About Me

Name: JayPeriod
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Courts Have Second Chance To Get It Right

Posted by JayPeriod on Monday, December 03, 2007 6:58:43 PM
Today, an appeals court heard the case against hero border agents Compean and Ramos.  They now have a chance to get it right.  After hearing all the evidence, they should decide to free them.

That they are even in jail is a travesty of justice.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Sutton was more interested in the favor of the Mexican government than pursuing justice.  Were he not, these two Border Agents would have been rewarded for stopping a drug-running illegal, and protecting their country, rather then being thrown in jail.  Even one of the justices today was noted as commenting that the prosecution overreacted in the case.

I find it hard to imagine, in this day and age, that someone would find it appalling that two decorated men would do what they could to stop someone from bringing drugs into our country.  That he would then grant amnesty to this drug-runner, allowing him to continue his crime, just to find favor with a foreign government brings into question his fitness for the job.  The only crime here seems to be the treason of U.S. Attorney Sutton.

Hopefully, this court will get it right.  The two options are to throw the case out all together or to retry the case.  Surely the injustice done these fine men will sway the court to throw out the case entirely.  Then, they can be about the business of trying Sutton for treason and deporting him to his beloved Mexico.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

By Design?

Posted by JayPeriod on Monday, December 03, 2007 4:30:44 PM
President Bush, during his speech this morning, questioned Congress' failure to get appropriation bills to him.  He mentioned that now they would have to push through one large bill, that would most assuredly be filled with pork.  As I thought about this, I'm not so sure this wasn't the plan to begin with.

This Congress took office on the claim that they were going to bring honesty and integrity back to the body.  Yet, as we have seen so far, there are more earmarks in some of the pending appropriation bills than in many years.  They have tried bringing these earmarks to the floor and make them undebatable, or tag them into bill that they have nothing to do with.  The President has also had to veto important bills due to these earmarks.

The lesson learned, to me, is that they have no intention of cutting the pork.  In fact, those in power now have been some of the largest abusers in government history.  It seems, then, that this was a planned strategy, designed to push through unethical spending.  Status quo.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Interesting Quotes From Thomas Jefferson

Posted by JayPeriod on Friday, November 30, 2007 10:38:41 AM
We have all heard that the "wall of separation" erected by Thomas Jefferson.  This wall keeps all displays of religion out of the public domain.  It came from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danberry Baptists.  Even though it was in a personal letter, not official government law, it has been used to restrict the religious expression clause of the First Amendment.  All this despite the fact that Jefferson was in France at the time the Constitution was written.

So, I've done some research and found some other quotes from Jefferson which could be used to affect law in our nation.  I'm sure those who lean so heavily on the Danberry letter would not do so on these quotes.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
This might be helpful to the Supreme Court as they decide whether the Right to Bear Arms is reserved for the government or the people.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
There's one more they might consider.

"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
And this was before the welfare state we have now!

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Think IRS.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
How many people who want a "wall of separation" would also recommend an armed revolution every twenty years?

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Simply put, the more the government "takes care of us," the less happiness we have.  Makes sense to me.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Hello welfare, good-bye democracy.

" An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."
And yet, that seems to be what we have now.

" To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
And yet, there are those who feel we must provide for everyone's whims and wants.

These are but a few of the quotes of a founding father, who believed in a very limited government.  Unfortunately, we have strayed so far from that today.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

With Friends Like These...

Posted by JayPeriod on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:46:56 PM
We are told that one of our greatest allies in the War on Terror is Saudi Arabia.  We are told how they are a great ally in the region and they are doing all they can to help us stop terrorism.  As the old saying goes, with friends like these, who needs enemies!

Starting with nearly $100 a barrel oil, which is draining our economy and not helping us fuel our troops, Saudi Arabia does not prove to be such a friend.  They live in the desert.  They have sand and oil.  They rely on us for wheat.  How would the world see us if we withheld that wheat for, say, $100 per bushel?  Would they not call us cruel?  Yet, we keep shelling out outrageous prices at the pump, feeling the dagger in the back, and smile at this great ally in the desert.  Of course, if we could dig for our oil in Alaska, we wouldn't need them and they could try to make bread from their oil and sand.  Bon appetit!

