And unlike the junior Senator from New York (or Arkansas, or Illinois, or Pennsylvania -- or wherever she claims to be from at the moment), she didn’t depend on her husband’s name and office to secure her position.   (Does anyone honestly think that Mrs. Clinton would’ve been elected as Senator for New York if she hadn’t been married to President Clinton?)

Several years ago (around the close of the last decade) I vowed to never watch any news but Fox. As a conservative, I just couldn't take the other networks any longer. Not that I consider Fox News a conservative network -- on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being the most liberal, and 10 being the most conservative), I rate Fox News at a 5 or 6 -- with all the rest around 1.

Unfortunately, two and half years ago I moved to a location where my local television provider doesn't carry Fox News in their basic package (and I consider extra channels a luxury I cannot afford). As such, I stopped watching all television news -- something which had initially been quite traumatic for me, as I like to keep up on what's going on around the globe (I'm still experiencing withdrawal to a certain extent).

Anyhow, when I heard about Senator McCain's choice for his Vice-presidential running mate today, I couldn't resist, and I was prompted to turn on CNN (the only network to which I had access, which was covering the event around the clock).

BIG MISTAKE!!

 

The Bad News: I caught Jack Cafferty, who (I imagine) supposes himself to be some sort of journalist, reading a few emails from viewers on the subject.

The Good News: I don't own a sledge hammer. Otherwise, my television would've been reduced to a pile of broken plastic, glass and metal shards.

The afforementioned pseudo-journalist read four emails -- two in support of Mrs. Palin, and two opposed. The two which supported Mrs. Palin consisted of a few, hurriedly read kudos, while the two which opposed McCain's choice droned on endlessly about how she's incompetent, unqualified, and out-of-her-league (if they hadn't mentioned her by name, I'd have thought they were talking about Obama).

Twelve seconds of supportive email -- two and a half minutes of antagonistic calls for an erasure of the memory of Mrs. Palin from the human record.

Mr. Cafferty followed the viewer email segment with a question: "What does Obama have to do to win in November?"

 

My answer: Nothing.

 

CNN and the rest of the liberal media will do it all for him.

Unfortunately, a great many people in this country seem to be uninformed and gullable -- believing everything they see on television. Given the incessant barrage which spews from the liberal, major media on all but one of the major networks, there is no chance that a conservative candidate (or even a less liberal candidate) will win the White House in November.

BTW, I recently started watching CCTV (the English-languaged Chinese news network), which I actually found to be quite refreshing -- particularly in comparison to what was on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and (ugh) PBS. (The irony hasn't escaped me that a communist country's state-run news network is actually less liberal than what's on American networks.)

Incidentally, I hear many people talking about how our country needs a change in Washington -- which is nothing more than a rehash of the Democrat's 1992 campaign strategy which allowed Slick Willy to desecrate 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for eight long years.

Must I remind these people that "change" goes in two directions. There is change for the better, and there is change for the worse.

In my opinion, entrusting the Obama/Biden ticket with our nation will definitely qualify as change -- but not for the better...

Unless, of course, you happen to like higher taxes, liberal appointees to the federal judiciary (including the Supreme Court), more entitlement programs, a weakening of the military, a serious threat to our national defense, even higher fuel costs (incase no one's noticed, the cost of fuel has doubled in the year and half since the Democrats took control of Congress; had it been the Republicans who took control from a Democratic congress and the price doubled as it has, I'm sure it would've been all over the press about how it was their fault; incredibly, though, no one is holding the Democratic congress responsible; I wonder why?), etc...

 

God help the U.S.A.

 

CNN certainly won't.

Thank you, uncle Bill...

In honor of those who serve...

Today, I felt a need to address those in our armed services who have sacrificed much for our nation, both past and present. While it's neither Veteran's nor Memorial Day, I thought it would be fitting, nonetheless, as tomorrow marks the 64^th anniversary of my uncle's last (and perhaps bloodiest) battle in WWII.

Still with us at 88 years of age, while still remembering much about his service all those years ago, my uncle has mercifully forgotten most of his combat experiences. I say mercifully as I cannot even begin to imagine what it must've been like to have experienced the horrors of war -- to have lived through them, day after day, week after week, month after month -- for the two years of active service he'd undergone as one of the charter members of the 509^th Parachute Infantry Battalion.

