Cherry's Blog

"The ways of the Lord are right; the righteous walk in them, but the rebellious stumble in them." Hosea 14:9b

Friday, October 29, 2004

Bin Laden wants us to think Arab Americans Like Kerry

Surprisingly, he's wrong.

*update* Tim Bayly reminds us who the foreign leaders are that endorse Kerry. Osama is the first one to pipe up and claim Kerry.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Quotes of the Week

"Politicians have a field day misleading Americans who, as a result of having been dumbed down by our education system, can't think, reason or analyze."

--Walter Williams

"You get the sense that if George W. Bush said it was sunny, John Kerry would rise in indignation to speak about how a 10 percent possibility of light rain proves that George W. Bush has not been honest with the American people."

--John Podhoretz

An Irresponsible Man

Thomas Sowell attacks Kerry's outlandish claims.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Kerry's Stepping into Hot Water

Kerry should have kept his mouth shut about his Vietnam record. Looks like the Federalist (and their 150,000 petitioners) are after Kerry with full force for treason. Their goal? Permanently removing Kerry from public office.

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice- President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Pictures of him and Jane Fonda tossing out their medals (or was it ribbons?) will certainly make a case for Kerry's rebellion against the U.S. quite convincing.

Quote of the Week

"I don't know if I just never really noticed it before, or if it was simply WAY more pronounced in Debate #3, but John Kerry's hand movements stirred up enough motion to light a small mid-Westerncity. Good Lord, it was like watching a Richard Simmons 'Sweatin'to the Oldies' video without the music or the tights." --Chuck Muth

Even Putin Wants Bush

Russia's leader, who did not want the U.S. to go to war against Iraq, has come out in favor of George W. The reason? Bush, Putin says, will be the best force against terrorism. Putin fears that a Kerry win, "would give an additional impulse to international terrorists and to their activities, and could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world".

Like, duh!

Leftists Hate Guns

Hoosier Parliament has a good post regarding the Left's misunderstanding of the Second Amendment. The Left, most recently John Kerry, seem to equate the Second Amendment's guarantee of firearms to be about hunting. As Hoosier Parliament points out, that's not the Amendment's main intent. I would go further and say that the Second Amendment was meant as a provision for the citizens against the "government". Yes, we are supposed to be the government, but as the Founders knew quite well, power corrupts, as it has in recent years. Our Federal Government is so bloated and has assumed so many non-enumerated powers, one could reasonably say that the government may use force against its citizens within the next few decades.

A nonrenewable energy crisis is coming, and soon. That means those with money and fuel will be targeted by the poor people, with assistance from the Leftist demagogues, to be sure. You hear Leftists bash the wealthy in this country every day. They fight tooth and nail for the death tax so they can redistribute property. Is it much of a stretch then to envision an America in which government bullies demand the well-to-do to forfeit their property to provide for the "freezing" poor people? Perhaps it won't happen that way, but if it did, guns are a necessary protection for citizens against a government overstepping its boundaries, as ours does and continues to do. (Where in the Constitution does it say that we should have government run schools--and a multibillion dollar annual budget to fund them, for example?)

When the government eventually decides that firearms must be turned in, you can expect a big fight. As it is, the Left has slowly chipped away at 2nd Amendment rights and a big fight has not yet ensued.

In addition, I'd like to point out that firearms are also a necessary protection for citizens against citizens. A woman can't talk a criminal out of rape, but her handgun might.

The second amendment says that a citizen's right to own a firearm shall not be infringed. The Left doesn't like that one bit. If John Kerry somehow steals the Presidency from Bush, one of his goals will be to further restrict handgun purchases. Hopefully though, Republicans will keep their majority in Congress and won't let that happen.

Some quotes to chew on (from the latest edition of http://FederalistPatriot.US/current2004a.asp):

"Constitutions are checks upon the hasty action of the majority. They are the self-imposed restraints of a whole people upon a majority of them to secure sober action and a respect for the rights of the minority." --William Howard Taft

"Do not expect justice where might is right." --Plato

"The dangers of a concentration of all power in the general government of a confederacy so vast as ours are too obvious tobe disregarded." --President Franklin Pierce

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

I'm Back

I apologize for not posting recently. My husband, daughter and I took a week travelling to Tennessee, Virginia and Ohio to visit family.

