I had originally intended to post this much earlier this month ( like when the news actually broke) but was inable to do so due to technical glitches.  So I will do so now;

My condolences and prayers to the family, friends and those who worked closely with the following two people-
Dr. D. James Kennedy and Luciano Pavarotti.

Both of these men contributed a great deal to our world in very different ways.

I was listening to a conservative radio show this week as the host did an analysis of one of Hilary's speeches (I think it was to the VFW).  After the analysis the host allowed people to call and talk about the speech and the analysis.  One of the callers made a very interesting point; whenever she (Hilary) spoke of mistakes or failures they were the consequences of the Bush administration, but now that there appears to be signs of success with the military surge, well that was something "we" did.  Interesting how Hilary and others want to attach themselves to any of the successes that the Bush administration might have.  Just when did she and others like her (the Dems) go from being us vs. them, to we?  We (the real supporters of the U.S. and the U.S. military) have to carefully watch these people and not allow them or the MSM to try and weasel their way out of the truth.

Hilary and the Democrats have been banking on U.S. failure and our nation loosing in Iraq to further promote their agenda and their political party.  That is all they care about - just listen to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D, S.C.) when he is interviewed and a hypothetical is posed about General Petraeus bringing a positive report back from Iraq if you don't believe that the Dems have bet their political future on U.S. defeat and humiliation.  We need to make sure that we do not let anyone forget that they are the party of and for the defeat and humiliation of the U.S.  We need to make sure that every citizen of the U. S. knows just where Hilary and the Democrats stand (and it is not for this country).  That way they can make a clear choice, are they for the U.S. or not?  Are they in to win, or do they choose to loose?  So again, I ask the question to Hilary and other Democrats, when did you become "we"? 

These comments/questions are concerning the following Townhall piece;

http://townhall.com/news/us/2007/08/18/immigration_activist_leaves_sanctuary?page=full&comments=true#1781c460-4872-448b-960f-e501cf0bf82a

Several comments/questions;

"On Wednesday, Arellano announced she would travel to Washington, D.C., to lobby for immigration reform and participate in a prayer meeting Sept. 12.
Lozano said those plans haven't changed."

1. Will our government enforce our law and proceed to deport her (again) and other illegal aliens that they find at this "prayer meeting"?
Also, will they begin enforcing the law concerning businesses and organizations that knowingly harbor illegal aliens?

"Arellano came illegally to the United States to Washington state in 1997. She was deported to Mexico shortly after, but returned and moved to Illinois in 2000, taking a job cleaning planes at O'Hare International Airport.

She was arrested in 2002 at O'Hare and later convicted of working under a false Social Security number. She was to surrender to authorities last August, but asked instead to take refuge at her church to avoid deportation and separation from her son, who is a U.S. citizen."

2.  Evidently, she is not a law abiding citizen if she is;
a) back after being deported once before, and
b) refuses to follow the law again.

"Arellano is accompanied by people close to her, Lozano said, including the Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of Adalberto United Methodist Church where she and her son have lived for more than a year.

Lozano, who is in Los Angeles, declined to say whether Arellano's 8-year-old son, Saul, is with her."

3. Do the math, her son is 8 she was originally deported in 1997, which means she did not have her son until after her second time ignoring U.S. law and sovereignty.  If she had been someone that abides by the law her son wouldn't be a "U.S citizen".
Also, the implications are that we shouldn't be so heartless and seperate a mother from her child.  Why can't she take her son with her back to where she came from?

"but returned and moved to Illinois in 2000, taking a job cleaning planes at O'Hare International Airport."

4. Illegals take jobs that U.S. citizens don't want and they make the cost of living cheaper for U.S. citizens.  Evidently, not.  I am sure there are quite of few legal citizens that wouldn't mind getting what the airline industries pay to clean airplanes.  Plus the cost of air travel hasn't gone down has it?

 

 

 

 

I was reading posts on this blog;
http://jimmycarterscloset.townhall.com/
and one linked to this;
http://www.youtube.com
I can only hope and pray that when the last veterans from previous wars pass on that those who call themselves liberals and leftists (as well as many in the Democratic Party) do not succeed in reinventing and rewriting history.  We need to make sure that men such as Sherman Jones, men who sacrificed so much are not forgotten and are always honored.  The valedictorian stated it best when he said that the reason that he (and others) could graduate was because men like Sherman were willing to give up things like their high school graduation (as well as their lives) to keep this country safe.  One of the best ways to do that is to get the word out and have as many people see things like this.

