About Me

Name:Grampus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

News Stories or BS?

Posted by Grampus on Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:06:40 PM
Observation and thought:  I really wonder if these MSM headlines come from the same world I live in.  These are just for one day...it sounds more like National Enquirer mentality.

  • Brokaw: Ford 'Over-Infatuated' With Shah, Can't Say Reagan's Hard Line Worked With Soviets
  • Best of 2006? Entertainment Weekly Magazine Picks Keith And Rosie
  • Best of 2006? WashPost Critics Tout Dixie Chicks, Communist Rappers
  • Will Friday’s New York Times Editorial on Saddam’s Execution Lose the Manhattan Elites?
  • WashPost Pictures Barack Obama As 'The Hard Core of Cool’
  • Your e-mails: 'We have probably guaranteed World War III' - CNN

 Grampus
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CNN Weeps For Saddam

Posted by Grampus on Friday, December 29, 2006 9:34:59 PM

CNN reporter Randi Kaye did a whole story suggesting the idea that hanging Saddam was a cruel and outdated mode of execution. This is the same program that recently focused on the coldly efficient killers of American troops without focusing any sympathy on their suffering. Instead, they focused on how insurgents supposedly tried not to slaughter innocents as they shot at American troops.

  • Cry me a river….tell that to the people and the families that are left that he tortured...did anyone in the MSM pay attention to the thousands and thousands of people unearthed  since being there.  The MSM had nothing to report when the pictures of the people being tortured by Saddam  were shown on television that he had taped, or the people we watched that were executed after being tortured. since being there. 

Displaying a mannequin (Italics mine) Kaye began: "This is what is Iraq's  government calls the death chamber. Soon, Saddam Hussein will be here to meet the same fate as these men. This is what his final moments will look like. But we wanted to know what hanging will feel like. Will Saddam suffer in death?”

  • The Liberals weep for that murdering ba$tard while they vilify President Bush and anyone else who doesn't agree with their socialist garbage.

CNN then emphasized that Saddam won’t die immediately, the poor man: "At three minutes, the brain will be dead from insufficient oxygen." She complained, "With such a tight noose, three minutes seems like a very long time to actually cut off somebody's air.”

  • By the time the media finishes with "hanging" it will be presented as the most horrific and horrible way to execute someone...chopping off a head while still alive, as we have seen before, isn't shown on TV, along with 911 people after they jump off the Twin Towers...that's just too "horrific", But hey,  hanging is just a level below that, so they can show the video later.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ellison Ehorts Islam

Posted by Grampus on Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:52:22 PM
The first Muslim congressman elected in America, Keith Ellison spent Christmas Eve exhorting the greatness of Islam in Dearborn, MI.  He had the crowd cheering and celebrating with his remarks.
  • "You can't back down, you can't chicken out, you can't be afraid, you got to have faith in Allah, and you got to stand up and be a real Muslim," Detroit native Keith Ellison said to loud applause.
  • "Allahu akbar" — God is great — was the reply of many in the crowd.
This is the same chant they use as they slaughter and kill innocent victims across the entire world.
  • Speaking in Dearborn late Sunday night, the first Muslim elected to Congress told a cheering crowd of Muslims they should remain steadfast in their faith and push for justice.
  • Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat elected to the U.S. House, has been the center of a national debate in recent weeks over Islam and its role in politics. Ellison has said he would take his oath of office on the Quran, the Muslim holy book, igniting a storm of criticism from some commentators. And U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, a Republican from Virginia, said in a letter to constituents this month that the election of Ellison and other Muslims poses a danger to the country.
  • But Ellison said in Dearborn that Muslims can help teach America about justice and equal protection, suggesting that Muslim activists may be part of God's plan.
The hypocrisy here is overwhelming for reasonable minds to comprehend.  Muslim activists living by the word of the Quran to murder all infidels?  There is no mention of justice and equal protection in the Quran or any of the Hadiths issued by Islam’s clerics.
  • "Muslims, you're up to bat right now..." he said. "How do you know that you were not brought right here to this place to learn how to make this world better? How do you know that Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala,” (meaning praised and exalted is he) “did not bring you here so that you could understand how to teach people what tolerance was, what justice was?… How do you know that you're not here to teach this country?”
Excuse me?  Teachings from the barrel of a gun, dynamite vests of your suicide bombers or maybe a sword at my neck demanding conversion?  
  • A convention, which ends today, drew more than 3,000 Muslims from across the country for an event aimed at revival and reform. It featured workshops and panels on a range of topics from civil rights to politics to how to spread Islam in the U.S.
Is this an example of civil rights and spreading Islam?

The image “http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a297/almttr/islam3.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

  • “On Jan. 4, I will go swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I’ll place my hand on the Quran,” Ellison said while placing his hand on the lectern, to loud applause and cries of “Allahu akbar.”…if we turn to the Quran for guidance, we'll find an answer to the questions we have. And we will find that we are an asset and a plus not only to our own community, but to this country, and to this whole world.”
We now have the camel’s nose under the tent.  Ellison will take his oath on the Quran…which proclaims all other documents null and void…and that includes our own Constitution.  America is asleep at the switch in their ignorance while Muslims are delighted that we continue to ignore their agenda.

