FLYING TO IRAQ - BUSH VS HILLARY
Ain't that just ducky? Bush, as Commander-in-Chief lands in Iraq in Air Force One and visits the troops on Thanksgiving Day.
The Demos come out with an attack, calling it a Photo Op. What other President has ever visited a battlefront? Or, doesn't this say something to you about the current conditions in Iraq, that they are mostly under control if the President of the United States can risk a landing there?
Hillary chooses tto land in Iraq at the same time, Thanksgiving Day, but she's no longer able to use Air Force One though, and this ISN'T A Photo Op?
Hell, she's running for President in either 2004 or 2008, and this has the blessing of the Dems.
B.S. Total B.S. A campus radical at Yale, a tail-gunner for a leading Commie back in the early days, and we're considering her for President? Just read the facts on her early days. Wow.
It takes a Village to raise a child! That's her slogan. Where do you find that taking place? In Cuba, the leading Leninist society in the Western Hemisphere. Castro owns the children. The Government owns the children. That's a Socialist philosophy. The Government does it all for us.
TRUSTING OUR MEN OVERSEAS TO DO THE RIGHT THING
Americans, as a whole, are idealists. American soldiers overseas, even though in a strange land, with languages and religions quite foreign to them, still try to make friends. They've helped cement relationships with other countries after the battles, and even during those battles. No other nation possesses soldiers like ours.
Oh sure, there are always some bad apples in the bunch. It cannot be avoided. There are temptations to which they succumb, and that cannot be avoided. But, overall, they well respresent us and our ideals. I trust them. We all should do so, and we should let them know it at every opportunity.
I am not ashamed to be a Patriotic American. I am ashamed of what goes on in many of our American colleges and universities today, full of Socialists and Communists on the teaching staffs. I say that any time a student finds the teacher preaching leftist garbage or downgrading America, that the student has a right to challenge it, to debate it right then and there. I know that I would do so.
We should also challenge such writers as Alexander Cockburn, Robert Sheer, and their ilk, both by email and Letters to the Editor. Not hate messages, because that does not accomplish anything, but short, well reasoned answers to their liberal diatribes
BOY SCOUTS - III - BOY SCOUTS
[
As you read my opinions about the Boy Scouts and the Gay question, I wish you to understand that over the years as a person, as a business owner and as an employer, long before there was any such things as Affirmative Action I followed a personal code of conduct in which I treated everyone I met, no matter what their color, race or creed, with respect. I did not need Affirmative Action to teach me how to treat others. At 17 I worked for a black man on Dixwell Avenue in New Haven, as a welder, alongside Bob, a young black boy, and Nathan, a Jewish refugee from Belguim. As a Merchant Seaman at age 16, and then again at 18, I was in the only fully integrated service during wartime. My Key employee for many years during the 1970's & 1980's, was a Gay man. Therefore, I feel that I can state my feelings and opinions as an American without fear, although there are those who will resort to name-calling in an effort to discredit what I have to say. That's too bad for them, as like Michael Moore, it only makes their lack of understanding and their ignorance public.]
This morning a news item in the LAT stated that the Catholic Church had settled a thirty year old priestly pedophile case for $17 million. They also added another $1.2 million for further treatment of the victim, even though he has been a Navy Seal, etc., and the matter is well behind him.
Obviously, a "hit" of this type would severely impact the Boy Scouts, and a few such judgments could wipe them out entirely.
Yet, I have a question: what constitutes pedophilia? If the young boy is ten and the predator is seventeen, is that pedophilia or homosexuality? If the boy is twelve and the predator is eighteen? Or must the predator be much older, say thirty to a ten or twelve year old?
Yet, if a scout leader is 18 or 19, isn't it much more likely that he can fall in love with a 15 or 16 year old scout, much as an 18 year old highschool senior can fall for an attractive sophmore girl of 15 or 16? I'm serious. This is the way we have to look at such things. This is how we must think, what we must consider. These are questions that if left unanswered can lead to law suits with the most severe consequences.
Finances are the heart and soul of any organization, and the BSA does not have the resources of the Catholic Church. Therefore, they cannot afford to make the same mistakes as the Church has done.