I thought I'd include a passage from America's Thirty Years War by the late Balint Vazsonyi that is worth considering before this election.

"When the president of the United States...launches a "new initiative," it may be assumed to have come from an old book. That explains partly why American officials support the current frenzied revisionism of history: new generations should never suspect the true origins of those initiatives. All the more reason for the rest of us to be constantly aware of the system that awaits at the other end of the road."

Vazsonyi, in his book, argues that there are two polars in politics that will never change, no matter how they are labeled in the current political system. One side "may be characterized as attributing to human reason an unlimited capacity to comprehend, evaluate, and arrange the affairs of our world." This side makes a theory, then forces society to conform to it. The other position "regards human reason as bounded by limitations, and in need of moral guidance as it attempts to provide for the future. In this way of thinking, it is observation, experience and lessons learned that form the basis of society's choice in organizing its institutions." Vazsonyi grew up under Communist rule but later immigrated to the U.S. where he cherished the liberty given to him as a U.S. citizen. Within a matter of years, however, Vazsonyi began witnessing the stealth takeover of our nation by leftists who hide under the name of 'liberal' but do not want liberty but government control. While they do not call themselves Communists, they hold the same values and want the same goals.

Bush is not exactly Mr. Conservative, but he does believe in a restricted government (hence, sending tax rebates and working to provide further tax relief for the American people.) Kerry, on the other hand, would love nothing more than to take your freedoms and money and hand it over to Uncle Sam, and he has the Senate record to prove it.

Kerry wants to start a health care program that sounds enticing, but will soon become the socialist health care program other countries are suffering under.

Don't vote Communists in office. A liberty forfeited now will never be regained without bloodshed. That's not an exaggeration, folks.

Friday, October 08, 2004

If Gloria Steinem Likes Him, He Must Be Really Bad

Gloria Steinem thinks Kerry's her man. Steinem and her cadre of femi-Nazis sent a letter to Nader condemning him for running in this year's race. Steinem says that Bush is "intent on dismantling and destroying all that we have worked for years to achieve".

Listen, Steinem: Bush can't dismantle and destroy all your feminist achievements. 40 million babies are already dead and dismantled because of you and your fellow feminists and Bush can't make that right.

However, he wants to stop your side from allowing more babies to be ripped from their mommies' wombs and plunged to their death. He wants to put judges in place who will guarantee life, liberty and happiness for all...not just callous women who care more about themselves and their careers than their families.

Anyone who votes for Kerry is aligning him/herself with the likes of Gloria Steinem and all those who believe murdering unborn babies should be legal and encouraged.

You can try to deny it, but you can't. A vote for Kerry is a vote with the blood of unborn babies on it. Kerry will replace current Supreme Court justices with pro-abortion, "living document" justices if given the chance. Bush, if given the opportunity, plans to replace some of the Supremes with pro-life judges who use the method of strict scrutiny when interpreting the Constitution.

Think that won't make a difference? Scott Tibbs writes about the states who will restrict abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned and other implications of electing a pro-abortion president.

Save a baby: Vote For W.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Bush Made Right Decision

Josh Claybourn seems to think Bush's decision to go into Iraq was flawed from the get-go. I disagree.

As mentioned before, Saddam and Iraq are definitely linked. Even without scouring classified documents, it is common knowledge that Saddam funded suicide bombers' families to the tune of $25,000 apiece. Also, Iraq's democratic state has gotten terrorists in a frenzy. Instead of us going to them, they're coming to us. Soldiers' lives are on the line in Iraq, but as Bush pointed out, numerous known killers are either dead themselves or sitting in a cold jail cell waiting trial.

And what to say of the freedom now enjoyed by Iraqis? They may not all be the most appreciative, but they deserve freedom nonetheless. Bottom line: Saddam was a brutal dictator who had challenged the U.S. and violated U.N. agreements.

