Tuesday, February 28, 2006

State of the Black Union

I've watched bits and pieces of the State of the Black Union hoping to hear something encouraging in the new 'Covenant with Black America' that is being proposed by the founders of the conference. Unfortunately, it's more of the same thing.

Apparently, since I'm a white male, it's my fault that poverty has run rampant through the black community. In fact, I'm partly to blame for poverty in all demographic groups. I learned that it's wrong for me to be successful and make my own money, because by doing that I somehow suppress black America. Capitalism has worked for me, which means I'm the 'man' and should be hated by those who haven't taken advantage of the oppurtunities provided by our economic system.

Obviously, that was upsetting to me because I have nothing against black America. If it were up to me, everyone would work hard and be true to their family, take responsibility for themselves and NOT depend on the government for handouts...but it's not up to me. So all I can do is take care of my business and keep my little part of the world in order. I've done what was necessary to provide for my family and ensure a bright future. I've made the proper sacrifices. Perhaps that's why black America and the 'poor' hate me. I don't know. But I'm thinking that if black America learned a lesson from people like me who take care of themselves, then maybe they'd be able to pull themselves out of poverty. Maybe this would be more productive than pointing fingers and blaming those who have succeeded for their own lack of success...just a thought.

Then again, the leadership of the black community isn't exactly encouraging personal sacrifice and hard work. There's a lot of money to be made in the 'victimization' industry. If black America were to suddenly lift itself out of poverty, then Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be out of a job. So why would they want their 'people' to succeed? Lesson number one in how to succeed in a capitalist society: Consider the salesman before buying the message. I think black America has failed in this, seeing that they've bought Jesse Jackson's victim message in whole.

Jesse Jackson's answer to the problems facing black society? More money. If only the government would spend more money on entitlements and handouts then poverty would vanish and the black race would find itself on the road to success. Does anyone out there buy this? I realize that the majority of my audience has succeeded in this society, so the majority answer to that question will likely be no. But in case there are a few Lefties out there, consider this: Since the Great Society programs were implemented, America has spent nearly 5 trillion dollars to combat poverty...the money has gone to very type of entitlement programs and handouts that the black leadership says we need more of. So how much has our 'investment' returned? Surely 5 trillion dollars has gone a long way in eliminating poverty. Actually, no. Instead, things have gotten worse. Poverty rates have gone up. Illegitimate births have gone up. Teenage pregnancy and drug use in adolescents has increased. Rates of sexually transmitted disease and new AIDS cases in the black community have gone up. And they want MORE money?

Laura Ingraham used a good analogy yesterday. If you were raising a child who kept misbehaving and getting into trouble, would you continue writing him check after check to bail him out of his problems, or would you try to teach him the proper values and principles in order to teach him to avoid trouble in the first place? Eventually, I stop writing checks. Perhaps the government should take this advice, because the status quo isn't working. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life." I'm for teaching the poor how to fish...in the end it's much less taxing on us all.

Monday, February 27, 2006

Happy Mardi Gras

I returned today from New Orleans where I joined in the Mardi Gras celebration. I am a member of one the parading 'Krewes' that have made the celebration famous and when they decided to parade again this year, I decided to be there with them.

Many people have criticized the city for staging a celebration at a time of disaster...I disagree. I rode on one of the mammoth floats through the Garden District to the Warehouse District and on to the downtown area. We passed many blue roofs and houses in bad need of repair. I saw a lot of destruction. But I also saw people having fun. I saw smiles and cheers. I saw children and adults enjoying themselves, perhaps for the first time in six months. I saw a city in desperate need of a distraction, if only for a few days.

Before we criticize, we should remember that New York held the Macy's parade and Times Square celebration after 9/11. San Francisco held a World Series after the 1989 earthquake. New Orleans is not alone when it comes to cities that have needed healing over the years. Mardi Gras is a part of that city and without it, New Orleans just isn't New Orleans.

I'm not sure what the future may hold for the Crescent City. Hopefully the politicians will get their heads out of their you-know-what and take action for the people, but that's a long shot. I don't know if New Orleans will ever be the same, but I do know that the people of that city needed Mardi Gras...and it came not a moment too soon.

So here's to you N'awlins, Happy Mardi Gras!

Thursday, February 23, 2006

One Doc's opinion

For those of you who don't know, I am a licensed physician in Family Medicine. I haven't been practicing long, but I am residency trained and board certified. I recently read the news on the Supreme Court's decision to hear the partial birth abortion case and felt it's time for me to throw my 2 cents in...for what it's worth.