Hell, I don't think that any case of this type is worth $17 million, even though it was a serious problem for the boy at the time. I don't know how you measure the value of such things, but it appears that it is go for the jugular type case and hope for the best. Here it added up to a windfall.
Yet, in view of such potential liabilities can the Board of Directors of the Boy Scouts of America be blamed for their cautious approach to appointing professed Gay young men to positions of leadership and entrusting the future of scouting to luck? I simply do not believe so. Oh yes, at the risk of being called homophobic, I yet have to make a decision by conscience, using common sense, and say that the scouting movement is terrific for all boys, whether their orientation is Gay or not, but that still...still, prudence dictates that they not be assigned the role of scout leaders if they unabashedly admit to a Gay lifestyle.
The prudent parent would not send a son on a week's camping trip with a Gay scout leader either. Is it a difficult decision to make? Certainly. Who wants to distrust or discriminate against a fine young man who may be Gay? Yet, there is a risk and it is one that most parents would not be willing to accept, many because of their religious convictions.
Yet, there is another problem that must be taken into consideration, the prevalence of HIV infections, and the terrible consequences that can now result from even a single homosexual encounter. Total awareness of the potential problems is the only way to avoid them, and anyone who blames the scouts for holding firm to their convictions is not facing reality nor treating them fairly.
When any discussions about the Boy Scouts takes place before a City Council, or in any other forum, we must be there to speak out, to answer the critics, to answer the liberals, who would destroy scouting. Get every parent out there on the fight line ready to do battle, ready to defeat the mean-minded people who spew venom against those things we hold sacred. There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion that differs from some members of the Gay community, absolutely nothing. It does not make us homophobes, if that's their terminology of choice.
It merely makes us people with a different viewpoint, and that is all!
BOY SCOUTS - II - BOY SCOUTS
Homophobic! Homophobic? Try and find this word in the dictionary, that is, if you can. Yet, this non-word, this non-entity, this homo-preposterous terminology is often used to cow or degrade anyone who has the temerity or the courage to defy those who make exagerrated claims to speak for the majority of our homosexual population. The truth is that a small vociferous group always seems to gain this position by the whim and pleasure of the media, who all too often make such appointments as if they had Papal authority to do so. Thereafter, we hear but one side of the question, those who are the most critical, the most outspoken on any topic, yet who may not reflect the majority opinion at all.
It's like the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the gadfly ex-preacher who is given his authority by the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post, but who otherwise possesses no franchise by the majority of black citizens whom he professesses to represent. Does he ever consult anyone else to find out what they think? Hell, no. Does he ever take a poll? How in the hell does he know what millions of black citizens think?
There is a figure given out by the Boy Scouts of America that states that more than 110 million scouts have gone through the ranks since the movement was introduced to the United States in 1911.
At least 3.5 million, if estimates are correct, were Gay. Read it again, at least 3.5 million of those boys were Gay! In other words, 3.5 million boys who were homosexual in nature benefitted from their association with scouting, were not discriminated against, were not kicked out of scouting. Now in bold letters:
3.5 MILLION GAY SCOUTS BENEFITTED FROM SCOUTING!
We don't need to listen to this anti-scout crap from any one, from any source, from any organization. It is inane. It is a lie, a deliberate and unmitigated lie by those who are out to destroy the Boy Scouts of America as well as many other fine American institutions. Wherever and whenever they try this maneuver, it is up to those who love scouting to meet them head on.
BOY SCOUTS - BOY SCOUTS - BOY SCOUTS !
The Boy Scouts of America is one of the best, if not the very best, organizations which a young boy can join. It is one of the best groups to which parents can entrust their young boys and young men. It is without parallel in countries all over the world in training young boys to become better boys and mature young men.
It is strong on inculcating in them a love of country and patriotism, and from it come many of the leaders of our free nation as well as of the free world on an international level.
Yet, today, there are those who denigrate it and are doing everything in their power to destroy it. It is almost criminal the way they slander and attack it, the manner of lies they tell, the calumnies they commit as they become bolder and bolder in their assault against the organization.