While many may be familiar with the 506^th (thanks to Ambrose's book and HBO's Band of Brothers series several years ago), unfortunately, the 509^th has been woefully overlooked by history -- even though they were the first (and arguably best) parachute unit in the war.

As a brief history, they were the first American parachute unit deployed overseas -- ever (June 1942 -- a full two years before the much-flaunted 506^th ever saw combat). The 509^th holds the record for lowest altitude mass parachute jump ever executed: 150 feet (that's not a typo; it was 150 feet -- August 29, 1942: for an exhibition exercise in Northern Ireland).   (My uncle participated in, and remembers that jump: "As soon as I was out of the plane, I was on the ground.")

On November 8, 1942, the 509^th were the first American paratroopers to drop into combat (Operation Torch in North Africa) -- which also holds the record for the longest combat parachute deployment of WWII (1600 miles). (My uncle participated in, and remembers this operation -- most notably for how low the planes were flying over the sea.)

The 509^th also holds the distinction of having the first American paratrooper killed in action, the first to receive the Distinguished Service Cross, and the first to receive the Medal of Honor. The unit was also the first to earn the Combat Infantryman Badge. (The unit was also awarded the "red beret" by the British, and was the first American unit to be awarded a foreign badge in WWII: 3^rd Zouave.)   The 509^th's CO, Edson Raff, was the first American to be awarded the French Legion of Honor.

The 509^th was also the first American unit to attack German forces (Faid Pass, Tunisia - Dec. 1942).  In September 1943, the 509^th conducted the first American pathfinder operation behind enemy lines (Avellino - Sept. 1943), and was the first paratrooper unit to participate in an amphibious invasion (Anzio - Jan. 1944).  (My uncle participated in all of the above-mentioned actions.)

In addition, the 509^th was the most decorated American parachute battalion of WWII with 1718 Purple Hearts.

Sixty-four years ago today (Monday, February 28, 1944), my uncle and his company (B) was returned to the line at Carano (in the Anzio campaign) to face what would turn out to be his last combat before being rotated home in spring of 1944.

Three months earlier, my uncle's company had faced the 71^st Panzer Grenadier Regt at Venafro (also in Italy) for 33 days -- leaving with just 43 of its original compliment of 92 men.

Just before dawn on Tuesday, 29^th February 1944, three German divisions (of the LXXVI Panzer Corps) attacked across the American front, defended by the US 3^rd Infantry Division.

The 509^th's B Company was defending an area at a cemetery on a hill, just northeast of Carano when it was struck by elements of the 1028th Panzier Grenadier Regt, and found itself engaged in fierce hand-to-hand combat -- outnumbered 3-to-1.

According to Lt. John R. Martin (B Company CO) from the book, Stand In The Door:

"The German artillery and rocket preparation began in earnest at 0530 hours, and when it lifted, they were all over us. The Krauts had reached my Company CP, and all of us were engaged at point-blank range.  Grenades were falling all over the place."

"Things were kind of calm for what seemed like a few minutes, and then heavy firing erupted on our right flank.  Some of our boys began to withdraw down the creek, and I sent them back up…  I don't know what happened to them, for their second wave began rolling over us.  We were forced down the creek with grenades falling all around us…"

"About this time we began to receive heavy artillery and mortar fire from our own side.  Yarborough told me years later that he considered the position lost, and asked for Corps Artillery on the position.  It was all downhill from this point."

According to Capt. Carlos "Doc" Alden (also from Stand In The Door):

"John Martin's and his company's stopping, or at any rate slowing down the Germans' February 29 attack is connected in my memory with one of the saddest experiences that I ever lived through. John Martin and his men did a wonderful job up there. It was without a doubt, horrible for them to go through, yet they did more than could have been expected of them. It was equally horrible for someone to go up afterwards and clean up the mess. It was my job, along with my medics, after the fighting was over to attend to those who were still alive. The sights I saw that day can unravel a guy. The sights of the many shell-torn, bayoneted bodies must be etched unforgettably in the minds of all who walked over that ground. In my own mind, it was by far our roughest day, the roughest certainly that I ever went through emotionally."

"Even though B Company was practically wiped out, it stopped a push clearly designed to split the beachhead. Somebody had to stand in the way of that drive, and fate handed that honor to B Company. Had the Germans continued on through its positions with a full head of steam, they might well have succeeded in doing that."