Grampus
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hate From Democratic Underground

Posted by Grampus on Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:46:01 PM
  • This is what is being said on the liberal blog, democratic underground  concerning the death of Gerald Ford.  Howard Dean did a great job in creating this repugnant slime without one iota of compassion.  These people live in a cesspool world and surface to spew their venom and hatred ... this type of vitriolic rhetoric could only come from a putrid, diseased mind.
May he rot in hell for his cowardice and complicity.

The guy was an EVIL M********R who sent many innocent Americans to death for war profits. F*k him and the bunch who rode in with him. ‘m glad he is dead! I only wish he suffered more!

I will not be mourning this man. Wonder what it costs we, the people, to bury one of these men ?

There is not one thing sad about this guy passing on.

Take your useless sentimantality and do something else with it.

His death was not mourned here at DU.

Except for the SNL skit Chevy Chase did, there wasn’t much to remember Except for all those times they showed him on teevee falling down stairs trying to get out of Air Force One. Man, seeing that happen always made me feel proud to be an American. LoL

Ford sucked. Remember the W.I.N (Whip Inflation Now) campaign? Just another rethuglikan trashing the world at our expense.

I’m glad to see that DUer’s haven’t lost their edge after Xmas and still recognize a Rethug when they see one.

Ford was a bumbling idiot of a politician alright and little else except an enabler for the gop lies that continue to this day. Good damn riddance, thats my opinion.

Gerald Ford was possibly one of the most evil and murderous men to ever hold office.

Goodbye Mr Ford. I hope for your sake there are golf courses in Hell. Tell Raygun we said Hi!

Now I  we’ll drop to half-mast for what? A month? Like for stupid Reagan?

If you can’t say anything nice about a person….then that person must be a recently deceased republic president.

MUM Hagiographers are busily putting the finishing touches on the rewritten history. And yet all some do is act concerned about DU’s image and how we might be seen as mean by some other entity.

Ford was j. Edgar Vacuum’s stooge planted in the warren commission!

I have a big sloppy lug ie for him.

The man was a Repugn…… and the country is better off for every Repugn who is gone. Good riddance.

There is NO SUCH THING as a good Repugn … They seek to expand this “American democracy” upon the rest of the world, through force if necessary. F*k Republicans. All of them.

Grampus
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Putting Christians at Risk?

Posted by Grampus on Sunday, December 24, 2006 1:09:20 PM
The spiritual head of the Anglican Church launched an outspoken attack on the British and US governments overnight, saying their "ignorant" policy in Iraq has put Christians in the region at risk.
  • Does that “ignorant” policy include the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims? (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).
  • Was it an “ignorant” policy that caused Islamic Arabs murderers on 9/11 to think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other noncombatant civilians were legitimate targets?
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans, said Christians are being attacked and forced to flee the Middle East because their countrymen see them as supporters of a "crusading West".
  • Of course, why did I not see it?  It is the “crusading west” that caused their governments (Islamic Theocracies) of the entire modern era to breed hate for Christians and the US in their religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media. This is what our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses trumpet. (From the misleading vocal elements of our society like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).
"This Christmas, pray for the little town of Bethlehem, and spare a thought for those who have been put at risk by our short-sightedness and ignorance," Williams wrote in an article for the London Times newspaper.
  • This type of  vision of our “short-sightedness and ignorance," does not wash when facts are examined.  A Bethlehem Christian community leader told WND. 'You want to know what is at play here, just come throughout the year and see the intimidation from the Muslims. They have burned down our stores, built mosques in front of our churches, stole our real estate and took away our rights. Women have been raped and abducted. So don't tell me about Israel. It's the Muslims. Why is it that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians?
Williams, who is not shy of controversy, has long been a critic of the Iraq war, saying there was no moral basis for military intervention.
  • Do we forever turn the other cheek time after time?  I suppose morality is driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed killing thousands and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites. Where is the morality issue in blowing up flight 93 and 175, bombing the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, etc....etc!
He said the consequences of Anglo-American foreign policy have been the erosion of good relations between the Muslim and Christian communities, and Christians have increasingly become a target for Muslim extremists.

"One warning often made and systematically ignored in the hectic days before the Iraq War was that Western military action ... would put Christians in the whole Middle East at risk," wrote Williams.

"The results are now painfully adding to what was already a difficult situation for Christian communities across the region."
  • My compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Muslims in the streets after Sept 11, the Christians have been at risk long before our involvement over there.
Williams, who is currently visiting Israel with Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, said thousands of Christians are fleeing Iraq every few months, while some priests had been murdered.