Now, this is not an abortion post. My own personal feelings on abortion don't apply here, that's for another day. This is about medicine, and what's best for the patient (keeping in mind that we're dealing with 2 patients, mother and baby). The going argument against a ban on partial birth abortion is that no laws allow for the procedure should the mother's health become at risk. This has always interested me, so I decided to look into it.

I searched the medical literature and found NO case where partial birth abortion was the ONLY alternative available and thus saved a mother's life. So I tried to imagine a hypothetical situation. I'm not an OBGYN, but I have been trained in obstestrics and I am licensed to deliver OB care. Given the success of C-section deliveries and advances in neonatal care, I can't think of a single scenario in which partial birth abortion would be the ONLY means to save someone's life. Maybe I'm wrong and I've simply overlooked something. But I honestly don't believe such a situation could arise. I also know that this procedure is absolutely horrific, bordering on barbaric. So here's one physician who hopes that the Supreme Court pays attention to medical testimony and decides to uphold any state-imposed ban on this procedure...it's simply not necessary.

If someone out there would like to dispute my findings, please do so. I'm always willing to advance my knowledge in medicine. But I'd really like to know that if my findings are indeed correct, would anyone out there continue to voice opposition to banning this procedure? The comment line is open?

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

I'm sick and tired of hearing this...

This is a post I've been wanting to write for a long time. Frankly, I've been more than upset with those on both the Left and the Right for saying "there were no WMDs" and so today I make the argument that should be argued every day in the media and in political debate. I'm a scientist, and so I frequently employ simple logic to make my points. That's what I'm going to do now. Unfortunately, too many in Washington are strangers to logic and so my argument will likely fall on deaf ears, but I'll try anyway in a point-by-point outline:

1) The facts show that Saddam DID have WMDs. How do we know? Simple. He used them. On several occasions he attacked his enemies and his own people. He even admitted that he had them and UN weapons inspectors HAVE found evidence that he possessed them even after he used them. Not one intelligence agency could provide findings to the contrary. The UN couldn't even dispute this. In fact, no one disputed that he had WMDs. The argument was whether or not his weapons could be contained and whether we could prevent him from using them.

2) There is NO evidence that Saddam complied with UN demands and the cease-fire agreement from the Persian Gulf War that required he disarm. The UN weapons inspectors failed to find anything of substance showing that he destroyed his weapons. And since the invasion, US forces and intelligence officials have also found nothing of the sort. Plus, while still in power Saddam made no attempt to show that he had disarmed. Are we to believe that Saddam fully complied with the order to disarm and yet left no proof of this? No documents? No empty warheads? No destroyed buildings? Nothing? He just did it and we're supposed to take his word for it? Wouldn't he have at least given us something? Especially when our troops are preparing for a major offensive against him. He is a narcissistic power-hungry madman. If he had any evidence of compliance, he would have provided it at the final hour...yet he did not.

3) Considering points 1 and 2 and knowing that the WMDs have not yet been discovered, there are only two logical conclusions that can be drawn about what happened to the WMDs. a) he moved them outside the country, b) he hid them well within his own country. If I missed another possibility, feel free to correct me.

So where are they now? I wish I knew. I would sleep a lot better if I knew. Ideally, they are still somewhere in Iraq and will one day be discovered. That's the best case scenario. A worse case would be if he moved them to another country friendly to his cause. And still even worse would be if he dispersed them to multiple individuals or groups who have bad intentions in mind. The fact is, I want to believe "there were no WMDs". If that were true, then I would be thrilled and hardly upset that we invaded under false pretense. Discovering that there "were no WMDs" would be enough justification for the war in itself. Unfortunately, the facts simply don't support that claim, no matter how many political figures say so. Yes, I know the Bush Administration has said this themselves. Why? Who knows. Maybe he's just picking his battles and knows the difficulty that would come if he proposed that Saddam moved them to Syria or Jordan or Iran. I can't explain why they've said this, but I can explain that the facts DON'T support what has been said.

The UN argued before the war that they were effectively containing Saddam. But doesn't that argument fly out the window when we invade and find nothing? And how do they respond? They shrug their shoulders and say "there were no WMDs". How do we as a people let them and other political leaders get away with this?