The survivors of Company B were ordered to withdraw, but only a single officer and 22 of his men made it to the main US defensive line farther to the rear. (Obviously, my uncle was one of the 22 survivors -- something which he will not talk about to this day.)

For their actions on that day, the battalion subsequently received a Presidental Unit Citation -- the first American parachute unit to do so.

Presidental Unit Citation --

"The 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion is cited for outstanding performance of duty in action, on 29th February 1944, near "XXX" in Italy. This battalion, depleted in strength after many days of continuous combat, received a terrific enemy artillery barrage during early morning hours. An enemy attack was imminent, and at dawn a German assault wave advanced toward the paratroopers positions. Being considerably outnumbered, the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion held its fire until the last possible moment; then every weapon opened fire cutting huge gaps in the first attacking wave. The enemy faltered in his advance; then surged relentlessly ahead under the shear pressure of large numbers of troops in the rear. The soldiers of the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion fought desperately, disdaining retreat, engaging the overwhelming and constantly increasing German Forces with rifle butts and even fists. Late in the afternoon the German attack was halted. The badly battered but determined paratroopers immediately re-organized in preparation for counterattacks. Outnumbering the paratroopers three to one, the enemy had over-run the front line, but was later held to a standstill, suffering immense losses in men and equipment. The courageous and determined stand made by officers and men of the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion resulted in the retention of a vital sector of the beachhead and prevented a dangerous German wedge between two infantry divisions."

Talking with my uncle last March, I asked him about his war experiences, and when we'd finished talking on camera, he related to me that in all of the years since, he has never once watched anything about the war.  If he's flipping through the channels on the television and sees something about the war -- movies, documentaries, anything at all -- he immediately turns it off.

Prior to our interview, when I told my uncle about an offer by a paratrooper re-enactment group for him to participate in a free, all expense-paid trip back to Anzio (for April 2008), he responded, "I've seen enough of Anzio."

I have subsequently understood his reluctance to return.

I mention this only to underscore the sacrifice of all those who have (and still do) serve in our nation's armed forces -- particularly those in combat, facing horrors which most of us could never (nor want to) imagine.

Liberty is not free.

Those of us who enjoy its fruits today, owe it to those who served when called, sacrificing much -- many never to return.

With the current U.S. Presidential election looming large in the minds of many, (being the historical trivia buff that I am) I immediately attempt to draw connections between those who've previously held the office, with those currently attempting to secure it.

First thing, I want to know is when each of the remaining candidates were born. The reason being that (to date) not a single person has been elected to the Presidency of the United States who was born during the administration of a President who died in office. In other words, not a single Chief Executive of the United States had been born during the administrations of Wm. Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, FDR or JFK. (Yes, I know it's just a coincidence, but self-admitted trivia nuts like myself thrive on such useless information.)

Both John McCain and Barack Obama were born during the administrations of Presidents who died in office (FDR and JFK), so a victory by either candidate would break the otherwise perfect pattern which has held for more than two centuries. Unfortunately, of the three remaining front-runners, that leaves only Hillary Clinton (born during the Truman administration) to maintain the hence unbroken pattern. Unless, of course, Mike Huckabee (born during the Eisenhower administration) stages a miraculous comeback to secure his party's nomination and the White House in November.

On another note, in the past four Presidential contests, only one candidate has secured a majority of the popular vote: G. W. Bush (2004). President Bush had not secured a majority vote in 2000, and President Clinton never garnered a majority of the popular vote (Slick Willy holds the distinction of being one of only three persons to be twice elected to the Presidency with more people having voted against him than for him -- and all three of them were Democrats: Clinton, Wilson, Cleveland).

Overall, when the Republicans win the White House, they average a greater margin of victory in the popular vote than the Democrats when they win. The average Republican margin of victory in the popular vote since WWII has been 9.8% (since the GOP's first Presidential attempt in 1856: 9.9%). Compare that with the average Democratic margin of victory in the popular vote since WWII: 7.0% (since 1856: 8.3%).

