Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login
 
I am highly opinionated with a firm grip on the difference between right and wrong. I pay more attention to the candidates and the issues than to precise party lines. My facts are just that... FACTS- and my opinions are MY opinions- Regardless of what the subject, you can always find a good read on my blog, I write about various issues and not everything is focused on the subject of politics. I hope you enjoy!
Since President Bush made his (now infamous) remarks, the airwaves are filled with Obama and other libs/dems screaming about it. How dare the President say such a thing? How could he speak ill of another American politician while on foreign soil? Using Adolph Hitler's name was tantamount to a criminal act of sedition! Let's all get unhinged over it!!

Honestly, what an infantile response. But what can one expect from a childish, tantrum-throwing political hack (in training).

First of all, when Israel was founded 60 years ago, it was on the heels of Nazi Germany and the death camps. Referencing Hiltler and the failed appeasement policies of Neville (Lord) Chamberlain were entirely proper. Today's attacks on Israel come from terrorists who want to destroy it, just like Hiltler tried to erase the Jews. That appelation was appropriate and accurate, as well. The man mentioned in President Bush's speech as having mourned the notion that he could have stopped Hiltler was a REPUBLICAN, for crying out loud!

Barack Hussein Obama made mention, several months ago, that he would (as president) have unrestricted discussions with heads of terrorist states and their sympathizers. Now he wants us to forget that he said it. He feels guilty and is protesting way too much and way too loudly for the imagined affront.

Secondly, where was all the (political criticism stops at the borders) crappola when Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Nasty Pelosi and the Dixie Twits ran their faces in foreign countries? The only outrage I heard at those times came from the right. The left didn't seem to find it interesting at all. They thought it was totally acceptable freedom of speech.

Obama is a politician but everything about him seems off limits. Can't mention his big ears, can't mention his ancestry, can't mention his wife, can't mention his former (?) preacher, can't mention his dismal voting record... Now we can't allow ourselves to recall what he said on camera about personal negotiations with terrorists? But he brings things right to the surface by getting upset when a remark was made that had nothing to do with him.

Hope he didn't sprain his ankle while stomping his foot.
39
Vote
   


UN (Useless Nutcases)

May 16th 2008 13:40
After Kofi Anan and his crooked policies departed, I was hoping that Ban Ki Moon might do a better job. Fat chance... The UN is still basically an ineffective debating society, capable of words without action, and little else. The following link concerns a new plea for UN intervention that will probably fall on deaf ears, much like Darfur and other crisis areas they have avoided. Somebody, please remind me why we contribute to the UN?

Really Long Link
51
Vote
   


More Unintended Consequenses

May 16th 2008 11:47
As promised... This one is a little more obvious...

Al Gore and killings in a bread line don't seem to have much in common... or do they? It's another case of cause and effect. More unintended consequenses.

Global Cooling was the hue and cry of the 1970's. When the world didn't freeze to death by the 1990's, Al Gore figured out it must be Global Warming that prevented it. When he lost his bid for the White House in 2000, he had to have something to keep his name in the public memory, so he dove into the Global Warming story enthusiastically. Remember, he did nothing for the "environment" during his years as Vice President. "Earth in the Balance" was his first "test flight" into fantasy land. It sounds remarkably like the Unibombers Manifesto.

Discovering that he could sway a few gullible folks to buy his book, he decided that a movie should be next. So, with quasi-science, invented "facts", and a whole lot of nerve, he created "An Inconvenient Truth." Academy Award and Nobel Peace Prize followed, making him and his followers start believing the lie, themselves! Until it became clear that the warming trend had ended and it was cooling again. But that didn't stop him, oh no! He simply changed the name of the impending doom to "Climate Change." Apparently he thought that he could get away with the new name no matter what happened.

Enter the "Greenies" who think the planet would be better off without any humans at all. (With the obvious exception of themselves, of course!) Somehow, it became politically correct to buy into the "Climate Change" idea and even world leaders (or wannabe world leaders) jumped on the Gore bandwagon. They successfully prevented the exploration for more fossil fuels, citing the "environmental hazzard" of using petroluem products. They insisted we find "alternative energy sources" like solar (without actually funding research) and wind (but not near the homes of those who support it). Nuclear works fine in Europe, but they don't want it here. How about "bio-fuels?" they ask. Instead of using algae or industrial hemp for the bio-fuel, they have to use food crops (like corn!)

Using corn to make ethanol sounded like such a good idea at first, until the reality struck home. Forget the fact that ethanol is more expensive to produce and still has to be transported by trucks. Forget the fact that not all vehicles can run on it. Look what it did to the food supply! The unintended consequense was less corn for food (both human food and animal food, folks). It was all going to ethanol. Farmers got in financial trouble when the price of corn (and other grains shot up) and couldn't feed their livestock. The higher prices, like a great big snowball, started rolling downhill... getting bigger and bigger all the time.

Did I mention killings in bread lines? The price of fuel has sky-rocketed (like you didn't know, right?) bringing the cost of food right along with it. All over the world the effects are being felt. In the poorest countries, there are now bread lines where people have to stand and wait their turn to get bread to feed their families because that's all they can do. Hunger, stress and nerves get the better of some of those people and fights break out. Last I heard, 10 people had been stabbed while waiting for a loaf of bread...

