http://www.articletrader.com/ Articles at ArticleTrader en-us http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/christians-in-the-mist.html http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/christians-in-the-mist.html Sun, 07 Jan 2007 00:00:00 -0600
It’s a bold move for Hillary because to learn about these creatures who are only slightly understood (by liberals anyway) will require the presidential hopeful to pack up her rucksack, adorn boots that surely will not match her eyes, dress in low end clothing and leave the comfy confines of Washington DC. It will require Hillary to set out into the wilderness in order to study everything from Christian family life and social structure to their frequent gatherings in places called “churches” in order to better understand how she can convince them to vote for her as she runs for the White House.

I’m sure Mr. Strider makes a pretty penny educating dullards locked away in Capitol Hill offices and million dollar mansions about how the vast majority of Americans live. This just goes to show you that people really will pay for anything. In the past it was the Pet Rock. Today it to understand the obvious.

So I thought maybe I would give Hillary the advice for free. Having lived among the Christians for all thirty-four years of my life it will be far easier than her trying to understand them in two short years. Plus she won’t have to forego a single Washington social gathering or cocktail party.

First, Christians believe in God. And not just any old god or multiple “gods” but the God with a capital “G”.

Now Hillary, sit down please. Because I don’t want you to fall over in shock over this next tidbit. Not only do Christians believe in God but they believe that God actually set forth some things called “Commandments” which are general rules for living.

I know! It’s shocking! God as a source of moral authority and not the government? Barbarians!

Ah, but there is more! See, these Christians also tend to believe that God sent them this guy called Jesus to die for their sins. No, no, not Jesus your gardener from Mexico Hillary. Jesus Christ is the man to which Christians refer and he died about two thousand years ago.

Furthermore Christians read from this book called the “Bible”. I know! This is even more shocking! Christians can read? Yep. You bet they can.

This “Bible” is like a manual for that car your chauffeur drives you around in and that he has to look at every now and again to figure out how the car works. Except that instead of telling him that when the change oil light comes on that it is time to change the oil, the Bible chronicles the acts of God and also the teachings of this guy Jesus Christ.

So what else can I tell you about Christians Hillary? Oh, I know! Most Christians would like nothing more than to be able to practice their faith and be left alone by government.

They would like to be able to put up a manger scene depicting the birth of Christ on public property which their tax dollars pay for and sing actual Christmas Hymns and not be relegated to Frosty the Snowman at school “Christmas” pageants without fear of being sued by the ACLU. They would like to be able to wish people a “Merry Christmas” at Christmas without fear that someone is going to badger them for being insensitive towards other religions and made up holidays like Kwanzaa. And they certainly would prefer that Easter which is one of their major holidays be known more for the resurrection of their Lord Jesus Christ than a weird bunny hopping around and distributing painted eggs.

And most importantly Hillary is this. Christians would like to think that they can vote for someone who isn’t so out of touch with them that she has to hire a “consultant” to teach her their ways and lead her into the mist to discover the vast majority of America.


--
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author who writes on issues concerning the United States Constitution and how our elected politicians have discarded the founding principles of this nation. He is the owner of Conservative News & Opinion - The Land of the Free, American Conservative Daily Blog and also The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts.

Source: http://www.articletrader.com ]]> http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/america-in-the-wilderness.html http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/america-in-the-wilderness.html Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:00:00 -0600
We’ve progressed far away from the principles upon which America was founded and the journey has taken its toll on liberty. It started before the ink was even dry on the Constitution. One need only look at how the founding fathers themselves compromised on the concept of “all men created equal” and turned a blind eye to the evils of slavery for the sake of political power and national unity. But much like if a bank robber proclaims that murder is wrong, the fact that the bank robber was a cheat and a crook does not negate the truth that murder is wrong.

Our founding fathers were not bank robbers but they certainly were not perfect human beings. That does not mean that they did not have a lot of things right however. Thomas Jefferson, who is perhaps one of the most often misquoted of the founding fathers, once wrote “I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious” and “liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others”.

I selected these two quotes because I could surely spend hours quoting many of our founding fathers but not sum up the vast majority of their opinions more succinctly than this. When you boil it all down, despite the flaws of implementation, what was talked about most during our founding was liberty for the people and limited government.