In case you didn't follow my links, here are a few excerpts:

"Iraq acknowledged making 2,200 gallons of anthrax spores -- enough to kill millions if delivered effectively -- but U.N. inspectors determined Iraq could have made at least three times that much. As many as 16 missile warheads filled with anthrax are missing"

"Iraq acknowledged making nearly 5,300 gallons of botulinum toxin, most of which was put into missile warheads and other munitions. At least five missile warheads filled with botulinim toxin are missing"

"U.N. inspectors estimated Iraq had the means to make more than 200 tons of VX and never found definitive proof Iraq had destroyed its supply"

"Iraq acknowledged making thousands of rockets, artillery shells and bombs containing sarin"

This link gives a detail of what the UN believed in 2004, it's quite terrifying.

Why am I so upset? Well, if Saddam admitted to possessing 5300 gallons of botulinum, and 70 billionths of a gram is enough to kill one person, then how much botulinum can be placed inside a container the size of a soda can? And when you consider that 8,000 people cross our southern border into the US illegally EVERY DAY, how long until there is a major attack on us? After all, we can no longer account for those 5300 gallons of botulinum. Where is it? Who has it now?Naturally, saying "there were no WMDs" just doesn't cut it for me. I want proof! And so far no one can provide proof of this. So if we're to be upset that our invasion has so far failed to uncover the WMDs, it shouldn't be because we invaded on faulty intelligence. It should be because, if anything, we waited too long. Now we may never know what happened to the weapons until it is too late.

So I don't want to hear 'there were no WMDs' until somebody can prove it to me. I think it's wise to assume, at best, that the WMDs existed. I mean, why wait for the mushroom cloud to convince us?

Monday, February 20, 2006

An old nemesis returns

From NewsMax: Complete story

"A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.
"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (www.intelligencesummit.org).
"They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence," he said.
Shaw has dealt with weapons-related issues and export controls as a U.S. government official for 30 years, and was serving as deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security when the events he described today occurred...."

This story is stunning, but not surprising. The fact is, I've never trusted the Russians since Yeltsin left office. Their politicians have their own agenda and I truly believe it involves restoring the Communist Party. The rivalry with the US never died, and this story supports that. I prepared a post on WMDs for tomorrow, and this story is an excellent set-up for it. I hope everyone reads the article I linked to and takes a moment to soak it in before my next post. America has many enemies!

Good job Mr. President

Today is President's Day, and so I thought I'd make a few comments regarding our current leader. I don’t always agree with his policy but there’s a lot to be said about what he’s been through. Regardless of one's personal opinion of Bush or one's own political leanings it would be hard to argue that with the exception of Lincoln, George W. Bush has had to endure perhaps the most difficult presidency in our history.


--Bush won office in a controversial election that was controversial only in that it was close enough to allow his opponent and his followers to protest it to the fullest. Those protests were to no avail, and thus began the hatred of our current President by so many

--Bush inherited two major problems from his predecessor: 1) a plummeting economy 2) a growing Islamofascist threat that had virtually been ignored over the previous decade

--Bush stepped into the Presidency at a time when the Office had been degraded by the immoral behavior of his predecessor, and many citizens had lost faith in that Office

--Bush had to lead the country through the worst attack to ever occur on American soil

--As a result of that attack, and because of Bush's America-first foreign policy approach, he had to deal with much resistance from foreign governments who had grown accustomed to (and fond of) the soft, rollover, appeasement style of foreign policy seen under Clinton. This led to icy relations with multiple governments, including: China, France, UK, Russia and Canada; obviously making international cooperation an uphill climb

--Bush had to lead this country into an unprecedented war against an unprecedented foe, perhaps the most formidable enemy our nation has ever faced, all without the support of nearly half of his fellow countrymen and under constant criticism from those, both American and foreign, who desire to see his beloved country defeated in this conflict

--Bush has had to endure more criticism and baseless attacks and accusations from the mainstream media than any other President in history. He has been blamed for everything from global warming to the death of Cindy Sheehan's son, he has been accused of draft dodging and lying without any supporting facts, and he has endured all of this with grace and class.

--Bush has had to maintain an economy through major corporate scandals and 9/11

--Bush has had to lead this country through its worst natural disaster and the utter destruction of an entire major American city, which he was also blamed for

--Bush has been tasked with a dangerous and porous southern border that has also been ignored by his predecessors

--While other Presidents have had to deal with their own nutty foreign leaders, Bush has had multiple lunatics acquiring or actively seeking the most dangerous weapons known to man.