Since the birth of the GOP, the Republicans have garnered over 50% of the popular vote in 17 of their 20 popular vote victories (the Republicans have also won three elections where they lost the popular vote, but achieved a majority of the electoral votes: 1876, 1888, 2000). That gives the GOP a 17 and 3 record of winning (or keeping) the White House with a majority vote, compared to the Democrat's sad 6 and 9 record (garnering a majority popular vote in only six of fifteen victories during that same time period).

Democratic Presidents have only acquired a majority of the popular vote a pathetic six times in thirty-eight elections (less than 16% of the time), compared to the Republicans seventeen times (nearly 45% of the time).

Since the end of the 19^th century, only seven U.S. Presidents gained a larger margin-of-victory percentage in their re-election than they had in their initial bid for the White House. Five of those seven were Republicans, and only two Democrats. (This statistic obviously cannot be applied to incumbents who entered office without being elected: T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, Johnson, Ford.)

#1) Richard Nixon (REP)

0.7% margin-of-victory (1968) to 23.2% margin-of-victory (1972) + 22.5%

#2) Ronald Reagan (REP)

9.7% m-o-v (1980) to 18.2% m-o-v (1984) +8.5%

#3) FDR (DEM)

17.8% m-o-v (1932) to 24.3% m-o-v (1936) +6.5%*

* 1^st to 2^nd term differential

#4) Dwight Eisenhower (REP)

10.7% m-o-v (1952) to 15.4% m-o-v (1956) +4.7%

#5) George W. Bush (REP)

-0.5% (lost popular vote: 2000) to 2.8% m-o-v (2004) +3.3%

#6) Bill Clinton (DEM)

5.6% m-o-v (1992) to 8.5% m-o-v (1996) +2.9%

#7) William McKinley (REP)

4.2% m-o-v (1896) to 6.1% m-o-v (1900) +1.9%

Of the thirteen U.S. Presidents who were twice elected since the birth of the GOP, seven were Republicans and six Democrats. All seven Republicans were re-elected with a greater percentage of the popular vote, while only three Democrats received a greater percentage for their re-election bids. The other three Democratic incumbents won their subsequent terms with a smaller percentage of the popular vote than from their previous bids.

#1) Richard Nixon (REP)

43.4% popular vote (1968) to 60.7% popular vote (1972) +17.3%

#2) Abraham Lincoln (REP)

39.9% popular vote (1860) to 53.1% popular vote (1864) +13.2%*

* Confederacy did not take part in election/first election was a 3-way race

#3) Ronald Reagan (REP)

50.7% popular vote (1980) to 58.8% popular vote (1984) +8.1%

#4) Woodrow Wilson (DEM)

41.6% popular vote (1912) to 49.3% popular vote (1916) +7.7%*

*first election was a 3-way race

#5) Bill Clinton (DEM)

43.0% popular vote (1992) to 49.2% popular vote (1996) +6.2%*

*first election was a 3-way race

#6) FDR (DEM)

57.4% popular vote (1932) to 60.8% popular vote (1936) +3.4%*

* 1^st to 2^nd term differential

#7) George W. Bush (REP)

47.8% popular vote (2000) to 50.9% popular vote (2004) +3.1%

#8) Ulysses Grant (REP)

52.7% popular vote (1868) to 55.6% popular vote (1872) +2.9%

#9) Dwight Eisenhower (REP)

55.1% popular vote (1952) to 57.4% popular vote (1956) +2.3%

#10) William McKinley (REP)

50.2% popular vote (1896) to 51.6% popular vote (1900) +1.4%

-------

#11) FDR (DEM)

54.7% popular vote (1940) to 53.4% popular vote (1944) -1.3%*

*3^rd to 4^th term differential

#12) Grover Cleveland (DEM)

48.7% popular vote (1884) to 46.1% popular vote (1892) -2.6%*

*was not incumbent in 1892 election

#13) FDR (DEM)

60.8% popular vote (1936) to 54.7% popular vote (1940) -6.1%*

*2^nd to 3^rd term differential

In the over 150 years since the birth of the GOP, only three Democrats won (or kept) the Presidency with a majority of the popular vote: FDR (4 times), LBJ and Jimmy Carter (Carter, just barely, edging out Ford with only 50.1% of the popular vote in 1976 -- in spite of Watergate).