Today, FoxNews reported that the Saudi's have released over 1500 al Qaeda fighters.  They promised not to perform any attacks on the Saudi peninsula.  How nice for them!  They have been rehabilitated.  We've all heard that before.  If they call this being a good ally, I'm sure glad they're not our enemies.

Finally, we've all heard of the penalty they gave to the young rape victim.  She received 90 lashes, upped to 200, and six months in jail for being raped.  Her actual crime was being in the company of a male who was not a relative.  Goodness, our young ladies here would be continually black and blue.  There was also the Saudi imam who detailed to the men of Saudi Arabia how to beat their wives.  This sounds like neither a country who exists in this century nor one that values women.  With all the advances our women have made, surely we must see this kind of behavior cease to exist in a great ally.

Clearly, Saudi Arabia is not a great ally.  Other than a few military bases, which could now be located in Iraq, a much more strategic location, and oil, which can be replaced by drilling in Alaska, I see nothing in this country which makes them a great ally in the War on Terror.  Actually, I'm beginning to see quite the opposite.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conspiracy Theories Gaining Ground

Posted by JayPeriod on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:04:01 PM
Studies have now shown that an alarming 64% of Americans now believe it is at least somewhat possible that the government had some knowledge that would have prevented the attacks of 9/11.  Despite all the proof and evidence to the contrary, these people still want to believe these conspiracy theories.  I guess it just goes to show some people will believe anything.

I ran across an article today on Pajamas Media that goes into great detail how false these theories are.  It takes a look at the "smoking guns" that the theorists use and points to their failure to produce the needed evidence.  The article uses something most of the theorists don't use; logic.

It seems amazing to me that those who believe such tales do so in the face of such strong evidence to the contrary.  They come to the table with their biases and conclusions in hand, then follow the "proofs" where they need them to go.  A simple examination of the facts will generally overcome their suspicions.

In light of all the documents and testimonies, to continue to accuse these people is to ignore the fact that so many would have to be involved.  Surely one would have cracked by now.  All we need to do is look at Watergate to realize that.

The thing that really interest me is that they really want to put the blame on someone.  That's what our society has come to, blaming someone else for everything.  Interestingly, if they really wanted to blame someone, the Clinton administration is the better place to begin looking.  No, I'm not talking about Clinton having bin Laden handed to him by the Somali government.  I'm talking about the only thing that would have prevented this tragedy, yet is the one thing neither they nor the Clinton administration wanted to do; racial profile.  With the intelligence available at the time, profiling young Arab men at airports would have stopped most, if not all, of the hijackers, spoiling their plans.  A letter from VP Al Gore took care of that, though.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's Alive!!!

Posted by JayPeriod on Monday, November 26, 2007 2:52:35 PM
That phrase, "It's alive!" brings to mind the crazed Dr. Frankenstein announcing that his experiment was a success.  As we know, though, that creation went on to terrorize and torture those in the surrounding areas.  That monster was ultimately the undoing of the good doctor.

Our Supreme Court, seated with activist judges, has made that same proclamation in regards to our Constitution.  What they have created is no less a monster than the one Dr. Frankenstein created.  It, too, is destined to be the undoing of us all.

For the last fifty years, activist judges from Boston to San Francisco have changed and added to our founding document that not even the Founding Fathers themselves would recognize it.  They have twisted and contorted it's intentions.  In doing so, they have weakened it and our great nation.

Just as Dr. Frankenstein used various parts from various sources, some of which must have come from bad places, our courts have brought in such things to our Constitution as imagined rights to law from other nations and cultures.  This piecing together of opinions has led to a weakened and dangerous document.  It no longer has the strength to protect us, but rather to ravage the very fabric of our society.

