Cindy Scripture, Sheehan’s Bible Thumping
Apr 7, 2007 Political
A problem arises when people who are not versed in the Bible and the teachings of Jesus try to invoke scripture to score political points. Cindy Sheehan had such a situation recently when she took her Momma Moonbat crusade on a tour against the Democrats, the party she loved and supported in the last election. Yes, the Dems promised her they would bring the troops home and end the war and they got a lot of free publicity as Momma Moonbat advertised for them. She sat in a ditch in Texas to protest the President and the war (I wonder if she will go to the Dominican to protest Hillary and her vote to authorize the war).
I am no Biblical scholar, though I imagine I have read the Bible more times than Sheehan. I am sure I have been to more Bible study than she as well. What does that mean? Nothing really, except I can recognize when she is using the Bible as a political tool rather than a tool that teaches us how to guide our lives. Here is what Cindy had to say about the Dems:
“Our message is: Today is Good Friday, when Jesus Christ was killed by the Roman Empire. He rose again on Sunday, came back to life. But our loved ones won’t be coming home” from Iraq, she told reporters.
The protesters will tell Bush “to end this madness for our families,” said Sheehan, who took a tough line against Democrats who harnessed anger at the Iraq war to recapture the US Congress in November.
“They got there and they betrayed the grass roots that put them back there,” she said. “We can’t depend on the Democrats.”
She reports that Jesus rose again and came back to life but that our loved ones (the war dead) will not be coming back home. According to scripture, they are home. They have gone home to the Father. Jesus rose from the dead and appeared on Earth but he ascended to Heaven to be home with the Father. Now this might be a nit picky little thing but the fact is, Sheehan used the name of Jesus and one of the most holy Christian holidays to score political points and the reference she made makes no sense in the context of the Bible.
This is not to diminish her loss in any way though I believe that she is mentally unstable and has milked the death of her son to push her own political agenda. She is pushing to be remembered, in future history books, as the person who put and end to the war. She will be remembered but in the same fondness with which Veterans afford Jane Fonda. In any event, Sheehan is mad that the Democrats ran on a platform of “we will immediately bring the troops home.” This resonated with the moonbats and they lapped up the Kool-aid while being blindly led astray. Now that the Dems have not done what they said they would (on many issues, mind you) the anti-war nuts like Cindy are up in arms. Sheehan is becoming even more unhinged than she usually is. As an aside, I heard he in DC when I was with the Gathering of Eagles and she is even more irritating in person than she is on TV.
Sheehan could learn a lot about Christianity by actually reading a Bible. That would be a better activity than protesting and looking foolish. BTW Cindy, yes the Romans put Jesus to death but they did so at the request of the people (who only a week prior worshiped him when he entered town). Pilate offered them a chance to save Jesus by allowing them to select him as the criminal that was released according to tradition. The people chose Barabas, a bad criminal, over Jesus and the Romans put him to death for the people, not because Jesus had committed a crime against Rome. Your reference to the Empire is carefully worded to equivocate Bush’s terms in office to an Empire.
Cindy would do a lot better by spending her time mending fences in her own family and moving on in her life. Her son died on a combat mission he volunteered for in the service he volunteered to join. He is a hero and is probably spinning in his grave because his mother is feeding her ego at his expense.
Source:
Breitbart
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway ♦ Perri Nelson’s Website ♦ The Virtuous Republic ♦ Is It Just Me? ♦ Stuck On Stupid ♦ The Amboy Times ♦ Pursuing Holiness ♦ Pet’s Garden Blog ♦ Rightlinx ♦ third world county ♦ Woman Honor Thyself ♦ stikNstein… has no mercy ♦ Pirate’s Cove ♦ The Pink Flamingo ♦ Dumb Ox Daily News ♦ Right Voices ♦ Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak ♦ A Blog For All ♦ guerrilla radio ♦ 123beta ♦ Adam’s Blog ♦ basil’s blog ♦ Phastidio.net ♦ The Bullwinkle Blog ♦ Cao’s Blog ♦ ♦ Jo’s Cafe ♦ Conservative Cat ♦ Conservative Thoughts ♦ ♦ Diary of the Mad Pigeon ♦ sissunchi ♦ Faultline USA ♦ The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns ♦ The World According to Carl ♦ Blue Star Chronicles ♦ Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker ♦ High Desert Wanderer ♦ Wake Up America ♦ Gone Hollywood
Thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Commentary, Link Fest, Political
Attention Mr. Giuliani
Apr 5, 2007 Political
Rudy Giuliani was interviewed recently and he stuck by his belief that the government should pay for some abortions. Giuliani is running for President of the US as a Republican but there is no way in hell he is a Conservative. He is as liberal as they come, a RINO as it were. I will in no way endorse or vote for this guy. I will give my vote to a third party candidate before I vote for this putz. Here is what Giuliani said:
“Ultimately, it’s a constitutional right, and therefore if it’s a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected,” Giuliani said in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash in Florida’s capital city. CNN
First of all abortion is not a Constitutional right. I defy Giuliani or any one else to find the word abortion in the Constitution. Granted, the SCOTUS has somehow found the word abortion in there and declared that a woman has the right to murder her unborn child. Even if this is true, where does it indicate that our taxpayer dollars have to pay for the damned thing? If the SCOTUS declares they are legal then if a woman wants one she should have to pay for it, end of story. Giuliani can’t get this through the mush he calls a brain and I know I am wasting my time but I want to address a real Constitutional issue, one Giuliani thinks should be taken away.
