Dirty Politics and True Pedophelia

I need to stop reading the news, it just keeps making me angry. This time in Ashville, North Carolina, local Democrat activist Andrew Reed was sentenced to 10 to 12 months in jail for creating child pornography involving children as young as six. He created 169 pictures and 3 movies involving children in sexual activity; listed as including touching themselves, masturbation, and intercourse with other children or adults. Nice. If punished to the full extent of the law, Reed could've face 967 months or roughly 81 years in jail for the 15 charges he faced, which filled an entire page up. Now he could face possibly 10 months in jail for ruining the lives of little children. There is irrefutable proof he did these crimes so no plea bargain was needed, but low and behold, Judge Robert Lewis, elected Democrat, accepted a plea bargain from Prosecutor Ron Moore, also an elected Democrat.
Democrats stood around him, supporting him. He was said to "offer a homily during worship services" at the Unitarian Universalist church, according to pastor and Democrat Beth Lazer. He worked with her on the board of the liberal League of Women Voters also. The Martin Luther King Jr. Association of Ashville awarded him their 2005 Community Humanitarian Award. Why? Not because he helped the homeless, but because he wrote the organizations by-laws so they could become incorporated. Oralene Graves-Simmons, Democrat and leader of the local MLK Association, wrote to the court that Reed was a good man. Heck, listen to her and he was a saint. "Andy has spent all the years that I've known him bringing people together regardless of race, creed, color, or other differences, gladly working with anyone and everyone, and doing whatever needs to be done, to accomplish our mutual goals." Yeah, Andy especially enjoyed working with little kids, now didn't he? Funny thing though, people were shocked when they found out Ted Bundy was a murderer because he was seen as educated and charming. You just never know the internal problems people have by their public face.
At least it is good to know the old "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" idiom still holds water. Reed works to help get the judge and prosecutor elected and he gets a light sentence in jail. I have next elections campaign slogan: "Hey, if you want to do crime, just get the right people in office. Vote Democrat in North Carolina."

Canada's Finally Going to Hell

Newsflash: We were awoken to great trembling to the north. Frantic phone calls came in that people could not reach relatives living in Canada. It seems unthinkable, but satellite photos have proven it; Canada has been sucked down into Hell.
If it were only true. Canada is at least one step ahead of the US in the slope to Anarchy and beyond, Hell. The Liberal Party of Canada (at least they name their parties something that tell you what they are) introduced a flurry of policies to be voted on by party leadership. These bills are to become the platform of their party next year. These policies have been created much in the same way caucuses elect who will run for president here, by local groups (strong Liberal Party followers) voting what to send to the leaders.
But what are they arguing for? They are liberal (hence the name) but how much so? Let me tell you in 3 easy steps. 1. They want to lower the legal age for anal intercourse to 14 years old! Homosexuals in the US listen good! If you want to butt rape a teenager, go to Canada! It could be legal by next year. Of course Canada is screwed up already since the legal age of consent for heterosexual sex is 14. 14! What the ----! You get someone pregnant and you can't even drive to the store to get formula or diapers! Just because you can, doesn't mean you should do it. Is that so difficult to understand? I knew guys who I doubted their balls dropped until they were 16 or so. Those Canadians, those warped Canadians.
2. They want to allow heroin safe houses in the city where it is legal to do heroin. They call it the "National Safe Injection Site" plan for inner cities. Now, here in America, we might make "safe houses" for one purpose; to run a sting operation and get some scumbags off the street and get them help so they have a chance to turn their life around. But Canada is too relativist. "If they want to do heroin, at least we can give them clean needles." You give clean needles to the people so they can destroy themselves. "Oh but they won't spread AIDS!" Who cares, if you make it so easy to shoot up, they are already dead.
3. They want to legalize marijuana and to clear the criminal record of everyone who has been arrested on prior marijuana possessions since 1923 (the year it became illegal). This sounds so much like San Francisco. . . but I digress. Hippies, the scum of the earth. Of all the things to worry about (like their health care system crumbling before their eyes, skyrocketing taxes (usually to bail out their medical system), stagnate productivity, high unemployment (worse than the US, eh?)) marijuana legalization seems rather useless. I mean it does add to the unemployment rate and cut down on productivity, seriously do you want to work at a sawmill with a stoned saw operator?
"God keep our land glorious and free!" This is a quote from the Canadian national anthem (yes they mention God in their anthem and liberals are trying to remove it there as well). It seems the "glorious" lands are still "free." That is "free" to go to hell.

