“Winston, come into the dining room, it’s time to eat,” Julia yelled to her husband.

“In a minute, honey, it’s a tie score,” he answered. Actually Winston wasn’t very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington. Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its “unseemly violence” and the “bad example it sets for the rest of the world,” Winston was far less of a football fan than he used to be. Two-hand touch wasn’t nearly as exciting.

Yet it wasn’t the game that Winston was uninterested in. It was more the thought of eating another Tofu Turkey. Even though it was the best type of Veggie Meat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally-forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce and mince-meat pie), it wasn’t anything like real turkey. And ever since the government officially changed the name of “Thanksgiving Day” to “A National Day of Atonement” in 2020, to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims’ historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.

Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting. The unearthly gleam of government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs made the Tofu Turkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold. Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats—which were monitored and controlled by the electric company — be kept at 68 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.

Still, it was good getting together with family. Or at least most of the family. Winston missed his mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of live-saving medical treatment. He had had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium, spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program. And though he demanded she be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort. “The RHC’s resources are limited,” explained the government bureaucrat Winston spoke with on the phone. “Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled. I’m sorry for your loss.”

Uncle Ed couldn’t make it either. He had forgotten to plug in his electric car last night, the only kind available after the Anti-Fossil Fuel Bill of 2021 outlawed the use of the combustion engines for everyone but government officials. The fifty mile round trip was about ten miles too far, and Ed didn’t want to spend a frosty night on the road somewhere between here and there.

Thankfully, Winston’s brother, John, and his wife were flying in. Winston made sure that the dining room chairs had extra cushions for the occasion. No one complained more than John about the pain of sitting down so soon after the government mandated cavity searches at airports, which severely aggravated his hemorrhoids.

Ever since a terrorist successfully smuggled a cavity bomb onto a jetliner, the TSA told Americans the added “inconvenience” was an “absolute necessity” in order to stay “one step ahead of the terrorists.” Winston’s own body had grown accustomed to such probing ever since the government expanded their scope to just about anywhere a crowd gathered, via Anti-Profiling Act of 2022. That law made it a crime to single out any group or individual for “unequal scrutiny,” even when probable cause was involved. Thus, cavity searches at malls, train stations, bus depots, etc., etc., had become almost routine. Almost.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the statute, but most Americans expect a Court composed of six progressives and three conservatives to leave the law intact. “A living Constitution is extremely flexible,” said the Court’s eldest member, Elena Kagan. “ Europe has had laws like this one for years. We should learn from their example,” she added.

Winston’s thoughts turned to his own children. He got along fairly well with his 12-year old daughter, Brittany, mostly because she ignored him. Winston had long ago surrendered to the idea that she could text anyone at any time, even during Atonement Dinner. Their only real confrontation had occurred when he limited her to 50,000 texts a month, explaining that was all he could afford. She whined for a week, but got over it.

His 16-year-old son, Jason, was another matter altogether. Perhaps it was the constant bombarding he got in public school that global warming, the bird flu, terrorism or any of a number of other calamities were “just around the corner,” but Jason had developed a kind of nihilistic attitude that ranged between simmering surliness and outright hostility. It didn’t help that Jason had reported his father to the police for smoking a cigarette in the house, an act made criminal by the Smoking Control Statute of 2018, which outlawed smoking anywhere within 500 feet of another human being. Winston paid the $5,000 fine, which might have been considered excessive before the American dollar became virtually worthless. The latest round of quantitative easing the federal government initiated was, once again, to “spur economic growth.” This time they promised to push unemployment below its years long rate of 18%, but Winston was not particularly hopeful.

Yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful, Winston thought, before remembering it was a Day of Atonement. At least he had his memories. He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what life was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life “fair for everyone” realized their full potential. Winston, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn’t happen all at once, but little by little, so people could get used to them.

He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2009, when all the real nonsense began. “Maybe we wouldn’t be where we are today if we’d just said ‘enough is enough’ when we had the chance,” he thought.

Maybe so, Winston. Maybe so.

Tuesday, the president is scheduled to address children in the public school systems nation wide. Let me begin by saying, I see nothing wrong with that, and it was done by George H. W. Bush many years ago. I even this president could speak about the need for education, and how kids should work hard to achieve their goals so that they can be successful in life.