Giuliani believes in gun control (though I am sure he is protected by armed guards) and he wants to restrict gun ownership. He foolishly believes that taking guns away from people who obey the law will somehow make criminals comply as well. Rudy, let’s get one thing straight. The Constitution of the US specifically mentions arms and protects the right of people to keep and bear them. Notice the Constitution does not give the right, it acknowledges that the right already exists and that it shall not be infringed. The gun grabbers can debate the militia issue all they want but they need look no further than what the founders wrote about the subject to see that they meant everyone when they said people. The meaning of people in this amendment is the same as in all the others.
Rudy Giuliani can not understand that. He would rather pander to women’s groups about a right that is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution than address one that is specifically mentioned. Giuliani is a liberal and he plays the same game as all the other liberals in that he picks and chooses which part of the Constitution he wants to apply and he ignores other parts for the sake of convenience.
Giuliani does not have a chance in hell with Conservatives. He is pandering for part of the Hillary/Obama (and they will be a ticket) vote by appealing to the liberals on their founding tenet of abortion. He is also playing up to their disregard for the Second Amendment. Rudy, I want you to explain to the voters how you can support abortion as a Constitutional right that the taxpayer should pay for and disregard the right to keep and bear arms which is specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
I’ll be waiting for you reply.
Tags: Political
Nancy Pelosi Gets Syrius
Apr 5, 2007 Political
I wrote earlier and I commented at several sites as well as to a local radio show that Nancy Pelosi did not belong going to Syria. There were many who stated that we need to open dialogue with the Syrians and since Bush won’t do it perhaps Ms. Pelosi can get things done. Bush indicated he was not pleased with Pelosi but she rebuked him and stood her ground. After all, she knows what is best for this country because she is carrying out the will of the people. There were also comments about three Republicans who were in Syria and Pelosi indicated that the President had nothing to say to them. This is not quite true because the White House has told all members that they should stay out of that area. Additionally, Pelosi is not hesitant to remind people she is third in line for the White House so perhaps that is why the President was a bit more vocal about her trip.
I indicated earlier that diplomacy was an Executive Branch function and that is why we have a State Department. Congress gets its collective panties in a wad every time they think the President usurped their authority as the Legislative Branch and yet two times in a week Congress (or a portion of it) has encroached into Executive Branch territory. They introduced a bill that legislates how the Commander in Chief must use his troops and Pelosi is playing diplomat. The only problem is that Pelosi completely screwed up by making a statement about Israel that was untrue:
After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well.
~snip~
Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda. Washington Post
The Democrats like to tell us that Bush has ruined our credibility in the world and that his cowboy diplomacy is wrong. Whether it is or not is a debate for another time but the important thing to remember is that diplomacy is in his lane. Pelosi was out of her element and she got burned and made the US look bad at the same time. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that Bush did not want her there in the first place.
Nancy Pelosi needs to come back to America and stick to her own job. The sooner she realizes that she is not the President, the better. Math must not be her strong suit. Third in line does not mean she is the President.
My friend GM Roper has the new book that Pelosi has written and you can find it here.
Tags: Political
Don’t Like the War, Rename It
Apr 4, 2007 Political
The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is a phrase that George Bush used shortly after 9/11 and it has become part of our everyday language. The word terror has been all but eliminated in certain parts of the world for fear of upsetting, well the terrorists. The MSM in America routinely refers to terrorists as insurgents or freedom fighters and Tokyo Rosie O’Donnell reminds us that these people are mothers and fathers too (who actually teach their children how to wear bomb vests to be martyrs).
This political correctness has now hit the United States Congress. There will no longer be references to the GWOT. The 2008 defense budget has that wording removed and staffers have been told not to use “Bush administration’s catch phrases” and instead will refer to the exact operation. One interesting item from the article points out that the Democrats are not concerned about long deployments and their real goal is to get out of Iraq, with as much shame as possible.
House Democratic leaders who have been pushing for an Iraq withdrawal timetable have talked about the need to get combat troops out of Iraq so they can be deployed against terrorists in other parts of the world…Military Times
All during last year’s campaign we heard countless Democrats talk about how they cared for the troops and that these repeated and long deployments were not right (interestingly, no one asked the troops, many of whom want to get the job done and done right). Murtha and the rest of his cowardly cut and run partners have told us how the military is strained and can not sustain and that we need to bring them home. Now it appears that the Democrats do not care if the troops get home so long as they get out of Iraq. The Democrats want them out so they can be deployed elsewhere around the world, which last time I checked was not home.