The oil cartels keep raising their prices because they can. None of the oil rich countries are willing to lower their prices for humanitarian purposes. We are all dependent on them for oil and paying out the wazoo. If Gore and his "Greenies" hadn't been such shameless camera hogs, we would probably have had alternative energy sources by now and the fallacy of ethanol would never have happened. (At least not with food crops.)

Gore's action was intended to keep himself in the limelight, folks. Nothing more. The unintended consequenses are the real crisis.



32
Vote
   


Unintended Consequenses

May 16th 2008 10:59
Everything, every action we take can have consequences that are unintended and far reaching. Two things have brought this to my mind in the last week. First, the terrible earthquake in China. Second, an article by Pat Buchanan about Israel. Doesn't seem likely that the two could be connected, does it? I'll bet it'll seem even more unlikely that the main factor both things have in common is abortion!

Here's what I'm talking about... Abortion is a touchy subject. When I hear the word, I imagine a baby being murdered for the convenience of it's mother. Maybe when you hear it, you all you can think about is "helping" some "poor girl", right? We tend to think of it on a personal level. Something that happens one at a time. That would be the intended consequences. Now to the unintended ones


[ Click here to read more ]
41
Vote
   


I just stopped by Don Lee's blog, White Line Philosophy. He has an interesting take on gay marriage. He's asking if the new gay marriage laws will be followed by new gay divorce laws. Think about it, folks. Usually, it's the man who pays alimony, isn't it? What if the "husband and wife" are both men? Is it the higher wage earner? Like with celebrity divorces? And what if they have children? (Adopted, I mean. Biological children would go with the blood parent, I'm sure). Would the stay-at-home spouse get the kids? Or the wage earner? Would one half of the couple be designated "husband" and the other one, "wife?" Or would there have to be a new legal definition of which one was which? Would the two be absolutely equal in all ways? Would an abused male partner be able to go to a "battered women's shelter?" Or would new shelters have to be created for abused gays only?

Now that two men can marry or two women can marry, will three people be able to do it? Or will there have to be a new law specifying that "marriage" of any kind is only between TWO people? And what if a threesome decided to challenge it? Will the old Mormon ways of a man having multiple wives be resurrected to accommodate those who want group "marriages


[ Click here to read more ]
57
Vote
   


Edwards Endorses...

May 15th 2008 02:15
I just watched an amazing display of butt kissing. John Edwards (failed vice-presidential and presidential candidate) gave a lengthy and glowing testimony to Hillary Clinton, right before endorsing Barack Obama. He clearly hopes to be considered as vice-presidential material again (in spite of the fact that he couldn't even carry his home state). Apparently, he thinks that if Obama gets the nomination it will put him in good standing for a Cabinet position. If not the Vice-Presidency, maybe Attorney General (he was at his weaseling, vassilating best in the speech). While, if Hillary manages to pull off a coup and get the nomination, he can go back to the kind and generous words he used to describe her, forgetting what came after, and hope for something (maybe Supreme Court Justice Edwards?) As usual, he's trying to butter his bread on both sides. He hasn't figured out yet that when buttering the bread on both sides, one's hands tend to get all goopy...
30
Vote
   


State Constitutions

May 14th 2008 15:30
Do you know the Preamble for your state?
Here's another email, I wanted to share with you. Even the states that seem willing to remove God from their daily lives have kept His name in their constitutions. Note the years of each. ( Special note to Barack Obama, Allah is NOT mentioned and there are fifty (50) states.)

[ Click here to read more ]
49
Vote
   


Interesting Take on UFO's

May 14th 2008 15:04
Ever see something in the night sky that you couldn't explain? The Albuquerque lights? Or the Gulf Breeze sightings, or those in Mexico City? Do you wonder what really happened in Roswell, NM? Have you thought that believing in UFO's or ET's might somehow be in contradiction to your religious beliefs? What about the Book of Revelation? Isn't there a hint of sci-fi in some of the descriptions? I know some Christians who say that UFO's can't exist because it would go against the Bible. I've always thought that a God who created the univese could have decorated it with whatever life-forms He wanted.

Below is a link to MSN and an article about the Vatican's position on Extraterrestrials. I'm not a Catholic (anymore) but it makes a lot of sense. What do you think? Personally, I've always had a suspicion that some politicians aren't quite human


[ Click here to read more ]
40
Vote
   


A Few Noteworthy Facts

May 14th 2008 01:17
Here's another email I received today. Little details you never get to hear in the mainstream media. All we get to hear is the death tolls, the tragedies, the losses. Did you ever wonder why so many of the returning troops still believe in the mission and why so many of them volunteer to go back? Here's why...


[ Click here to read more ]
30
Vote
   


Subject: In Obama's own words (Very, very Scary)

Barack Obama got a great endorsement yesterday. He's being supported by none other than Ray Nagin! That's right, folks. Ray Nagin who could have saved all the victims of Hurricane Katerina if he'd acted in a timely fashion and put the rescue measures into effect before the disaster struck. Between him and Kathleen Brown (former Louisiana Governor), they are responsible for all those deaths. Brown wasn't reelected (Bobby Jindall was. On a strict conservative platform) but Nagin was. The people of New Orleans just didn't get it, I guess. He failed to act and caused lots of citizens to die, because he is as inept, ignorant, and downright stupid as his new hero, Obama. What a pair they are


[ Click here to read more ]
31
Vote
   


More Posts
27 Posts
48 Posts
50 Posts
935 Posts dating from October 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
Moderated by S.L.
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]