But, then this administration went a bit farther. They “worked with” the Department of Education to concoct a lesson plan for the different grade levels. Now, these lesson plans were not innocuous, asking kids what their goals in life or education were, or asking them what they hoped to accomplish. They planned to ask the children what they could do to help support the president. They planned to ask them how they were “inspired” by the president. While that may not seem too problematic, it begins with the assumption that all the kids (or more importantly, their parents) are in agreement with the current direction this administration is taking, and therefore want to help, or support him in his policies. The lesson plans did not leave much room for those who might dissent. The DOE also encouraged teachers to put up banners and posters with “great Obama sayings” from previous education speeches. Not influential people. Not all the presidents/politicians. Only President Obama. Again, not a problem? This type of propaganda is reminiscent of various world leaders of the past, none of which live fondly in my memory…

Perhaps some still don’t see why this is so upsetting to me. Perhaps we could make a quick comparison and see if the point sinks home. If President Bush, in the midst of falling poll numbers, while trying to drum up support for fighting the Iraq War, had done the same thing, Liberals would have hit the roof! Think about the timing of Obama’s address. He is trying to ram-rod through his “health care reform”, and is quickly losing support. He has lost so much support, he is calling a joint session of congress together to address his plan. That will come on Wednesday night, one day after the address to students. Think that is accidental? Nope! The American people are expressing their outrage at the Democrats intended rape of the health care system in America. In fact, there will be a gathering of over 60,000 people in southern WV on Labor day (wish I could go!) of people who are fighting against the socialized medicine plan that is being shoved through. By going into the schools, and addressing the children, Obama (I believe…remember, this post is my opinion) is trying to steal the thunder of the protesting conservatives. He is trying to have the children talking about what a great guy he is. He wants them telling their parents that he isn’t as bad as they thought. It is the typical liberal ploy…if you can’t get something you want now, start putting it in the school systems so that it will be accepted int he next generation. Haven’t seen it before? Ask yourself why Homosexual Marriage is now legal in at least 5 states. Yep, they followed the same plan!

Now, some have made the argument that we as conservatives (and perhaps Christians?) shouldn’t think we need to protect our children from things such as this. And, that this will give us the opportunity to talk to our children about it… I have a couple of thoughts. First, if we don’t realize it IS our responsibility to protect our children, then we have missed our God given responsibility. There are some things that our children just don’t need to be exposed to at age 6. Trust me, my children are not going to be taught about sex by a public school teacher in the first grade! I’m going to protect them from such ungodliness. I wonder how many people who make the “we can’t shelter them” argument take the same approach on the physical dangers of life? “I’m going to let them play in the road, I guess they will learn that’s a bad idea one way or the other.” Having said that, I am not sure (since I haven’t seen the text of the speech itself) that this issue is a “protect the children” issue. This is more of a political issue. It has to do with abuse of power, and politicizing the Department of Education. With the lesson plans that were originally released, the DOE was being used as a tool to drum up support for the president, rather than its intended purpose of educating our children.

This is why, in my original status update, I said this is proof that we should never have created the DOE. This is certainly not the first time that it has been abused. Public schools are supposed to educate our children, not indoctrinate them with the beliefs of the current administration. Every day, we see abuses. As mentioned before, tolerance of Homosexuality is propagated, as is support for the unfounded “science” of global warming and a plethora of other policies. The sad thing is, in the midst of all of these “additions”, many children still aren’t taught to read or do arithmetic! I think the actions of the White House in this issue have shown their complete distrust in the competency of the teachers in the public schools. Why would they have to release a lesson plan for the teachers? Does the Obama administration believe that teachers couldn’t use his speech as a teaching moment without guidance from them? Or were they just afraid that some might take the discussion in a different direction than he wants them to go? Obviously, they want the teachers to be used as an arm of the government to encourage the youth of America to get behind the president and his policies (regardless of what they are).

The uproar among conservatives over this has led to some changes in the “lesson plans” released by the DOE. Some of the “support” wording has been taken out now, which is a good thing. What has not been changed is the encouragement to virtually idolize this president over all of the other men and women that could be held up as educational examples.