(to be continued)
POSING QUESTIONS ABOUT 7 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE U.S.
They say that there are at least 7 million illegal aliens in the United States today, but as we all know, this is merely an estimate. In California we may assume that most of them are Mexican, but in other states it is all guess-work. However, with the current census count running to 280 million, that puts the illegal population roughly 2.5% of the total.
I'd assume that most of them are employed. That's what they come here for, the opportunity to work and earn a living for their families, and they'll keep coming as long as they hear reports that this is a land of opportunity. In many countires their welfare system are the men and women who go abroad to work and send a good portion of their earnings back home.
In some towns in Mexico, for example, a good part of the local economy is supported by those money orders and money transfers coming from the U.S., because the families who receive them spend that money locally. In essence, those towns are dependencies of the U.S., and what happens to adversely affect our economy here has an effect on them as well.
While most of them seem to be contributing to our encomony though, not all of them do. Some drain other resources through social services, and one of them is the health care system, to the tune of $340 million in Los Angeles County alone.
Meanwhile, there are senior citizens who don't receive any support, or so little that they must live on the streets. Most have worked all their lives and contributed to the system, paid for these social services that benefit illegal aliens, yet cannot get the same benefits for themselves when they desperately need them.
Who should be taken care of first, our own people, or people who are here illengally? The County and the State are running huge deficits, and the residents are fighting against tax increases, yet many deserving people are suffering because of what is going on.
What should be done about it?
Remember, this is our cost in Los Angeles County alone. What does it add up to nationally? How do we curtail such a drain upon our economy, or better yet, take better care of our own people who are in desperate need and curtail the losses to illegal aliens?
TWENTY HOUSES MAKE A VILLAGE: A CONUNDRUM.
(A) It was reported recently that a single woman in the U.S. read about two severely handicapped children in an orphanage in Roumania, so she flew there and brought them back to this country in order to adopt them. The only problem was that she did not have the finances to do so on her own, so every cent for their medical care is now paid by the County she lives in. The children will never be able to work, so the cost will be born by the taxpayers for the rest of their lives. Needless to say, it will be astronomical because of their specialized needs.
B) How do you feel about this? Does she have the right to obligate the rest of the community (County) to a burden which was not theirs originally, because of her own compassionate nature?
Should this be OUR responsibility, when it is she and she alone who make the decision to bring these children from abroad and in doing so obligated us to take on their care for the rest of their lives?
Is this fair to rest of us, as citizens, that we be forced to take on this financial burden? If you believe we need to have compassion and that this is something we should jointly undertake, then consider this:
(C) Supposing that every city and town was divided into units or blocks of twenty houses (families) each and that all problems in each group of homes became their sole responsibility. If two families were indigent, then the wage earners in the other 18 homes would have to support them directly and be taxed to cover all their expenses.
If a single woman went to Roumania and adopted two severely handicapped children, then the other 19 families would bear all the costs, no matter what they were. If the expenses ran $6,000 a month, it would be divided by 19 and each family would have to contribute $315 to the family's support.
If one breadwinner decided to quit his job and loaf, the others in that Unit would be responsible for his support.
If a dozen illegal immigrants moved into one of the homes, then any hospital bills they incurred would become the responsibility of the other 19 homes.
What would you think about such matters then? Has reading this changed your mind about the woman's right to adopt those two children and obligate YOU for their care? If you were charged directly for the hospital bills of illegal aliens, would this change your outlook on the way our government handles such things?
$340 MILLION ANNUALLY, HEALTH CARE COSTS FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALONE!
Yes, the annual costs for treating illegal immigrants in Los Angeles County hospitals alone is $340 million. Along the U.S./Mexico border in three states it is another $200 million. These are costs borne by the taxpayers of the different counties in which they are incurred.
Think about that for a minute or two. First, the $340 milliion is in L.A. county, and when you add in the rest of California, you can see one reason why the tax burden is so great. To deny indigent people proper medical care is not right, yet whose responsibility is this? It comes out of your pocket, your neighbor's pocket, from all of us.