But despite espousing these principles, America immediately entered into the wilderness exiling such principles from the start. In the beginning however because the departures were few the seeds that were sown were able to take root and become the basis of a fairly successful republic.

But as Thomas Jefferson said, “A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.” And just as he himself did not always follow his own advice we continue to justify to this day our departures from the principles upon which we founded this nation. His words ultimately ring hauntingly true.

Despite making progress at correcting some wrongs throughout our history, programs such as the “New Deal” and the “Great Society” cemented in American society our willingness to create “parasites” who on Election Day are encouraged to pull the lever for those which will take from the “labor of the industrious” and place it into their hands. We have thrown to the wind the concepts of liberty and equal rights for all citizens in exchange for government management of our lives through confiscatory taxes and liberty infringing regulations.

The “new course” that is preparing to be plotted is the same old course that has kept us stranded in the wilderness long past our time. Except now a new captain will be at the helm who thinks that they can make the wilderness more palatable.
Our history has been fraught with taking one step towards liberty only take two steps backwards into the wilderness. No matter what we have called ourselves in order to justify these encroachments from “progressive” to “compassionate conservative”, in the years since our founding all that has really changed is the speed at which we implement policies that destroy liberty and depart us from principle.

--
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author whose writings proudly promote the concept of limited government and personal liberty. He is the owner of Conservative News & Opinion - The Land of the Free and also The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts

Source: http://www.articletrader.com ]]> http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/if-santorum-is-conservative-were-in-trouble.html http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/if-santorum-is-conservative-were-in-trouble.html Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:00:00 -0500
I feel compelled to at least clear the air and set the record straight as a conservative who is a true believer in conservativism. It certainly is not hip to suggest that people simply understand who they are voting for and not sugar coat the records of candidates.

As a prime example I need point no further than incumbent Senator Rick Santorum in my home state of Pennsylvania. He is running against Bobby Casey Jr. who I suspect is easily distracted by shiny objects considering he has not stopped running for some political office using his father's name since 2000. I've heard local and national pundits talking about how "conservative" Rick Santorum is in an attempt to drum up additional support for his floundering campaign. And I laugh.

Come on. Let's be honest!

The truth is that if Santorum is a "conservative", the conservative movement is in deep, deep trouble. He certainly is better than the only alternative on the ballot but come on, let's at least be honest.

Many people are not going to like that I am going to point out all the outright unconstitutional (or at best questionably constitutional) acts Senator Santorum has participated in. And no doubt some will like his propensity for hanging on to social welfare programs and pork barrel spending with white knuckles. But if you open your pocket constitution to Article I and especially Section 8 as well as refer to Madison's dissertation in Federalist 41 you will clearly see that not a single one of these actions are under Congress' authority. And that like it or not, I am right.

Rick Santorum has engaged in unconstitutional behavior including supporting:

- the continuation of unconstitutional programs such as Social Security, Food Stamps and even the expanding of Medicare to cover more things such as prescription drugs

- the use of federal funds to build power plants

- the establishment of Health Savings Accounts regulated by federal statute

- tax laws designed to interfere with the free markets like the Telework Incentive Act, the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program and benefit programs such as the Association Health Plan legislation

- funding for medical research and Lyme Disease

- laws governing how citizens may petition government under the auspices of lobbying reform

- federal funding for Pennsylvania's public schools, special needs children and Headstart

- medical benefits to laid off workers through "Fair Care"

- redistributing of tax payer money to low income families in the form of matching savings accounts and the "Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)"

- interference with non-profit organizations working with the homeless and drug addicts

- the "Pet Animal Welfare Statue"

- farm land conservation projects under the "Farmland Preservation Program

- chasing "price gouging" phantoms with the "Gasoline Affordability and Security Act"

- price and wage regulations by supporting an increase to the minimum wage

- money to fire companies in the State

- funding healthcare facilities that are not able to turn a profit and compete in the real world

- interfering with private family matters such as family finances and the failure of individuals to plan for emergency situations including long term care of a loved one

- interference with the Executive Branch's authority and control over the military by suing to stop to the closure of military bases in Pennsylvania

Each of these claims are proudly touted by Senator Santorum in his pamphlet "50 things you may not know about Rick Santorum" which should be more aptly titled "Many things conservatives wish they did not know about Rick Santorum".

Now like I said, you may actually like some of those things. And you may even support Santorum on these actions. But it does not mean that he and the federal government have the power to engage in these activities.