As I said when I started this post, I am not opposed to the President addressing school children. But, we need to examine all that is going on. Number one, he is giving a speech to all school children at once, from Pre-K all the way through High School. Now, if that is the case, how can address them all on a level that is understood? Can he really inspire seniors in HS with the same language that is understandable by children who are 4 or 5 years old? Of course not. So the goal must simply mean to get him in front of all the kids, and leave a positive impression. How could parents be so upset with a man who is so nice? Second, the speech itself will either contain policy, or it won’t. If it is simply encouraging kids to continue in their education and do the best they can, that is great. However, if it includes the need for them to fight global warming, be more compassionate toward others (code for socialism in most cases) and the need for “health care for all”, then it crosses the line. We don’t need any president campaigning to those that are 5 years old! Third, the propaganda that goes along with this speech is disturbing. Posters flaunting the greatness of this president can be classified as nothing less than propaganda.

Could this be done in a way that does not raise the ire of conservatives? Of course. But, this president, despite all of his claims to “bipartisanship” seems to constantly make decisions to inflame conservatives. I think it is a joke now to look back and see the accusations of the lack of bipartisanship on the part of George W. Bush and the Republicans (which actually had many, many pieces of legislation developed from reaching “across the aisle”) when considering the ram-rod governing we seem to have now! But, how could this be changed?

First, keep the DOE out of it. Teachers and school systems do not need specific lesson plans handed out to schools to tell them just how to use the president’s speech to his betterment. Second, make sure the speech itself is apolitical. There should be no policy, such as the need for universal health care, or the need for the students to fight global warming. Third, If you are going to ask questions, give the opportunity for students to voice disagreement with the president. Fourth, get rid of the posters. At the very least, put up posters of more than just the current president.

I know this is long, and that most will not read it all. But, this is why I think the speech on Tuesday is such a bad idea. I would not pull my kid out to “protect” them, I’d pull my kid out in protest of the abuse of the DOE by this White House, and attempt of this administration to indoctrinate the children with the greatness of this president, especially in the midst of his losing battle on health care reform.

Here’s an article to take a look at with some more info on the plan itself:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/02/wh-withdraws-call-students-help-obama/

I also thought I’d add a couple of videos that were pointed out to me, that should make people think about what is happening in this country.  People are now virtually worshiping the man, Barak Obama, instead of recognizing him as being our elected official, and thus the servant to the people.  The first video is one that reminds me of Hitler’s Youth:

The second is a PSA, asking people to basically pledge their loyalties to Obama, and his causes. Notice that many of the “pledges” seem to be very good in nature, but many of them are merely supporting Liberal Obama policy. Some are essentially deceitful, using the wording of conservative movements (like Alyssa Milano’s “I pledge to have a voice for those who have none” statement, taken directly from Pro-life members) to be applied to liberal policy. In the end, we are asked to pledge ourselves to the president. Are you kidding me? Can you even imagine the outrage if a conservative put out something as extreme as this?

It is time to say, “NO!” to all of this nonsense. Perhaps, it is time to get rid of some of the nonsense that can’t be paid for in the public schools today, and teach some good old fashioned civics. Maybe then, administrations that grab power like this one could never be put into the office!

We saw the same thing when it came to auto makers.  Once the government stepped in, they had the right to start implementing further regulations that will drive the manufacturing costs up.  But, don’t worry, since the government will be a big part of the industry, I am sure that the cost to us as consumers will not be affected…yeah right.

Now, with the bailouts that are currently proposed, Obama feels that he has the right to step in and limit the salaries of the executives.  $500,000 is to be the “cap” for all executives of companies that accept this money.  Now, that is a lot of money to me…but it is not a lot of money for an executive of a major company.  So, the bottom line is, these companies who accepted government money will not be able to hold an executive that is worth anything, as they will go to a company that will pay them “market value” rather than “Obama value.”  So, struggling companies will then lose any hope of attracting executives that may be able to get them out of the problems they now face, leading to more struggles.  They will end up with sub-par execs, who will basically perform at a sub-par level, causing the companies to be sub-par companies.  The bailout will ensure the downfall of most of these types of companies.  Only in a case where there is some company loyalty for the execs will there be any kind of success.

The bottom line is that this type of bailout is not good for a free market economy.  I am no economist, and I am sure there are some ins and outs that I don’t understand.  However, allowing the government to interfere with free enterprise, controlling salaries, and implementing restrictions that are not helpful to the market, will destroy more companies than it will help.  In fact, if we are going to be a free market society, then the idea of a bailout should be scrapped completely.  If a company cannot make it, then they should be forced out of business.  Some say, “But these companies are too big to fail!”  Wrong.  if they were “too big to fail” then they would have sound business practices that would ensure that they continue successfully.  Loans from the government could be a possibility, but those loans would have to be just that.  They would have to be paid back, and the government would not be able to impose ridiculous regulations.