--Bush has had to deal with a United Nations that has become more anti-American than ever before

--Bush has had to deal with a Congress that, despite being majority Republican, is more hesitant to cooperate with his policy than any President in the past several decades

--No President since Kennedy has come under more scrutiny for his religion, even though those beliefs are shared by the majority of Americans

I don't mention these things in an effort to generate sympathy for President Bush, obviously the man can take care of himself. I do so simply to illustrate why I respect him so much. I don't always agree with him, and some of his actions (or lack thereof) have made me a little angry. But he is a class act and has done an incredible job considering the circumstances. He is honorable and a Commander-in-Chief worthy of the title. He is a take-no-BS Texan who believes in America first, and I thank God for that. He has delivered numerous speeches to the nation, yet tears still well-up in his eyes when he mentions the brave soldiers under his command. He loves and honors his wife and his God. That in itself is worthy of respect. Indeed, when I think about how close the election was in 2000, and what the alternative COULD have been, it makes me cringe.

Regardless of what happens in the next two years, his legacy will be one of a man who meant what he said...and said what he meant. If only there could be more in Washington with a similar character. So on this President's Day I say...Good job Mr. President. Keep up the fight and may God bless you, Sir!

Sunday, February 19, 2006


In honor of the Daytona 500, I take a break from politics to explain why I'm a NASCAR fan. With apologies to Dave Letterman, here are my ten reasons for loving NASCAR

1) God is part of the sport. There is a prayer before every race, and NO ONE objects. The participants almost always acknowledge God and they mean it. You can't help but respect that, no matter your religion

2) Patriotism. When the national anthem plays, the fans are all standing and singing. People remove their hats, cover their hearts and NO ONE is saying anything but the lyrics of our national song. Also, the military flyover before each race gets just as much of a cheer as anything that occurs on the track.

3) BYOB. Hey, who can disagree that it's a good thing for the tracks to allow people to bring their own food and beverage?

4) Scanners. Is there another sport where you can listen to the strategy of the participants? Can you imagine listening to the huddle during the Super Bowl?

5) The Old Guys. When a 50 year old icon can compete next to a 21 year old rookie and win...that's my kind of sport.

6) Daytona and Talledega. 43 cars...over 200mph...inches apart...very exciting

7) Fan loyalty. A fan is a fan for life. Your driver may not have won a race in years, but you still pull for him with every pass. He may be well out of points contention, but he could still win today's race...and that's why you cheer him on.

8) Greg Biffle. Soft-spoken, talented, under-rated. I had to plug my favorite driver. One loose wheel at TMS kept him from winning last year, but this year will be different. My prediction: Biffle holds up the Nextel Cup in December.

9) Martinsville. 1/2 mile track shaped like a paper-clip crammed with 43 cars...there's a lot of bumping and grinding. This also is exciting.

10) I don't have the guts to do it. I would stand in the batter's box and face Roger Clemens. I wouldn't even see the ball, much less get close to hitting it...but I would still try. I would square up with Jerome Bettis in full pads. He would leave cleat marks on my face...but I would still try. I would guard Shaq. He would throw me around like a rag-doll before dunking over my head...but I would still try. Ask me to get behind the wheel of 800hp, surrounded by 42 cars, bumper-to-bumper at 210mph, knowing that one tiny mistake from the guy five cars ahead could send me airborn...And I'd say NO WAY. Hence my respect for the guys doing it, and doing it well. You gotta love this sport.

My new blog roll

On the sidebar I have a new blog roll created with the help of Blog Rolling. While I am relatively new at this, I thought I'd give it a try...my wife says I need help.

Included in the list are blogs that I've visited in the blogosphere and found them to be both entertaining and educational. I don't mind opinion, but I value informed opinion because that is something I can learn from. These blogs contain a great deal of informed opinion which is why I consider them 'Worth your time'.

If your site isn't listed, please don't be offended. My time is limited and I most likely haven't had the chance to visit your site. Just post a request via comment on any of my posts and I'll visit your site. If it's of 'Worth your time' quality, I'll gladly add you to the roll. Until then, happy blogging and good night!

Saturday, February 18, 2006

KFC Burning

The latest cartoon protests, this story from Sean Hannity's website:

As I read through this, the one quote that catches my attention is this:

"The European newspapers have abused our religion," said Shaukat Khan, 22 and jobless, his eyes streaming from police tear gas near the burning bus stand. "We are expressing our anger. Usually protesters are peaceful but some miscreants do bad things and other people join them."

