The Jawa Report: Hope/Change! Palestinians Greet Mitchell With Rocket Attacks!.

That was perfect commentary from TJR: “world outrage over this in 5 4 3 2 never.”

YID With LID: Congressman Peter King -Gitmo is Nicer than US Prisons.

Bydio.com is down again. Dreamhost FTT (For The THUD). Lunarpages, no worries.

No, didn’t think so.

My worry is that people see this and call upon the government to legislate “bad foods” away when doing that is just another form of the laziness people show when buying the food in the first place.  As Christopher Kimball wrote, “We could, through different purchasing decisions, change the food industry overnight.”  However, by also saying, “But are we up to the task of saving ourselves? I doubt it,” he’s saying that people can’t make their own “correct” decisions, so they’ll have to have their decisions made for them.  Scary.

Supporters of Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison scream “Allahu Akbar!” at his victory celebration.

Um… yeah… he’s Muslim… they’ll ululate and scream “Allahu Akbar!”  Just like some Christian supporters of their winning candidate would say, “Praise Jesus!” over and over.

Personally, I don’t like the Daily Kos.  The blog is too left-wing fringe for me to take it seriously.  Their agenda in this post that LGF is commenting on is not something I agree with at all.  I think Israel is the only sane power in the region, and to not help them is to seriously hurt ourselves.  So when dKos talks about:

“But to me the biggest issue now is pressing for an open discussion on the State of Israel, and how the Israel lobby influences our elected representatives.”

I’m thinking he’s a complete moron.

*So you’re agreeing with LGF?*

Yes and no.

While LGF is against dKos on this policy, I’m with them.  However, saying dKos is antisemitic because he thinks Israeli politics have too much influence on our government isn’t really correct.  While dKos may be antisemitic, anti-jew and/or anti-Israel, he’s only commenting on policy.  I’m sure his opinion is heavily influenced by the disgusting misreporting from all over the Middle East, but he’s talking about policy, and just because it’s against Israel doesn’t mean he’s antisemitic.

Semitic is all arabs, anyway, and dKos seems to be pro-palestinian, so it’s incorrect.

I know, picky picky.  I’m just saying, accusing someone of antisemetism when it’s not technically true (a conservative ploy) is just as bad as accusing someone of racism when it’s not necessarily true (a liberal ploy).

That’s just the way I see it.

Big Whoop.

Little Green Footballs goes apeshit over it, calling it: “the dead end of the “progressive” ideology—young people with no sense
of history, no pride in their own heritage, and no moral center”.

Well, no, not really.  They’re doing the college thing, wearing berets like Che, acting out, simple stuff.  Remember, this is for their own meetings, not for the school or campus or anything big.  A sense of history doesn’t come from a much-modified Pledge of Allegiance to a flag.  Pride in your heritage doesn’t come from a much-modified Pledge of Allegiance to a flag.  Moral center doesn’t come from a much-modified Pledge of Allegiance to a flag.  No matter the flag, no matter the pledge, it won’t instill history, pride in yoru heritage or moral center.

One of the kids even speaks truth about the pledge:

“That (’under God’) part is sort of offensive to me,” student trustee
Jason Bell, who proposed the ban, told Reuters. “I am an atheist and a
socialist, and if you know your history, you know that ‘under God’ was
inserted during the McCarthy era and was directly designed to destroy
my ideology.”

Guess what, he’s right.  “The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance

Further:

Bell said the ban largely came about because the trustees didn’t want
to publicly vow loyalty to the American government before their
meetings. “Loyalty ought to be something the government earns through
performance, not through reciting a pledge,” he said.

How dare he insist that government should earn trust.  He’s a socialist, the government is always right to a socialist.

As for me, I think his words are correct.  In our society, a capitalistic republican democracy with a limited government constitution, the government DOES have to earn the trust of the people.  Every day, in word and deed.  It hasn’t been doing so well lately (and the democrats are going to make it worse, just as the republicans would’ve if they’d been kept in office).

