A Not-So-Liberal Left?

When asking the Average American just what is meant by, "liberal" v. "conservative" must people's response would probably be the same: liberals are open to change, conservatives are resistent to change. While this has been an accurate way of defining the basic difference in viewpoints for a long time, I think that, perhaps, it's time to update that definition because it just doesn't fit anymore.

Example: Liberals are resistent to change in abortion policies. Americans, even democrats such as Hilary Clinton, are ready for change. We are tired of abortion on demand, no regulation etc. etc. As conservatives march forward with legislation to curb the Murder-Market, liberals demand that we stop change and maintain our current practice allowing on demand murder.

The bigger example, though, is in Social Security. Today's Washington Times article only further proves this truth. The article explains that while most Americans are ready for something more inline with the Presidents upcoming policy, which he plans to present in Wednesdays State of the Union Address, the democratic leadership in Congress and in the DNC plan to "stop Bush cold" despite growing support for the plan even amongts the democratic base. When will the "people's party" return to the people?

The DNC needs to stop this. If Bush were to come out tomorrow and say, "Howard Dean is my best friend. You should all vote for him in 2008," the DNC would say, "Stop Bush cold-Anybody But Dean." Even when it is in the best interest of the DNC and it's democratic base, the DNC just can't put petty differences aside to best serve its support group.

Party of the people? I think not.

Few Days

So it's been a few days since i posted. That certainly isn't to say I havne't been active in defending the world from the filth of liberalism.

A Mr. Williams has been on my case again--this time about my all too truthful, tell-it-like-it-is column on the Evils of (Radical) Islam. Again, Mr. Williams, I'll say it--if you don't like what I have to say, just don't listen to me. That is the only advice I can offer you as to how to best tolerate me and my "hateful' thinking.

Liberalism is a foul thing. Today, I read a cartoon on the door of a professor here at SU that had a picture of President Bush with a little speach cloud that said, 'sure, I love women.' Beside him there were littel tombstones. To be honest, I can only remember what one of them said, though I'm sure the others were just as bad. It read, "Actively sought to end family planning." Is that what they're calling it? Family planning.

For anybody with a soul, family planning is certainly not stabbing a needle into an unborn child's head and sucking its brain out. Or, well, maybe it is in this sick twisted world. Allowing, 'family planning,' to be used so openly to describe something so awful is just disgusting. If I cut off my kids arm and called it, "planned physical construction,' people would have me executed (well not the lefties, they'd probably smack my hand, tell me I'm crazy and let me go home to my one armed child). It's just sick. Sick. Evil. Sick. Evil. Those are really the only two words to describe such ignorance. I guess some will just never learn.

In brighter political news, sometimes we need that don't we--something to brighten up our day and remind us what we're fighting for--Condie Rice was official approved to become the new Secretary of State. What a remarkable woman she is. It's wonderful to see such an intelligent, savvy woman take such a high leadership position in this nation's government. Congratulation Condie. I still love you.

That's all I really have time for today. I'm supposed to be working and blah blah blah. I may revisit the latest Ross Episode next week, depending. I also have another video to share with the ones of readers who come here. The video is from the same guy that brought us "Bias 101." This is another of his looks into the crazy people out there who protest something they know nothing about. I always say, "Those who know the least speak the most" and the people he interviews in this video clip truly fall into that list.

Bye for now.

Manly Man

President Bush is a manly man. That's all there is to it. Today, The Washington Times maps out the Bush immigration plan and also touches on Bush's intention to push (hopefully) good, Christian conservative nominees through the Senate for vacant judiciary positions. In the interview, Bush says he has:

'the ability to keep sending names up there and willingness to show that I'm a person who sticks to my guns, and I pick people who I believe are the right people to serve on the bench' and also the power of 'the bully pulpit, which I use and like using, frankly.'

While this may scare some, it puts a big fat smile on my face. Although I may not agree with everything Bush says, I can find it easier to swallow (so to speak) if he fights for it and stands his ground because to me, if it's worth fighting for, it must be something decent. This isn't always true, but in a majority of cases, it is! I mean really, why would anyone dump time, money, effort into something that he/she doesn't believe in? I have all the faith in the President and I, for one, hope he continues to use the 'bully pulpit' as a WMD against the plague of girly-man liberalism that has spread throughout this great nation. Bush is a Manly Man!

Unfair and Unbalanced

I got my first preview today of what I'm sure is going to be a...uh...tolerable History 103 'History of Civilization: French Revolution to Today' class taught by somebody who, if today is an accurate preview of days to come, is going to drive me completely nuts with his very unfair, unbalanced account of how yestarday stacks up with today.

Three times he (nearly) put down Christianity. He did it so lightly, though, that I cannot yet tell if he is serious, or if he's just a bit strange. He also compared the "War in Iraq" to Vietnam twice. Neither of these things, though, bothered me quite as much as one particular statement which may (or may not) have been said innocently. The statement went rougly as follows:

"Although no religion tries to become dominent over another today--that is, there is little killing based strictly on religions ties--this was not the case during the late 17 and early 1800's. Christianity, and Islam to a lesser extent, ruled all aspects of life. You were expected to do as your Christian leader, who received his/her power straight from the Lord and therefore had 'devine right,' without question."