Only a tiny remnant of the Orthodox Christian population remains in Turkey, while attacks on Christians in Egypt are becoming more frequent, he added.
  • The Muslims kill other Muslims in far greater numbers than Christians and these murdering, raping, faux religious, criminal thugs will continue to do so as long as the world influenced by people such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams continue to validate Islam as a religion.  
The British Foreign Office hit back, saying it disagreed with the Archbishop's analysis.

"We would argue that it's intolerant extremists who are inflicting pain and suffering on the people of the Middle East, not our policies in Iraq or anywhere else," a spokesman said.

He said extremists indiscriminately kill Muslims as well as Christians, showing it's an issue for all religions.

The only way to improve the situation for Christians and all the people of Iraq is to work with the country's elected government "to help build a society in which all faiths and all views are tolerated and respected", the spokesman said.
  • Therein lies the danger of multi-culturism…all faiths tolerated and respected…even fanatic killers preaching hate, violence and world domination.
Grampus
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Worry Me !

Posted by Grampus on Friday, December 22, 2006 4:18:36 PM

A Muslim doctor was complaining about being profiled because he had been checked three times while getting on an airplane.  This is a very appropriate response.

By American Airlines Pilot - Captain John Maniscalco

"I've been trying to say this since 9-11 but you worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me.
I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks.
On September 11, nineteen ARAB-MUSLIMS hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children's mothers.
The Palestinians Celebrated, The Iraqis were overjoyed as was most of the Arab world. So I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the Arab/Muslim terrorist.
How do I differentiate between the true Arab/Muslim-Americans and the Arab/Muslims in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of OUR constitution, while they plot the next attack that will slaughter these same good neighbors and children? The events of September 11th changed the answer. It is not my responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Arab/Muslim in this country to determine it for me.
I want to know, I demand to know, and I have a right to know whether or not you love America . Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation, that He will protect and prosper it? Or do you pray that Allah with destroy it in one of your "Jihads"? Are you thankful for the freedom that only this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America ? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it.
Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United States of America Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the innocent because I worry about who you regard as innocent. No more benign overtures of condemnation for the unprovoked attacks because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. I am not interested in any more sympathy. I am only interested in action. What will you do for America - our great country -- at this time of crisis, at this time of war?
I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting "Allah Bless America " I want to see young Arab/Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money, time, and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole. The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize in Muslim communities. You know them. You know where they are. Hand them over to us, now! But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from reprisals.
The very few Arab/Muslim representatives that HAVE appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States proves who was responsible before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country and denouncing "leaders" like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and Arafat.
If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good is it if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and true when your "leaders" are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and intolerance?
It matters little how good Islam SHOULD BE if large numbers of the world's Muslims interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. A form that has been demonstrated to us over and over again. A form whose structure is built upon a foundation of violence, death, and suicide. A form whose members are recruited from the prisons around the world. A form whose members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day, week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets around the world, burning effigies of our presidents, burning the American flag, shooting weapons into the air. A form whose members convert from a peaceful religion, only to take up arms against the great United States of America, the country of their birth. A form whose rules are so twisted, that their traveling members refuse to show their faces at airport security checkpoints, in the name of Islam
Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us because our women proudly show their faces in public rather than cover up like a shameful wh*re? Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us because we drink wine with dinner, or celebrate Christmas? Do you and you fellow Muslims hate us because we have befriended Israel , the ONLY FRIENDLY CIVILIZED SOCIETY in the Muslim/Arab area, that thinks and acts like most Americans.
And if you and your fellow Muslims hate us, then why in the world are you even here? Are you here to take our money? Are you here to undermine our peace and stability? Are you here to destroy us? If so, I want you to leave. I want you to go back to your desert sandpit where women are treated like rats and dogs. I want you to take your religion, your friends, and your family back to your Islamic extremists, and STAY THERE! We will NEVER give in to your influence, your retarded mentality, your twisted, violent, intolerant religion.
We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us: Our rights under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where every Arab/ Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and your family. I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here as my brother , my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand." "Until then .. you worry me."

Grampus
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pacifism and Anger

Posted by Grampus on Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:01:25 PM
Do you sometimes wonder at the anger that comes from the anti-war protesters and pacifists?  I have been thinking lately about the paradox of peaceful life…how much violence it takes to support survival.  

In an interview with Elie Wiesel, noted author and survivor of the Nazi Holocaust. The interviewer asked him a hypothetical question: If he could have killed Adolph Hitler, would he have done so? Wiesel said yes.  Contemplating the words of Wiesel thinking about Hitler or if someone tried to rape a family member, what happens to pacifism when reality -RIGHT NOW–presents its opposite. Do you turn the other cheek or fight?

What would have happened to the Jews if no one had sacrificed their lives to stop Hitler’s genocide? Could it be that one of the purposes of the fighter position is to preserve the lives of pacifists? Could it be that one of the purposes of the pacifist position is to inspire those who are willing to die? The point is, human existence is rarely black or white. Sometimes life is messy and complicated and confusing.