Claybourn comments that Kerry may not have the spine to defend our country. This isn't the case. Rather, despite his campaign trail language, Kerry is decidedly anti-military. This man does not have any desire to ever engage our troops in war, let alone be prepared for such an event. Read Kerry's proposal to slash the Reagan administration's military budget and then decide whether this man should be commander in chief in a post-9/11 world. The thought of it sends shivers up my spine. Brrrr...

Cheney Wasn't Impressed

Going along with a post by Broken Masterpieces, Cheney's prayer breakfast spent with Edwards must not have been impressive or Cheney would have recalled having met the Senator before. As poster Tim writes, "Maybe if Edwards showed up at the Senate Cheney would have remembered him".

Commenter Jerry Pierce writes, "The only evidence I've seen is that they were in the same room a couple times and that Cheney gave a speech acknowledging Edwards' presence. That doesn't constitute having met."

And I'll add to it: What in the world is a trial lawyer doing at a prayer breakfast??? Is that allowed?

The American People Haven't Won, John #2

According to Netscape News with CNN, Edwards, when asked who won the debate, replied, ``the American people'' because they saw clear differences between the tickets.

While I would like to think that was true and that Bush now had an overwhelming majority, most of those polled think that Edwards somehow won the debate against Cheney. I watched the debate and don't know how any reasonable person could come to that conclusion. I'm more apt to believe the debate was how Hoosier Parliament assessed it: a battle between Ward Cleaver and Eddy Haskell, the Leave it to Beaver weasel who put on his best charms to deceive adults. Cheney appeared the calm and collected authority figure while Edwards, who found it hard to maintain his syruppy Southern voice the duration of the debate, appeared to be trying to pull one over on the American people with his continued use of the word Halliburton and other 'catch' phrases. (Thank goodness the 'lockbox' never came up).

If people think that Edwards' demeanor was convincingly charming, I would remind them that this man is a trial lawyer. He is known in his area as a ruthless, heartless lawyer. This man will attack anyone for money.

Cheney did a great job, all in all. He should have been 100% honest so the Bush campaign would look credible compared to the Johns, whose entire platform rests on deception. Cheney was a bit dishonest on a few points, such as not ever having met Edwards before. This is unacceptable and unnecessary. We can win on our record--the Kerry clan can't.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Life or Death: Who Decides?

In an interesting British court case, a family is in legal debate with a hospital as to whether or not their premature infant must be resucitated next time she stops breathing. A post on WorldMagWeblog made this sound as if the hospital is trying to kill the baby, named Charlotte. I disagree.

Here are my comments to their post:

While I consider myself both a strong Christian and an avid pro-lifer, my opinion shifted a bit after reading the original article. The little girl's breathing keeps stopping. To me, this sounds like God's way of ending a sad life that from the hospital's point of view is also a painful one. The family sounds like they are hanging on for their own sake and are not concerned with whether their baby is indeed suffering because of their decision to prolong her life.
While I do sympathize with parents loathful to lose their daughter, I can also sympathize with these hospital employees who wish to stop future resucitation attempts. If I was a nurse and saw a pitiful little baby who was suffering, but was brought back to life (through artificial means) every time she stopped breathing, I might talk to a higher-up to see if there was something that could be done.
I think the heart of this issue goes to how much control a parent should have over a child. While I am one to give parent's most responsibility, I also want some sort of avenue to be in place to stop situations of abuse and neglect, of which this story might belong. It's hard to say; the news article might be biased to the hospital. It sounds to me though, as if the parents are doing everything they can to cheat death, which is God's way of bringing that little girl back home to him.
I agree with others who have commented: prayer is in order. May His will be done.

I might also add that while parents should have ultimate responsibility over their children's lives, they cannot force others to treat their children medically. The hospital must be witnessing some real suffering on the part of this little girl if they are willing to lose the money of her future care and take this to court.

Free Speech not just for Zones

In a pleasing court decision, a judge has ruled, among other things, that speech on campuses cannot be limited to certain zones. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) received its third legal victory, this time in a challenge against Texas Tech's restriction of free speech. According to FIRE,

"Along with striking down a speech code that banned, among other things, “insults,” “ridicule,” and “personal attacks,” Judge Cummings determined that a university policy requiring students to get prior permission before engaging in even casual free expression was not sufficiently “narrowly tailored” to be enforced against students at this public university."

