Congressman Leaves DC to Battle Illness at Home
Feb 8, 2007 Uncategorized
Republican Congressman Charlie Norwood from Georgia is leaving Congress to return to his home state where he will receive hospice care for lung cancer that has metastasized to his liver. Norwood is awaiting air ambulance transport from Washington DC to his home in Augusta where he will receive 24 hour hospice care. Norwood has not yet resigned from Congress.
The indications are that he will stop all treatments and see what happens from there. His family is asking that his supporters keep him in their prayers. Supporter or not I will certainly keep him in my prayers and ask that the Lord look over him and give him strength as he and his family write what appears to be the final chapter of his book of life. I ask that you keep him in your prayers as well.
While you are praying please don’t forget Senator Tim Johnson who is still recovering from brain surgery.
Source:
Fox News
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway ♦ Perri Nelson’s Website ♦ The Virtuous Republic ♦ A Blog For All ♦ The Random Yak ♦ Maggie’s Notebook ♦ basil’s blog ♦ Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid ♦ Cao’s Blog ♦ The Bullwinkle Blog ♦ Jo’s Cafe ♦ Conservative Cat ♦ Pursuing Holiness ♦ Conservative Thoughts ♦ Right Celebrity ♦ Faultline USA ♦ third world county ♦ The Pink Flamingo ♦ Right Voices ♦ Gone Hollywood
Thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
When is a Fetus a Person?
Feb 7, 2007 Uncategorized
The answer to that question might just be a bit hard to pin down. An unborn child is usually not considered a person and will be called a fetus or product of conception when the person carrying the child wants to rid herself of it. In that case she can go to the doctor who will stick a vacuum cleaner inside her and suck the “products” out. Sometimes the doctor reaches inside and pulls the fetus out piece by piece. Those little arms and legs do not belong to a person at that particular time.
However, let a person murder a pregnant woman and (assuming the fetus is not saved) that person is charged not only with the murder of the woman but also with the murder of the fetus, or baby she was carrying. I am puzzled as to how when the doctor ends the life it is not murder but if anyone else does it it is murder. The fetus does not magically change from a product of conception to a human being based simply upon who is killing it. It would seem that the states want to have two different definitions to describe a fetus.
Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders because he killed his pregnant wife and in Texas a man, Adrian Estrada, was found guilty of two murders because he killed his pregnant girlfriend. I believe that if both of these men killed their respective partners they deserve whatever the law can do to them but unless I am mistaken California (Peterson’s state) and Texas allow women to get abortions so if the woman and her doctor can remove the fetus and it is not murder, how exactly can it be murder in the case of these two men? The source article includes this interesting item:
According to the Web site of the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 36 states have homicide laws defining a fetus as a person.
I still can not figure out how 36 states can have a law defining a fetus as a person and yet they allow that person to be murdered by abortion, a procedure they claim removes “products of conception.” Either it is a person or it is not a person. Before someone tries to tell me that the definition is for homicides so it is a person when a crime has been committed, take the time to think about the stupidity of that argument. A fetus can not be a human in one instance and not in the other. It just makes no sense and it defies logic. However, the fact that states have laws saying it is human is a huge step forward for unborn children.
Now, if we could only start prosecuting doctors for murdering those little humans we might actually get somewhere.
Source:
Access North GA
Tags: Commentary
Muslims Claim Fear Keeps them from Joining Military
Feb 7, 2007 Uncategorized
The military is short on people who speak Arabic and they look to “American Muslims” to fill those needs. Muslims however, claim that they are afraid because of a bias that exists in America (and by extension the military) against them. This leads on to believe that it is the racist, profiling Americans who are the reason behind Muzzies not wanting to be in the service. Seems to me that our fighting forces are side by side with Muslim soldiers in Iraq and we treat them fine. We work with them, train them, and fight on their side in the battle against the enemy. However, this does not keep one of the idiots from CAIR from chiming in:
“The military have the same problem as civilian government agencies, such as the FBI,” said Ibrahim Hooper of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an advocacy group. “There is a general reluctance to join because Muslims think there is bias against them and career prospects are limited.” al-Reuters
How about we see who the Muzzies should really be afraid of and other reasons they might not want to join the military. First of all, there was a plot broken up by the British a week or so ago that involved a bunch of terrorists who were going to kidnap a British Muslim soldier and behead him while they filmed it. They were going to do this because the soldier fought against Muslims in Afghanistan. There have been other statements by Muslims about other Muslims who they said needed to die (or died because) they fought against their own. Perhaps these Muslims in America do not want to be kidnapped and beheaded by some terrorist who has a twisted idea about betrayal. I believe that these people do not join because they do not want to fight other Muslims (I can’t fault them for that) but they are also afraid that they will become targets from the followers of the child molester prophet named Mohammad.
Another possible reason is that these Muzzies can not be trained by our military. They keep wanting to strap bombs on and blow themselves up. Maybe they can not fight effectively in an organized unit and instead need to be rioting in the streets while over reacting to some mundane issue. Maybe, and this is not that far out there, they are involved in the war. They are the recon soldiers for the Muslim invasion and their jobs will be to soften us up for the imposition of Sharia Law. They can not go to Iraq to fight because they are needed here to wage war against us in our own back yards.