In that same time period, thirteen Republicans won (or kept) the Presidency with a majority of the popular vote: Nixon, Harding, Reagan (twice), Hoover, Eisenhower (twice), Theodore Roosevelt, Grant (twice), Coolidge, George H.W. Bush, Lincoln, McKinley (twice), Taft and George W. Bush.

The Republicans won (or kept) the Presidency with a majority of the popular vote seventeen times (w/13 different men), as opposed to the Democrats doing it six times (w/3 different men).

Republicans have only gained (or kept) the White House four times with less than a majority of the popular vote, compared the Democrats ten times in the same period.

As a side note, since the birth of the GOP, nineteen persons have lost U.S. Presidential bids with a greater percentage of the popular vote than Bill Clinton had when he won in 1992 (43.0%) --

Kerry: 48.1% (2004), Gore: 48.3% (2000), Dukakis: 45.6% (1988), Ford: 48.0% (1976), Nxion: 49.5% (1960), Stevenson: 44.4% (1952), Dewey: 45.1% (1948), Dewey: 45.9% (1944), Willkie: 44.8% (1940), Hughes: 46.1% (1916), Bryan: 45.5% (1900), Bryan: 46.0% (1896), Cleveland: 48.7% (1888 - won popular vote, lost electoral vote), Blaine: 48.1 (1884), Hancock: 48.2% (1880), Tilden: 51.0% (1876 - won popular vote, lost electoral vote), Greeley: 43.8% (1872), Seymour: 47.3% (1868), McClellan: 43.3% (1864).

Half of all the Presidential elections held since the birth of the GOP had losers with a greater percentage of the popular vote than Bill Clinton had when he won his first term (19 of 38). And 92.1% of all Presidental victories in that same time period, secured a greater percentage of the popular vote than Bill Clinton had in 1992 (including Bill Clinton in 1996). Since the Civil War, only Woodrow Wilson (1912) won (or kept) the Presidency with a smaller percentage of the popular vote (41.6% Wilson).

Since the birth of the GOP, Republicans have won (or kept) the White house in 23 of 38 elections (60%), compared to the Democrats who have won (or kept) the White House for 15 of 38 elections (39%).

And in considering the times the Democrats won their measly 39% of the elections...

* In 1856, the Democratic candidate (Buchanan) won a 3-way race, where conservative candidates (Fremont: Republican, and Fillmore: Whig) split 54.7% of the popular vote.

* The Democrats wouldn't win the White House again until 1884 (Cleveland), with a paltry 0.6% margin-of-victory, and their first win in seven elections (28 years).

* The next man the Democrats got into the White House (Wilson in 1912), was in another 3-way race where conservatives (again) split the majority of the vote (between incumbent Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt), giving the Democratic candidate the smallest percentage of the popular vote for the White House over any candidate for a 148-year period which has yet to be broken (1860 to the present).

* Twenty years later, it would take the worse economic depression in U.S. history to unseat a Republican incumbent (Hoover), who was blamed for it.

* In 1960, JFK secured the White House in what even liberal historians now acknowledge as a stolen election, which (even with daddy's help via voter fraud) he barely won with a 0.2% margin-of-victory (second lowest in U.S. history), which candidate Nixon (unlike Al Gore in 2000) chose not to contest.

* In 1976, Carter barely edged incumbent Ford (with a 2.1% margin-of-victory), who (along with most of the Republican party) bore a backlash for the Watergate scandal.

* In 1992 it was yet another 3-way race, coupled with an economic recession and a Democrat who won with the second worst percentage of the popular vote since the Civil War.

Now, try to imagine what it might've been like if the Democrats didn't have the media ever championing their causes and bashing conservatives, and wonder if the Democrats could ever win the White House on their own.

In a fair fight, probably not. But then, politics (like life) isn't fair.

Sometimes we just have to pray for sanity.

Or a miracle...

Today, Dr. James Dobson used his Focus on the Family radio program to recount his October 4^th letter to The New York Times, where he stated his position regarding pro-life candidates for next year’s Presidential election. As I listened to Dr. Dobson, I could only imagine that the people happiest (actually elated) to find his op-ed piece in Thursday’s New York Times would have to be Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (although, I’m sure that Reid, Kennedy, Pulosi, etc, threw riotous parties, as well).