It’s tempting to deny the high cost of freedom. Those of us who have enjoyed relative ease (compared to the rest of the world) may prefer to forget the violence that birthed our comfort. It’s difficult to stay conscious of all the napalmed babies, the missing limbs, and the bombed-out countries as I sit down to dinner.  We have a large number of Americans today that are probably too young to remember the true price of peace and if we avoid violence…peace would be automatic.  There is real danger in that sort of thinking.

Ultimately, war is mysterious, the way pain and death and life are mysterious. Acknowledging this mystery, the best I can do is figure out where my own heart is leading me, and then take a stand. I stand on the side of peace but realize that there are times when I must fight.  I believe that for many years to come is going to be a time for fighting...there is no avoiding it.

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, tells the story of Golda, who survived Maidanek, one of Hitler’s most notorious death camps. Kübler-Ross visited Maidanek after World War II, in the hope of gaining some understanding of the horrors committed there. Seeing Maidanek firsthand only bewildered Kübler-Ross. She wondered how anyone could treat fellow humans with such absolute cruelty. In the midst of her ruminations, Kübler-Ross was approached by a woman named Golda. Golda understood Kübler-Ross’ inability to comprehend the brutality, but she said that any of us would be capable of committing such atrocities if we had been raised in Nazi Germany. "There is a Hitler in all of us," Golda said simply.

I agree with Golda. In fact, the people who scare me most are those who think they have no violent streak, no capacity for cruelty, and no potential for rage. These people are probably not ascended masters; they are more likely in denial. Their anger burner may not be functional, and their survival instinct may be disconnected, but that doesn’t mean their potential for violence is nonexistent. It probably just went underground.

Grampus
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jimmy Carter-National Disgrace

Posted by Grampus on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 5:45:29 PM
Jimmy Carter is a national disgrace.  Carter harbors  illusions of grandeur, seeing himself as an instrument of peace in the Middle East.  In Arab capitals he enjoys immense popularity.  In a memoir ‘Sharing Good Times’ Carter recalled his trips to the Syrian and Saudi dictatorships and fawned with exuberance that he was “always greeted with smiles and friendship.”  His latest book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”  could more rightly be called “Israel:  No Right To Exist.”  Carter’s immense chutzpah: In securing the financial support of assorted Arab leaders, Carter has gradually come to parrot their anti-Israel political agenda -- even as he styles himself as a dispassionate mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  His book is full of distortions and falsehoods.

  • Israel is the primary obstacle to peace in the region
  • UN Resolution 242 demands that Israel return to Palestinians all land up to the 1967 borders
  • The West Bank is Palestine
  • Israel is an apartheid state
  • The PLO has never advocated the annihilation of Israel
  • Voices from Israel dominate in the U.S. media
  • Israel is responsible for the exodus of Christians from the Holy Land

Carter has displayed intense reluctance to defend the book on its merits.  Instead, he avoids that daunting task (typical liberal) by attempting to shift the focus away from the criticism -- especially as it concerns the book’s serial distortions and outright falsehoods -- and onto the critics. In particular, Carter claims that critics are compromised by their support for Israel, their ties to pro-Israel lobbying organizations, and -- a more pernicious charge -- their Jewish background.

Carter’s book may fairly be seen as the logical outcome of his many years of anti-Israel incitement. There was of course no shortage of clues about Carter’s sympathies in his earlier books.  He has been relentless in his criticisms of Israel and has shown an arrogant disdain for historical record.

Carter is blaming “representatives of Jewish organizations” in the media for the poor reviews he has received and “university campuses with high Jewish enrollment” as the reason his book is not being debated in American universities.

Carter’s whining seems to be that anyone supportive of Israel, whether in  individual support or in an organized group, is incapable of dealing honestly with the issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Carter is upsetting his own canoe with this claim because by his own logic, Carter is undeserving to be heard.  The Carter Center, founded at Emory University has for over 20 years prospered by the donations of assorted Arab financiers.

Examples:

  • 12.6 million from the Saudi royal family
  • In 2000, received a promise of 1 million from Osama’s brother
  • Received an award from the sheik of the UAE, the Zayed prize for the environment.  He traveled to the UAE and picked up  $500,000 purse
  • Oman frequently hosts Carter and gave 1 million with a promise for more in the future.

Carter was an ardent supporter of Yasir Arafat and championed him as a committed peacemaker since his presidency, in spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary.  When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Carter was a chief apologist for the terrorist leader after Arafat and the PLO backed Saddam embarking on a publicity tour to the Middle East to prop up Arafat’s  position.  

Arafat’s Fatah has been replaced with Hamas and Carter still  proves himself a reliable ally of Palestinian terrorism.  Carter launched a media blitz urging the United States to circumvent its own laws against financing terrorism in order to fund Hamas by “redirection of relief aid to UN organizations and others to skirt legal restrictions.”  The US rejected his pleas and Israel was certainly unwilling to fund an enemy seeking its destruction; Carter reacted by denouncing both governments for “their common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas.”

