Short Takes: War on Terror

Most of the 9/11 attack was planned while Clinton was in office. This is not a slam against Clinton; this simply tells us that being in Iraq, having Bush as president, and Club Gitmo are not true issues which caused the attack.

In the Month of December, there were 172 Jihad attacks in 17 different countries, with over 1000 dead. This is not some minor aberration and it is not going to just go away. They will be defeated just as we defeated the Japanese and the Germans—we stack up their dead bodies until they decide it is no longer worth it.

For a list of all 2007 attacks, check http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2007.htm

Short Takes: Will Hillary get the Black Vote?

Cavuto’s Line:

We're at 5% unemployment, and Neil Cavuto comments "Can you imagine what we would be doing if the unemployment rate were 8%?"

Let me add, it is pathetic that people think that we are living in hard times. None of this compares to our lives in the Carter administration, which does not compare to life during either World War, which does not compare to life in the depression. All of this talk about a recession is just talk; we are not in a recession nor are we necessarily heading into one. This stimulus package is politics—nothing more and nothing less.

Short Takes: A Republican Victory

For about 6 years, I received hundreds of vicious emails about George Bush; he has been presented variously as extremely stupid, as extremely evil, as a tool of Big Oil, as some kind of a warlord/imperialist, or as a man who wants to have some sort of a legacy based upon making war against Arabs.

Think about this: if Bush is even a tenth of what he is made out to be, then we can be assured that he will allow a terrorist attack on our soil in October of this year in order ot assure a Republican victory. Is that going to happen? If Bush can help it, there will be no attacks against us on US soil. It is noteworthy that there have not been attacks against our embassies either. Under Clinton, it seemed like there would be such an attack once a year. While Bush is in office, terrorists know that any attacks against us could result in us a military response. If the Democrats take office, an attack which does not come directly from a particular country will result in some very, very tough talk and strong carrot and stick negotiations (although, bear in mind, there will never be anyone closely associated with any attack that we will be able to negociate with).

Short Takes: the Stimulus Package

40% of Americans pay no taxes beyond FICA.

This new stimulus package is nothing more than a bribe from Democrats and Republicans. Money is going to be sent to a variety of people, whether they pay taxes or not.

Remember, what the government does affects behavior. If you tax something, there will be less of it; if you reward something (in this case, doing nothing but sitting at home waiting for a check from the government) you will get more of it. The destruction of the Black family was caused by federal, state and country government welfare policies.

When you take money from people who pay taxes and send this money to people who do not, that is income redistribution, pure and simple. Or, to be more blunt, that is stealing.

When you take money from our children and our children’s children to send you a check, this is also income redistribution (as well as stealing).

If any politician points this out, that man might be worth listening to (I hate to admit it, but Ron Paul might be the only politician who will speak against this stimulus package).

George Bush has won fight after fight after fight with Congress over the past year; he could have demanded a different stimulus package (like a reduction in tax rates or of the capital gains tax), and he would have gotten it. When it comes to national security, Bush is a great president; when it comes to government spending, he has been mediocre or worse. His tax cuts were needed (and they were not tax cuts for the rich, the mantra repeated over and over again from the left), and instead of a stimulus package, we should have gotten more tax cuts.

The better solution would have been, no stimulus package whatsoever. The lowering of the interest rate would have worked out fine. In a capitalistic system, there are bumps in the road, and we hit a few bumps. It is no big deal.

The Housing Bail-Out

I keep hearing how these evil mortgage companies have been taking advantage of those who are just not so smart and how the Democrats want to regulate their evil ways. That is so much crap. I have been to dozens of closings in a variety of title companies, and there is a lot of paperwork which get signed and EXPLAINED. Loan officers also spend some time explaining what is going on and they present the buyer with some paperwork to go through. When buying a house, this is the single largest investment/purchase that a person will make. Are we supposed to feel sorry for those who, making the largest purchase in their adult lives, zone out during closing or ignore the paperwork given to them?

Our Congress is also acting as if they had nothing to do with any of this. They are acting as if they need to fix some evil which the mortgage companies have done and to protect the people Our Congress mandated that people who should not be given loans be given loans in the name of fairness. Now, when these people who should not have been loaned money in the first place aren’t paying, it is suddenly a national crisis. It is government interference. They should not have gotten involved in the first place and they need to stay out of it. Freezing interest rates is just going to encourage bad behavior. When you tell people who aren’t paying their loans that this is okay and that the mortgage companies are to blame, that is simply dishonest.