I love the phrase 'his eyes streaming from police tear gas...' placed right before he says 'protesters are peaceful'. This was stated in the shadow of the burning buildings that led police to use the tear gas in the first place. The irony of it all is quite fascinating. They even burned a KFC restaraunt!

Now, I'm not a fan of Pam Anderson, but she could show these people a thing or two on how to protest peacefully. She also has a beef with KFC, but 'expressed her anger' in a truly peaceful way in that she didn't burn down one of their restaurants. Then again, we are talking about a group of people who usually murder innocent civillians as a means of expressing their anger, so maybe burning down a few buildings is, in their minds, peaceful. Perhaps this is just a context problem.

I'm not encouraging Ms Anderson to travel to Pakistan to demonstrate her protesting ability. Surely her skimpy garments would incite even more anger and she likely would return to the US in multiple pieces. I'm merely pointing out that these people have a warped idea of what the word 'peaceful' actually means and those that still believe Islam is a 'religion of peace' obviously share that warped idea.

I wonder if it ever occured to Mr Khan that he would better serve his religion if he actually protested against those who were burning these buildings down. But, then again, that thought has escaped just about every one of his religion's major leaders, so it may be asking too much.

Anyway, I thought the quote was worth sharing.

Must read recommendation for the week

I missed this post last week, but I'll make up for it with this book:

Inside the Asylum: Why the United Nations and Old Europe are Worse Than You Think.

Written by former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin, this book was eye-opening. I always knew the UN was bad for America, but I had NO IDEA just how bad until I read this book. The statistics and facts that Babbin points out were jaw-dropping to say the least. It was extremely well-written and void of fluff. If you are suspicious of the UN or, better yet, if you believe that the UN is good for America and good for the world, then you NEED to read this book.

Why anti-war?...Part 2

So why is the anti-war voice so loud? First, let me throw a few of their arguments out the window.

Argument #1: War is bad. No one disagrees that war is a bad thing or that it's tragic for so many people to die because things can't be worked out in a civilized manner. I predict that if you polled America more than 90% of the country would agree with this. Unfortunately, war is sometimes necessary and there are enemies who simply don’t want to work things out…how else can we deal with those individuals? So the anti-war folks can't rest their argument with this.

Argument #2: The reasons for going to war are wrong. I feel this is a moot point. We can debate the reasons prior to the war, but why continue that debate while the war is going on? If we're at war, doesn't that mean you've lost the debate? And if we're at war, shouldn't you want America to be victorious? IF you continue arguing against the war, then the only logical conclusion is that you are arguing for our defeat? How can this be denied? Why not say 'I disagreed with Bush's reasons for war, but we're at war nonetheless and America must emerge victorious no matter the cost'? What's so hard about that? After all, the debate can resume once we ARE victorious and our troops are home safely. So if you rationalize your argument on reason #2 and continue opposing our efforts, you have clearly sided with our enemy. There simply is no other way to see it.

Argument #3: This war is unjust. This is where people say America is the bad guy. Once again, 35 million people are now free. An evil human being has been imprisoned. He can no longer threaten us or anyone else with WMDs (before you say ‘there were no WMDs’, understand that this is another post and will be refuted at a later time). He can no longer invade or persecute his neighbors. No, Saddam never attacked us…but neither did Hitler. However, if left unattended, both of them would have attacked us eventually. I challenge anyone to dispute that. The President was given authority by Congress to act accordingly. The US and UK were enforcing the terms of the cease-fire agreement signed by Saddam in the ‘90s that he failed to live up to, so the UN had no grounds for dispute. This war was both legal and just.

Argument #4: The world is a more dangerous place because of the war. A murderer who possessed and pursued WMDs while consorting with terrorists and demanding violence against the US was removed from power and replaced with a free-elected democratic government. How is this possibly more dangerous than before? Are we supposed to say ‘no war lest it make the friends of our enemies angry’?

Argument #5: We are losing. This is contradictory and makes the least sense. We are losing, so we should just go ahead and quit? Where I come from, this is called cowardice. What if Washington or Lincoln or Roosevelt took the same attitude? Their wars didn't exactly start off with good news. And who says we're losing? The press? A few senators? It surely isn't the troops or their commanders. The military has made it clear that progress is being made. We haven't lost a single conflict in this war. Just because the enemy continues fighting doesn't mean we are losing. Freedom's enemies have kept up the fight since the dawn of history. America has the most powerful military in the world and we can't be defeated...unless we CHOOSE to quit. Our enemies know that and have made this a key component of their strategy.