Whatever the reason, CAIR and the rest of the so called Muslims civil liberties groups can do us all a great favor by shutting the hell up. We are tired of hearing the terrorist front group spout off about how unjust we are here in America. If they do not like it they can go the hell home where they have so many “civil liberties.” I always wonder, if we are so bad why the hell did they come here? It would not hurt my feelings if they all just went home to their cat box of a country.
This is America. Learn to live like an American or get out. Remember CAIR, Open Season. Just keep that in mind.
Tags: Commentary
You Can Take the Muslim out of the Middle East but…
Feb 7, 2007 Uncategorized
Muslims living in America, you will notice I did not say American Muslims, are busy fighting against each other. Sunnis and Shiites are carrying on as if they were still living in the sand in Iraq. The Shiites are very happy that Hussein was executed and the Sunnis cried about it and now that tension is leading to violence between the two groups. This is a problem because we allowed these people to come to our country and they need to live in it according to our rules, not those animalistic fourth century primal rules they have encoded into their primitive DNA. I mentioned that I do not consider them American Muslims and here is why:
The Shiites were very happy that they killed Saddam (Hussein), but the Sunnis were in tears,’ Aqeel Al-Tamimi, a Shiite Iraqi immigrant in Dearborn, told The New York Times. ‘These people look at us like we sold our country to America. M&C News
Notice what this sand flea said. They look at us like we sold our country to America. This little waste of human flesh is in my country and makes a statement like that. If it is your country then why don’t you go back to it? He did not say sold out he said sold it to America as if he were not part of America. The fact he referred to Iraq as our country shows me he does not consider himself to be an American so we need to send this little towel head back to the cat box he came from. We need to send them all back.
I know that we do not need the Shiites and Sunnis having wars and committing acts of violence against each other in our streets. If they want to act like the savages they are then they need to go back to that backwards country they came from and have at it. If we are lucky they will kill each other off and we will not have to worry about them. These are Keith Ellison’s people in Michigan. We are a representative government so the people are just a mirror of the Muzzie that represents them.
Like I said, you can take the Muslim out of the Middle East but you can not take the Middle East out of the Muslim.
Tags: Commentary
Gays Turn Other Cheeks, Go On Offensive
Feb 6, 2007 Political
When there is a battle over an issue one tactic is to go on the offensive. I prefer to always be on the offensive because then you are taking it to the enemy. For some time now the gay community has done its best to disregard the tradition this country, and the world, has honored in regard to marriage. They want members of the same sex to be able to get married. Poll after poll and ballot initiative after ballot initiative always show that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose this idea. That does not matter to the gay community and it does not matter to Liberal politicians who only think majority rules when they say that a majority opposes the war.
The gays have been on the defensive for a long time in that they have had to defend their position (pun intended) on the issue. Now they are striking out at the heterosexual community.
An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.
Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage. NWCN News
The measure also calls for people to be tested to ensure they are able to have children or they would be denied a marriage license. The gay community is trying to force heterosexual couples to have children within three years or they would not be able to stay married because the gays contend that for too long they have been told that the one man one woman idea is so we can procreate. That certainly is one reason but the other reason is that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values and this does not include same sex marriage. I don’t really care if the gay community likes that idea or if the Liberals like the idea that we still base our institutions on our religious heritage. If the gay community does not like it then they can find their own piece of property and start their own country. They can put Rosie in as the Butch Queen and marry each other till their heart’s content. As long as they are here and claim this as their homeland then they need to live by the laws and that means giving in to the desire of the majority. Honestly, how many more ballots does this issue have to be on before the gays get the hint that it ALWAYS LOSES? If it were not for activist judges and pandering politicians this issue would have died long ago.
As for this proposal in Washington, I do not think it is even a legal move. The government can not tell people that they have to have children. You see, Roe v Wade protects women here as well because if it is a woman’s right to choose to abort a child it is also her right to choose not to have one in the first place. If this law passes and they make a woman have a baby (and basically tell her that she has no control over her body) then they will have to do away with abortion because there will no longer be a “right to choose” argument for it.
As long as we are on this issue, what right does the government have to interfere in a marriage in the first place? Marriage is a religious ceremony and not a legal one. By getting involved in marriage the government is imposing itself in religion. They make laws governing marriage and this is against the First Amendment, at least as it has been interpreted by the ACLU and its hip pocket judges and politicians. It should be up to the Church to decide what constitutes a marriage. It is even reasonable to say that when a judge marries someone at the courthouse it is a violation of the Constitution.
So how about the gays back off and stop trying to impose their minority will upon the rest of society. Is it any wonder that people go out gay bashing? How much are we expected to take from a small portion of society? It is also time for the judges and politicians to stop pandering to the gay lobbies and to get on with the business of this country. The gay lifestyle is not normal and it never will be no matter how much the the special interest groups try to make us believe otherwise. Let’s stop trying to normalize abnormal behavior and get back to the basics of our founding principles.
Tags: Commentary, Political