I came across this article on the A.O.L. news page;

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/polish-man-awakens-from-19-year-coma/20070603145909990001

http://video.aol.com/video/modern-life-discovered/1919434 

I am not sure if any other news agencies carried this story or not.  Kudos to A.O.L., Reuters and any other agency that does/will.

I must admit that the first thing that came to my mind as I began to read was theTerry Schiavo case and the stark contrast between this woman and Michael Schiavo;

"Remarriage
On January 23, 2006, Schiavo married his long-term fiancée, Jodi Centonze, whom he met in a dentist's office in 1995. They have two children, both born prior to their marriage and prior to Terri's death: the first was born in the fall of 2002, and the second was born in the spring of 2004."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Schiavo

Now in all fairness I must admit that I did not know a whole lot about the whole Schiavo scenario until it hit the news and I still don't know a great deal.  Also, in all fairness I gather that Michael Schiavo did attempt some type of rehabilitation of his wife;

"On June 18, 1990, Schiavo was appointed as his wife's guardian. He and the Schindlers managed her care and organized a fundraiser so that Terri could be flown to California for experimental treatment. The couple returned to Florida and Michael placed Terri in a rehabilitation facility. He later received a nursing degree."

However, one cannot deny that there is a marked contrast between this woman in Poland and Michael Schiavo when it comes to vows made, "till death do us part", as well as fidelity to one's spouse (see above quote concerning January 23, 2006).  Furthermore, this woman in Poland seems to have a better understanding of what "in sickness and in health" was all about;

Gertruda Grezbska-
"Gertruda Grzebska, 63, said that for years she fed her husband Jan carefully with a spoon and moved his body to prevent bed sores. "
For 19 years he did not move or say anything," Grzebska told The Associated Press by phone. "He tried to say things but it couldn't be understood. Sometimes we pretended we understood."

Michael Schiavo-
"In July 1993, Schiavo placed a standard "do-not-resuscitate" order on Terri's medical chart.
In 1993, Schiavo ordered Dr. Patrick Mulroy not to give Terri antibiotics for a urinary tract infection, which if left untreated could have been fatal. In testimony at a guardianship hearing, Schiavo said that Sabel Palms Health Care Center refused to follow this order because the Center felt it was against the law."

Now I will not pretend to be a medical doctor nor to understand all the in's and out's of these two different situations.  I am sure there are a multitude of differences, still one has to admit that there is something commendable about Gertruda Grebzska's actions and that there is a world of difference between Gertruda Grezbska's 19 years and Michael Schiavo's 3 years (not to mention his meeting his present wife only 5 years after the initial incident).  So I have to ask myself this, "If I were in a coma and things did not look so good what kind of person would I want to be my spouse, Gertruda Grebzska or Michael Schiavo?" 

 

"the big three" part 3

"what is man..." cont. 
"1. O Lord, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth, Who have set Your glory above the heavens!"
most commentaries i have read make a note of how this psalm begins with this praise to God and also ends with this praise.  they also make a note that "sandwiched" in between are verses about man and God's creation.  this point is very important and will be discussed later at present i would like to begin by looking at the two hebrew words used for "Lord" in this verse.  if we are trying to understand "what is man?" then we need to look at these two words.  why?
first, we need to have an understanding of to whom the psalm is directed.
second, because what "...comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us...and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like." (p. 1 "the knowledge of the Holy"-a.w. tozer). 
if we are to truly understand who or what man is we must begin with a knowledge and understanding of who and what God is (not that we can ever fully understand God).  

the first word used for "Lord" is known as the nommen tetragrammaton or more commonly known as "Yahweh" in english;
"Yahweh is an English reading of ???? (the Tetragrammaton), the name of the God of the Jews or the people of Israel, as preserved in the original consonantal Hebrew Bible text.  The four Hebrew consonants read JHWH (in German transcription) or YHVH (in English transcription).  It is also common to use YHWH.
Out of fear of violating the commandment 'You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain.' (Exodus 20:7), Jews do not pronounce the name, but use "Adonai" ("My Lords"). During the first few centuries AD this may have resulted in loss of traditional memory of how to pronounce the Name (except among Samaritans).  When Hebrew no longer was a living language, the Masoretes added vowel points to the consonant text to assist readers. To ???? they usually added the vowels for 'Adonai',..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton  

What is taqiyya and Kitman?  All you have to do is go here;  

http://www.sulekha.com/groups/postdisplay.aspx?cid=739191&forumid=756919

and you will get a very sound and honest answer  Why do I ask?  Well, in light of articles like this;

May 23, 2007

Fort Dix suspect applied for police jobs

"Tatar may have also wanted to join the Army ... A second suspect in the case told the informant that Tatar wanted to join the Army so he could kill soldiers from the 'inside'." Fort Dix Jihad Update. By Geoff Mulvihill for the Associated Press:

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. - One of the men accused of plotting to attack soldiers at Fort Dix had recently applied to be a police officer in two big cities — a move some authorities believe may have been an effort to infiltrate law enforcement agencies.