So why anti-war? Because war is inconvenient. Let's face it. Our society has become self-involved. We have forgotten how to serve. We are focused on ourselves...how to climb the corporate ladder, how to acquire more possessions, how to indulge our every desire. What could possibly hinder our drive for self-gratification more than our country asking us to serve and possibly die for her? We have forgotten how much freedom is hated by a select few who wish to control others. We have forgotten the price of freedom. And so, we have taken our freedom for granted. And when you take something for granted you forget how to defend against losing it. Look at 9/11. We were ALL united in the war against the Taliban, because for a brief moment the ENTIRE country saw an imminent threat to our freedom. But that insight quickly faded for half of us. It wasn't long before we were back on the corporate ladder, driving our SUV's, looking for more self-gratitification. But the threat is still there. Half of us see it and choose to fight against it, the other half choose to ignore it. Yes, the Left will fight a terrorist if he's knocking on their front door, but the Right (myself included) chooses to go into his neighborhood and kill him before he ever gets the chance, because once he's on the doorstep you never know what may happen. So as long as the threat remains distant, the Left will NOT interrupt their selfish lives to stand against it. THAT'S why they oppose this war. They want it to end now, before their number is called to serve. Just like Vietnam. It's not worth the sacrifice if the enemy isn't knocking on their door. There's simply too much to do for themselves.

Does this mean I always support war? No. I don’t support wars of conquest. I don’t support wars that yield no direct benefit for America. But, if we WERE in such a conflict, my opposition would cease until our troops were out of harm’s way, because I only risk endangering American lives by voicing opposition that the enemy could exploit. For example, I disagreed with our involvement in Bosnia. I spoke out against it before we got involved, but never spoke out against it again until it was over. Our troops had a job to do and I supported them in doing that job. After all, their lives and safety trump my personal feelings about their cause. And contrary to the opinion of the Left, opposing the war doesn’t save lives…it just encourages our enemy to keep fighting. If we learned anything from Vietnam, that should have been it. Like I said, 50,000 soldiers died in Vietnam…for what? Thanks to the anti-war folks, they died in defeat. So I supported their victory in Bosnia. I supported them while they killed and destroyed the enemy. Should we have been there? No. But we were and I’m glad our troops succeeded in their cause.

If anyone disagrees with me, I'll be glad to listen to their reasons. And just in case you're wondering...I HAVE served my country, proudly. I do so because I want my freedom to be passed down to the following generations. I don't want my children to fight the fight that my generation was tasked with. I dare say that if my grandfather's generation didn't have this attitude, then we would surely still be fighting the Nazis today.

Friday, February 17, 2006

Why anti-war?...Part 1

Here is a recent exchange that occured on this site between myself and a commenter:

HIM: Suppose there was a president that invaded another country and you thought that this invasion was an illegal invasion. Ought you keep quiet under guise of supporting the troops, even though you and half of the country were convinced of the illegality of the invasion? And what if you thought that this invasion was only destabilizing the world climate causing an increased risk of attack? Would you remain quiet under such circumstances? If so, why?

ME: Dan, the minute I saw that my "dissent" was fueling our enemy's motivation to wage war...I absolutely would keep my mouth shut. Soldiers are dying, and some of them are dying because Ted Kennedy likened the war to Vietnam, or Michael Moore made a propaganda film. Things are hard enough in Iraq without half the country opposing the cause

HIM: Then we shall need to disagree on that matter, I'll dissent BECAUSE our soldiers are dying and because Bush's actions are causing it. I can do naught else. To not oppose an unjust and illegal war is in no uncertain terms, wrong, wrong, wrong. Evil. I wish Germans had stood opposed to Hitler in his day (not saying that Bush = Hitler, just that both were wrong and ought to have been opposed strongly.)

Trying to understand the anti-war crowd is quite a daunting task, but I think I've figured them out. I've heard all of the arguments. These people don't like war. People die and things are destroyed in war. It's not a good thing. I'm not arguing with that. In fact, there have only been a few humans in the history of man who have actually enjoyed war. So the debate isn't whether or not war is bad. The debate is whether or not war is necessary.