As a conservative Christian, I, too, am strongly pro-life and believe in following one‘s principles. However, unlike Mr. Dobson, I do not believe in biting off my nose to spite my face -- or, more likely (in following Dr. Dobson’s train of thought) -- biting off my nose, plucking out my eyes, ripping out my tongue, and lopping off my ears.

In my view, Dr. Dobson’s principles are tunnel-visioned, and he is chosing to overlook an entire forest of liberalism because he’s upset about a single tree. Or does Dr. Dobson believe that Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama will be more closely aligned to conservative Christian thinking than someone from amongst the ranks of the GOP when it comes to abortion? Perhaps he believes that Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama would be more likely to appoint conservative federal judges or more fervently withstand terrorism than someone from the GOP with whom he disagrees on abortion? Better at handling taxes? Cloning/stem cell research? The military? Social security? Anything at all?!?!?

Perhaps Dr. Dobson believes that Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama will, once elected, suddenly nestle up to Christians and embrace our ideals?

It pains me to criticize a fellow believer, particularly one who has for so long championed the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, if conservatives follow Dr. Dobson’s advice on this matter, they will be handing the White House to the Democratic candidate in November. Or have we already forgotten what a divided Republican party cost us in 1992 (and for those who know their history, 1912, as well)? I’m sure that editors at The New York Times realized this, and tripped over themselves in a rush to get that piece into print on Thursday -- as Dr. Dobson was handing them everything they could‘ve wished for -- a conservative urging fellow conservatives to vote for a third-party candidate next November. (They’re probably still pinching themselves to see if it was a dream.)

I find it extremely unlikely that any human being will find another human being with whom they agree on every issue. Hoping to find such in a candidate for any office is, in my opinion, quixotic. Tearing out all of one’s organs because of a single piece of decay is not only self destructive, but foolish, and extremely costly -- and will cause far more harm than good.

I hope Dr. Dobson will see this, and look at the whole picture, not just the corner of the frame before urging other believers to follow his lead down the path to self mutilation.

Only a brief perusal of the today's news was enough to thoroughly convince me that the world has indeed gone mad.  Not that I had much hope for a sane world prior to today, but several items on the news this afternoon seemed to clinch the hopelessness of that eventuality for me.

For example...

News item #1:  Valedictorian Shannon Spaulding speaks about Jesus Christ at graduation ceremony

To listen to news reports of this, you'd swear this young woman called for the extermination of life on earth.

To the contrary, Miss Spaulding exercised her right of "free speech" (a freedom which apparently liberals believe is only applicable to themselves) and "freedom of religion".

"Well, it was at a school, not a church gathering.  Such comments should be restricted to church!"

Oh, really?  I'm sorry.  I must've missed that qualifier during my examination of the United States Constitution -- the part which limits freedom of "religion" to "church".

"What about separation of church and state?"

Firstly, no such phrase appears in the aforementioned United States Constitution.  What the United States Constitution actually states is that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof."

Hmm... let me see.  How does one imagine that a high school graduate talking about Jesus Christ can (in any way) be construed as Congress making a law establishing a religion -- or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?  Has Ms. Spaulding been elected to Congress?  Has she voted for the establishment of a religion -- or a law which restricts the free exercise thereof?   Let me see... uh... NO and NO.

Sick, sick, topsy-turvy, upside-down, backwards world in which we live that can imagine Miss Spaulding as infringing upon anyone's Constitutional rights.  To the contrary, had the school attempted to prohibit Miss Spaulding's speech, it would've been her Constitutional rights that had been hindered.

News item #2: E Harmony sued for descrimination against gays

Okay.  E Harmony (a private business) establishes a service to help men meet women, and women meet men. 

"BAD, BAD, BAD, EVIL, EVIL, EVIL E Harmony!!!  How dare they?!?!?"

Okay.  Makes perfect sense.  I can see the rationalization now....   

"I take my automobile to an airplane mechanic, and expect him to repair it, right?  I mean, he's a mechanic.  He can't descriminate against my vehicle merely because it isn't an airplane.  It has nothing to do with the fact that he is an airplane mechanic, and that's his chosen field of expertise.  He should be compelled to service my automobile whether he wants to or not."

Better yet, let's try this one on for size...

"A heterosexual man wants to meet a heterosexual woman.  So, naturally, they should utilize a homosexual dating service.  If the service refuses to comply, they should be sued."