The only thing we have left to ask, at this point, is, "Can the damage be undone?"  Obviously, we cannot wait for Congress to pass laws.  The courts would simply rule them unconstitutional!  The only recourse we have is to either change the Constitution through the amendment procedures or elect officials who will demand strict interpretation from future judges, who would then undo the damage done with future rulings.  Both are not very tasteful.

Unfortunately, by overstepping its bounds, the Court has put us, as a nation, in a very hard place.  Yet, if the damage is not undone, or at the very least stopped, we may get to a very undesirable place; judicial tyranny.  No one wants to go there.

**Please read, "Men In Black" by Mark Levin to get a proper perspective on this issue.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Right To Feel Comfortable

Posted by JayPeriod on Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:39:58 AM
There are many enumerated rights guaranteed in our Constitution.  We have the right to free speech, the right to free religious practice, the right to be free from illegal search and seizure, and the right to equal protection.  No where in this great document do we have the right to feel comfortable at all times.

Yet, in recent years, we see court cases ruled against any mentions of God in the public forum and speech codes being enforced on college campuses to ensure that those who are made uncomfortable by certain words or phrases are not forced to feel so.  This is utterly absurd.  In any society which values free speech, there are going to be those who are uncomfortable at some of the words spoken.  That does not give those who are uncomfortable the right to suppress the freedoms of others.

In general, there are things I'd like not to have to listen to.  I'd like not to be forced to hear foul language and racial epithets being shouted from passing cars at a stop light.  I'd like not to hear people like Cindy Sheehan demean and slander our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But, in a free society, there are things we must endure.

By the same token, the gay community may not like to hear from evangelicals that their behavior is immoral and damaging, an atheist may not want to hear a valedictorian give credit for their success to God, and the Darwinist may not want to hear that there is evidence contrary to evolution, but these things are protected under the First Amendment.  If we, as a nation, censor these forms of free speech, how can we survive.  Free speech means not only speech that makes us feel comfortable, but that speech that makes us uncomfortable.

If we come to the point where we determine that the First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech, but only that which makes all feel comfortable, I fear that not much will be protected.  For we can all find something that others say that makes us uncomfortable, or we do not want to hear, and make the claim that they should be silenced.  How sad would that day be for our great nation?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Right To Bear Arms

Posted by JayPeriod on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:06:26 PM
As has been reported, this spring the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the Washington, D.C. gun ban of 1976.  This is clearly a Second Amendment case.  I just have one question.

When does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not mean "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"

As I understand this case, the gun control lobby are using the argument that the amendment was designed for the army, since the amendment starts out by stating that, "A well regulated militia, being a necessity to the security of a free state."  It could be argued that keeping guns for hunting was a given in the 18th Century and handguns had not yet been invented.  Therefore, the arms that the amendment must have been talking about would be those for a "well regulated militia."  That would mean, in our day and age, rocket launchers, tanks, artillery, etc.

That this is even being argued is a testament to the amount of judicial activism that has crippled our nation.  The law should have never been allowed to be put into use.  It is a clear violation of Constitutional rights.  Only in our upcoming socialistic society would this even be considered.

Remember, when Adolf Hitler came to power, the first thing he did was remove the right of the people to own arms.  An unarmed society cannot defend itself against a totalitarian government.  Thomas Jefferson said as much. (Remember, he's the one the left loves so much for his, apparent but non existent, wall of separation.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Illegals And Driving

Posted by JayPeriod on Thursday, November 15, 2007 5:15:47 PM
Illegal immigrants are forbidden to get driver's licenses.  At least that's how it is in Mexico.

While those in power in Mexico claim we are abusing migrants and demand we give their citizens here illegally a license, a survey of every issuing agency in Mexico requires proof of citizenship before the ID is given.  This supports the idea that Mexico is actually trying to invade and conquer our nation.  Simply put, they do not treat illegals there the way they want them treated here.