Rick Santorum is certainly a man of spiritual convictions, has finally come around on immigration to support defending America from invasion by illegal aliens and has been pretty good on reducing taxes and some other issues we conservatives hold dear. But rather than puffing Mr. Santorum as a real "conservative" as many others do, I am compelled to tell you the truth. And that truth is that Senator Rick Santorum, while certainly more conservative than his opponent, is no real conservative.

This does not mean that I am encouraging conservatives not to vote for Rick Santorum. I cannot in good conscious do that because the only other options are not to vote or vote for Bobby Casey. And the thought of Senator Bobby Casey is even scarier.

I'm sick and tired of the lesser of two evils. I really am.

But if you do vote for him and other so-called "conservatives" like him understand when you pull that lever what you are voting "for". Because usually beneath that "conservative" facade lays a big government demon that will need to be kept in check by we the people. And you can bet your bottom dollar that no matter which candidate wins November 7th they will need to be watched over like a 4 year old in a candy store.

--
J.J. Jackson is the owner and Editor at Large of Conservative News Opinion & Politics - The Land of the Free and American Conservative Daily.

Source: http://www.articletrader.com ]]> http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/america-is-a-free-speech-zone.html http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/america-is-a-free-speech-zone.html Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:00:00 -0500
So what was it this week? What was so idiotic that I just had to scrap an already written article for something new at 6:00PM on Wednesday? And who was responsible for this problem? None other than our official pointy headed dullard of the week - Professor James South.

Mr. South is chairman of the philosophy department at Marquette University and he has decided that "Free Speech" can only exist in certain places. Due to "complaints" he decided to remove an "offensive" quote from the door of a Ph.D. student.

What was the quote? Was it something like "Kill the Jews!", "Rape women - they really like it!" or maybe "Death to George Bush!"? Nope. The offensive quote was one by popular columnist Dave Barry saying merely "as Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer of course to the federal government."

Dave Barry is in good company with such opinions; company such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and many, many other founding fathers that expressed the exact same warning over two hundred years ago. Apparently however some liberals, who get hard-ons every time government sticks its hands down their pants, do not like those types of dangerous opinions and complained. To a liberal after all government power is the greatest thing since sliced bread. They cannot live their lives without it and how dare someone imply that excessive government power should be feared! Silence that man!

I do guess however that Mr. South is just taking his cue from the federal government itself. Congress created "free speech" and "non free speech" zones when it determined when one can and cannot engage in political speech. You might recall McCain-Feingold? Campaign Finance Reform created a "free speech zone" and a "no free speech zone" in America when it dictated that citizens could not engage in certain types of political speech for no other reason than there was an election a certain number of days away.

President Bush even signed it. The Supreme Court even upheld it when it was challenged. It must be true!

So Mr. South is just doing what he thinks the government wants him to do. I am sure Marquette University receives copious amounts of federal funds through research grants and student loans. Sure they are unconstitutional government expenditures but that is another story. Mr. South is just making sure that as a de facto employee of the federal government at a de facto government institution he is implementing the policy of the government which is to arbitrarily enforce when and where free speech may be practiced.

In an email explaining his actions Mr. South opined: "While I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I'm afraid that hallways and office doors are not 'free-speech zones.'" So now "academic freedom" is only allowed to be practiced where according to Mr. South? Behind locked doors? Correct me if I am wrong but is that not some sort of bastardization of the concept of "freedom"?

My question is how will Mr. South act when his own standard is upheld against him? The next time he engages in "free speech" in the hallway perhaps he should be "removed". I'm sure he does this rather often so I expect to see him gone from the university within the week. That is, unless he never talks to anyone ever again. Which may not be a bad thing considering the idiocy that comes spewing from his mouth.

--
J.J. Jackson is the owner and Editor at Large of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free and American Conservative Daily. He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts

Source: http://www.articletrader.com ]]> http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/will-liberals-ever-recognize-the-constitution.html http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/will-liberals-ever-recognize-the-constitution.html Sun, 17 Sep 2006 00:00:00 -0500
Each sentence I write has significance in the point that it is making. And when I pontificate on topics of how our elected officials overstep the restraints on their power I try to make a habit of using history to prove my point by quoting the Constitution. Whatever the issues happen to be, such citations are to show that my ideas are not “radical” and are designed to lay the ground work for showing how those that disagree with me ignore the real issues and are the real “radicals”. And without fail when the responses of the political left are rather typical.

