Breaking the Filibuster? NOT!

What happened here with this zero-hour agreement certainly has good and bad points, but the core of the entire issue remains that all of the nominees deserve a vote that they are not getting; which is the reason for the Democrats use of the filibuster, to deny these candidates said vote, which was a reason for the proposed showdown.

I am not at all interested in high drama in Congress, much preferring that they would behave in an exemplary manner instead of displaying the bratty behavior one sometimes sees on a school playground. Infantile, immature, and worse, it makes a mockery of the standards set forth in our Constitution. Thank God that the Founders were able to put away much of their selves in setting the guidelines for a, once unique, nation such as ours. I am sure they, being human, were possessed of the same capacity for the shameful, arrogant and petty behavior exhibited by the likes of Senator Reid.

However, this was a sellout by the Republicans and voters will remember this. T

For the Democrats to agree to 'break' their hold on this situation with President Bush's nominees, they had to have some smug assurance regarding the allowing of any conservative judge being in any position that would make them likely to be appointed to the Supreme Court; which is, of course, the fear of the powerful anti-choice, pro-abortion, anti-God, intolerant, and biased lobby groups that the Democrats (and many Republicans as well) are beholden to.

This is the right of the President, however, a right that the Republicans allowed to be stripped from the President by making this 'deal'. All along it was obvious that the reason for the filibuster by the Democrats is and was their personal opposition to the views of said nominees. It had nothing to do with any questions about the careers of these candidates whatsoever. Fortunately too, for the Democrats, they had Big Media on their side as well. Had the shoe been on the other foot and the Republicans were threatening to shut down the Senate, the uproar would have been defeaning!!

Voters should remember that for so many of our Congresspeople and Senators, that is the bottom line; not what we the people want, or what is good for our nation, but rather it is the agenda of those who keep the money flowing and themselves in power. Power and money are very desirable to many of the folks in our Congress. And as Gandalf the Grey states in Lord of the Rings as he describes to Frodo the singleminded lust that consumes the evil Sauron: "He is seeking it, seeking it, and all his thought is bent on it."

That is why I don't trust 'deals' such as this one. The ability of career politicians to put a spin on all that they say in order to make themselves look like an ardent supporter of the will of the people, is a curse, because it twists their thinking so that they actually believe their own lies. The nation, of course, are the ones to suffer.

The Democrats in leadership positions have clearly made known that they are terribly biased against anyone who holds differing views then themselves and do not think such people worthy of appointments such as these, nor do they have respect for such people and it seems that they are unwilling to even work with them!

For me the bottom line is to keep on keeping on and always remember that God still reigns. Heaven IS His throne and the Earth IS His footstool. So I don't have to worry.

The Reprephensible and Irresponsible Behavior of Newsweek

However does a magazine with such a large circulation and that enjoys an excellent reputation allow themselves to stoop so low due to their disrespect for the Bush Administration and our involvement in Iraq, to publish a bold lie such as they did regarding the Quran and prison detainees?

Innocent mistake? Maybe. Maybe not. The end result however, has been deaths of innocent people; not to mention an outcry for some USA apologetic groveling heard all the way around the world!

Funny how quickly (and stupidly) people pick up on the offensiveness of the flushing of the Quran, but not one article (that I could find) was written questioning the sense of flushing someone's holy book to get them to talk. If someone flushed my Bible, I might get mighty ticked off, but it wouldn't make me inclined to talk.

Speaking of which, if the authorities of any Christian detainee flushed said Christian's Bible, where would the media be? Would it even be reported? And if it was, who would care? Who would be bent out of shape? Who would become violent over the disrespecting of a Christian's holy book and have every major newspaper printing stories of church leaders demanding an apology; among other demands?

My point? Doesn't it seem to be a lopsided situation? Are Muslims and the Quran the only religious people and religious book deserving of respect and tolerance?