In reports in the past, it has been determined that illegals there are either jailed or deported.  Now, we find out they do not issue a driver's license to people in their country illegally.  Yet, when we treat illegals here the same way, they scream bloody murder.  The time has clearly come to demand they back off.

After watching the public outcry over the idea issuing driver's licenses to illegals in New York, it's clear that the American people do not want illegals obtaining a valid form of ID.  Illegals are already on our roads, killing more people each month than we have lost in two years in Iraq.  What makes anyone think a license will improve this?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pelosi's Right, We Should Pull Out

Posted by JayPeriod on Friday, November 09, 2007 3:20:21 PM
Once again, Congress is going try to pass an appropriations bill that will require we begin pulling troops out of Iraq.  These bills are sure to either fail or be vetoed.  In either event, they are meaningless.  They are nothing but the leadership pandering to their wacko left purse strings.

After ten months, Congress has done little more than show the far left that they are in complete submission.  They have not sent a single responsible appropriations bill of any kind to the President.  They have failed our troops by neglecting proper funding.  They have spent more time on hearings producing little more than headlines for the New York Times.

So, I have come to the conclusion that, based on the requirements the Pelosi/Reid Congress has put on Baghdad, it is time we pull out of Washington due to their failure to meet several key benchmarks of success.  There has been no improvement, nothing but bickering and little chance of compromise and reconciliation.  We must get our nation out of this horrible drain on our economy.

A point to consider is the fact that our Congress currently has the lowest approval rating of all time.  Their rating is lower than that of the President, which caused them to suggest that America wants a change of course, yet they can't take a hint.  In fact, more Iraqis approve of our troops and their government than Americans approve of our current Socialist leadership in Congress.

Last election, they asked for a chance to make a difference.  They have had their chance.  It is time for them to go.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Waterborading And Abortion

Posted by JayPeriod on Friday, November 02, 2007 3:00:54 PM
As of this afternoon, Sen. Pat Leahy and other Democrats on the Judicial Committee are stating their objection to the President's nominee for Attorney General.  They claim it is the nominee's "unclear" answers on the topic of whether waterborading terrorists is admissible or not.  I don't have a dog in this fight, I just don't know enough about Mukasey, but I do find the Senators a bit on the hypocritical side.

Never mind the fact that if our agents in Gitmo questioned terrorists exactly as Democrat Senators have questioned every nominee for any post the President has put up, there would be endless hearings on the subject.  Apparently, according to Democrats, that kind of abrasive questioning is reserved for Republican nominees to either a cabinet position or the Supreme Court.  I'm sure if we sent Pat Leahy, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry to Gitmo we could end terrorism as we know it today.

No, the thing I find most interesting is that these "holier-than-thou" Democratic Senators find extreme questioning of terrorists, people willing to strap bombs on themselves and walk into a crowded mall, an offense.  Yet, delivering an unborn child three-quarters of the way, then ramming scissors into its brain and sucking them out with a vacuum is a completely normal, logical procedure.  This to me is the supreme hypocrisy.  They have lost their moral authority in all, ALL, areas.

I find it repugnant that these immoral losers find it necessary to lecture us on their superiority, yet they have absolutely zero morals themselves.  They are racists (Sen. "Sheets" Byrd), murderers (Chappaquiddic, that's all I'm gonna say), saboteurs (Kerry), etc.  They have no moral compass, therefore have no ground to stand on in this, or any, situation.  Please call them to let them know.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dereliction

Posted by JayPeriod on Monday, October 29, 2007 3:07:16 PM
By definition, dereliction is willful neglect.  In practice, our leaders are derelict when it comes to immigration.  We must take this willful neglect seriously, for the sake of our nation.

Whenever the subject of illegal immigration is brought up, we often hear that these are well-intentioned, hard-working, good, honest people.  We are told they are just looking to make a better life for themselves and their children.  They are just people caught in an unfair system who just need a little help and understanding.  I'm not buying it.