The reasons for going to war is a vast debate and should be covered in another post. But, regardless of the reasons, the outcome can't be denied. This is a war of liberation. Millions of people who once lived under the boot of tyranny now live in freedom. How can anyone say this is 'wrong' or 'evil'? My liberal friend said that if only the German people had spoken against Hitler, maybe things would be different. The problem is Hitler was ruthless and would have killed or imprisoned anyone who spoke against him. Plus, his was an army of conquest and not liberation, so the metaphor just doesn't fit. Allow me to propose one that's more accurate. Since my friend mentioned WW II, I'll use that. We were attacked surprisingly and unexpectedly. As a result, we confronted evil all over the world...not just those who attacked us. We fielded an army of liberation to set people free from tyranny. We took an offensive approach to immediately put our enemies on the defensive and keep them from attacking a second time. Sound familiar? Indeed, we are in an almost identical situation now...almost.

What would have happened if half of our country were opposed to our actions in the '40's? What if a former President or Vice President traveled to Paris amid the Nazis and called America tyrannical or accused it of "evil abuses"? What if people demonstrated on the streets after we attacked Germany, saying Roosevelt lied about Pearl Harbor, he should have known it was happening, the Germans never attacked us? Considering nearly half-a-million US soldiers died in that war, and that it took every ounce of strength we had to emerge victorious with 100% public support and the press printing GOOD news, does anyone think we would have won if the support was only 50%, or if the press was hyper-critical? Of course not. And I could argue that the enemy we face now is more determined, better funded, and much more ruthless than our enemies of the '40's. So how can we win the war on terror with our current national mindset?

The thought is quite disturbing. Which is why I've tried to understand why the Left is intent on opposing our efforts. Lenin had a term for people like this. He predicted that the Liberal, anti-conflict sect would weaken America if their voice became loud enough. He called them 'useful idiots' because he was depending on them to help HIS cause. His prediction is now looking more and more prophetic.

I respect the opinion of the Left, and to some extent I agree with them. American soldiers are dying, that IS tragic. However, the only thing more tragic is if they were to die in vain. After all, 50,000 of our brothers did so in Vietnam, largely due to the efforts of the anti-war protestors. I want this war to end, like everyone else, but NOT at the cost of defeat. We ARE at war, we can't change history. So the best outcome right now is for us to emerge victorious. I dare say, it will be difficult (but not impossible) for us to do that while half of this nation opposes our actions. I will propose my theory on why the Left opposes war in a later post. I have thought on this long and hard and I truly believe I've discovered the answer to this mystery.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Our racist government

With the recent outcry about FEMA insensitively booting victims of Hurricane Katrina out of their hospital rooms, I decided to dig up some not-so-new statistics. I'm all about telling the truth on this blog, and these numbers are simply too good to ignore.

According to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, whites died as a result of Hurricane Katrina at a disproportionate rate to blacks. Not only that, but the majority of deaths occured in neighborhoods were the poverty rate was less than 30%.

The actual statistics show that 37% of the storm's fatalities were white, in a city where whites made up only 28% of the population.

African-Americans accounted for 59% of fatalities in a pre-storm population that was over 67% African-American.

58% of the fatalities occurred in neighborhoods where the poverty rate was less than 30%

This is an outrage! This is clearly another example of the government failing to protect the minority population. The Democrat racist Governor and the black Democrat racist Mayor obviously don't care about white people. Why else would Nagin fail to mobilize nearly 200 city buses to help the people get out of the city? Why else would Blanco be so slow to respond to the disaster? Perhaps there was a conspiracy against minorities. Perhaps Nagin knew all along that the levees were weak and wouldn't hold in such a storm, but he didn't care...after all, it's only white people! I wouldn't be surprised if Nagin or Blanco purposely destroyed one of the levees just to take out a few more white folks.
The victims were ignored, were forgotten...simply because they were white. This is unacceptable. I demand hearings and a full investigation to uncover the racist motives that allowed so many minorities to die in New Orleans. We need to make sure such a tragedy never occurs again so that one day we will all be on equal footing in a color blind society!

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

What's the big deal?

I knew it wouldn’t take long for Hillary to open her mouth about “Shotgun-Gate”

From Drudge:

"A tendency of this administration -- from the top all the way to the bottom -- is to withhold information ... to refuse to be forthcoming about information that is of significance and relevance to the jobs that all of you do, and the interests of the American people," Clinton said.