Now, while this, to an extent, may be true, let us not forget that today there is a religion which attempts to completely destroy anything not in direct submission to it. This religion, often confusingly called a "Religion of Peace" is more deadly, ruthless and grusome than Christianity ever was--dare I say even at the height of the Inquisition or during the Crusades. This religion has no problem with strapping a couple of sticks of dynamite onto a young child and sending him off to die for Allah. No thought, aside from the exact plan of attack, was giving to crashing two airplanes into the World Trade Center killing thousands of innocents. Few leaders of the Religion have come out to denounce the beheading of Westerners in Iraq. It is disgusting that this continues and people say nothing about it in relation to Islam. It is time that we all stop playing "PC" (politically correct) games with this and say it--Islam is evil. It is. That's all there is to it. How Christianity can continuously be talked about in such a manner is beyond me. I cannot for a momment undetstand how we, a majority, are bad for even suggesting that maybe we should be allowed to speak of our God or our Saviour. Shame on us. Our "fundamentalists," even at their worst, have yet to cut off and heads, crash any planes, strap dynamite to a child, or declare 'Holy War' under any circumstance. Sometimes, though, I have to wonder if now is the time for Christians to do just that--declare our own Holy War.

Islamic Holy war is war of Attrition. Submit or Die. There is not compromise. There never has been. There never will be. We, I think, have played 'D' for too long. There's a saying that, "the best defense is a good offense," and I think that it may be time for us to adopt this old saying. It's time that we launch a full scale offensive to win the hearts and minds of the people. If we Christians don't stand up and fight, there isn't going to be any where left for us.

TODAY'S MORAL: Apparently it is ok to kill, maim, brainwash or question other religions if you practice Islam. Now, while this attack on Dr. Henrikson may be a bit pre-emptive, I think it's important to discuss anyway. I don't know if I can sit back and play the 'guilty Christian' role any more. Were things done in the past that maybe shouldn't have been? Yes! Absolutely. Christianity was perverted and distorted and used like an old tissue. However, we are not the only religion to do this, and we have, I think, seen the problem with our practice. To say that there is a problem with Islam (that's right, Islam--not 'fundamentalists' not 'extremists'--just Islam) is a sin in this Country--of course, aborting the innocent, supporting homosexual lifestyles, etc. etc. isn't--and I think it's a crying shame. Take up arms my fellow Christians because like it or not, we are at war!

I never told you I told you so...

BUT I TOLD YOU SO. I'll get to what I mean by that in just a minute.

First, on behalf of myself, I'd like to welcome everyone to the 2005 edition of The Vent Pipe. I truly hope that everyone had a wonderful holiday break, a great Christmas, and a good New Year.

I, for one, am looking forward to ripping into 2005 with all my might. I hope to get back to my semi-regular posting. Considering that today I had to by a copy of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, I'm sure I'll have all sorts of things to rant about...primarily the evils of Karl and his crazy Marxist movement.

While I had intended to start the New Year of blogging with just a back to school yack session and a general wrap up of 2004, I am forced to comment on an article in the Times (Washington Times that is) that I read today.

Feminists fear 4 more years

NEW YORK (AP) — America's feminist leaders and their critics agree on at least one current political fact: These are daunting times for the women's movement as it braces for another term of an administration it desperately wanted to topple.

"The next four years are going to be tough, so we must be tougher," National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy recently told supporters. "Our health, our rights and our democracy are teetering on the brink."

NOW, the Feminist Majority Foundation and numerous like-minded groups campaigned zealously against President Bush, contending that his agenda would inflict disproportionate harm on women and that his potential judicial appointments could jeopardize abortion rights.

Ms. Gandy said the Republican Party's "primary allegiance is to corporations and the wealthy."

"Giving tax breaks to them means the economic burden falls more on women," she said. To the feminists' dismay, Mr. Bush not only won, but he sharply reduced Democrats' "gender gap" edge among female voters. Republicans also increased their majorities in Congress, and new Republican senators include several staunch foes of abortion.

Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, says the Republican agenda doesn't reflect women's interests. "The issue isn't whether they're mean-spirited or anti-women," Ms. Greenberger said. "What I do see is an administration with policies that are fundamentally out of touch with what women really need. ... They have other priorities that consistently outweigh and trump the everyday concerns that women have."

But it is feminists who are truly out of touch, says Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women's Forum, who says groups like NOW "have increasingly marginalized themselves" by supporting a government-oriented agenda. "They see government as the answer to all problems — as the national health care provider and day care provider," Miss Lukas said.

Feminist groups, their critics charge, have failed to update their agenda to reflect decades of professional and economic gains by women. A majority of U.S. university students now are women, who also make up roughly half the enrollment in U.S. medical schools. The "wage gap" between men and women has been sharply reduced in the past 25 years.

"Feminist(s)...have failed to update their agenda." Gosh, doesn't that sound like something I've said about a million times. Welfare. Affirmative Action. The Feminist Movement. These are just a few things that the liberals are holding on to like there is no tomorrow. These are just a few things that were needed in the past, but are now out dated. As I wrote last year, Affirmative Action was needed in the past in order to give a ray of hope to minorities struggling to make it in the world. Feminism is much of the same.

Feminism used to be a fight for the right to vote, to have equal opportunity, to have equal pay. Now, though, it is an "Abortion is a Right" march. It is a sub group of crazy liberal women who think the only thing that women are concerned about is whether or not they can commit murder legally. When did killing babies become the central concern of such a formerlly noble organization? I cannot understand this.

TODAY'S MORAL: If you are a feminist, get a clue--it's time to move on . Killing the innocent should not be the only thing you have to care about. What about the rights that your founds fought for? What about the work that has been done already to ensure that the same things that you now have are promised to women throughout the world. Put your brains to use for something other than bitching that some 'man' had the audacity to ask you to think twice before killing your unborn child. If you're not a feminist, just keep trucking. One day these nut jobs will shut up. If they don't, we won't be around because rates of reproduction will be far below the death rate.