So, the kid ain’t so bad.  LGF, however… a bit nutroots on that one.

A global display of terrorism and other suspicious events.  Pretty fascinating to watch.

Another cause of crime is clearly the breakdown of the family, the absence of fathers, and an increased toleration for the abandonment of mothers and children while men move on in search of more fulfilling sexual relationships. The almost total breakdown of the traditional family is a dominant feature, perhaps the most dominant feature, of high-crime, “underclass” areas in the West.

When a family breaks up, it’s a sad thing, but the stats of fathers leaving the family may show something that isn’t obvious.

Why does the father leave?  Mr. Humphrys says it’s because “men move on in search of more fulfilling sexual relationships.”  I have to disagree.

I say that the fathers leave because they are expected to leave.  That’s what men have to do when the home life isn’t bearable.  Women and children stay in the environment that was created for their security and comfort, while men are expected to move on, to have the resilience to recreate their life outside this comfort and security.  Men are expected to be wanderers and are expected to be strong enough to survive without social life support until they can create a new home for themselves and another mate.

So we blame men for leaving when it’s actually what we expect of them.  While the movie “The War Of The Roses” is a comedic farce, the reason the story works is because the situation is just wrong: a man and a woman, having lost whatever bond they tried to create, cannot stay in the same place.

But let’s not overlook a possible root cause of the breakdown of the union.  A societal issue that seems to be coming more and more to the fore: men can’t trust women.

Ooooh, sounds mysoginistic, doesn’t it?  Of course if I said, “women can’t trust men”, everyone would take that as fact.  Of course they can’t, men are lying cheats and evil.  Nope, sorry.

It is my contention that that too many women don’t know how to be comfortable in a relationship.  With all the TV shows telling them how to act, all the magazines telling them how not to act, and all the music telling them what they are, they’ve simply lost any real base; they don’t know what to be.  Further, they don’t know how to treat men because of all the conflicting information shoved into their heads.

This confusion leads to a very poor home life for any man, often from the dissatisfaction of the woman.  If you can’t please her, and she can’t please herself, it’s constant strife.  Most men want nothing more than to make their woman happy; a happy woman is a happy home, and a happy home has less stress.  A happy home is an oasis from the soothsayers and naysayers who prognosticate from “on high” somewhere.

Also, a man has to be able to trust his woman.  She can’t be a blabbermouth or his community standing is diminished, along with hers for being a gossip.  Please, women of the world, you have to be smarter, more emotionally secure, or the happiness we all are looking for is never going to grow.

On a side note, love usually doesn’t last… well, not the love that you feel when you two first meet.  The giddy euphoria of new love will fade, but it needs to be replaced by something else.  That something else has to be mutual respect and trust in one another.  Without new love growing into lasting love, there’s nothing but a void. [Men, of course, need to earn the trust and respect of their woman, too.]

To conclude, the breakdown of the family has many causes, but some instances — more and more, it seems — are caused by unsatisfied women.  If a man can’t trust his woman, then he doesn’t have a woman at all.

Find me a politician that supports carrying the war to the Mullahs of Iran, the Baaths of Syria, the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia, and all their cohorts, in order to permanently remove Islam as a tool of Communist Chinese desires to destroy us, as well as to destroy the threat of Islam itself.  Find me one who understands that a nation that cannot control its borders is no longer a nation.  Find me one that understands that a nation that saddles itself with trillions of dollars of spendthrift squandering, coupled with more trillions of unretirable debt, is throttling its own present and future.

Then find me politicians who do more than just blather about those things, but actually work – and vote – to mitigate them, and I’m there.

If you know of any who are pretty good on most, or all, of these issues, post their names here.

Unfortunately one needs to be registered and approved to post a comment on that very popular blog, so I’ll post my answer here:  Congressman Ron Paul, 14th District, Texas.

He runs as a Republican, but his principles are Libertarian, and what Bill mentions above is a Libertarian agenda.  You can check out Ron Paul’s website (http://www.house.gov/paul/) and see what he stands for.

I wish he was my Representative in Congress.