It's a staggering amount when it's added up. Nationally it is in the billions. Illegals immigrants, not only from Mexico, but from all around the world, from India, from China, Taiwan, Cambodia, Nicaraugua, Costa Rica, and so on. For more information on this, see the LA Times, Wed., Nov. 5th.
In an effort to reduce these costs, some hospitals are beginning to transfer the patients to hospitals below the border when it is medically safe to do so. Yet, there are those who question such actions. The illegals get into auto accidents or incur hospital expenses for child-birth, illness, and it keeps adding up. Care is much less expensive in Mexico, where many of them come from, but what should we do? It's a question that begs an answer. All the while, the costs mount up.
$340 million, just for Los Angeles County alone. That's a lot of money, isn't it?
TAKING PRIDE IN OUR MEN IN IRAQ
Our men in Iraq have done a marvelous job so far. I know that most Americans stand firmly behind them and commend them for what they are doing. More would do so if our media would only tell us more about it. They should have a story each day, something of a positive nature in order that we might keep informed, but they don't.
You can find it for yourself, however, if you go to the following Blogsites:
www.healingiraq.blogspot.com
www.iraqischools.com
www.bootsonground.blogspot.com
Take the time to check them at least once a week. You'll have a warm glow inside when you read about the soldiers helping to rebuild the school system for the children. These sites will refer you to others and you can learn a lot about Iraq and its' people in a short space of time.
THE REAGANS: MORE LIES & DECEIT FROM H0LLYWOOD
Why did I write last night about Hollywood's always-liberal slant? Hey, for years we'vd had one film after the other with strong anti-war messages, in which they always make the officers act like two-bit jerks and the grunts have all the brains, right?
We're (Americans) always portrayed as the bad guys, the way some directors tell it. It's like half of Hollywood is totally anti-American, and half of what's left is just that, left-leaning. Now they've got four hour story on CBS-TV about the Reagan White House (a mini-series they call it, but I call it "serial rape").
They know his name will attract viewers, right? So they decided to do a story on the Reagans, but then they deliberately distorted it, loaded it up with fiction and ridicule.
They put a line in Pres. Reagan's mouth in reference to the Gay community, a line that he never uttered, "They that live in sin shall die in sin."
That's a deliberate lie, a damned lie, a calumny against a man who cannot defend himself because of his illness. They've been lying about the man ever since he ran for Governor of California and WON.
Furthermore, I class Robert Allen Ackerman as another Hollywood Cockroach for allowing a deliberate falsehood of this nature to remain in the script. It's one thing to fictionalize a bit of it, but that's deliberate character assassination of the worst kind!
Since it is supposedly a biography of the Reagans, they know that most viewers will believe it's the truth! They damn well were trying to make it appear that the the Reagans and by inference, the Republican party, were against the Gays when they inserted that into the screenplay. Hasn't anyone got the guts to just stand up to these Left-leaning Liberals, to object, to say "No" when they write outright lies in a script?
This wasn't accidental; it had to be planned and deliberately written into the script so as to present the Reagans in the worst possible light, in other words, a CBS hatchet-job.
Let's face it, Hollywood had real heroes, men who volunteered and served in the Service during WWII. Yet, they also had a bunch of Commies during those same years, people who spied and propagandized for Stalin, ignored his terrible misdeeds, the executions, the government-caused famine in Georgia that killed 5 million people, all by order of Josef Stalin.
The Hollywood leftists were part of a clique that wanted to change our form of government, even if it meant by violent means, and I class them as vile mean people. To this day there are many in Hollywood who worship those Cockroaches, commie Cockroaches. If that pronouncement seems to strong, too bad. Socialists and Communists and their sympathizers are Cockroaches in my book.
Did they have the right of free speech? Certainly. Were they entitled to hold alien beliefs? Certainly. Was Kazan right in exposing them? Surely.
Do I have the right to an opposing opinion to theirs and to call them Cockroaches, any who followed the Marxist line? Yes I do.
I stand by my beliefs. I take pride in my country and the good it has done in the world.