Neither does about 70-80% of America.  A vast majority of Americans want our borders secured and these criminals deported.  Yet, our representatives in Washington ignore these numbers and our security at our own peril.

First off, these are not good, honest people.  There are laws and procedures to entering our nation.  We must have these laws.  Those who come to our nation must benefit our society, not feed off it.  Those wishing to come here must prove that they have reason and will benefit our nation.  These illegal border crossers are not only bypassing these laws, they are hurting their own countrymen who are following the procedures lawfully.  They are, in effect, saying they are special and that the laws don't apply to them.

Most of these "good, honest" people have stolen a social security number to be able to get a job here.  Identity theft is a serious problem and crime.  If you think it's harmless, post your number on the web.  That's basically what could happen.  Do you think they will be careful with that number?  What will happen when someone tries to collect their rightful social security and someone in the bureaucracy sees the discrepancy?  Think the government won't cause trouble?

Also, these "good, honest" people are killing more Americans each year than have been lost in the whole Iraq war due to drunk driving.  This does not take into consideration those who are involved in gangs, drugs, murders, rapes, etc.  Crimes by these "good, honest" people are growing exponentially each year.  We are hearing more and more of it.

Next, these criminals are not good for the economy.  Sure, they work and spend money in our communities.  But, consider how much more of our money they are sending to Mexico.  There are literally millions and millions of US dollars being shipped to relatives in Mexico each year.  They then get them to Mexico banks who in turn demand payment from our government.  When we consider our national deficit, these dollars figure into that growing figure.  All of this, of course, is in addition to the billions we send Mexico in aid.

With all these negatives, and many more, our leaders sit by and do nothing.  In fact, they do worse when they work to pass laws to legalize these criminals and work through courts and other avenues to support them.  These are clearly treasonous actions.  Our own President fighting for the release of a rapist-murderer becomes treasonous grounds for impeachment.  I have supported him in many areas, but this cannot be overlooked.

In the coming election, we must make this issue a key point.  We must send the signal that we will not surrender our nation to an invasion from the south and we will not sell out our nation for any reason, to any one.  We must rid ourselves of criminal, derelict leaders and save our great nation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative Principals: National Security

Posted by JayPeriod on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:06:05 PM
One of the few actual responsibilities of the federal government is national security.  Our government was set up to ensure we are protected from outside invaders.  It has a responsibility to the people to protect it from those outside our nation who would do us harm.  This is a vital issue this election cycle.

We are in the middle of an illegal immigration crisis.  Our borders are vulnerable and our government seems to be doing nothing about it.  We have between 12 and 20 million people in this country illegally, stealing jobs, social security numbers and breaking numerous other laws.  They are flooding our hospitals and schools, costing the average taxpayer his hard earned dollars.  Yet, our elected officials make as though there is nothing that can be done about it.

This election, we must put people into office who will take this issue seriously.  We need officials who will heed the call of the American people to protect our borders, deport those breaking our laws and make sure our nation stays safe.  The current invasion from the south must be taken seriously.

While we have two heroic border agents sitting in jail and thousands coming across the border every day, our country cannot be considered safe.  We are spending billions to fight terrorists in the Middle East, yet we are also sending billions south to countries who have no interest in stopping their own people from breaking our laws.  We cannot ignore the enemy on our own borders.

Speaking of the war on terrorism, our government has just as great a responsibility to track down our enemies and destroy them, if they will not live peacefully with us.  Much has been made of the war in Iraq and whether it is actually a front in the war on terror.  Just look at who we are fighting there; al Qaeda, the very people who attacked us on 9/11.  These brutes have proven they are not willing to live peacefully with us, or any other peace-loving nation for that matter, therefore we have an interest in stopping them.  Our protection should be of vital importance to our leaders.  They must realize that not everyone wants to live peacefully with a nation of freedoms.  We cannot allow them to terrorize us or intimidate us.  We need to protect ourselves, even if it means proactively.

