Of course it is, why would anyone think it wouldn’t be? Absurd … and MoveOn.org? What a disgraceful organization. http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/poli … 9.10.2007/ Did people speak like this during World War II? Would we have won the fight if the troops always heard such nay-saying all the time? And would the government have put up with such non-sense back then? I don’t think so …
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
This was sent to me by someone investigating the legality of employers forcing employees to participate in “New Age” type training within an organization, whether it’s a private corporation or a government agency. Of particular interest is the fact that this was approved by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
(Original): http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/policy/eeoc915.asp
(Archived): http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/chri … N-915.022/
Whereas during the Cold War, espionage took the form of infiltrating government facilities, recruiting agents from within the government to hand over information, now the threat is economic espionage, where private corporations are being infiltrated by agents from all over the world. And they don’t even have to be a double agent (spying for two governments as in the Cold War), but they simply need to get hired or work as a contractor within a private corporation.
So much of what makes this country (and other major super powers) run is economic and corporate. We are no longer in an arms race but a world-wide economic race. This priority has replaced the arms race of the Cold War now for this country. Economic stability and prosperity is the foundation of what makes this country tick. Therefore, for other countries like China and Russia in particular, to get a hold of the secrets corporations possess for how they do business, making them so effective on the world market, is invaluable information. And unfortunately, this kind of information, as opposed to the kind during the Cold War, is much easier to obtain than infiltrating top secret government facilities, and may turn out to be much more dangerous.
The FBI is increasingly confronting the problem, particularly with the rising problem of Chinese spies within corporations (as cited in the articles listed below), but there are more and more agents coming from all over the world, taking advantage of this new found espionage. We seem to be at an even greater risk of losing our world-wide economic foothold now than in the Cold War with this type of espionage. If we can have our foundational foothold uprooted, our influence may diminish and China’s may increase (since they seem to be the primary agents we are catching). Interesting …
Here are some articles on the subject I have archived:
http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/secu … h%20spies/
http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/secu … e%20spies/
http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/secu … s%20Forum/
http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/secu … vel’/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … spy/spies/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … 19656.html
http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/poli … 0abortion/
More than anything, this makes me really sad for how our society can justify the murder of unborn children at a legal level. My wife is about to deliver our first child in a few weeks. And to see a baby moving inside of her, responding to me when I talk, I cannot possibly conceive how anyone, in such an organized, political manner, can justify abortion, as if it is some badge of honor to give legal consent to commit murder. And this is only because God has changed my heart by His grace, otherwise I would be darkened in my understanding just as those are who approve of such awful, horrific things. I take no credit for my stance on abortion. I am a sinner, and without the restraint of God turning me from my sin by His grace, I would by justifying abortion in the same manner. We are so prone to sin and we cannot even perceive how exposed we are.
So, could I be outraged and take up an offense against these particular Democrats on the basis of morality? Sure. Could I protest the politics of it all and defend the Republican stance against abortion? Absolutely. And I do defend the abolition of abortion. However, our ultimate hope as believers in Christ is not in the politics of this world, but of the politics of heaven where Christ reigns (His sovereignty over all things), where our citizenship lies. At the same time, I desire to do what I can in this world (voting) to keep people out of office who approve of and give free, unfettered easy access for citizens to commit infanticide. This to me trumps all other issues, as important as they are, because this is such a wickedly depraved act and exposes the rank unbelief that lies in the hearts of men. And to give approval of such things on a political level (as we already have) is to delve our nation further into unbelief of the Gospel. As far as the liberal stance on abortion is concerned, they do not need people like us yelling at them, they need us to love them by entering their lives, show them the Gospel, and they need their hearts of stone melted by the grace and mercy of God in Christ by the Holy Spirit.
They need the call of the Gospel, and in that the wakening of their souls from spiritual death to see the beauty of Christ. This is our only hope for changing people’s hearts to see the utter darkness of abortion: the work of the Holy Spirit to unbind hearts chained by sin. For such a sophisticated society as ours, we are one of the most barbaric cultures to approve of something as wretched as infanticide. May God have mercy on our nation and culture and cleanse us of our wickedness by His grace alone. Oh Lord, have mercy upon us as a people by turning our hearts from our wickedness.