No Rhyme or Reason

I blog so seldom that I sometimes wonder why I keep this blog. The truth is that there is this thing inside of me that says I like to write. However, I am so spastic about my commitment to it that I debate keeping it, canceling it, keeping it, canceling it; you get the picture.

Suffering from depression adds to the uncertainty of why I bother as well as the knowledge that my opinions are unpopular enough to have people gnashing their teeth at me because they don't like what I believe.

Interestingly enough, I disagree with plenty that others have to say, yet no bile producing hate wells up in me towards any of the persons possessed of differing ideas, thoughts and words. Funny too, but not haha, that these are the very people who call me the intolerant one for my views. I don't get it but I kind of do get it. (Hey, it is statements like that which prompted the No Rhyme or Reason title for this blog entry.)

Alas though, I don't feel well enough to argue with folks, and I suppose I am harmless enough.

What is wrong with this thought: I think that the people of Iraq, as well as the (enslaved) people of North Korea, the people of the Dafur region of Sudan, and many, many others, need a free people, unified, who would lay it on the line so that they would not be enslaved, tortured, murdered and oppressed. I think free people like us, owe it to others who don't have the incredible, mind boggling freedoms and choices that we take so for granted, to help provide the same opportunity to those who are oppressed by their fellow human beings.

Iraq

Almost to a person, my friends and I dislike war, as well as the untimely deaths of so many of our military, other countries military (who have the guts to help secure Iraqi freedom) and the innocent Iraqi people themselves.

That being said, however, I am appalled at the constant criticism by the countries who should be working with the coalition to secure freedom for the Iraqi's. Instead, they fuel anti-war rhetoric (which is really another excuse to trash America), as they continue to turn a blind eye to the plight of the Iraqi people.

I think we all know that if the coalition were to withdraw from Iraq, there would be a slaughter of even more Iraqi's then there is now, until they are once again a subdued and oppressed people. They will probably fight quite hard, though, since so many have had a taste of freedom; the same freedom taken for granted by those who would criticize the involvement of the brave and many Americans, the Australians, the Italians, the Poles, as well as the English.

Big mouths with no backbone, who think only of themselves. It was clear that these once allies, Spain and Germany, should have supported the move against Saddam, as per the continual UN violations. But no, they instead would prefer to ignore the plight of the Iraqi people, just as the US did in the Gulf War, which after the objective of freeing Kuwait from the clutches of the sadistic Saddam Hussien, were responsible, by virtue of the stupid politics of folks sitting on their duffs in comfort and safety, for the slaughter of many, many, many innocent Iraqi's, who fought against Saddam as the Gulf War went on, hoping someone would care more for them then assine politics, and free them from Saddam.

War, huh? What is it good for? Well, sometimes it is good for setting people free.

Terrorism in Iraq

The constant and continued terrorizing of the innocent in Iraq is enough to turn my stomach, anger me, and cause me to weep for the lives lost in the pursuit of freedom. There should be no doubt that every person blown up in one of these attacks has died a hero for the freedom of their nation; with the exception of the person who blows himself up, be he Iraqi or Iranian.

When the media labels these terrorists as insurgents and such who are supposedly fighting to rid their country of the US led coalition, they mislead their readers. Those who blow up innocent people who are going about their business in their daily lives are terrorists. Period.

At one blog there was a heated dicussion on the subject of terrorist vs insurgents with various arguments of why these bombings of innocent people does and does not make them terrorists or insurgents, using definitions from the dictionary as well as quotes by some writers. Hello! You can define and critique till the cows come home, but the blowing up of innocent people in order to scare them enough that they will do what you want, for whatever reason: because you don't agree with them or because you don't like what is happening, is terrorizing them, hence they are terrorists.

The fact that the targets are those being trained so that Iraq can take care of herself and the coalition can go home, should make it difficult to believe anything else. These terrorists know what they are doing. They want to scare the people enough so that they won't take on the jobs having to do with the defense of their country. I hope that the people of Iraq stand firm in their resolve to be free. They deserve no less.