Take for example the article I wrote two weeks ago. “Go West Young Liberals! Go West!” was a perfect example of how the left really never addresses the issues but instead plays a sinister game of hide the salami. The whole purpose of which is to avoid the truth.

“Go West Young Liberals!” was a dissertation about how the California Assembly passed a bill to grant all Californians health care coverage managed by the State and to be paid for (of course) by taxing California workers. In the article I cited two major breaches of the Constitution that this law brought up. First, was that it interfered with Article I, Section 10 which, in association with the 14th Amendment, prevents states from interfering with the freedom of the people to contract with whomever they wanted to for legal services. This law would instead say that you only have the right to contract with the State and the State alone. The second issue was that it interfered with the 14th Amendment’s “due process” protection. This protection prohibits the removal of liberties in general without one’s day in court, that such proceedings be fair and also without being found guilty of a crime. And I was unaware that having healthcare outside of a state run program was a “crime”. I even cited a case where a law in the State of Louisiana was thrown out for just such reasons (Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897)) as it restricted the right to contract.

But how did those that disagreed respond? Out of the hundreds of responses I read in emails and on sites that distributed that article not one, not a single one, of those that prefer such socialism and arbitrary government control addressed seriously the court case, Article I, Section 10 or the 14th Amendment. Granted my articles wind up on more sites than I can possibly visit but one would think that out of all those responses that I was able to read someone on the left would have at least made a serious attempt to address the Constitution. It is the “supreme law of the land” after all.

Instead, like I said, the responses by the left were typical. There certainly was lots of praise for the plan and numerous replies about how they liked the idea and how it was “needed”. And there was certainly a lot of scorn hurled my way from “compassionate” liberals. I was called a “racist”, “bigot”, “sexist”, and “anti-immigrant” as well as a “NAZI” by people who wish to redefine terms to suit their agenda. One particularly vile email even called me “lap dog for the fascist corporate state” without even citing any evidence other than the writer's own vitriolic beliefs.

More than one respondent even questioned how I, as a middle class, working American, could not possibly see the virtues of such a plan and the glorious solution it provided. All in typical liberal “we know what’s best for you” fashion to try to paint me as some sort of dunderhead who could not see the obvious. Of course what was actually “obvious” was that I believed that I was better able to decide how to spend my own money; that I believed in liberty. How “radical”!

In fact there was only one person on the hard left that even tried to address the Constitutional concerns. But when he misquoted Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution as saying that Congress was “explicitly granted authority to provide medical care and coverage for all citizens” (his quotation NOT mine) and later that the “Federalist Papers were a concoction of the right wing in the 1980’s and no original copies had ever been found” to dismiss Madison’s “general Welfare” explanation in Federalist 41 you can only imagine the laughter that ensued on my part. Not to mention as the lack of credibility I proceeded to give his argument.

I don’t scratch my head at such responses any more. When I first started writing and publishing my opinion I’ll admit they did perplex me. But as time has worn on I have learned that there are many people who would rather simply promote their agenda and recruit more useful idiots to their left wing cause of over reaching government than answering serious questions in a serious manner. Especially when those questions are about how much power their fellow travelers really have to control our lives. They can only twist words so far before they break them.

So instead Constitutional concerns are all too often swept under the rug in hopes that they will be at best ignored or at worst eventually forgotten by a populace generally ignorant about the foundations of our country, it’s Constitution and the our founding fathers left to their posterity. After all the Constitution really isn’t that important right? At least not to them since it generally gets in the way of their pursuit of power. It’s only real purpose is basically as fancy toilet paper with which to wipe their rear ends.

And as long as that is how they view the “supreme law of the land” there is no hope when arguing with the left. Much like you cannot argue with a four year old in line at that grocery store demanding a candy bar and throwing a tantrum until they either get the sweets or have their bottoms beaten to a nice shade of red. Unfortunately we seem to have an aversion to corporal punishment these days. Which means that we are overrun by a lot of four-year-olds stuffing their faces with a lot of candy bars they should not have.

--
J.J. Jackson is the owner of The Land of the Free and also the owner of the popular Conservative T-shirt and Gift shop The Right Things.