Thus, by applying Carter’s own standard, his extensive contacts with the Arab rulers  make his views on the Middle East suspect.  His views and efforts have fostered an immense popularity in all Arab capitals.  For all of the millions they invested in the Carter Center,  the Arab elites could never have dreamed to purchase such a prominent fool tool.

Grampus
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kerry In Cairo-Urges Dialogue

Posted by Grampus on Monday, December 18, 2006 11:50:31 AM
John Kerry, whose picture hangs in Hanoi as a hero is up to it again…is he trying to get another hero recognition from another foreign power that wishes to see us dead?

  • He is calling for the Bush administration to open discussions with Islamic nations from Egypt, an Islam run nation.  John Kerry’s willingness to capitulate to them is nauseating.
  • What does he want to negotiate…cozying up to Iran and pleading for their help in getting out of Iraq?  John Kerry is a sniveler, an apologist for all the US ‘meanness’ in the world.
  • Kerry told reporters in Cairo that he believes US policy is wrong in the Middle East and is in trouble mainly because the United States had failed to listen to ‘people in the region.’ 
Evidently, Kerry has forgotten about the numerous attacks against us from these ‘people in the region.’  His actions are anti-US, unpatriotic and carries a message that encourages more hostile actions against us.





















Grampus
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Madness of Liberalism

Posted by Grampus on Saturday, December 16, 2006 1:07:35 PM
The following is an excerpt from Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter's book "Madness of Liberalism".  I believe he has done an excellent job of defining liberals and the dangers they represent.  Of course, the media refuses to review the book ... I found it in a Google search.

The egalitarianism and welfarism of modern liberal government are incompatible with the facts of human nature and the human condition. But the rise to power of the liberal agenda has resulted from the fact that the people of western societies have irrationally demanded that governments take care of them and manage their lives instead of protecting their property rights. This misconception results in massive violations of those rights while permitting government officials to act out their own and their constituents’ psychopathology. The liberal agenda gratifies various types of pathological dependency; augments primitive feelings of envy and inferiority; reinforces paranoid perceptions of victimization; implements manic delusions of grandeur; exploits government authority for power, domination and revenge; and satisfies infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation.

Modern liberalism rejects, to one degree or another, the competence and sovereignty of the common man and subordinates him to the will of governments run by liberal elites. The western world’s twentieth century capitulation to this philosophy is obvious--and the implications for liberty are ominous. But the history of the world also documents the heroic struggles of human beings to escape from tyrannies of all types, whether imposed by the brute force and declared entitlement of a dictator, or falsely justified by economic, religious or political sophistries. The science fiction of Marxian economic evolution, the grandiose fantasy of a New World Order, the utopian dreams of The Great Society, the myth of the divine emperor, have all had their turns on center stage in irrational man’s attempts to legitimize government control and deny individual liberty. The realities of the human condition, especially the inherent sovereignty of individuals and their inevitable differences in choice and preference, render all collectivist doctrines absurd. A rational biologist will not transport a mountain goat to a prairie and declare a match between organism and environment. A rational social policy theorist will not create an environment of rules for human action that dismisses individual differences, ignores the critical roles of free choice, morality and cooperation, and otherwise distorts and violates the nature of man, and then announce that utopia has arrived in a workers’ paradise.

Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.

Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom, and for that reason it is a genuine evil. Further, given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on human development, there can be no question of the radical agenda's madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, then sacrifice the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only an irrational man would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains.

The liberal agenda urges the citizen to place his basic trust in government, to see it as the mother of all providers, and to mistrust those with whom he would have to trade voluntarily in order to get what he wants. In doing this, the politician seeks to redirect to government offices the trust which can and should empower the individual to run his own life through voluntary cooperation with others. Government programs appeal to the citizen’s passivity by implying that he need not provide for his own health care, housing or retirement. And he need not cooperate with his fellows for these purposes either. Instead, he is told, he need only trust the government to make available to him whatever he needs and to implement that trust by ceding to its officials the power to tax the people and regulate them for his benefit. In short, the government invites the citizen to vote for the candidate who promises what a parent gives a child. It invites him to assume the dependent role of the child, to surrender his personal sovereignty to the state, to ignore his existential obligation to take full responsibility for his material and social welfare, and to empower government officials as his guardians.

His neurosis is evident in his ideals and fantasies; in his self-righteousness, arrogance and grandiosity; in his self-pity; in his demands for indulgence and exemption from accountability; in his claims to entitlements; in what he gives and withholds; and in his protests that nothing done voluntarily is enough to satisfy him. Most notably, the radical liberal’s neurosis is evident in his extravagant political demands, in his furious protests against economic freedom, in his arrogant contempt for morality, in his angry defiance of civility, in his bitter attacks on freedom of association, in his aggressive assault on individual liberty. And in the final analysis, the irrationality of the radical liberal is most apparent in his ruthless use of force to control the lives of others.