Now, I am sure that a few people were hoodwinked here and that there were some dishonest mortgage companies; but I was in the business for many years, and those were by far the minority—a dishonest mortgage company and a dishonest title company does not last very long and they do not do a lot of business. When the companies we used lied to us one time, we stopped using them, and this is how almost every realtor I knew responded to dishonest companies.

Congress believes that it can avoid taking any responsibility for what it does, and continue to over-regulate Many of these politicians have never run a business ever; they deal with taxpayer money, and they don’t even have to balance a budget. So, they just take it for granted that, they can pass a law with more restraints on business which they have already screwed up and it will somehow fix things.

Let me add one more thing: real estate is one of the most litigious arenas in the free market (unfortunately). If there was widespread and real deceit then let it be taken care of in the courtroom.

The Bible Column

Genesis 3, the 3^rd chapter of the 1^st book of the Bible, is about the fall of man. The differences between the sin of Adam and Eve are clearly presented, the nature of Satan’s attack, and the solution to sin is all covered in this very early chapter in the Bible, and it is consistent with everything found in Scripture.

The woman was deceived; Adam was not. Adam chose to sin. He had a clear choice: there was only one woman in the world at that time and he was deeply in love with her. To not take the fruit from her hand could potentially end their relationship.

After they both sinned, recall what happened: they observed that they were naked (a state which they had apparently lived in for some time), and they covered themselves with fig leaves. This is how man solves problems of disobedience to God, today as well as then. Man figures if he smooths out things with his fellow man (in this case, his fellow woman), that is all that is required.

Next point: after the man and the woman fell from grace, they did not go looking for God. God came looking for them. This is consistent with Christian doctrine today, that salvation is a result of God calling out ot us—salvation is not a result of us searching earnestly for God.

There was a differentiation made by God in the garden between the seed of Satan and the Seed of Eve (not Adam). The seed of Satan are those who are his children; the Seed of the woman is Jesus Christ. He [the seed of the woman] will bruise you [Satan] on the head [a mortal wound]. And you [Satan] will bruise Him [Jesus Christ] on the heel [a non-fatal wound].

Finally, God made a very significant change in what Adam and Eve were wearing. For the first time in human history, an animal was killed and the skin of that animal was used to cover Adam and the woman. The fig leaves were not enough. They needed to have their guilt covered over by an animal skin, which was a result of killing an animal. Throughout the Old Testament, the various authors then speak of the sins of men being covered. In the New Testament, these sins were forgiven, because of the blood of the Lamb, Who died for us on the cross.

The Trinity is also found in these first few chapters of Genesis (Gen. 1:1–2, 26 3:22). Furthermore, the very title for God is Elohim in the Hebrew, which is a plural noun.

Clinton on Earmarks

(1.24.08) A group that lobbies for needle exchanges, for allowing more immigrants with HIV/AIDS to legally enter the country, and for condom distribution in prisons received a $303,000 federal earmark pushed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

That was one of 261 earmarks Clinton personally helped usher through Congress. That's more earmarks than any other member of Congress seeking the presidency, according to an analysis by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).

The Link:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080124e.html

or

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html

John McCain had the least, with 0 earmarks.

Political Punditry and Predictions

Why is John Edwards staying in this race? He wants to be in the White House. At some point, he will throw his votes over to Obama in exchange for either the vice-presidency or a cabinet position. He is not looking to make this trade-out with Hillary.

Hillary will not put Obama on her ticket. It has nothing to do with racism; he just will not get her any additional votes. If she is smart, she will put Hispanic vote magnet Richardson on the ticket; if she is overconfident, probably a white male like Evan Bayh.

I am agreeing with two other pundits here: the race issue in the Democratic election is not manufactured by the bored news reporters. This is carefully crafted by the Clinton’s. Bill Clinton has said very clearly that, it is okay for people to vote for someone because they are Black (not that verbiage exactly). The implication is, it will be okay to vote for Hillary because she is white and/or a woman. He is looking for a high percentage of the white vote to go to Hillary on Super Tuesday.