Live Earth: How shall I describe it? Democratic National Convention, one in a long line of hippy fests, possible political front for Al Gore’s Presidential bid in the near future, “Green” Woodstock, the largest hypocritical organized event in the world, GE fluorescent light bulb marketing campaign (via NBC), NBC-backed partisan political push for the Democrats, hybrid marketing campaign, excuse to go to a concert and drink yourself in the ground, a “progressive” excuse to protest an infringement of the climate on our constitutional rights (even if it is a theory), a reason for artists to be in the spotlight and market their music, a reason to be entertained for fans, a false way of feeling like you are making a difference when you are simply adding to the alleged problem by attending, a sham, a convenient way for the super rich and famous to be telling all of us peons what we should be doing and not be doing it themselves.
And no, Leonardo, there is no consensus in the scientific community on the issue. Why the fabrication? There is in fact a great divide. What a giant lie this whole thing is … and Al Gore, in the name of inclusion of all people from all types of backgrounds, you are excluding all those who disagree with you, like me and half of the scientific community. For pollution to be cut down at the levels it needs to be to reverse any supposed climate change caused by man, all construction and industrial production from all sectors of the world must cease immediately. And … purchasing carbon offsets is going to do the job? Really? I’m at a loss, basically this sums it up: Al Gore, people will go to anything where there are stars, music, beer, and a reason to protest; that does not necessarily mark success though in your fight at the phantom that is global warming. Makes my head hurt …
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ … 027517.ece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/f … ge_id=1879
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … _article=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/washi … nted=print
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01_pf.html
http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comment … 614-095935
http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comment … 516-094518
http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comment … 410-110051
http://www.davidwesterfield.net/comment … 203-004902
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/02/o … decisi.php
This was Obama speaking about Bush granting clemency to Scooter Libby. Really? I’m sorry but last I remember it was absolutely within the bounds of the law for the President of the United States to grant clemency. So I guess I’m not understanding what the bad politics are. Can someone explain this to me? What kind of politics must change? I guess Obama means to say he desires to rewrite laws so that a President cannot grant clemency? If that is the case, what other laws does he want to change that have existed for over two hundred years? Where does it stop? I’m sorry, Obama, but the bad politics do not just exist on the Republican side. There is much corruption coming from your own party as well.
List of President Clinton’s pardons: http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
Clinton’s explanation for why he pardoned: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opini … 1183521600
And I submit to you, as a conservative, that Clinton was absolutely within the law to pardon the people he chose to. So what’s the problem with Bush pardoning someone? He has the right to do so.
This just shows that most of the leftist leaders in this country simply hate Bush not for any logically consistent reason, even when he performs the legal duties of his office, but they simply find joy in the hating of this President, because it promotes their political agenda.
Pelosi: “The president shows his word is not to be believed” http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/ … 2-20-24-17
Hillary: “In this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice” http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/ … 2-20-24-17
Thanks to www.DrudgeReport.com for the links …
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_ … ama_health
Universal healthcare: it sounds like a great idea, healthcare for everyone right? Who doesn’t want that? While it sounds plausible, and may in the short-term fix many financial woes of those suffering from outrageous insurance rates and unbearable co-pays, the long-term problem is that healthcare quality will suffer dramatically. And to be honest, despite the high cost of healthcare, we have one of the best quality systems in the world. If we follow the example of those European nations who have moved to universal healthcare though, getting in for cancer treatment will take six weeks. Literally. I know this because a friend of mine had a mother in Sweden who was diagnosed with cancer but could not get in to see the doctor for six weeks because of bureaucratic red tape as a result of the universalization of healthcare. She died shortly thereafter.
Obama’s (and Edwards) solution to healthcare is to excessively tax the rich and give to the poor to pay for this. In most classic economics classes (except for those redefining the meaning of these terms like at Harvard, Yale, and GWU), taking from the rich and giving to the poor is called socialism. It is a move away from capitalism. And I guarantee healthcare will never be the same if this ever becomes policy. This is what I mean when I say Obama is socialistic. And when I say that I guess you could say what I mean is neo-socialism, not old time Soviet Socialism. Instead of this new kind of socialism being applied to solve our healthcare woes, we need policies that will address the current healthcare market and fix those problems instead of scrapping it altogether.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070524/ts_ … wards_dc_1
After only five years since 9/11, we now have politicians like John Edwards saying, “The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan.” This is in the words of Bush today, “Naive.” I agree. How could we be this near-sighted? Six terrorists were recently thwarted in their plot to hit Fort Dix a few weeks ago. They are here and waiting to attack, plotting attacks.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén