRI. And she was marked higher on the waiting list.
- The inadequacy of British Hospitals: Cold, smelly, and poorly maintained.

Canada:
- They send you south.
- I hope you don't need a dentist soon.
- No medicine for you. No, it doesn't matter that you have cancer.

There's more stories, from other countries, that you can see here. This has been tried, time and time again. It has yet to work.

Socialized medicine'll kill ya.

From the Stupid Files: About Those Photos...

On the one hand, I'm torn. I want Obama to release those photos so everyone can see just what goes on back at Gitmo and therefore kill the liberal's main screaming point: "Torture! Torture!"

On the other hand, as soon as those are released, countries that actually engage in torture (For liberals, I mean "Not America") are going to laugh until they cry.

The thing is that what goes on at Gitmo... do you realize people over on FanFiction.Net can write stories that involve more torture and still never go above a T rating?

ABC News reports:

President Obama defended his decision to fight the release of photos showing detainee abuse, saying it would only put American troops in harms way and create a backlash against Americans.

Backlash against Americans, or against his administration? I tend to think it's the latter.

"The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger," the president said before departing on his trip to Arizona. "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."

How can you inflame anti-American opinion anymore than it already is? Heck, even liberals hate this country. The last free outpost in the world, and the biggest threat is actually on the inside.

Oh, and Barry? Muslims have always hated us. You're fighting a losing battle.

"I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib," Obama said. "It's therefore my belief that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."

I think I missed the Abu Ghraib thing, so I went out and looked it up. Ah, yes, Abu Ghraib. We were heaven help us, we actually engaged in torture. Real torture. We were actually playing by the Muslim's rules that time. (And you know liberals can't stand that!)

Now, in case you're wondering what kind of atrocities go on at Gitmo, Ann Coulter has the explanation:

Without any pretense of an argument, which liberals are neurologically incapable of, the mainstream media are now asserting that our wussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamo constituted "torture" and have irreparably harmed America's image abroad.

Only the second of those alleged facts is true: The president's release of the Department of Justice interrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America's image abroad, as we are snickered at in capitals around the world, where they know what real torture is. The Arabs surely view these memos as a pack of lies. What about the pills Americans have to turn us gay?

The techniques used against the most stalwart al-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah, included one terrifying procedure referred to as "the attention grasp." As described in horrifying detail in the Justice Department memo, the "attention grasp" consisted of: "(G)rasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion. In the same motion as the grasp, the individual is drawn toward the interrogator."

The end.

This is what liberals are screaming about. This is insane.

But wait - it gets worse.

And that's not all! As the torments were gradually increased, next up the interrogation ladder came "walling." This involves pushing the terrorist against a flexible wall, during which his "head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a C-collar effect to prevent whiplash."

People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done to them at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, with plastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may be the world's first method of "torture" in which all the implements were made by Fisher-Price.

As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn't cause any pain, but is supposed to induce terror by making a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock and surprise." (!!!)

Those of you who are squeamish, turn back now. Even Miss Coulter felt the irony:

If you need a few minutes to compose yourself after being subjected to that horror, feel free to take a break from reading now. Sometimes a cold compress on the forehead is helpful, but don't let it drip or you might end up waterboarding yourself.

Indeed. Now, for the continuing inhumane torture methods:

I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA's other comical interrogation techniques and leap directly to the penultimate "torture" in their arsenal: the caterpillar.

In this unspeakable brutality, a harmless caterpillar is placed in the terrorist's cell. Justice Department lawyers expressly denied the interrogators' request to trick the terrorist into believing the caterpillar was a "stinging insect."

Human rights groups have variously described being trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as "brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course, "adorable."

Good heavens, no! Not a caterpillar!!

What kind of caterpillar? A Monarch? Swallowtail? Cabbage White? Sweetheart Underwing? That's a big moth, so it might have a big caterpillar. Maybe one from inside an apple?
If it had to be a caterpillar, couldn't it have at least been one from a cercropia moth? At least that one looks moderately scary. But I digress.