How many more Serdar Tatars might there be across America? Infiltrators among first responders to an attack would increase casualties, delay the work of other responders, and would significantly augment the psychological impact of the attack.

Serdar Tatar, 23, applied for a job in Philadelphia last month, police spokesman Sgt. D.F. Pace said Wednesday.

"Based on what we know now, I don't think his intentions were good," Pace said.

Tatar also applied for a job in the Oakland, Calif., Police Department, according to a law enforcement official speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

[...]

Philadelphia police rejected Tatar, a Turkish citizen and legal U.S. resident, because he was not a U.S. citizen and had not lived in the city long enough to be eligible, Pace said. Tatar had lived there for about eight months when he applied, less than the city's one-year requirement.

He applied at a police job fair on April 10.

It isn't known when or where Tatar applied to join the Oakland police force or why he would try to join an organization thousands of miles away.

Tatar may have also wanted to join the Army, according to conversations recorded in March by an FBI informant during the investigation. A second suspect in the case told the informant that Tatar wanted to join the Army so he could kill soldiers from the "inside," according to a court filing.

"He had only one mind," a third suspect, Dritan Duka, told the informant, according to the court documents. "How to kill American soldiers."

Army spokesman Lenny Gatto said Wednesday that he did not know whether Tatar had applied to join the Army, which does not require U.S. citizenship.

Tatar, an out-of-work clerk whose last job was at a Philadelphia convenience store, and five others were arrested May 7 and charged with planning an attack on Fort Dix, which is 25 miles east of Philadelphia and is primarily used to train reservists.

Posted by Marisol at 08:25 PM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

...I find the Muslim doctrines of Taqiyya and Kitman very frightening.  I also think that everyone in the United States, that cares about the United States and it's future should know about Taqiyya and Kitman.

I have been informed that my blogs would be easier reading if I would only use capitals.  So, for the sake of anyone reading them I will use capitals.  Also, I will use capitals when I post comments as well.  My apologies to anyone that had a difficult time with the blogs or comments because of that.  However, I will continue to use capitals selectively on my SUNDAY POSTS as there is a definite purpose for my using them on only certain words in those posts.

Townhall has a neat little feature on the comments that allows you to flag the comment as offensive.  Fortunately, I have not had to use that particular feature yet.  I wish that Townhall would also do the same for their advertisements.  If they did then I would flag the cheap shots that Amnesty International is taking at our current President and Vice-President as extremely offensive.  To compare our Vice-President to 1. an evil Sci- Fi movie icon and 2. a comic book villain implies that they don't take our current administration seriously and that they have absolutely no respect for the men or their offices. 
However, maybe I am being unfair and misconstruing all of this....perhaps what Amnesty International is saying by buying ad space for their idiotic vote (on our blog sites) is that the idea of Bush and Cheney violating human rights is about as feasible as an evil Sci-Fi movie icon violating rights of fabricated Wookies, or a comic book villain gassing fictional civilian populations and using non-existent women and children as human shields.
Perhaps I should not be so concerned about their ad, or perhaps I am wrong and Amnesty International is implying that our present administartion is violating human rights (like Sadam Hussein who did gas civilian populations). If this is truly the case then I definitely wish that Townhal would have a FLAG AS OFFENSIVE feature for advertisements.

again, here is an interesting article;

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016364.php  

it appears that the writer is trying to be honest and fair.  also, watch out for the comments (again) they are not always the most gracious.  i stopped reading at the first comment. 

Again this was the final post of "Am I a rocket scientist..." taken from another blog site.  However, due to the current "Immigration Reform bill" iIwill renew my pursuit of "Am I a rocket scientist" but along slightly different veins.


1. I am assuming that someone making a statement as ridiculous as "I have friends that are illegal aliens but, they aren't criminals." is representational of that group.
2. It is obvious that those involved are totally clueless about what the real issues are
3. The msm is not reporting the truth about these "protests" but are choosing to ignore the true and obvious reasons that these "protestors" are gathering.
4. The msm is assuming (hoping) that we are morons by trying to make this a "racial issue" and attempting to make this comparable to the civil rights movement instituted by people such as Martin Luther King Jr.
5. Those involved in the "protests" will either believe the idiotic spins that the msm (#4 above) is attempting to put on their actions or will attempt to use their mindless spins to get what they want (a prime example is a certain female leader of the hispanic racial group La Raza')."