In a competent society the principles of ordered liberty guide the citizen throughout the life cycle. They inform him and his children and the community of the rules by which human beings make good lives for themselves. Because the rights, laws and duties of the competent society are all of a piece and reflect the bipolar nature of man, the entire ensemble of individual citizen, family, community, society and institutions forms a coherent whole in support of life, liberty, social cooperation and the pursuit of happiness. Under the rules that govern ordered liberty, the human organism and its physical and social environment are in harmony to the maximum extent possible given the turbulent nature of man.

By contrast, a society organized under radical liberalism comes into immediate conflict with the bipolar nature of man and with the rights, laws and duties needed for human beings to live in peace and freedom. Rather than coordinating the life of the individual citizen with the institutions of his society, radical liberalism sets individuals and institutions into perpetual conflict with each other through its rhetoric of class warfare and victimization, its violations of personal freedom through confiscatory taxation and invasive regulation, its attacks on family integrity, and the endless bungling of government bureaucracy.

With an incomparable record of flawed analysis, faulty solutions and destructive consequences, liberal government grandly proclaims itself indispensable and presumes to regulate and administer our lives from the business office to the bedroom. The inherent potential for madness in all human beings--our tendencies toward grandiosity, overestimation and extravagance; our impaired judgment, distortions of fact, misunderstanding of cause and effect and resistance to learning from experience; our lack of perspective and obsession with irrelevant details; our foolish goals, paranoid fears and irrational counter-aggression; our power-grabbing and criminality--all are writ large in the madness of liberal government. Its policies and operations are a study in the psychopathology and sociopathy of human nature.

Grampus
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It Is Time To Face The Truth

Posted by Grampus on Friday, December 15, 2006 4:18:25 PM
It’s time we shed our ignorance, and admit the truth about Islam. Three score and five years ago, Pearl Harbor was a wakeup call. America correctly identified the enemy and declared war on Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Had the nation, in the aftermath of the September 11th bombings of New York and Washington, protected its citizens by declaring war on fundamental Islam for having perpetrated that attack, the world would have been safer today. By defending ourselves intelligently against those who attacked us, the legal context for rebuking the hateful and violent religion of Islam would have been established, as well as the ability to legally silence the deadly doctrine’s most vocal advocates.

Under those circumstances, anyone guilty of seducing lost souls, be it in the media, madras or mosque, into the clutches of this  dogma could have been identified and punished.  Ignoring Islam and going after Al Qaeda is akin to targeting Hitler’s S.S. instead of Nazism, or targeting Kamikazes instead of the belief system that turned them into suicidal killing machines. If we continue to fight the symptoms of this disease, like the fascist Baath party in Iraq and organizations like al-Qaeda, the real villain - Islam - will manufacture more terrorists than the world can endure.  

While I do not advocate murder, the most compassionate thing we could do is to silence, sideline, and defang Islamic clerics and warlords in the context of a justifiable defensive campaign to prevent them from sending thousands, if not millions, to their doom.

A misconception about Islam and terrorism, Muslims, and those who coddle them in the media, have mustered only two excuses. They either deny the existence of the one thousand or more calls for violence you've been confronted with in the Qur’an, or they claim that the Bible also contains harsh passages and so it does. But, there are no rewards for fighting and there are no open orders to fight. For every wrathful verse in the Bible there are a hundred loving and compassionate ones.

The inverse is true in Islam. While there are some nurturing quotes in the Qur’an and Hadith, there are a hundred nasty passages for every positive one. Forgetting for a moment that Qur’anic violence is a ticket to paradise and that it is rewarded with booty in this world and in the next, Allah’s orders are open ended, condemning all non-Muslims forever. Moreover, the relative frequency of good verses bad is 10,000 times worse in Islam. Simply stated: a Christian must ignore 99% of the Bible and then corrupt the remaining 1%, pulling it out of context, to be violent. Yet a Muslim must ignore 99% of the Qur’an and Hadith, and corrupt the remaining 1% by mistranslating it and extracting it from its context, to be peaceful.  Thus, all Muslims are terrorists.

The prophet of Islam was a liar, a  thief, rapist, murderer, coward and a phony.  The Quran is nothing more than his plagiarized versions of the Torah, Bible and Zoastrian teaching.  There is no Islam apart from Muhammad and he has spoken.  The world refuses to face the truth!

Grampus 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberals Worry About Power-Not A Colleague

Posted by Grampus on Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:05:24 PM
The media certainly didn’t waste any time blaming the Republicans for some sort of conspiracy concerning Sen. Tim Johnson’s D-SD medical condition.  On Thursday’s “The View,” co-host Joy Behar questioned, “Is there such a thing as a man made stroke? In other words, did someone do this to him?”