HOLLYWOOD'S NEW ANTI-GUN MOVIE
Runaway Jury is the latest anti-gun clap-trap out of Hollywood, right in the slobbish Michael Moore style. Milli wanted to go to see it and I refused. I am rejecting more and more movies; I am tired of Liberal clap-trap. Sick and tired of it. Damn tired of it. Disgusted with it. It makes me want to puke.
Milli got upset with me one night when I stood up and spoke out in the theatre. I said: "This is more of Hollywood's liberal crap." She told me later that she was embarrassed. Why should she be? She didn't say it. I said it.
Why do I say the above, about Hollywood's liberal crap? Hey, one film after the other with anti-war messages, making the officers act like two-bit jerks and the grunts have all the brains, right? We're (Americans) are always the bad guys, the way some directors tell it. It's like half of Hollywood is anti-American, and half of what is left is just that left leaning. Now they've got four hour story on TV about the Reagan White House (a mini-series they call it, but I call it a mini-serial rape). They deliberately put a line in Pres. Reagan's mouth that he never uttered, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." James Brolin utters that defamatory statement in relation to the victims of AIDS, as the Hollywood cockroach (husband of bitch-liberal Barbra Streisand) portrays Pres. Ronald Reagan. Come on, there's nothing fair or just in that. That's a deliberate lie, a damned lie, a calumny.
Furthermore, I class Robert Allen Ackerman as another Hollywood cockroach if he allows a deliberate falsehood to remain in the script. That's deliberate character assassination. They know that most people will believe it is the truth, and they damn well are trying to make it appear that the Republican party is against the Gays by inserting this into the screenplay.
So now I carefully read and study everything about it when she asks me to take her to a movie, and if it appears to be more Streisand or Sarendon type liberal doo-doo, then I tell her that I will not give them a nickel of my money. Hell, any one of those cockroaches that plays a lead in the film is enough evidence for me to skip the damn thing.
Tonight Milli reported later that she was sorry she went, as she did on another film three weeks ago. (The Jury gives an award against a gun-manufacturer because someone shot a kid with the gun.)
If one of them (any Hollywood actor) visits Fidel Horses-Ass Castro then I won't go to see their films. Screw 'em. Only a died-in-the-wool Socialist would pay homage to a man who has ordered the execution of more than ten thousand people because of their political viewpoints. I call them Hollywood Cockroaches and here's a partial list: Susan Sarendon, Kevin Costner, Steven Spielberg (he said of his visit with Castro that they were the most important 8 hours of his life), Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte and a few more. Sorry folks, but I feel damn strong about such things.
Guns are not responsible for deaths; the hand that fires the gun bears the sole responsibility for that death!
My Dad was a life-time smoker and he knew the potential consequences of his actions for many years, so when he got emphysema and eypyema, he suffered. He suffered because he would not give up smoking. Who was responsible for his suffering? He was. If YOU gamble and lose all your savings, who's responsible? YOU are and YOU alone.
Life is full of temptations. Who's responsible for what I say in this Blog? I am, damn it, I am.
EDUCATION: THEN AND NOW
I'm certainly not an expert on education. I'm not an expert on raising children either. Yet, I cannot help but compare education and teachers when I attended school and then years later when my children went to school, and what goes on today. I think there are more problems today than we ever had seventy years ago.
How can children go through 12 years of schooling and graduate, yet not know simple arithmetic, how to read, and the basics of the English language? With all the new theories, all the new equipment, all the additional courses the teachers are forced to take, yet young men and women cannot make change in the grocery store, or write so badly that one can hardly read it, due both to poor penmanship and improper English.
The history of this nation is replete with stories of men and women who were born into impoverished homes (such as Abraham Lincoln) and yet rose to great heights. They had little education, but they schooled themselves (sort of self-schooled as well as home-schooled). They seem, today, to learn and remember more about sex than they do the wonderful history of our country. The latest, of course, is the pre-school theory, that every child deserves a rich rewarding experience in a pre-school environment.
Our school did not have a Kindergarden. We went into First Grade at five years of age, period. That seemed adequate for kids then. For some reason, it is not today. Somehow the teachers got the job done and we graduated, and many went on to college and led normal lives. I did not go on to college; what you read here is from a mediocre student who graduated from high school at 17. I still write to friends who graduated at 17 and 18, and their letters are adequate in all respects, including penmanship, better than what the youngsters (and even their teachers) turn out today. Some of my old friends went to college, some did not, but they put many of today's students to shame either way.