Source: http://www.articletrader.com ]]> http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/ok-you-win-well-negotiate-with-terrorists.html http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/ok-you-win-well-negotiate-with-terrorists.html Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:00:00 -0500
Let's begin shall we?

J.J. Jackson: Thank you Mohammed for joining me.

Mohammed: Thank you for finally succumbing to the great and glorious power of Allah. But I must correct your infidel misconceptions. We are not “terrorists”. We are soldiers of Allah purging the land of the infidels like you.

J.J. Jackson: Well, since we are here to negotiate an end to this war and in the spirit of moving these talks forward, we’ll just have to chalk that up to a difference of opinion.

Mohammed: Our terms are simple. You are an infidel and non-believer. You must convert or die.

J.J. Jackson: Mohammed, that is unacceptable. I was thinking we could discuss perhaps a solution where we could both live in peace.

Mohammed: You must convert or die. No other solution is acceptable.

J.J. Jackson: Well I’m not going to renounce my faith in Christ and I am not going to die. I am here and we have to come to a better solution.

Mohammed: If you will not convert then you and all the infidels must die.

J.J. Jackson: What about if we pull our troops out of Iraq and let you take control of the region and subjugate the people there to Sharia Law?

Mohammed: The land of Iraq will be ours by the will of Allah but leaving will not save you. All infidels must die.

J.J. Jackson: I told you Mohammed, I am not going to die. What about if we give you Iraq and Afghanistan?

Mohammed: The lands of Islam will be conquered by our armies and you will die. There can be no land of peace. You are an infidel.

J.J. Jackson: I told you I am not going to die. What if we remove our military bases from Saudi Arabia?

Mohammed: The kingdom of Saudi Arabia will once again be returned to the glory of Allah! And you and all the others infidels will die.

J.J. Jackson: I’m beginning to think that you are simply being unreasonable. But because I have been convinced that this war is wrong and we must negotiate I’ll sweeten the deal. You can have Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and we’ll remove all the Jews from Israel and set them up with a new nation in South Carolina.

Mohammed: We will drive the evil Zionists into the sea wherever they are and we shall kill all the infidels!

J.J. Jackson: Mohammed, you’re not making this look good for the liberals that have convinced me that we should end this war by talking to you.

Mohammed: What part of “we want you to die” don’t you understand?

J.J. Jackson: Ok, I’ll tell you what, we’ll throw in France. You can have it. How about it?

Mohammed: The evil nation of France will be ours by the will of Allah and we shall purge all the infidels from the lands. We will kill all infidels around the world.

J.J. Jackson: Ok, ok. It seems you will not be happy until you kill someone. How about we let you have all the liberals? Huh? How about it? They're a pretty decadent lot. You can kill them and be happy right?

Mohammed: We will kill all the infidels!

J.J. Jackson: Ok how about all the liberals and half the Jews? You really seem to hate the Jews and I am sure if you would agree to live in peace half would surely willingly give up their lives.

Mohammed: All of the infidel Jews will die along with their Zionist empire which has stolen that which rightfully belongs to the soldiers of Allah.

J.J. Jackson: Ok, all the liberals, half the Jews and we’ll let you beat the rest of the Jews half to death?

Mohammed: We will kill all the infidels!

J.J. Jackson: Ok, we’ll let you kill all the liberals, half the Jews, beat the rest of the Jews half to death, all the land we have previously offered and you can cut off one leg from everyone else.

Mohammed: No, you must all die!

J.J. Jackson: Mohammed, why are you being so unreasonable?

Mohammed: We are not being unreasonable! Allah demands the death of all Infidels! You will die. Only then will there be peace.

J.J. Jackson: I’m beginning to think that there is no negotiating with you Mohammed. Surely there must be something we can do to end this?

Mohammed: Yes, you must all die!

J.J. Jackson: What about if I sweeten the pot with a lifetime supply of Krispy Kreme donuts?

Mohammed: Mmmmm. When all the infidels are dead we shall have all the Krispy Kremes we desire! Death to the Infidels!

J.J. Jackson: How about the Krispy Kremes and the secret formula for Coca Cola?

Mohammed: Allah Akbar! Death to the infidels!

J.J. Jackson: Hmmm. How odd. No sane person could resist the secret formula.

Mohammed: DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!

J.J. Jackson: Maybe we cannot negotiate with you. Is there nothing that we can offer you for peace?