Yeah, I can see that happening any day soon.

Like I said, sick, sick, topsy-turvy, upside-down, backwards world in which we live that can imagine that a business must be compelled to cater to every imaginable variation and category of service or make itself liable in a court of law.

News item #3: Billions of taxpayer dollars poured into flood control for New Orleans

Oh yeah, this is a no-brainer.  A city on the coast (or very near the coast) which is below sea-level -- not to mention, in a hurricane zone.   "By all means, pour billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars into fixing it after a hurricane destroys it.  Yeah.  This is the epitome of sanity."

"Someone (obviously without too much foresight) builds their town on a busy railway line.  Then a 70-car locomotive destroys their home.  The government sends them money to rebuild the house back on the same, busy railway line -- only with a somewhat sturdier foundation (and full, 1" plywood floors, not those cheesy 3/4" plywood floors)."

Yes, I can see the sane rationale behind this move.

NOT.

We can't undo history and go back several hundred years to tell the moronic New Orleans city planners not to build their city on a swamp, below sea-level, so close to the ocean, in a major hurricane zone.  As far as I know, time-travel is still a bit beyond our reach.  

However, we can learn from our mistakes, and not rebuild a city back in the middle of the busy, railway line, just waiting for the next 70-car locomotive to come barreling along.

Or maybe not.

At the point of being redundant... it's a sick, sick, topsy-turvy, upside-down, backwards world in which we live where good money has to be poured onto bad money, to rebuild something where it never should've been built in the first place.   Come to think of it, the people of New Orleans need to talk to the people of Pompey.  I think they have a lot in common. 

Like I said, the world seems to be firing a few rounds short of a clip these days.   Go figure.

I guess that's why I'm only a schoolbus driver.  What do I know?

 It's human nature to envy the one at the top. 

Whether it's the most stuff, the most power, the best looks -- everyone wishes they had it, too.

For the better part of the last six decades, the U.S. has been the top dog.

As a side note, the U.S. didn't become top dog by choice, but rather by blessing of default -- as all of the other dogs at (or near) the top of the pile beat the crap out of each other (in their own yards, nonetheless), essentially decimating themselves, and leaving the U.S. as the only one still standing with the majority of their resources, infrastructure and economy intact.

However, history clearly demonstrates that power and wealth is temporal -- no one stays at the top forever. As such, I've no doubt that the day will eventually come when another dog will be sitting pretty at the top of the pile, and the U.S. relegated to a less enviable position.

Whether such a change occurs in this generation, or not until well beyond the lifetimes of everyone presently living, I am fairly certain that it will happen. When it does, I believe the rest of the world will espouse two, very different sentiments...

Initially, I'm guessing that much of the globe will express unmitigated glee at the downfall of the U.S. They'll be giddy in celebration. "Hah,hah! The American taskmaster has fallen!!" (insert ecstatic, drunken revelry here)

After a while, however, I imagine that it will dawn on many of them that the nation who single-handedly has given more to the rest of the world (its enemies, included) has stopped sending the checks, and sadly, the era of global welfare will have ended.

They will also likely realize (in relative short order) that the nation which could consistently be depended upon to bail their posteriors out of the fire was conspicuously missing. "Oh dear! There's no one standing between that nasty neighbor and me anymore!! And I don't like the way they're eyeing-up my resources/wealth/citizenry/take your pick..."

For all of the U.S.'s faults (and yes, we've had plenty) the U.S. could've played the card the Soviets had in Eastern Europe, and occupied all of Western Europe with satellite, puppet regimes. They could've pulled out of Europe altogether, and let Stalin march to the Atlantic (and then some). They could've ignored a lot of their neighbor's "little problems", for which they consistently and willingly shed the blood of their youth for causes which (in no way) had any bearing on the way we lived our lives back here in the good old U.S.A.

I can only hope (for the sake of those who have been the ungrateful recipients of America's good will) that when that day does come, that whoever succeeds the U.S. to the top of the pile will demonstrate at least a fraction of compassion and generosity that the U.S. has over the past six decades. After all, there's no guarantee that the next top dog has to be a Truman or Marshall. He (or she) could just as well be a Nero, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin.

Sometimes one never realizes how good one has it until it's gone.