We are heading further down the socialistic path than most people would like to think.  And, in the next 4 years, we will go further than most will want to go.  And, before all the liberals start blasting me for going against this bailout and not the “Bush Bailout”, realize I was against that one too! I am so glad that the house republicans stood up against this bill.  We will see if the senate republicans have the guts to stand up for conservative principles too!

From Obama’s official Blueprint for Change . Now, let me get this straight. He says that all of his appointees will have to have demonstrated that they have risen to the "standard of proven excellence in the agency’s mission." My question is: why doesn’t that apply to the boss himself? I mean, Senator Obama’s dismally thin resume certainly does not demonstrate that he has risen to the "standard of proven excellence" needed to be President of the United States… you have to actually have had experience to be proven excellent.

"Obama will preserve Social Security by stopping any efforts to privatize it and working in a bipartisan way to
preserve it for future generations."

From the same source. Really Senator? Because you and the rest of the government have done such a cracker-jack job of taking care of Social Security thus far? That’s the problem with socialists like you, Senator. You automatically assume the government can do it better than the individual. So all your talk about how you’re fighting for the middle-class American is proven to be a bunch of hot air by your approach to government: "Let me do it for you, because you’re not smart enough to do it yourself!"

"Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both."

I’m sure you’ll tell us where all that money is coming from right, Senator? Oh, that’s right, you’ve already told us! You intend to lay the entire tax burden on the wealthy, right? I mean, hey, let’s forget that they employ the rest of us, and all that extra money you’re going to tax them has to come from somewhere, like a middle class American’s job (you know, that guy you claim you’re protecting?). A few more examples of "doubling" or even "quadrupling" big government program budgets:

"Obama will double funding for after-school programs…"

"Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years…"

"Obama will double science and research funding…"

"Obama will also provide affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families."

Question, Senator. Why is child care a governmental responsibility? Shouldn’t that be left up to the family? Oh wait, you’ve already demonstrated that you believe you can do it better than the individual… Thanks for taking money out of my paycheck to put someone else’s kid in daycare, while I take care of my own like I’m supposed to. I appreciate that, Senator.

"As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct."

Really, Senator, you shouldn’t rely on Al Gore’s sources. Its already been demonstrated he makes stuff up, like most of the stuff listed above. Oh yeah, and you might want to read up on how the earth is entering a cooling phase, as you’re signing those bills (on paper taken from those poor trees, I wonder?) to spend $15 billion a year on "green" initiatives.

Senator Obama has painted himself for this entire campaign as a "different" kind of politician, a "unifier", one who will fight for "all" Americans.

Really? All those attacks on President Bush are "unifying"? Through the 40+ pages of his "Blueprint", he blamed nearly every problem in the nation on President Bush in specific, and Republicans in general. That’s hardly unifying, or true. Especially when you consider that most of the problems existed long before George W. Bush took office. And repeatedly having anti-capitalistic ideas and vowing to raise taxes on the wealthy is fighting for "all" Americans? Senator, is it so hard for you to understand that it is business that runs this country? Oh, wait, you believe the giant government programs you intend to implement are the way to build jobs in this country. I guess we’ll need that, since your proposed increases on the wealthy and the companies they own will force severe downsizing. I guess those "downsized" folks will need a job somewhere, and it just so happens that there will be President Obama, waiting with open arms, to once again "prove" the Democratic, socialist, theory that government can take care of you better than you can take care of yourself.

Please, people. Look past the flowery speeches, the insufferable rhetoric, and the false accusations aimed at President Bush and Republicans; and dig into what Obama is telling you he really believes, and the ways he intends to get those beliefs accomplished.

Because I don’t think you really want what you’ll get with a President Obama.

But just a cursory examination of his ‘plan’ will show you a few things:

