hereandnow's Blog

I was listening to a local radio show this morning that is probably quite popular among a few of my fellow bloggers and they were going over an incident that occurred on the campus of Purdue University in Indiana recently.  The situation played out as follows; a janitor for the university, of white decent, was doing the work Americans "just won't do" and decided to read a book on his break.  The book, I don't recall the title, was about a clash between the KKK and Notre Dame students back in the 50's in which the students prevailed.  The cover of the book happened to depict a man in a white robe and pointed hat burning a cross in front of the Notre Dame campus.  A student passed and saw this man reading the book and reported it to a staff member who then brought it up to a student relations commitee.  This man was brought before the committee and told that this book was the equivelent of bring pornography on campus, he was then handed a pay cut and told that this "hateful act" of book reading was offensive to students and staff and that he would have to stop reading that book on campus!!  All of this nonsense over a book that was retelling an actual historical event, where the KKK was defeated by progressive students who believed in racial equality!!!  Didn't Hitler demand the burning of all books that didn't fit his brainwashing agenda?  I have witnessed, over a few years, public schools removing certian books from their reading lists because they contain factually based history that might offend some students and parents, Huck Finn being one of these books.  What do you guys think about this mandatory suppression of history to avoid offending the public?   I'm pretty sure we need to educate ourselves extensivly on our history or we are doomed to repeat it, this is looking more and more like Nazi Germany, I'm getting really scared....are we really going to resort back to book burning??!! 

My little angel is officially reading, I have never been so proud.  I have been edging her on with short lessons, mostly just organized play, but never pushed her to do anything she didn't want to, in fear of her developing a dislike for the subject.  She read to me last night before bed, I had to help a little, just a little.  So, all of my efforts havn't been in vein,  what a great feeling.  SOOOO PROUD!!  With a ton of help from various homeschooling websites and a whole lot of patience we did it.  My cup runneth over

Was at a local shopping center the other day with my two angels, and a friend of my oldest's, both 4, and noticed a fellow mother doing her best to maintain sanity while grocery shopping with her children, those of you who are mothers know what I mean.  Anyway, this woman in question had 4 children ranging in age from about 3 - 12 yrs old.  The older two, about 10 and 12, were drinking out of sippy cups, wha???  The middle one, about 5 had a bottle and a pacifier??  Really, is this what we've come to??  I could not believe what I was seeing, this woman was obviously too afraid of a little screaming and retaliation from her own kids to put her foot down.  I'm a pretty firm believer in being a parent and not a friend to my girls, my oldest lost the bottle at around 18 months and the pacifier was gone by 8 months.  Why do American mothers allow their children to walk all over them like this?? 

Why is tolerance only affordded to those who have none themselves?  I'm a little irritated that we have to tolerate criminals, bigots, racists (as long as their not white), idiots, Randy,  terrorists, and many others.  Political correctness is a plague on this country, liberalism is a mental disorder...just venting...sorry to those of you I've offended...but not really.

Had a discusion with a good friend of mine about a month ago and this was what we came to agre upon:

"It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate;(who I don't believe will be eliminated until August, unless she drops out), the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.


We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.


The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.


Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."


Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.


Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich."
How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.


The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton would have been a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama won because people can't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.


But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.


It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.


According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:


The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA?? "

HMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!????

Has anyone else noticed the disgusting way the press is pushing acceptance of illegal immigration, even to our babies?  My 4 yr. old was watching a cartoon the other day called "Handy Manny", that features a hispanic handy man with spanish speaking tools.  The town he lives in is portrayed as a bunch of white skinned waterheads that can't do any kind of manual labor without help from Manny.  This is sick and insulting.  Dora, however, seems to have it right when portraying a sneaky theiving "Fox" named swiper who steals everything he can get his little paws on.  The brainwashing is out of control.....

As well as an informative source of opinions from my fellow Houstonians, I also use this blog for a little frustration relaease.  I have noticed ,lately, that many have taken my opinions to offense although that was not my intent.  I get a little fired up about cerian topics and tend to sound insulting, sorry to those of you that I have offended.  Also, I have been accussed of having an alter ego by the name of Eddie, this is untrue.  I have read some posted blogs and responses by this person that some are calling a hate monger, he has threatened a few fellow bloggers which to me shows only a lack of self control and a limited intellect.  Dissagreeing does not egual dislike, in my book..  A good debate with a person, who can express their veiws in an intelligent manner, is enjoyable and is why I continue to blog on this site.  Threatening another persons saftey simply because you dissagree with their point of veiw is unacceptable and has NEVER been done by me!!  Please don't lump me into the same catagory with this guy because I don't share your political veiws, its insulting.

What ever happened to raising our little girls like ladies?  People have taken the movement of feminism to extreme lengths,  now our little girls are dressing like sluts at the age of 13 and fighting like boys in the schoolyard, this is unacceptable!!  Being a lady does NOT mean one has to stay at home, have a dozen kids, and never dream of speaking her mind.   A strong, successful woman is even stronger when she retains the ability to act like a lady.  We are turning our babies into an overly aggressive herd of little hookers. 

Why wont these idiot politicians pandering gun control laws wake up and realize that the only people who will follow these laws are the LAW-abiding citizens?  The criminal element that are responsible for gun violence in this country are obviously not going to conform, they are murderers, rapists, gang members among other things.  Envoking any kind of gun control is not only violating our constitutional right to protect ourselves from tyrany but leaving the honest law-abiding citizens of our country with no protection against those who wish to rob, rape and murder.  The idiot city council of Philly just tried to enforce gun control in the city and were ordered by the state to stop the enforcement of these laws because it was unconstitutional.  The criminals will continue to do what they do best, BREAK THE LAW, so assuming that more LAWS will fix this problem is ignorant. 

I'm interested in opinions from my fellow bloggers on the law congress recently passed allowing commercial airline pilots to fly to age 65, originally they were forced to retire at age 60.  Is this dangerous?  Expensive?  Arguements I've heard are as follows;  Older pilots with higher seniority are paid a considerable amount more than a young entry level pilot would be paid, they're retirement benifits are also inflating the longer they work so the cost is obviously be passed on to consumers and government bail-outs.  We've all also heard about the recent death of an older Continental captian due to cardiovascular difficulties while he was actually flying the plane, his 1st officer had to land the plane!!!  What are ya'lls opinions?

Quit reporting these garbage pit bull stories, Im sure they arent the sweetest most trustworthy, or predictible breed of dog but surely none of you think any animal is predictible or completely trustworthy, if you do, you're sadly misinformed about how to treat animals.  The pit bull or the now infamous "pit bull mix" is just as potentially dangerous as any other breed in that size range.