Rush on Hillary’s Plan to Freeze Rates

Oh, this is incredible. This scheme, Mrs. Clinton, this incredible scheme was hatched by Congress. It was Congress who told lenders that you're going to go out and lend money to people that basically can't afford it. But look, as I said yesterday, great, let's go freeze foreclosures. Let's tell these predatory lenders they can't take your house for three months, and during those three months, you figure out whether you can pay the rate. No, in those three months, you skip town. Then she says, we're going to freeze interest rates. It's just not fair out there. We're going to freeze interest rates. We're just going to have a time-out. Mrs. Clinton, if you're going to do this, would you freeze stock prices, too? Would you put a floor on stock prices, and would you tell the markets, you tell those predatory brokers that they can't sell a stock below X price. I know what you're thinking, Rush, that's silly. She can't do that. How would you enforce it? Exactly. It would be silly. So what's the difference between that and putting a 90-day freeze on interest rates or a 90-day freeze on foreclosures? This is frightening, frightening stuff. This, again, this debate last night, aside from the two duking it out over these little ancillary things, this was the Democrat Party telling us how they plan on destroying the US economy when they get in the White House.

Rush on the Latest Planetary Crisis

RUSH: I know you people have a lot to deal with. The Drive-By Media is doing its damnedest to create an economic depression. Your fat, obese kids cannot learn diddly-squat in school. They might be learning diddly, but not squat. Everything you like to eat is bad for you. There are two Americas. One of them is full of illegal aliens who can get driver's licenses and benefits easier than you can. Gas prices are blowing your budget. Your house values going to hell. ATM fees are too high. The boys are picking on Hillary. Bill is out attacking the black guy. Global warming is destroying the planet, while you're freezing to death with home heating bills up the wazoo! Now let me add one more to this crisis -- and this has the potential to cause a painful, miserable, premature death. It was a story yesterday: "Planet is Getting Skinned." It was in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "Mother Earth used to be covered with three feet of topsoil, but farmers," greedy farmers, on the take via subsidies, "who selfishly refuse to stop tilling the land, are tearing up the top layer of earth so fast, they have put the entire planet at risk."

It's yet another environmental nightmare. We're losing approximate 1% of our dirt every year. So the theory is in a hundred years it will all be gone. We're running out of dirt. If there's no more dirt, there are no more farms. If no more farms, no more food. No more food no more mankind. No more food no more animals! They will eat us after they run out of vegetation. We are doomed either way. We're running out of damn dirt.

Letter to the Editor

A letter to the editor poured in last week:

A friend of mine sent me the Gloria Steinem column which I commented on in the previous issue. It was an email sent to me, to which I responded first informally, and then paragraph by paragraph, published in the last issue.

This person wrote me: You whipped back all that invective in semi-reply to Gloria Steinem and several of my friends have decided you are some crazy stalker and "what kind of a weirdo has a name like Scut Fargus?" Anyway, you are not that easy to explain, you know. I will try when I send you anything that will inflame your social sensibilities to remember to BCC them. Please try to restrain you fervor if I blow it and you reply, to replying to me instead of all these poor "deer in the headlights".

It may be helpful to refer to this column which can be found at:

http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview8.htm

or at

http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview8.pdf

I responded with:

After receiving this email form you, I immediately opened up my "Conservative Review #8" and looked it over to see if it was an invective (vehement, an utterance of VIOLENT censure or reproach, vituperation) and if it was a semi-reply. I intended it to be a complete reply to Steinem's column, and I was quite logical in my reply (as one person of your list admitted to me), and I was occasionally rambling, but invective?

So I had to go back and read. I think that you ought to re-read the final version. In my first paragraph, I AGREE with Gloria, except for different reasons. For some reason, she thought being a woman would automatically disqualify such a person in the minds of some, and the first thing that struck me was the inexperience. Is agreeing in part and giving a different reason for agreeing invective?

I also agreed that there were probably some people out there who would reject this candidate for being Black and/or a woman. Is that invective?

Since this dealt with presidential candidates on the Democratic side, I went off on a tangent, which I oft times do, and pointed out how all of their top-tier candidates lack any real executive experience. Pointing that out is not invective; it is just a fact. That they have socialistic positions (let the government provide health care) is also a fact and the pillar of most of the Democratic candidates. That is a fact, not invective.