• Your taxes WILL go up. There’s simply no way around it. Like every Democrat, he claims that he will cut middle class taxes while raising wealthy folks’ taxes. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that it simply doesn’t work. But it sells to the public, which is all he’s concerned about! There’s simply no other way to pay for all his new programs that will "improve" your life, unless he takes it out of your hide (in this case, your paycheck).
• If you are a working individual, you WILL be paying for the health-care for those who aren’t willing to work. By the way, this is the same as what Hillary Clinton proposes.
• He wants to increase the unionization of American workers. Only a Democrat can’t see what unions have done to industry in this country. They want to throw a fit when companies move over-seas, but refuse to acknowledge that in many cases, the union FORCED the company to take drastic measures.
• Like all Democrats, he’s in favor of raising the minimum wage. Despite the simple economics demonstrating why this is a bad idea, it, again, sells to the public.
• Read just how many times his plan says he "will" do this or that. In reality, much of what he claims he "will" do he will never be able to accomplish! Furthermore, over and over again, his ‘plan’ calls for shelling out more money, all while never giving any idea how he’s going to pay for it (remember, he’s "not" going to raise taxes on the middle class)!
• Iran will remain a serious problem under an Obama administration. If he does what he claims in his ‘plan’, we could very well enter another Cold War, if not WW3. His plan calls for disarming our nuclear weapons, all the while "talking" to Iran about disarming theirs. Yeah, because "talk" has worked so well with them in the past, right Senator? That’s the way to do it! Tell the world we’ll never use nuclear weapons as we promise them we’ll be nice to them if they don’t use theirs! Sounds like a stellar plan! He has outlined a plan calling for drastic cuts in military budgets (Bill Clinton, anyone?), all the while claiming he’s all for making our military wholly 21st century! You can’t have it both ways, Senator. Like a true Democrat, you are adept at speaking out of both sides of your mouth!

In reality, Obama has no real plan for America. Everything he outlines in his plan is nothing more than the Democrat talking points, and is basically the same thing that Hillary Clinton is saying. He’s not for "change"… he’s for doing things EXACTLY the same as every other Democrat!

And by the way, I’d like a Democrat supporter to please explain to me how the economics of a plan that calls for cutting middle class taxes while raising taxes on the wealthy is feasible? Its not.  Remember, its the wealthy who employ the rest of us, and if you tax them more heavily, they take it out on the middle class by cutting jobs. But you’ll never hear a Democrat say that (though they know its the truth) because they’re all about what the public wants to hear! Obama (nor Hillary) has any real plan to cut taxes… they’re just playing to the crowd until they get into the White House, and then they’ll either a.) raise our taxes (meaning they lied) or b.) be unable to create all the new programs they promise (also meaning they lied). So which is it, Senators? Which lie are you telling us?

You see, we have an ally in Columbia, and Hugo Chavez is supporting the rebels who are trying to overthrow the Columbian Government. However, Venezuela also is a member of OPEC, and any attempt to stop the rebellion with military force may restrict the number of barrels of oil that Venezuela can, or will export. Suddenly, we have a restriction in supply of oil, which causes the price to escalate. Notice, the price is going up on the barrel because there is a THREAT of military intervention against Venezuela! There is a greater chance now that the US will impose some kind of sanctions against Chavez and Venezuela because the tie between Chavez and the rebels has been firmly established now. This will affect the price of gas again–raising the price. Here comes the $4 per gallon that we have been promised!

According to an article published on Yahoo, and from the Associated Press, this may cause Chavez to threaten to stop all export of oil to us. Here is a quote from the article:

“If we put on sanctions, I’m sure Chavez would threaten to cut off our oil supply,” said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. “Obviously that would have a major impact on oil prices.”

Yes, it will have a major impact on oil prices, because we are so reliant on the oil from places like Venezuela. So, we cower to dictators like Chavez, because we have no other options. We have to get our oil from somewhere. So we just have to take it. Thanks again, Bill Clinton!

The truth is, we don’t have to keep taking it. We should be drilling for our own oil, and then we wouldn’t have to be affected by every political situation that arises around the world. We have oil, but we have to be willing to go get it. We have oil in ANWAR. We have oil in the Coast of Florida. But, you know what? We are not willing to go get it! We have not only coward…oops, Freudian slip there…cowered to men like Chavez, but we have cowered to the extremist environmentalists. Do you realize that the environmentalists have kept us from drilling the oil off the coast of Florida, but the Chinese have moved in from the Cuban side and are drilling while we twiddle our thumbs? There are billions of barrels of oil that will now be drilled by the Chinese, rather than by us. Do you think we will get the best price per barrel in that situation? Yeah, me either.

So, the question is, how long are we going to allow this to continue? Are we going to continue to let these extremist dictators control our oil supplies forever? Are we going to allow the environmental extremists in this country to keep us from RESPONSIBLY drilling for oil in places like ANWAR and off the coasts of Florida? Face it, someone is going to get it…it might as well be us! If we had gone off the coast of Florida just 10 years ago, we would have had all that oil, and Communist China would not be securing it all for themselves!