So now  I am up to date (somewhat) and will begin more thoughts and comments;

REMEMBER THESE PICTURES?  http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004869.htm

           
The group of "immigration reform protestors" that I referred to (originally) were those that walked out of schools to "protest" (i.e. skip school) as well as those that walked out of work (i.e. skipped work) about a year ago.  They are the ones that draped themselves in flags that were not from the U.S. as well as removed the U.S. flag and replaced it upside down under another flag.  Yes they were flying their true colors that day (not the ones that they staged for the a.o.l. photo op their second time around).  Anyways...it is amusing because it appears that the new "immigration reform bill" is not being well recieved by anyone. So now we have two groups of protestors...then again, I guess we always had two groups of protestors;

GROUP 1. The group which includes those in the picture above.  That is the group that does not want the U.S. to exercise it's sovereignty as a nation.  They do not want the U.S. to exercise it's laws concerning illegal aliens nor do they want tougher laws concerning illegal aliens (nor a fence).

GROUP 2. The group that finds the above pictures reprehensible and treasonous.  The group that loves the U.S. and believes in U.S. sovereignty.  The group that wants the U.S. to exercise it's laws concerning illegal aliens.  The group that wants tougher laws concerning illegal aliens as well as a fence (all of the fence).

again this post was originally done on another blog site in response to the first illegal immigration march (about a year ago)

last night i had debated whether i should change the title of this post. i had talked with a friend to ask if my logic was correct in saying that illegal aliens (immigrants) are criminals simply by being here. his answer was yes. i told him the title of this post and he said that calling people morons was insulting and that neither part was true. i.e. i am not a rocket scientist (which i whole heartedly agree), nor are those types of people who make absurd, ridiculous statements such as, "i have friends who are illegal aliens but, they are not criminals." morons. i gave that some thought and realized that i was being like people of a certain political affiliation that call our president, our commander in chief, a moron simply because they dislike (hate) him so much. now, i do not want to be like them nor do i hate people that disagree with me or make incoherent statements (hey when i wake up at 02:00 in the morning i make incoherent statements also). however, i decided not to change the title of ths post in the following days i will explain why.

i originally posted this on a different blog site.  it was my response to the first idiotic, illegal alien march...in light of the shamnesty bill that is now being shoved at the voters by our government it appears that this blog has yet to out live it's usefulness (unfortunately).

...OR ARE THEY JUST M_R_NS? part 1

i went on the web to see if i could get a rather simple definition of illegal. here is what i found

illegal adj.
1. prohibited by law
2. prohibted by official rule

n.
an illegal alien

it seems like a pretty clear and simple definition to me. if i perform an illegal act then i am doing something that is breaking the law.

you might ask what lead me to this query. the answer is quite simple; it was a statement i heard on the radio when the media was covering the "protests" in l. a. (you know the second capital of mexico). one of their extremely intelligent protestors made a statement which seemed at its' best, absurd. if i remember the statement correctly it was simply this, "i have friends that are illegal but they are not criminals." when i heard that i had to stop myself and go, "huh?" i wondered if i had a brain freeze or maybe i had heard the statement incorrectly. perhaps my car radio was malfunctioning. maybe there was some static at that precise moment when they were airing that comment. but, i had to keep driving and i wanted to keep listening so, i figured i could come back to that statement later.

well, i did come back to that statement later. i asked a friend if he had heard it and his response was yes. so evidently there had been nothing wrong with my hearing, my brain or my car radio. well we both had a laugh about the statement and it's absurdity. but, i had to wonder what kind of person would make such a statement. after all, if i am an illegal alien then my very existence in the country makes me a criminal. at least i think it does. i confess that i do not understand all the subtle "nuances" (to use a kerry word) of the law. i am just a plain and simple school teacher that takes words at their face value and definition. i am not a rocket scientist.

just a short note-a.o.l. has a short article about the new immigration "reform" bill.  you know, the amnesty bill for illegal aliens, the one that would allow a fast track to citizenship for illegal aliens-includung those like the terrorists in new jersey that were here illegally (some were but not all).  anyways, i did not read much of the article because it was pretty much garbage as were the pictures of the"illegal alien" protestors (hmmm, how long do you think they'll keep themselves draped in american flags once they manage to steal their citizenship?  NOT) anyways, a.o.l. also has a poll about whether people approve of giving "z visas" (amnesty) to illegal aliens at present the poll was running at 70% NO.  i would encourage everyone to stop by and vote "NO" so we can increase that percentage as much as possible.  also, stop by hughhewitt.com so you can get information on how to call or e-mail republicans to let them know you don't want that bill passed.