Anarchy

So, I have been lax in posting, busy, busy bee that I am. Today, we are going to delve into Anarchy. Anarchy is defined as:

1. 
   Absence of any form of political authority.
   
2. Political disorder and confusion.
   
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
   

This is from answers.com, and is a rather simple and standard definition. Read down the page, and you will find various forms of Anarchy. This site is proud of the historical connection between Anarchy and Communism, with a heavy leaning towards Marx and Engle, and there is another definition as well.

So, now we know that the anarchists, those who sport the symbol of the circle with an A in the middle, would like to see the devolution of governments, believing that humans will take care of themselves.

Sorry, humans will not take care of themselves, they never have. There will always be the strong, there will always be a leader, and a group to follow that leader. Think about it, the Anarchists join societies to promote anarchy, societies with leaders…DUH.

Sounds fun, but it is a form of life that will result in senseless suffering and death as the more evil among us take advantage of the lack of enforced rules. Of course, the lack of rules is a rule in itself, and the laws will be simple survival of the more cunning, the more heavily armed. I find it rather funny that the anarchists also tend to be leftists, and that leftists tend to be anti-gun for citizens. Think about that, no guns for us, more guns for them!

I wonder how many young folk know what they are supporting when they adorn themselves with the symbol for Anarchy?

The picture that should be below

If this works, this is the picture from the post below, from GAC

I’m Second Generation, I can post this

Stole it from grouchy old cripple, who borrowed it from some dude named Barney. Go to GAC's site, he can be cranky, but he makes sense.

I never tire of being right

As predicted in the post below, the scientists are coming out. If you don't feel like reading the article, it basically tells us that the argument over Gorebal warming is a waste of time. My favorite quote is:

 

"Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food."

 

The scientists in the article bring up the fact that if the Gorebal folks were right, we should all be fried by now, but, no such luck. These scientists point to the sun as the cause…go figure.

Carbon credits are a fraud

Gee…who didn't see this coming? And of course, now that the few brave scientists have come out of the closet, the flood gates are about to open on Gorebal warming! The left, and the lap-dog, chicken little media will fight it of course…until it is popular to say that humans are causing the next ice age---again

Bush to use veto

I hope he means it, he promised he would veto the campaign finance debacle, and did not. He also seems to have never met a spending bill he didn't like, and signed on to the no child left behind boondoggle. Let us all keep our fingers crossed that the President has found his back-bone on this one.

Harry is Dumb

Harry Reid is stupid. There, an ad hominem attack from me, something I didn't think I would do. However, this could actually be a compliment, because the other option, that Harry Reid is a traitor that cares nothing for the brave men and women who wear the uniform, is much worse. He told us the war was lost, and I blogged it, then Senator Leiberman responded with: No it's not, give the troops some time. Now Mr. Reid comes back with this, and I have to pull the quote, it is so insane, so obviously hypocritical, so, well stupid.

 

"The longer we continue down the President's path," the majority leader told colleagues in a Senate floor speech, "the further we will be from success."

He also pointed out that Democrats generally agree with him.

"In an effort to shift attention from this Administration's failed polities – and I say that in the plural – the President and his allies have repeatedly questioned whether I and my fellow Democrats support our troops," the majority leader told fellow senators. "No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats. We've proven that time and time again since this war started more than four years ago. We take a back seat to no one in supporting our troops, and we will never abandon our troops in a time of war."

 

So, in sentence one, Reid calls the troops losers, than goes on to swear he supports them. Well, he also wants funding cut, he wants us to surrender. Another quote from an article:

 

"Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is joining Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, in sponsoring a new Iraq bill that would end the majority of Iraq war funding after March 31, 2008, the day Senate Democrats originally proposed pulling troops out of the war-ravaged nation."

 

C'mon Mr. Reid, let the military do their thing, let the President do his job, which is to over-see the military. It is not the job of Congress, if it were supposed to be, it would be mentioned in Article I of the Constitution, not Article II, which grants the President the title of Commander in Chief. Holding the purse strings does not equal authority, and it is further proof that the Government should NEVER try to run anything, they should go back to abiding by the Constitution.