But, you can’t convince those who are opposed to drilling on our own shores. They have been duped into believing that if we drill, we will completely destroy our country, our environment, and our wildlife. It just isn’t going to happen. But, nothing is going to change anytime soon. Even if McCain wins, he has vowed not to drill in ANWAR. So, gas will continue to climb. And we will continue to take it because we cower at the feet of Hugo Chavez, and the environmentalists of this country. Do I hear $5 per gallon?

I don’t want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don’t, then you’ve got the Army, Iraq, I don’t know, something like that. It’s not as bright.

Today, we can take a look at the response from King, aimed toward those who have written about his comments, and condemned his statements. Here is his statement from Monday:

That a right-wing-blog would impugn my patriotism because I said children should learn to read, and could get better jobs by doing so, is beneath contempt.

Ok, I am not sure exactly which blog he is addressing. Evidently there was a conservative blogger, Noel Sheppard, who heard the original statement first hand and wrote about it on his blog. He compared the statements made by King to those made by John Kerry earlier in this election cycle, just as I did a few days ago. But anyway, back to the statement itself. I think King should have just apologized for his incredibly asinine remark, rather than just making it worse with this stupid statement! No one that I have read has blasted him for saying that children should learn to read, and to make that accusation is nothing but intellectual dishonesty. If he can’t figure out what is really being said, then maybe he isn’t as literate as everyone thinks…he can get the words, just not the meanings behind them.

Just to prove that he wasn’t sorry for the statement that he made back on April 4th, King went on to say:

I live in a National Guard town, and I support our troops, but I don’t support either the war or educational policies that limit the options of young men and women to any one career — military or otherwise.

That sounds to me like he is just reiterating the previous statements. If you are in the National Guard, or in the regular military, it is because of the “educational policies that limit the options of young men and women…” That means that they are just too dumb to be able to do anything else.

Let me repeat a point that I made in a previous post: Our military is more intelligent, and better educated today than it has ever been. No matter how many lame statements King makes, these statements are still an insult! One comment I read on another blog (I can’t remember which one) made a pretty good point. It said (and I am paraphrasing), “King made these statements when no soldiers were around…why don’t we invite a group of them to his next book signing and see if he is so outspoken…” Good question.

I must say, at least John Kerry had enough sense to apologize for his statements. I’m guessing King has backed himself into a corner, and he won’t be able to make an apology. He has already come out fighting. Lucky for him, none of those “dumb soldiers” are there to fight with him…

EDIT:  After doing a bit more research on this topic, I came across some more information that may benefit you as you consider the story.

First, the blogger whom King was blasting, who broke the story of King’s original remarks, is Noel Sheppard, who writes a blog on NewsBusters.org.  Be sure to jump over there and read up on all that has been happening with this story over the last few days.  It is certainly interesting.

Second, if you want to read more about Stephen King’s statements from his own perspective, you can visit his website and see the “non-apology” in its context.  You will have to scroll down a bit, as the news section of the site has one long page of entries.

“You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, and if you don’t you get stuck in Iraq.”

He later tried to act as if he had “misspoken” and that he was really speaking about President Bush. Really? The President Bush who attended Yale and earned a Bachelor’s Degree, and then Harvard Business School where he earned an MBA. I’m sure that he was able to do that, even though he really isn’t that smart, and he didn’t “study hard, do his homework, or make an effort to be smart.” President Bush has also been highly successful in business. He invested about $800,000 in the Texas Rangers in 1989, and then sold his share of the team in 1998 for $15 Million. Besides that, he has successfully run for several elected offices, and won. Oh, and one more thing…he won the presidency twice. Regardless of what the liberals have propagated for the last 8 years, this man is not stupid. He is not articulate! But, being articulate is not the sole identifier of one who is intelligent. If you take the body of work that George Bush has put together in the last 30 years, you have to be ignorant to think that he is stupid! You can see much more about the life of George Bush at Wikipedia, though you will have to weed through the liberal commentary and just pick out the facts. It is interesting that even in that article, every good thing accomplished by George Bush is painted in a bad light!

It is clear that John Kerry was not really talking about George Bush, so the only other conclusion is that he was talking about those who are serving in the military. I know this is dredging up old news, but it sets the stage for what came out in the last day or so. And that is, Stephen King’s comments. Speaking before a group of high school students at the Library of Congress, King had this to say:

I don’t want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don’t, then you’ve got, the Army, Iraq, I don’t know, something like that. It’s, it’s not as bright. So, that’s my little commercial for that.