Teddy's the Man

Every once in a while, reading quotes of great men from the past, a figure stands out to you. Each person may look for something different. For some, it is someone who fights a cause they are for, for some it is the eloquence of an individual, and for some it is the impact they had on history. For me, Theodore Roosevelt stands out amongst many other great men. That is not to say I do not like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, General Patton, or even John C. Calhoun (yes he did support slavery, but his arguments for state's rights were incredibly eloquent and thought provoking). Teddy stands out because, well, you can find tons of his quotes in books and on the internet. He talked big, but he had no problem acting big either. Whether bringing the coal miner strike in Pennsylvania to an end (and keeping the Northeast from freezing to death in their homes) or working as a mediator to bring peace in the Russo-Japanese war, his strong convictions were a driving force.
"Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy. "
Peacenik pacifists take note: yes peace is good. However, when you allow people to do whatever they want (like a spoiled child getting everything they cry for), society will eventually fall apart. Tolerance is good, but even tolerance has a breaking point into allowing someone else to rule over you and everything you do.
"Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely talk; we must act big."
This goes to all the politicians, national, state, and local. Talk is cheap. If you want to be reelected, show us the goods. Fight for what is right and help your nation, not just your party. Anyone can talk, be a man (or woman) and visibly push for your platform. If you do this, you will never be without a job (i.e. the Democrats didn't sponsor a candidate to run against Senator Dick Lugar, R-IN, since becoming older he has become a statesman, not a politician).
"The American people are slow to wrath, but once that wrath is kindled, it burns like a consuming flame."
Apparently Al-Quieda didn't read this. Unfortunately, it seems now days we need to add "but the flame can die if a victory does not come about overnight." We want everything condensed into a half hour sitcom.
"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility."
Doctors kill over a million babies in America alone each year before they are born. Hospitals push to allow the euthanizing of older people because the hospital board feels the person wouldn't want to live that way (let alone cost the hospital more money). I am supposed to allow a friend to destroy their life because the philosophers today champion personal freedom at all cost. My Christian belief is not allowed in the public square because lawyers say it can damage other people's sensibilities.
The next three go together. "The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight." And " There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism…. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities." And "The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife."
A citizen must fulfill his duty for society to exist (work, vote, defend the nation if attacked, etc.). If enough ignore it, society collapses. Secondly, hyphenated Americanism has led to a great decline in patriotism in our country. It has dividedts people into an us versus them attitude (after all, this is an American country, not an African-American country, or Hispanic country, etc). Our nation is slowly devolving into a feudal system, not coalescing into one nation. And finally, to have the spirit to change your country for the better requires you to love it more than another country. If you love France more that America, what would possess you to change America? Nothing, you will just sit there and complain while wishing you were in France. And please, if you'd rather be there, please, please GO!

Dems Want Draft?