Mohammed: We will have peace when the lifeless bodies of all the infidels lay on blood stained ground!

J.J. Jackson: Sigh. Sorry all you liberals out there. I tried. But there is simply no negotiating with these people. It appears that yes, sometimes war is the answer.


--
J.J. Jackson is the owner and Editor at Large of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free and also the owner and lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts

Source: http://www.articletrader.com ]]> http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/child-molesters-and-terrorist-wackos-an-amicable-solution.html http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/child-molesters-and-terrorist-wackos-an-amicable-solution.html Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:00:00 -0500
The two incidents are not, in and of themselves, related except for the fact that I think I have come up with an amicable solution that will help us with the persistent problem of child molesters and at the same time make those that want to practice Jihad and kill “infidels” happy by aiding them on their journey to paradise – er, I mean Hell. It is truly a bolt of inspiration that struck me while accidentally looking at both these recent events.

People that prey on children for sex are right on par with people that want to strap bombs to themselves (or their children) and kill men, women and children going about their daily lives. Being so equally low on the evolutionary food chain I think that it is only right that we create a program to get these two groups together. You know, kind of like a “Big Brother” program or, better yet, a dating service for scumbags.

So here is the plan. Jihad loving terrorists would be allowed come into our prisons and pick out their own child molester to “mentor”. Maybe we will come up with a 40-point “compatibility” survey or something like that to make sure the matches are perfect. I have not quite decided on that. But once we have several groups of terrorists and child rapists paired up we will provide them with a small air plane and train one of the terrorists to fly it out of the goodness of our hearts.

All of them will be loaded on to the plane and then it will be welded shut to ensure none of our new couples can get off. We will give them enough fuel to get about 100 miles out over the ocean. Of course it will be guided by remote control for, let’s say, the first 75 miles of its flight just in case the terrorist pilot gets any bright ideas. We do not want to give these nutjobs a chance to veer off course and seek out the nearest city.

Each of the terrorists on the plane will also be given their own suicide vests which, will again, be disarmed until they reach at least the 75 mile mark. At which time all suicide vests will be activated.

Then Mohammed, Habib, Achmed, or whoever the pilot is will come on the intercom, lead the terrorists in a fervent chant of “Allah akbar!” and command all the terrorists to detonate their vests over the calm blue waters of either the Atlantic or the Pacific.

Maybe we will also fill the cargo hold of the plane with unclean pigs that will splatter the terrorists with blood when they go boom. Think of it like a “lottery”. If you are lucky enough to not get caught in the splatter you make it to paradise – uh, sorry again - I mean Hell.

I think it is the perfect solution to two of the biggest problems we face today. I would suggest that this program be done in secret by our government but I know that the New York Times would eventually find out about it and blow the cover off it anyway. So I will make this proposal with the terrorists in public. The deal is that you can kill yourself and take an “infidel” who happens to be a child molester with you.

Maybe we can call it “Take an Infidel child molester to work day.” What do you say? Do we have a deal?


--
J.J. Jackson is the owner of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. and Lead Editor of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free (http://www.thelandofthefree.net) and American Conservative Daily (http://www.americanconservativedaily.com).

Source: http://www.articletrader.com ]]> http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/united-nations-to-the-rescue-of-terrorists.html http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/united-nations-to-the-rescue-of-terrorists.html Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 -0500
But golly gee wilikers! When Israel has had enough and goes on an all out butt whooping rampage against the terrorists and those that support them, the United Nations under the ever decisive leadership of Kofi Annan leaps into action like Superman! Well, at least we know what it takes to get the vaunted “international community” off their butts. Who cares when Israel is under attack right? But if terrorist thugs are threatened with annihilation they cannot wait to jump in and save those poor soles.

Reuters reports, “Annan, after talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, said he would push ahead with the plan [of an international security/monitoring presence] as a matter of urgency.” (source)

Does he mean a force like the impotent one the United Nations sent to Bosnia? Yeah, that worked out great didn’t it?

I wonder who would make up such a force – U.S. soldiers for the most part I’ll bet. Of that I have no doubt since we always bear the burden of keeping the United Nations afloat in money and man power.

And the press is all to eager to help out running stories about some of the good things these terrorists do for the people of these countries meanwhile forgetting to emphasize that they are terrorizing these very same people!