I just don't get how many people are offended by words to the point that they will violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Let's say it together people: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

Monday, October 04, 2004

News that Needs to Be Spread

Hopefully this isn't the next of a recent string of journalistic blunders, but a piece of news worth sharing.

According to a CNS exclusive news report,

Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

I hope this news gets out and helps Bush's popularity, although the 80 % approval rating Bush had before the war should still be behind him for making Iraq a democratic country regardless of whether any WMD's are ever found.

Saturday, October 02, 2004

Boycott Proctor & Gamble

I'm late bringing this to your attention, but if those who shove the homosexual agenda down your throat are getting on your nerves, it's time to take action. For now, you can start by boycotting a big name company who is working in Ohio to repeal a law that denies homosexuals from receiving special rights.

In response, the American Family Association is asking that we boycott Crest, Tide and Pampers.

Note, if you find it hard to replace those products, I have some lower cost alternatives that work just as well if not better:

1) Any generic toothpaste with the same active and inactive ingredients will work just as well (ex: Pepsodent, Sensodyne, etc)

2) Arm & Hammer detergent was the only detergent to get poopy stains out of my daughter's little pink outfits.

3.) Of all the diapers I've tried, and I've tried just about all of those on the market, the cheapest work the best. The Walmart brand, called Dri Bottoms, works wonders. They absorb everthing and leave no odor. Plus they're cheap! Even Pampers doesn't do as good a job.

Kerry the General?

There's a good post up at Indepundit concerning Kerry's severe misunderstanding of how the military operates. In the debate, Kerry accused Bush of not commandeering our forces effectively in Afghanistan and Iraq, specifically mentioning 'Bush's' failure to capture Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora. Indepundit's poster, who goes by Smash, writes:

This is not a military dictatorship. The President makes the decision to go to war, after consulting with Congress. He may even approve or veto specific military strategies. But he does not write the war plan – the Pentagon does that.

Kerry emphasized that one must separate the warriors from the war. This post, however, makes clear that this is impossible, as it is the warriors, i.e. the Generals, who plan the war. I wasn't quite sure how much say the president had in deciding what actions are troops would take, so I personally appreciated this post for educating me and others so that we do not go along with Kerry for blaming the wrong people.

Missing From Action

Has anyone noticed the unusual absence of the Democratic embarassments Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Could it be that the two of them were perhaps paid to stay silent in hopes that their obnoxious tantrums would not hurt Kerry's presidential hopes?

I don't watch TV or read the paper, so perhaps they have been out there campaigning for Kerry, but I doubt it. Neither of them can go long without a political gaffe that would surely make the papers and embarass anyone behind the donkey mascot.

Friday, October 01, 2004

Bush Still the Right Man for the Job

While I was disappointed in Bush's presentation of his stances last night, I nevertheless stand by him as president, not because I'm stubbornly conservative (well, yes, I am), but because Bush is the right man for the presidency.

Take a look at Bush's stance on security. Kerry repeatedly chastized Bush for not having a clear plan on how to win the war on security. Bush didn't enunciate his position to my liking last night, but he does have a clear plan for our nation's security posted on his website, including a link to his outlined agenda for America's future.

Kerry tried to jab Bush for not concentrating funds enough on our security at home. Bush replied that to win this war on terror, we have to fight offensively, not defensively. He's right. On his website, the Bush campaign rightly states,

"We cannot forget that the terrorists remain determined to kill as many Americans as possible, both abroad and here at home, and would like nothing more than to use the world’s most deadly weapons against us. With such an enemy, no negotiated peace is possible; no policy of containment or deterrence will prove effective.

Kerry appeared a humble, sincere, almost moderate candidate last night. He's a smooth talker, that's for sure. It's important to remember, however, that this man earned the title of most liberal of all Senator members, even more so than Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy. This is no moderate, folks. He's good at appearances, but don't let him fool you. He's a snake in disguise.

***It is also worth commenting on the difference between last election's debates and this year's. Following time limits is wonderful! It was also refreshing not to hear the word, 'lockbox'.
Still, there are debates yet to come and the word is sure to resurface. Alas!***