There's My Two Cents has a bit more info on the waterboarding that liberals are screaming about.

...I don't recall ever seeing this procedure in such detail before, though I've read about it any number of times. It's amazing to watch in action, don't you think? No actual danger being posed to the person, but almost instant capitulation.

Torture: "the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty"

Is this torture? No way. Anyone who thinks this is torture has their eyes closed to what real torture is. Slicing and dicing body parts is torture. Electrical shocks, crushing of fingers, and permanent physical damage is torture. Forcing someone to watch while their spouse or child is raped and cut apart is torture. Those are the things that our enemies do (it's well documented, if you don't believe me).

We tip the guy down and pour little bit of water up his nose.

Waterboarding is not torture because there is no permanent physical damage, nor is there any mental anguish [radical Islamic terrorists strive for and worship death, so there is no anguish found in the panic reaction they talked about in this video]. Waterboarding is a phenomenally effective way to get information out of captives quickly without harming them. Our own soldiers go through it as part of their training.

Follow the link to watch the video he's talking about.

I think we can safely say that Crazyville - located in Washington D.C., in case you wanna visit - has once again taken stupid to a whole new level.

I looked at the Abu Ghraib photos, okay? "Oh no! Our eeeevilll soldiers stripped someone! They threatened them with dogs!" Sorry 'bout that. Next time, we'll make sure the soldiers use actual methods of torture, you know, knives, whips, chains, that sort of thing.

Which, by the way, that stuff does not happen at Gitmo. Liberals are running around screaming that the sky is falling when they've only been bonked on the head by a tiny, half-developed acorn. If there's anything about this country that deserves scorn, well, let's just say it's not our soldiers or Gitmo.

I think this video kind of puts it in perspective, even if the ending is kind of weird.



Compared to what other countries do to their prisoners, liberals have NOTHING to be complaining about.

Let's Make a Case and Impeach Obama

If you've ever looked at my blog, you'll quickly learn I am no fan of Obama. The country is going to pieces around his ears, and he's doing everything in his power to help tear it down.


I want Obama impeached. Which is a good place to start, but liberals said the same thing about Bush, so I'll need a good case before I can get anywhere.

Federalist Papers #69

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.

High Crimes and misdemeanors. I don't know; someone out there help me with this: Is attempting to turn the U.S. into a socialist nation a high crime or misdemeanor? I think it is.

Thinking, however, is not enough. I'll have to prove it. Ladies and Gentlemen of the ... blog, I move that in everything Obama has done in his first sixty days in office, Obama has done nothing short of disservice to America. I move that Obama has failed in office and abused his powers.

In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

-Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.

-Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the
office.

-Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal
gain.

I move that Obama has failed in the duties of his office, and used his powers for improper use, frankly, he has used them to turn this democracy into a socialist nation. Here I give you a shortened list of the powers of the President:

Powers of the President
- Serve as commander in chief of all U.S. armed forces

- Commission officers of the armed forces

- Grant pardons and reprieves from Federal offenses (except impeachments)

- Receive foreign ambassadors

- Take care that Federal laws are faithfully executed

- Wield the "executive power"

Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to call your attention to number four of that list. Recieving foreign amdassadors. I move that Obama improperly recieved a foreign ambassador, the Prime Minister of Great Britian, Gordon Brown. The President failed to hold a state dinner or a press reception the leader of our very important ally. Was there no one in the state department who understood how to recieve foreign dignitaries? And if there were, did Obama ven ask for thier advice? This was not only extremely insulting to our ally, it was very embarrasing for America as a whole.

I also move, Ladies and Gentlemen, that Obama is abusing his executive power by flippantly spending money most American put in 40-hour work weeks to earn. With his $3.6 trillion dollar budget and and the combined price of the stimulus bills, which comes out to $1,197, 000,000,000.00, Obama has saddled our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren with nearly $4 trillion in debt. His flippant spending has caused the dollar to drop in value in a way not seen in twenty-five years, ladies and gentlemen, and I quote:

The dollar dropped the most against the currencies of six major U.S. trading partners since the Plaza Accord almost a quarter-century ago as the Federal Reserve’s plan to purchase Treasuries spurred speculation that it’s debasing the greenback.