So, Kerry claimed that his comments were just a mistake. A blown joke. But, at the time, many of us thought that he was just reflecting the true liberal mindset. This quote from King makes it pretty clear that this really is the mindset of liberals…or at least this liberal.

Why are these quotes so troubling? Because they are derogatory to those who choose to sign up for our military forces. They have come to the conclusion that they don’t agree with the war, therefore everyone who is smart must agree with them. Therefore, if a person volunteers to sign up for a war they don’t agree with, they must be stupid, and unable to get a job anywhere else. There have been numerous claims to that effect made over the last five or six years. How often have you heard that our young people just couldn’t afford to get an education unless they joined the military, and let the government pay for it. Or that people sign up for the military because there aren’t any other jobs, after all, every factory has been shut down nation wide!  They don’t even consider the possibility that these young people are smart people, who believe in the military.  Liberals think that our military is supposed to be able to have a free will–that is they can fight when they want to, and not fight when they don’t want to.  But that is not the nature of a military force.  They fight when the Commander-in-Chief decides it is appropriate.  They believe in freedom, and so they fight when they are commanded to do so.  However, it is interesting that when Clinton was in office, the military was at an all time low.  Under Bush, the military has been the strongest it has been for a long time.  What we need to remember when considering those facts is that we have a volunteer force!  The military is not as large as it is right now only because the Bush administration has compelled it to be so, but because men and women have signed up, voluntarily, to protect this country, and its interests throughout the world.

Liberals should be furious with these high profile men speaking in such a depreciatory way toward our military.  How dare they say that our men and women in uniform are only in uniform because they are too stupid to do anything else.  We have the most intelligent, educated armed forces on the face of the earth.  If you don’t think this war should be fought, then say so–it is your right.  But, don’t insult the men and women of the armed forces.  I wonder if the same soldiers will still be stupid when they are under the command of a democratic president?

I, for one, will not insult those who choose to protect our country.  They give us the freedom that we have, and I appreciate the sacrifice that they have made to provide these freedoms.  In fact, they are the very ones who provide the freedom for these liberals to make their uniformed, ridiculous statements about the military!

The problem with the state manufacturing the plate is that it “sends a message that Florida is essentially a Christian state” and, second, gives the “appearance that the state is endorsing a particular religious preference,” said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

I’m just curious, but how does manufacturing this plate indicate that “Florida is essentially a Christian state”? Or how does it give the “appearance that the state is endorsing a particular religious preference”? This is simply a matter of supply and demand for the state. If there are enough people who are willing to pay for the specialty plate, then it is worth producing. If there weren’t enough interest in the product, the state wouldn’t be even discussing the possibility of producing the plates.

One lawmaker, Rep Kelly Skidmore, a proclaimed Catholic, opposed the production of the plate:

“It’s not a road I want to go down. I don’t want to see the Star of David next. I don’t want to see a Torah next. None of that stuff is appropriate to me,” said Skidmore, a Democrat who voted against the plate in committee. “I just believe that.”

This seems to get at the heart of the matter for some. They believe that to allow this plate would mean that they would have to allow plates for other religions, or organizations (some have suggested even the KKK). But this is simply not the case! There would have to first be the overwhelming support of such a plate, a demand for the product. There is obviously going to be such a demand for this license plate. If there is a demand for other religious plates, then they too can be produced. Those who are trying to equate a KKK plate with a Christian plate are simply trying to prejudice their audience. How do you compare a hate filled, borderline terrorist organization with an established, accepted religious group?

This issue is not about state sponsorship of a religion, but rather th choice of the individual to put something they believe in on their cars. The only reason that the state is involved is because of good capitalism, and the state wants to make some money. The state of Florida does not sponsor NASCAR or anti-abortion groups just because they produce the license plates. They would not be supporting Christianity by producing a Christian plate.

This is another instance of Liberalism reaching too far. The idea that there is supposed to be a complete “separation of church and state” has been taken way too far. That mythical clause in the constitution is the basis of most of this type of wrangling among our politicians. How can it possibly hurt anyone for another to have a cross on their license plate?

Now, lest I leave the wrong impression, if I lived in Florida, I would not buy this plate. My point is that to argue against it on the basis set forth is ludicrous! Supply and demand, folks, supply and demand. If the state can make money off this, more power to them.