We do not need a “security” presence in countries like Lebanon. What we need is to let Israel defend itself against not only terrorists but also weak governments unable to control their own territory. We need to let Israel wipe the floor with these dregs of the world who have shown time and again that the only time they stop fighting is when they are on the ropes and need to reload and regroup. It doesn’t matter how many cease-fires we sign and how much we negotiate. The result has always been renewed violence initiated by the terrorists.

What we need to see is countries by themselves stand up and stand side by side with Israel independent of the United Nothings. Countries like the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and others need to stand shoulder to should with the Israelis and show their ability to act independently of the global socialist governance of the biggest paper tiger there is.

Some people however will not act. These are the people that have lost their moral compass and would be reluctant to lift a finger even when presented pictures of Jews being thrown into gas chambers and ovens. I dare say there are far too many whom would actually cackle with joy over such a sight like their fascist and dictatorial left wing brethren (i.e. Hitler and Stalin) have in the past.

We have tried the path of appeasement. Time and again Israel has been asked to concede land and restrict it’s own responses to make everything all right. And time and again such ideas are proven as nothing short of complete idiocy as their enemies simply move their mortar and rocket positions that much closer to the heart of Israel.

This will not end until those that have sworn to destroy Israel are defeated. And when I say “defeated” I do not mean simply beaten. I they must be soundly demolished, their must be armies decimated, their soldiers killed, and their supporters driven from their own lands and left to fend for themselves in some remote corner of the Middle East's deserts and mountains for the rest of their miserable lives.

They want war. And it is high time that they get a taste of what war really is.

It is time for the united nations of the world to stop acting as a protector of terrorists. Not some day soon, but today.


--
J.J. Jackson is the owner and Editor at Large of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free and American Conservative Daily.

Source: http://www.articletrader.com ]]> http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/two-weeks-of-hell-for-liberals.html http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/two-weeks-of-hell-for-liberals.html Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:00:00 -0500
It started with Francine Busby. In the running for the open seat of corrupt and disgraced Republican “Duke” Cunningham she let the cat out of the bag and revealed the left’s election strategy of “Yeah, you don’t need papers for voting” which culminated in her defeat. Two more conservative politicians took 55% of the vote (Brian Bilbray took 50%) showing that the “culture of corruption” plank of the Democratic Party’s election strategy was not resonating.

So they are now scrambling to find a new strategy while trying desperately to sweep corrupt Liberals like William Jefferson (D-LA) and Alcee Hastings (D-FL) out of the spotlight.

Then came the news last week that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi received a pair of blow-me-up bouquets from the United States Military. Zarqawi quickly assumed room temperature, reports of his “torture” before his death never gained traction and the act caused a spike in opinion among Americans that don’t really know much about the War in Iraq anyway that the was now actually (gasp) winnable!

Then the same day Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced that he had filled the remaining few positions in his cabinet and thus Iraq’s new government was completely formed. This, in case you forgot, was something that the left said was not possible or at the very best had expressed doubts about being possible.

Then more news! Karl Rove, whom the left had already sworn was ready to be fitted for his orange jumpsuit, would not be indicted nor “frog marched” anywhere despite rumors by salivating left wing bloggers.

Then just as the left thought it couldn’t get any worse, President Bush kicked them right in the teeth by praising Iraq and showing support for the government in the wake of al-Zarqawi’s death. But not only did he do this, but also he did it FROM IRAQ! Once again showing that he is not above putting himself in harm’s way. And if any of you think that this trip wasn’t dangerous ask our soldiers getting shot at every day.

Then there was Hillary Clinton attending a convention of the left’s worst and dimmest where she said that she would not support a firm timetable for withdrawing for Iraq. This all but ended her Presidential aspirations leaving the liberals only a war criminal named John Kerry to cheer for who supported the war before he did not support the war.

Could things get any worse? Well, it did not seem possible but today there is even more devastating news that al-Zarqawi himself in a lengthy memo admitted that, yes, President Bush’s continued pressure is weakening the Iraqi terrorist insurgency. Zarqawi’s memo stated “time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance”.

This despite claims by liberals that we are losing the war, cannot win militarily and repeated calls to hurry up and surrender already before we actually do win!

Wow. You know I take it back. I do feel sorry for liberals after all. But not that much.

--
J.J. Jackson is the owner and Editor at Large of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free and American Conservative Daily.