...The U.S. currency weakened beyond $1.37 per euro this week for the first time since January as the central bank’s decision to increase its balance sheet by $1.15 trillion lowered yields, making American assets less attractive. The Norwegian krone and the New Zealand dollar rallied as the Fed’s move spurred advances in commodities.

The dollar depreciated 4.8 percent to $1.3582 per euro yesterday, from $1.2928 on March 13. The U.S. currency touched $1.3738 on March 19, the weakest level since Jan. 9. The dollar also fell 2.1 percent to 95.94 yen from 97.95. The euro increased for a fifth week versus the yen, gaining 2.9 percent to 130.29 after touching 130.49 yesterday, the highest level since Dec. 18.

Due to this developemnet, the United Nations is recommending that the rest of the world dump the U.S. dollar in favor of other currency. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe this would have a disatrous effect on our country.

President Obama has also isolated us from our allies, not limited to Great Britian, but also slighting our ally against Russia, Poland, by promising Russia we would not help Poland build a missile sheild.

"President Kaczynski [the president of Poland] raised missile defense, but President-elect Obama made no commitment on it. His position is as it was throughout the campaign: that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable," McDonough said.

And also...

"During the discussion, both sides emphasized that relations between Russia and the USA are priority ones for both parties and that their positive development is crucial not only for the peoples of the two countries but also for the wider international community," a statement from the Kremlin said.

Ladies and gentlemen, Russia is a communist country. They are and have been our enemy for many, many years. Why is it a priority that we fix relations our enemies?

President Obama's Secratary of State, Hillary Clinton, has insulted Israel, another of our allies, and scolded Tibet.

When he is not insulting our allies and charming our enemies, he is busy seizing the private sector:

I urge you to consider this extremely disturbing developement (emphasis mine):

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Do you understand the implications here? This means that the federal government can come out and whip up panic about any company, saying it's 'too big to fail', and then simply take over it in the interest of protecting the 'broader economy'.

I wish someone would tell me how this is beneficial to America. Need I remind everyone what happened to the USSR? From Conservative blogger 2cents:

What happened to the idea that failing businesses should fail? This is everything that American capitalism fought against when it was first formed. This is classic socialism, and a giant step toward outright Communism, where the State controls everything. This is what the Obama administration has been doing: whipping up panic, then swooping in and taking over.

This is the first leg of a complete government takeover of America. If the financial industry -- including investments and the stock market -- falls, you can count on energy and health care coming next. When that happens, America as we know it -- and as the Founders designed and intended it -- will cease to exist. When the government controls your savings, your income, your investments, your ability to travel to/from work or leisure locations, the cost of all goods (through energy), and every decision about what medical treatments you can or cannot obtain, what is left?

Nothing. You have become a slave to government, and America has become transformed into a communist state.

Ladies and gentlemen, do we really want this to happen? Everything Obama has done in his first 67 days in office has been little more than a gross misuse of power with the intent to turn this country into a socialized nation. It would take more time than I have to point out everything Obama has done wrong. There are 1393 days until Obama leaves office but, ladies and gentlemen, we can impeach any president for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and midemeanors. I move that everything Obama has done this far has been nothing more than a high crime against America as we know it.

Perhaps, ladies and gentlemen of the blog, you will look at this evidence and decide that there is not enough evidence to warrant impeachment. Perhaps there is not. But I do not doubt that at some point, undeniable evidence of President Obama's misdemeanors will come to light.

The prosecution rests... for now.

See also:

-What Kind of President Thrives on Chaos?

-60 days, 64 mistakes

The Obituary of Common Sense

Cross-posted from There's My Two Cents:

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;

I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you
still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do
nothing.

So sad, and true. If you remember Common Sense, pass it on.