Another political maneuver may be under way by the Democrats in the House before they take control in January. Charles Rangel, D-NY, has said he will consider once again proposing (that's right, he proposed to reinstate the draft before the House earlier this year and was shot down) legislation to reinstate the draft. A Democrat wanting to start the draft? Aren't they supposed to the pacifists? Don't they consider the draft to be evil and ok for a person to dodge? Yes, but that doesn't mean they can't propose it and lament about "Look at how bad the situation is. Elected officials who know more than the common person feel it is necessary to have the draft." Ok so you won't here them say they know more than the common person, but just read any leftist/socialist persons writings and it is part of their philosophy. Is this like Democrats refusing to vote on a bill covering an increase in minimum wage earlier this year so they could use it as part of their platform in the election? Just think, people who work for publicly owned companies could already be making more per hour if the Democrats didn't play politics and instead did what was best for the people.
Oh but the Democrats didn't want to vote for it because it only targeted public corporations (like McDonald's, Burger King, JC Penney, etc.) and not little mom and pop five and dime stores. Just imagine a family business that barely breaks even (that is usually how it works you know) has to pay each employee nearly $2 more per hour over the entire year. That equals nearly $4,000 dollars it pays to the employee and to the government each year. So how can the mom and pop shops do this? They can't. It would lead to massive layoffs in the private sector (the only sector that has grown in the last 15 years). But where is the media? Where is the coverage on ABC or the New York Times asking Mr. Rangel or Mrs. Pelosi why they didn't vote to increase the minimum wage for some workers? Where is the grilling of Hillary Clinton for not pressuring members of her party to help "those dissadvantaged" in society? Oh, wait, that is assuming the media is unbiased. And I forget, I can't do that.
So would the Democrats vote in crease the minimum wage for private businesses? I wouldn't doubt it. After all, it leads to more layoffs which leads to more people forced to live off of government (welfare, food stamps, housing stipends, etc.), an institution the Democrats want to grow larger and have greater economic control in people's lives. If you control their wallet and their food and their shelter, they are sheep you can lead to the slaughter.

Will Someone Grow A Pair?

Darfur. The name of the region in Sudan brings to mind images of starving and homeless people being forcefully displaced. Over 200,000 dead, some figures say over 400,000 and over 2.5million displaced. And yet nations stand by and watch, leaving the dirty work of men to be discussed at a table by naive pencil pushing pacifists. This is a dirty situation and requires a dirty response, namely a military intervention. Years of talks have gotten nowhere and now it seems the violence has reached the worst levels since the beginning of the "genocide." Genocide is in quotations because the international community can't seem to call it that yet (even though the US has done so in speeches before the UN). Why is it that the violence is carried out in front of the international community and yet no one steps forth to stop it?
The abismal failure called the UN is the main reason. Despite its once ideological need (cooperation through the Cold War), it is now an aging dinosaur looking for an excuse to survive, like governmental agencies do when faced with cuts and closures, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did in the 1970s by taking over the affirmative action cases. It comes down to money. Russia and China want the rich oil resources in eastern Sudan. Therefore, those two nations will do whatever is needed to please the Sudanese government, such as vote down a UN "peacekeeper" force (still a joke since they can't do squat, but a step in the right direction).
America, the only nation with balls, is currently engaged in military operations and is unable to help. This means the bleeding hearts of Europe will have to do it (Canada could, but they are a lost cause through unilateral military intervention). But we all know they would never go against a UN decision (or lack there of) because acting unilateraly is "wrong" and "jingoistic". France can't shoo flys away from their stinky cheese, Spain became pussified after their last elections voted in socialists, Germany has a phobia of military operations, and Britain is with the US in the Middle East. Maybe Luxembourg could help then? How about Switzerland? Didn't think so.
Besides, it may be wrong to bail out the people of Darfur. For freedom to mean anything, the people will have to earn it through their own blood, sweat, and the sheer agony of struggle. Handing them freedom means little to them, like giving a little child all they want, they will eventually become brats (notice the current Iraq situation). My solution then? Package up all of the arms collected in Iraq and Afghanistan and instead of destroying them, ship them to the refugee camps along the Chad border. Send a couple of special ops people to train them to fight as a unit and let them go at it. What have they to lose? Imagine if France soley defeated Britian in the 1770's and America sat out. Would patriotism be high in our country? No, we would be ashamed of that moment in our history (is that what happened to France after WWI and WWII? Getting bailed out twice has to hurt). Unfortunately, until the US solves the Iraq problem the people in Darfur will have to hang on against the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government militias. But imagine what a few geurilla victories could do for the hopes of the people in Darfur. When starving to death, hope can be that little strength to carry on.