This whole idea is nothing more than the Democrat’s attempt to soften America. To the Democrats we were attacked on 9/11 because we deserved it and the people who attacked us had a reason. We must have done something to make them angry and if we would only talk to them we could work it out. The Democrats do not care about fighting our enemies because they were not really affected by 9/11. Sure, Congress was a target (and they would be taking this whole thing more seriously if they had been hit) but they are not really concerned because now they are better protected. There are all kinds of safeguards in place so that every time a threat comes in they all huddle in safe bunkers someplace. Screw the rest of us.
The Democrats are usurping the authority of the President and they are trying to involve themselves in areas that the Constitution does not allow. Getting out of Iraq has been a slower process than they planned and they are worried that the voters, who Democrats erroneously believe elected them to surrender, will send them packing in the next election. The Democrats always put their desire for power ahead of the security of this nation and my only hope is that if we are forced out of Iraq and are attacked again (which I pray never happens) the people who voted to cut and run are the ones hit. Why should everyone else pay for their cowardice?
I have a few pointers, in keeping with the desire to remove catch phrases. That is what the Democrats have said here. They want to be more specific and not use Bush’s catch phrases. So let us eliminate a few other catch phrases that were designed by Democrats to mislead the public:
- Republican Culture of Corruption. Given the Democrats like Jefferson, Reid, Murtha, and Feinstein (who I still demand resign) it is hard to pin corruption on one party. There is corruption on both sides of the aisle.
- Redploy our Troops. Stop using this deceptive phrase when what you mean is surrender. You want us to cut and run and you want it yesterday so just call it what it is.
- Progressives. There is nothing progressive about the Democratic Party and the reason you changed from Liberal is that the word has been associated with all your failures. You are all liberals, no matter what name you use, so stop playing mind games because you are anything but progressive.
- Revenue Enhancements. Stop using this word when you mean tax increases. Tax and spend has been associated with Liberals and that tag hurts you. Changing from tax to revenue enhancement fools those who should not be allowed to reproduce but the fact is it is still a tax.
- George Bush’s War. This is America’s war. George Bush was not attacked on 9/11, America was. Additionally, Congress authorized the war. Stop changing focus in order to make people believe you have no responsibility for this. I wonder, if we have a dramatic turn around and the approval goes through the roof, how many of you cowards will claim you were for it all along?
Those are the Democratic catch phrases we can get rid of, while we are cleaning the catch phrase house out. The Democrats are surrender monkeys and they will not stop until they have ruined this country and emboldened our enemies. If this country is ever attacked again I can only hope that those members of Congress who brought it here are taken out before they get to their bunker. I personally am tired of paying the price for their ineptitude and think it is high time they are held accountable for their acts. They should pay the price for their decisions.
For those of my brothers and sisters in the armed forces who received either the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
or the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, keep calling them just what they are. If Congress does not like that tell them to take a hike. You earned the medals and Congress can make you call them something else when they demonstrate the courage you did in earning them.
Tags: Political
Democrats Have Raised My Gas Prices
Apr 3, 2007 Political
Last year at this time when gas prices were going up, a yearly occurrence during the travel season, Democrats were out telling everyone how the Republican majority their President, were in bed with big oil. They pointed to record profits (record in dollar number, not percentage) and indicated that if they were elected they would do something about this. The Democrats investigated the possibility of gouging a number of times and though they found nothing they deemed it necessary to ensure consumers were not gouged. how else, they argued, could one explain the high gas prices. The law of supply and demand and the escalating prices of oil secondary to the instability in the Middle east was overlooked by them as they pointed fingers at the evil republicans and their big oil buddies. Amazingly, the members of Congress who went to gas stations a few blocks from the Capitol drove (or were driven) and they left their cars running so as to be cool when they got back in. They probably charge the gas to the taxpayer and using more helps those of them (many) who own oil stock.
Here it is a year later and the Democrats won control of the Congress and low and behold the price of gas is again rising. It is heading toward $3.00 a gallon and we have heard nary a peep from the Democrats. They were going to put an end to this because they are the party of the people and higher gas prices are not right. The Democrats had their minions believing that low gas prices were a god given right and that the Democrats were the only ones who could carry out that Heavenly mandate.
So what happened? Sure the Democrats worked on some legislation dealing with oil companies but they will not hit that hard until late in the Summer when the prices start to drop as the end of the travel season approaches. How is it that prices are again going up when the Democrats, our saviors, are in charge? As I pointed out a number of times in the past, oil is a global market item and no political party in America can affect its price in any direct way. The fact is oil costs money to extract, refine, and ship and that price is not going to remain the same forever. Prices of all things go up and oil is no different. Add the fact that there is a war going on in the middle of the oil producing nations, that Democrats refuse to allow new drilling on our property and will not allow new refineries, the nearly 50 boutique blends of gasoline required around the nation, and increased demand for oil in China and it is easy to see why the price is going up and it is easy to see that no one person or party can change that.
For all their bluster last year when they wanted to win control, the Democrats have been remarkably silent about the cost of gasoline this year. They know that they can not change the market just as they knew it last year. They are just hoping people are too ignorant to remember they promised to make it better.
Even if they wanted to, this turn out being just another promise they can not keep.
Article:
Washington Times
Tags: Political