A line from a "Man of La Mancha" song says it all: "I can hear the cuckoos singing in the cuckoo-berry tree..."

Sadly, this wasn't the only disgrace, for when conservative co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck asked why liberals are always seeing a conspiracy in everything, Behar unashamedly responded: “I know what this, that Party is capable of.” 

This woman is a wealth of ignorance, stupidity and callousness. But lets look at it their way. The MSM has invested so much time, money, effort and lies involved in the political make up of the Senate and the House. They struggled day and night, clawed tooth and nail. Now, it seems like it could slip away.  Liberals always believe it was someone, somewhere planned this out…because it is what they would do. They are in panic here. Their concern is not for the man or his family. Their concern is only on themselves...as always. So liberal of them.

CNN went bananas over the thought of the Dems losing the Senate and Ms. Behar went paranoid.  Folks, this is pathological.  A man's very life is hanging by a thread and all these clowns can do is fret about the GOP getting the Senate back.

Since MSM began reporting on the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Sen. Tim Johnson, the poor guy is being treated like a slab of meat.  The reporters don’t seem to care about his actual condition or the emotions his family must be feeling.  All they care about is the balance in the Senate…how sad, but once again, so liberal of them.

However since the power shift is a possibility, Harry Reid and the Republican leadership have already had conversations regarding committee chairmanships and size should Senator Johnson be unable to serve.  If turns out that he can’t serve, the last thing this country needs is for the “magnaminous” GOP to offer some sort of power sharing arrangement again.  I pray for Mr. Johnson’s condition to improve to normal, if not, a Republican leadership team with Trent Lott is very disturbing.

Grampus
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Media Disguise For Pelosi

Posted by Grampus on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 5:35:33 PM
If political reporters think their job is to lay out the facts, then why would anyone try to claim Nancy Pelosi is not a liberal? In Tuesday's Baltimore Sun, reporter Matthew Hay Brown is the latest Pelosi profiler to suggest liberal is just a "brand" Republicans have tried to burn on her. He began: "As she introduces herself next month to a national audience, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be stressing her roots in working-class, Catholic Baltimore as a way of recasting the liberal image with which Republicans have tried to brand her.”

In an attempt to make plausible the bunk that Pelosi is firmly in the mainstream because, forget the voting record, she's a Catholic grandmother. In 19 years in the House, Pelosi has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of three out of 100.

Here’s one sign Brown is too busy acting like a publicist to play reporter: how does Pelosi reconcile this Catholic upbringing with her ardent San Francisco liberal positions on social issues, in favor of abortion on demand and gay marriage? Don’t these positions represent a rebuke to Catholic teachings? Will she have trouble with bishops like John Kerry did in the 2004 campaign? Those issues never appear. The whole article is designed to roll out a public relations strategy, not test its accuracy.

  • Let’s take a look at an excerpt from one of her House speeches:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride in San Francisco and to pay tribute to the memory of Jon D. Cook, the first openly-gay San Francisco police officer to lose his life in the line of duty.  This weekend marks the 32nd annual San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration entitled, "Be Yourself, Change the World!" This is our time to celebrate San Francisco's proud history of advocacy for equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons and to recognize the important contributions the LGBT Community makes to our City and to our nation.…

Pelosi has even tried to twist Catholic teaching like taffy, claiming “I believe that my position on choice is one that is consistent with my Catholic upbringing.  Pelosi also took issue in April of this year with those Catholics who are calling for sanctions against Catholic public officials who vote in favor of abortion rights.  Pelosi, who is a staunch advocate of abortion rights, defended herself as follows: “I believe that my position on choice is one that is consistent with my Catholic upbringing, which said that every person has a free will and has the responsibility to live their own lives in a way that they would have to account for in the end.”  

Pelosi, also criticized those who differ with her position: “I’m certainly concerned when the church comes together and says it’s going to sanction people in public office for speaking their conscience and what they believe.”

  • Let’s take a look at what the Catholics have to say about her position:

Catholic League president William Donohue commented as follows:

“It is one thing for Nancy Pelosi to defend the intentional killing of innocent babies, quite another to suggest that her view is consistent with Catholic teaching.  She justifies her pro-abortion position by invoking freedom of conscience, arguing that this is what the Catholic Church teaches.  While it is true that the Catholic Church honors the role of conscience in making moral decisions, it explicitly emphasizes the need for a ‘well-formed conscience.’  By this it means that Catholics are obliged to acknowledge the central role of Catholic teaching in arriving at a just decision.  Absent such a condition, anything could be justified.  After all, Jeffrey Dahmer invoked his conscience in justifying murder and cannibalism, yet no one thinks what he did was just.      

    “Last year, the Vatican issued a Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding ‘The Participation of Catholics in Political Life.’   Pelosi would do well to read it.  Speaking of Catholic lawmakers and the issue of abortion, it says that ‘a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.’     