If our party will not embrace this conservative principal.  Luckily, this seems to be one principal all the candidates are embracing.  As they keep this issue at the forefront of this election, the American people will see the difference in the candidates, conservative and liberal, and will make the right choice.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Problem With Rudy

Posted by JayPeriod on Friday, October 19, 2007 10:47:17 AM
Ever since Dr. James Dobson made his statements about starting a third party to carry conservative values into the election, many have been slamming Dobson and the religious right of the party.  To be sure, such a candidate would most likely hand the election to Hillary, but let's not ignore the issue which is Rudy's values.  Some may see this as an issue of not being happy with a Republican candidate's stand on issues, but there's actually more to it.

Consider Ron Paul.  He has some issues that conservatives can agree with, i.e. the border, states rights, but there are other issues that scare the living daylights out of the base.  It's these issues that keep him from being a serious candidate for the Republican Party's nomination.  He is really a Libertarian trying to get the nomination because he realizes that he'd have absolutely no shot if he ran as a Libertarian.

This is just the issue some have with Rudy; he's not Republican, but Democrat-light.  He is surely not a raving socialist, like the rest of the Democratic field, but on the important conservative issues, he has failed the test in the past and there is nothing more than his word that he's changed.  He has been pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-big government, pro-gay movement.  Those are how he governed and he has nothing other than his word to show change.  We can look no further back than the last election to see that we need more than words.  I've stated in the past that here in Tennessee, we had Harold Ford, Jr. telling us that he was the most conservative candidate for Senate, even though his record showed that he was just as liberal as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

As conservatives, we need to protect our conservative values.  If we are just looking for someone who is "electable", we are selling our values and the American people short.  We are falling into the same trap that cost us the last election.  People want conservative values and candidates who they can trust to govern with those values.  If the Republican Party walks away from those values, the very values they owe their existence to, they will loose the base and disenfranchise millions of voters.

In short, if we are forced to choose between Democrat and Democrat-light in the upcoming Presidential election, I fear many will stay home.  The down side, though, is that if we are led to believe we must compromise our values to get someone "electable", we are lying to ourselves.  The alternative is for conservatives to wake up, realize that we have the power, and make the right decision.  We must produce a candidate that has the record to support our conservative values.  An "Arnold Schwartzeneger" in the White House would be disastrous.  We cannot allow this to happen.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stark Comment

Posted by JayPeriod on Friday, October 19, 2007 10:24:23 AM
Yesterday, thankfully, the House did not muster the votes to override the President's veto of the SCHIP (Socialist Clinton Hillary-care for Illegals and Parents as one caller told a talk radio host yesterday) program.  This socialized healthcare sheep-in-wolves-clothing bill would have given health care to children from families who should otherwise be able to afford it, thereby increasing the tax need for our already overtaxing government.  There has been much rhetoric in this fight, as well.

While Democrats have been calling the President, and other Republicans brave enough to fight for taxpayers, all sorts of name and spreading all sorts of lies, Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) took it to a whole new level.  The comments he made from the House floor yesterday went beyond rhetoric to the completely moronic.  He need to be called on the carpet for such stupid comments.

The comment I found most interesting was his line about children growing old enough to be sent to Iraq.  "[I]f we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."  This coming from someone who is a member of a party who has supported the killing of more than 40 million children and violently defends a procedure called, "partial-birth abortion", in which a child is nearly fully delivered, only to have its brains suctioned out while only the head remains in the birth canal.  Someone in a party that has defended such procedures so that people do not have to take responsibility for their reckless behaviors, enabling them to be driven by their lusts rather than common sense, has no room making this kind of statement.  It's hypocrisy of the highest order.

Yet, Democrats have no moral foundation, so they feel they can make such ridiculous statements and no one can say anything about it.  Their sheer disdain for actual morals has clouded their judgment on all things.  I hope they will not get away with it this time, but it seems the mainstream media is giving him a full pass, as usual.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789Next »