We had tests and if we did not pass them, we were failed. Too many failing marks and the student was "left behind" as the class moved on. The motivation was to keep up with the rest of the class, because it was no fun to be thought a dummy, and to have your best friends in a class ahead of you. YOU did not graduate if you did not pass your finals in high-school. It was that simple. Life is like that; it is a challenge, and if you pass everyone so that they "feel good", you're not helping them at all. You are enabling them to get through without doing the work, and they'll expect the same of real life. Real life is not that way at all.
Personally I wonder if it isn't the Teacher's Colleges and all the new theories that screw up the students the most. Personally, I even think the Teacher's Unions have too much influence, negative influence on the kids as well. Personally, I think all today's Politically Correct crap also interferes with their education, both teachers and students.
AS AN EMPLOYER
There is another way I can cite to explain the differences over the years and that is as an employer. First, as a ship's officer during the war, I met every single member of the crew and gun crew. There were a few who signed the Ship's Articles with an "X", but other than that, just about every signature was either very clear or at least decipherable. And, we had constant discussions, often about American history, and most sailors had a very good grasp of the subject. After the war I interviewed and hired scores of sales people, young men and women, and never experienced what you go through today with hiring. I know. I saw the differences as they changed throughout the years. More and more High School graduates seemed to have difficulty spelling, filling out Applications for Employment, doing simple tasks, taking and following orders, and then we noticed the inability to do simple arithmetic, like making change.
One employer gave me a file folder with more than 50 Applications he had saved over the past few years and I was astounded at the number of errors in them, the lack of comprehension when answering simple questions. We questioned whether the kids were just dumber or there was a problem in the school system in Los Angeles. Neither of us had gone to college, but we were certainly far ahead of these applicants. Some of them had college degrees while others were in their second or third year of college. What had happened between the time we attended school and now, and why?
A NATIONAL PARANOIA
Now there is another problem and it's all about weapons, knives, guns, and who knows what else, as well as drawing pictures of weapons. It is assinine.
From the time I was 12, I carried a knife in my pocket, and I carried it all over the world in fact, but now, I am essentially disarmed, as all kids are as well. The latest is also the paranoia over box-cutters, because ridiculous regulations required pilots to surrender immediately and that stupidity allowed some fanatics to take over a few airliners and crash them into buildings.
The problem was not the boxcutters! The problem was the stupidity that obligated the pilots to surrender the airliner when under attack!
If every country had immeidately surrendered when Hitler attacked, London would have storm-troopers patrolling the streets to this day.
Ed Davis, former Chief of Police of Los Angeles was right when he titled his book, Hang 'em at the Airports. No one paid attention, hence the big losses we suffered and today's paranoia about a kid taking boxcutters aboard an airplane.
Well, he was stupid to challenge the government in that manner, but the government is stupid because it has allowed it to become such a national issue. Hell, it ain't the government, is it? It's the MEDIA. Moronic meddling media smart-pharts! We've become a nation of imbecilic pansies, hastening lemming-like to our doom because of the ridiculous anti-resistance position taken by the media, the liberal insufferable wishy-washy smart-pharts who influence public opinion. Ouch. Jeeeezzzzzzzz.
Whatever is happening to our children may well be sandwiched between all of this, the teachers and the media, with the constant interference in their personal lives. We're not teaching them to be independent; we're taking all of that away from them. We're not schooling Davey Crockett's, we're schooling namby-pambies. We're not schooling heroes, we're schooling sissies.
Oh yes, some schools will do better, much better than others. And, yes, some students will resist, but the liberal establishment does not want that. They want conformity. One way to instill that conformity in school children is to insist on these politically correct attitudes and actions, and punish those who do not conform to this silliness. Boxcutters? Boxcutters and Zero Tolerance are merely a methodology to drain the children's minds of resistance and bring them into the realm of conformity and, eventually, socialism. That's the way I view it.