    “This leaves Pelosi with two choices: stop supporting abortion or stop misrepresenting the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

  • The radical left and their hacks in the media, with a complete lack of morals and ethics, continue to lie about who they really are…looking to fool the electorate…the sad part is they are successful with millions of voters  who refuse to acknowledge the truth.
Grampus
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libs Attack Christian Military

Posted by Grampus on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:36:31 PM
  • Liberals must have some sort of ‘squirrel cage’ where they go and dream up what group or institution they will attack next with their scare tactics.  They bring up all of these ridiculous ideas with no basis in facts, truth or examples…they think, in their  arrogance, that if they think it…it has to be true.  Now, Christian military officers present a threat to national security?  Mr Wienstein, America suffers a far larger threat from the radical left.  What is it really about, Mr Weinstein…discrediting the military and the Christian right wing?

(CNSNews.com) - Christian military officers who share their faith at work in the Pentagon pose a threat to national security, according to a group that advocates for religious neutrality in the military.

Public displays of faith by high-ranking military officers project an image of a Christian nation waging war on non-Christians, both inside and outside the United States, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation said Monday.  This created an "internal national security issue every bit as great as the one we're fighting outwardly," said the organization's president, Mikey Weinstein.

"The jihadists, the insurrectionists, everybody from the head of Hamas, Hizballah, the Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, they see us as invading American imperialists and crusaders," he told a news conference in Washington, D.C.

  • Why should we concern ourselves with what these fanatic killers think or how we appear to them?  We should be infinitely more concerned about what they think of us after we ‘cut and run’ and they begin to celebrate a great victory brought on in a large degree by the type of thinking and actions you propose.

"There's a time and place to celebrate your faith or no faith," Weinstein said. "There's so many times and places you can do it ... but there's a few times you can't, one of which would be when you wear your uniform during the duty day and duty night and you outrank somebody else and you're trying to push your religious faith on them.”
  • Who are you Mr Weinstein, to dictate the times, places and circumstances of practicing one’s faith?  There is nothing in military law or regulations which prohibit it.  To the contrary, DOD’s policy is to allow ample opportunity to practice one’s faith.

He called on incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates to investigate a promotional video for the Christian Embassy, an organization that ministers to members of Congress, ambassadors, presidential appointees and Pentagon officials.

Christian Embassy, established in 1975, works with government leaders "not only because of their personal needs, but also because of their position as decision-makers to influence our families and freedoms," according to its website. At the Pentagon, the group holds weekly prayer  meetings and Bible studies every weekday.

Their professions of faith violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making laws "respecting the establishment of religion,” he argued.

The Christian Embassy carries a disclaimer that "the views expressed by any government officials in this video are their personal views and are not intended to represent the U.S. government nor any department in which they serve."
  • Where is the violation of the First Amendment?  It appears to me that all of the actions you describe are purely voluntary and DOD does not endorses any religion but does provide ample opportunity for those of faith to practice their beliefs while serving.
  • Mr Weinstein, I pray daily for more men of faith that you so readily attack to lead our military and our government.  It is people like you that are the real danger.
Grampus
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

One More Bait & Switch

Posted by Grampus on Saturday, December 09, 2006 3:24:46 PM
A bill passed Congress Thursday, December 7th and no one seemed to notice.  To wit, Shelley Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, introduced legislation aimed at "Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for other purposes."  

Apparently, this bill was extremely bi-partisan…211 Republicans voted for it, none voted against it.  190 Democrats voted against it, none voted for it.  The one independent in the House didn't even bother to vote.  So, what was the issue that created such divisiveness?  It was HR 810.

Basically what this vote said is, we are not going to get a 2/3 majority vote to get something to the floor to be voted on, let's just go ahead and vote it up or down now.  ( So we can go home for Christmas. )  
 
    HR 810 - Stem Cell Research, that Bush vetoed in 2006.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
   
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005''.

An Act
    To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.

    SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
    Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 498C the following:
    ``SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
    ``(a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).
    ``(b) ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS.--Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
    ``(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
    ``(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
    ``(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
    ``(c) GUIDELINES.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.
    ``(d) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.--The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of H. R. 810--2 whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section.''.

Why would every single Democrat vote against stem cell research the first possible chance they could after the "stem cell election"?

Why isn't ANY media asking them this right now?

Do you still think some people weren't taking advantage of Michael J. Fox?

What about Democrats charging the GOP with conducting a war on science?

What they are actually voting against is allowing the Republicans to get one iota of credit on this issue regardless of whether stem cell research gets advanced or not.  After all, this bill was sponsored by a Republican.

This vote was largely symbolic only.  However, since it was completely rejected by the Democrats, and totally ignored by the media, the symbolism is lost.  When we get responsible balanced reporting then it might mean something.  However, if we had responsible reporting in the first place, this vote would never have been proposed. 

Just another ‘bait and switch’ tactic by Democrats…they must all have sore leg muscles from all the back pedaling since the elections.

Grampus
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567891011121314Next »