I even suggested that Richardson did have real executive experience and that he was probably more intelligent than he sounded, just like Bush. If that is invective toward Richardson (which it was not), then it is automatically invective toward Bush.

And then I admitted that, of the top 3 Democratic candidates that Hillary is the most qualified. Now, that is what Steinem was trying to get us to do...is to vote Hillary...that is her intent, so admission of that on my part is certainly not invective.

Okay, when I made the remark about Gloria going into the kitchen and slamming her pots and pans together because of sexism, yeah, I was having a little fun, and had a smile on my face when I wrote that.

Then I got serious. A huge number of people do not like Hillary--not because she is a woman, not because she is a Democrat, but because she is Hillary. That is a simple fact, and I am speaking about Democrats here. Didn't 40% of one state vote AGAINST her for Mr. Uncommitted instead? That is pretty harsh to come from Democrats.

Then I say there is little difference between Hillary and Obama, and I meant their political positions. I predicted that if they stayed with their ideologies, they would be one-term presidents (remember Carter?). I also explained why Bill Clinton was a two-term president (not entirely, because I did not mention that he is much more likable than Hillary).

Then I suggested the Obama and Hillary get executive positions lower than the presidency and see how those go. That is a wish, and not invective.

Then I got straight: do you recall what Carter did for the Democratic party? You got 12 years of Republican presidents because he was such a failure. My prediction is, if you put any of the top 3 candidates from the Democratic party, that will happen again. That is opinion and not invective. Now, I could have pointed out that, if Bill has any power in the White House (which he will), then Hillary's positions might be modified by him.

Anyway, I think what happened Claudia, is, you read a line or two, recognized that I was refuting Gloria's column, and then decided, anyone who disagrees with a liberal must be writing invective. I don't think you read all that I wrote.

And, because I responded with some passion, I am a stalker?????? Really?

I really think that what bothered you, Claudia, was that I refuted every point that Steinem made, and did it logically, and sent this off to everyone who received her column of half-truths and false assumptions. What I have learned about neo-liberals is they do not like logical arguments or opposing viewpoints. The way that they deal with them is to censor them or to marginalize the person presenting the opposing viewpoint. That is exactly how you are dealing with me. At least have enough personal integrity to admit what you are doing.

And, just in case you did not know, not all of those on your list are buying what Gloria is selling.

take care,

gary (the crazy stalker)

Rush answers: What is Conservatism?

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy, unlike our liberal friends who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention. We conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, Capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a colorblind society, and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, free political speech, homeowners rights, and we support the war on terrorism. And at our core, we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation, the US Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given right to be free, the Constitution is the foundation on which our government's built and has enabled us to flourish as a people. We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles. And we're never more vulnerable than when we're not advancing our principles, when we're compromising them, when we're shaving them all to somehow expand. Conservatives are not thrilled when we go out and campaign, try to bring Democrats and liberals and moderates into the fold by being like Democrats, liberals, and moderates. We are all for bringing Democrats, liberals, and moderates into our fold as converts. But we don't want to bring liberals and Democrats and moderates into our fold as liberals, Democrats, and moderates

Rush on Big Government and Abortion

I've heard this lament, "Social conservatives believe in Big Government as much as liberals do, Limbaugh. You know it. They want the government to stop abortions!" In the first place, the Republican Party would be nowhere without them. That's why I hate to see what's going on here in the current field. But number two: the founding documents. The Declaration of Independence: "We're all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." When a political party is doing its best to see to it that every abortion possible happens, there's only one agency empowered by our founding documents to stand up for life. That's the government. That's considered a proper use of the government, to stand for life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Links

Warmer oceans mean a decrease in Hurricane numbers:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/weather/hurricane/sfl-0122hurricanes,0,3206014,print.story

Most people understand that, tax behavior if you want to reduce it and subsidize behavior you want to increase. However, this is a person who suggests that the higher our taxes are, the more we will work to make up for it. I wonder if this person is on the left or the right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/opinion/23burman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Many people suggest that, when there is an international incident, put the UN on it. Here is a report on the UN’s great success in the Congo:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2008/01/22/45000_people_dying_a_month_in_congo/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news

5 Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011002452.html