Source: http://www.articletrader.com ]]> http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/a-right-to-life-unless-youre-poor.html http://www.articletrader.com/society/politics/a-right-to-life-unless-youre-poor.html Fri, 19 May 2006 00:00:00 -0500
Really, the political left really doesn’t surprise me any more. In fact I’d say they stopped surprising me years ago when I realized exactly what it was that they stood for; not just government control of our lives but obscenely oppressive government control of our lives. Don’t get me wrong, both are bad and it’s true of all leftists whether they are in the overtly left wing parties such as the Communist, Socialist, Green or Democratic parties or whether they are just closet leftists belonging to the Republican party under the guise of “moderates”.

I’m also rarely surprised at how often the political left couches its beliefs in twisted logic and redefined terms to make them seem far less insidious. For example when it comes to abortion, they aren’t pro-abortion (even though they are), but merely the nice sounding term “pro-choice”. Ah, that’s so sweet, they are “pro-choice”. Too bad that being “pro-choice” only extends to the concept of murdering babies and not other categories such as “choosing” where you can send your kids to school or “choosing” to not be involved in a hideous government ponzi scheme like Social Security.

Heck, I’m “pro-choice”. I believe that if you decide to let a man stick his tab A into your slot B you have made a choice, the consequences of which you may have to live with. That’s being REALLY “pro-choice” but it’s not what the “pro-choice” crowd means.

The “pro-choice” movement over the years has duped a lot of Americans. Of course when you have schools that are turning out students that are not even proficient in math and English how can you expect them to understand only slightly more complex topics. Topics like what biological “life” is and that a right to it is actually protected by our founding documents for example.

But the leaders of the modern “pro-choice” movement (henceforth referred to as the pro-abortion movement to be correct in our terminology) don’t really believe in “choice” as the reason for their beliefs. They, as I stated before, believe in only one thing – oppressive government control of our lives.

And of course with that increase in government control they understand that people not quite up to snuff, say the infirm, the handicapped and the poor, are a burden upon the government machine they wish to create and manage. They aren’t stupid – at least not completely. They know that those that don’t contribute or are unable to contribute will drag down a government run bureaucracy designed to control the people.

Take for example the words of Ron Weddington who was one of the attorneys for “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade fame to then President Bill Clinton on the topic of the necessity of abortion:

“you will have to provide the means to prevent the extra mouths, because abstinence doesn't work … It's time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent … as many poor babies as possible."

That’s right convince the poor that having children is bad and then convince them to murder those they do conceive against the will of the State for the good of the State. It’s the typical selective reading of our founding documents that modern liberals often partake in – you have a right to life unless they decided that you don’t.

But Ron Weddington is just one of many disciples of Margaret Sanger who is the epitome of the modern leftist liberal and who helped set into motion the wheels of the modern pro-abortion movement. Originally she founded of the The American Birth Control League (ABCL) and Sanger’s colleagues like Dr. Adolphus Knopf often talked of abortion as a means to control the “black” and “’yellow peril’” that they saw as a growing cancer in America. Sanger herself said “I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate” – Margaret Sanger 1942

The ABCL morphed into what is today an organization that we know all too well – Planned Parenthood.

Sanger herself was a stern believer in obscene government control believing much as later tyrants like Hitler would that government should control who reproduces and who does not (i.e. who lives and who dies) for the good of the nation. She believed in "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring"

That’s right, if some government bureaucrat somewhere decides you have an “objectionable” trait you would not be allowed to reproduce. And if your parents are poor that is “objectionable” enough to some to justify ending an innocent life. I guess that whole thing about us having certain “unalienable rights” such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not apply when some well meaning leftist decides they don’t huh?

Such logic flies in the face of the concept of “unalienable rights” which are rights that are inherent to all mankind because they descend from God and not the State.

But still they press onward. They wrap their demented ideology of limited freedoms and oppressive government control in the guise of “choice” seeking any that they can coerce to their ideology. When in reality the only “choices” they want you to have are the “choices” they allow you to make. And if you are poor and a burden to their proposed nanny state your “choices” will severely limited. That is, if you ever even get to make them at all.

--
J.J. Jackson is the owner and Lead Editor of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free. He is also the owner of American Infidel T-shirts

Source: http://www.articletrader.com ]]>