It has been my observation that when people want to hide their wrong-doing or convince others of its rightness, they often rename or sugar-coat it to make it easier to swallow -- like the "reproductive freedom" and "freedom of choice" labels which the left have long applied to their pet agenda: the murdering of an unborn child. 

But, I ask -- what has abortion to do with reproduction? 

One involves the bringing of a new life into this world, and the other the taking it out. 

I have to admit, though, it has such a nice ring to it.  It sounds like something which should've been included in the Declaration of Independence right beside the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  If one didn't know better, one could hear that term and never actually suspect the horrid reality of what it signifies.

"Freedom of choice" is another misnomer, applied entirely with the sole intention of misdirecting the American public.  It sounds so wholesome and American (never mind that it has nothing whatsoever to do with choice), as long as it sounds pleasant and projects a positive image it's entirely acceptable to mask the true nature of this utterly depraved and reprehensible crime.

"Freedom of choice"?!?  As if women didn't have the right to choose an abortion prior to its legalization. 

However, a fact which abortion proponents seem to gloss right over is that there is no connection between illegality and one's freedom to choose. Choice is an inherent freedom, regardless of legality. 

How does the law ever prohibit choice?  Aren't we all free to choose whatever we please, regardless of the law or others?  Mankind has always been free to choose to obey or disobey the law.   Murder is illegal -- at least it was in most states as of the posting of this blog -- yet when or how has that illegality ever deprived anyone of their right to choose to murder someone?  It hasn't, and it never will.

No one is ever prohibited from exercising choice by any law.  The right to choose is ours.  But, with every choice also comes a responsibility for that choice. What the "freedom of choice", abortion proponents are actually advocating is a freedom from responsibility for their choice.  They seek the right to choose behavior, entirely free from responsibility for the results and consequences of said behavior. 

And, in the case of abortion, the time for choice is before the conception, not after it. 

But then, since when did liberals ever want to take responsibility for anything they do. It's always someone else's fault.

NOTE: Excerps of this blog were taken from a piece I'd previously written and posted elsewhere.

There seem to be a lot of conservatives against the idea of Congress restating the “Fairness Doctrine”. However, as a conservative, I have to say that I personally may favor the idea.

Let me tell you why.

For one thing, I’d like to see the broadcast networks (those who broadcast over the public airwaves, such as ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS) be required for each and every reporter or commentator who criticizes the policy of the President (or any conservative politician) to produce a similar number of reporters who praise those same policies, whether they be on the war, taxes, national security, the economy, social security, immigration, the Federal Courts, abortion, or the size of Bill Clinton’s ego.

I’d also like to see all of the dramas and sitcoms which are broadcast on said broadcast networks be made to exhibit “both sides” of issues they cover in their shows.

For instance, for every drama or sitcom which makes a statement in favor* of premarital (or extramarital) sex, I’d like to see them make an equal number of statements opposed to premarital (or extramarital) sex.  

(*Actually, to say that most network television favors premarital and extramarital sex is an understatement.  Aggrandizing and worshiping at the altar of premarital and extramarital sex would be a more appropriate description of the corporate attitude they express in their programming.)

Likewise, for every instance where a broadcast network drama or sitcom makes a statement favoring abortion (and ridiculing those who espouse a pro-life stance), there should be a statement opposed to abortion.

For every statement made which debases parental authority over their minor children, there should be a statement praising and endorsing a parent‘s right to raise their children as they see fit.

For every statement made proclaiming that deviant sexual acts are “normal, lifestyle choices”, there should be a statement made declaring that many people find such behavior to be aberrant, and not something we'd like to see unabashedly paraded with certain regularity.

For every statement made criticizing those who have worked hard to earn and provide for their own familes, there should be a statement criticizing those who sit on their posteriors and do nothing but cash government-issued checks.

For every statement made espousing a theory that something evolved from nothing, there should be a statement espousing the belief that everything which exists came from the hand of a specific Creator, to whom that creation is accountable.

For every statement made ridiculing those who believe that the Scriptures are the authoritative, inerrant Word of God, there should be a statement which supports and endorses such beliefs, and those who hold them.

Try to imagine what it might be like to actually allow both sides of an issue to be aired on the public air waves.

Okay, so maybe this isn't what the proponents of the "Fairness Doctrine" have in mind. 

It was nice to dream for a while, though.