Did the accidental shooting hold any significance or relevance to anyone’s job out there? What about your interests? I feel for Mr. Whittington and wish him a speedy recovery, but this incident had nothing to do with national security or the inner workings of the government. It had nothing to do with governmental policy and thus was of little significance, relevance or interest to me. I dare say many feel the same as I. This is a personal matter (unlike the former President dropping his pants in the taxpayers’ Oval Office) and was properly handled. It wouldn’t have made any difference if it were disclosed to the public sooner. Nothing could have been averted. No attack could have been thwarted. The fact is, Cheney hates the press and he doesn’t feel obliged to share anything with them that doesn’t need to be shared…and the press is very bitter about it. I wonder what Senator Clinton had for breakfast this morning. Shouldn’t she share that information with the public? Or better yet, why didn’t she file for divorce after learning of her husband’s infidelity? Why wasn't she very forthcoming about her relationship with Vince Foster? I’m sure there are many out there who feel this is “relevant” and “significant” information that she is withholding. I’ll tell you why, because it’s personal and the press does not have a right to know this sort of information. It has no bearing on her ability to do her job and thus should only be discussed at her discretion. The same standard should apply to Cheney.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid at a press conference Tuesday said the secretive tendency goes beyond Cheney, pervading the entire Bush White House. "I think the reason it took the vice president a day to talk about this is part of the secretive nature of this administration," the top Senate Democrat said. "They keep things pretty close to the chest."

Well, Drudge’s website has a flashback regarding Senator Reid’s stroke that occurred in August, on a Tuesday, yet this information was not released to the public until the following Friday. Why? His press secretary gave this explanation: "The reason was the tests and the evaluations that they were doing. We wanted to make sure we knew what we were announcing. You need conclusive information." Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I have no problem with that, even though there was the potential of a prominent US Senator becoming incapacitated without his constituents knowing about it. Why wasn’t Senator Reid questioned about his “secrecy” from the MSM? Was he trying to cover something up? Did he have a hidden agenda? The obvious double standard is more than ridiculous, which is why the Vice President simply doesn’t like the press.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

A Convenient Hoax

I hate to keep coming back to this topic, but, frankly, I’m getting a little sick of the whole “global warming” hysteria. Now Paramount will make a movie based on Al Gore’s latest book, “An Inconvenient Truth.” The title gives us a lot of insight into what Gore considers to be the truth.

Fact: Global warming is a theory that has yet to be proven. In fact, most scientific studies performed in an effort to support the theory have shown NO EVIDENCE that human-induced global warming exists.

Fact: Major atmospheric warming has not occurred over the past 50 years even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased

Fact: The atmospheric temperature fluctuates, but it currently rests BELOW the 3,000 year average

Fact: During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually trended DOWN

Fact: Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

Fact: The Earth has warmed slightly in the past CENTURY, but the majority of that occurred prior to 1940, before 80% of the human-produced carbon dioxide was added to the atmosphere

Fact: America has invested about $18 Billion into researching global warming. While we have discovered that the 20th century is warmer than the previous four centuries and there is clear evidence that some glaciers are receding, there is no…repeat NO evidence showing ANY connection between these trends and human activity or greenhouse gases. The proverbial smoking gun simply does not exist.

Fact: Many economic experts feel that the restrictions that would be imposed on US industry from the Kyoto Agreement (If the US were to sign it) would threaten to plummet the US economy into a major recession, even a possible depression.

Snow caps have melted before, glaciers have receded before. The Earth's temperature fluctuates and is related to over 5 million different variables. Is human behavior enough to influence this planet's climate? The evidence is lacking at best. Gore calls his book “An Inconvenient Truth”. Considering the reputation of the enviro-Nazis, I think a more fitting title would be “A Convenient Hoax.” And I’ll stick to that until someone can bring forth indisputable evidence linking human activity to global changes in the Earth’s climate.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Al at it again

From Fox News
Crazy Al is at it again...I swear this guy is one step away from biting off Evander Holyfield's ear.

Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into Al Qaeda's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

Once again, a prominent US Democratic leader finds it necessary to openly criticize the US while just a few miles down the road from him American troops continue fighting in deadly combat. First of all, does anyone know what he’s talking about? Indiscriminately rounded up? Unforgivable conditions? The way Mr. Gore talks, you’d think we gathered these people up for a Bataan Death March to Auschwitz. I think crazy Al is exaggerating a little bit. It’s also interesting how he describes enforcing our immigration laws as “terrible abuses”. Al needs to remember that these “minor charges” of overstaying a visa also applied to the nutjobs who pulled off 9/11. Yet for some reason, Bush was supposed to catch those guys before they carried out their attacks. If it’s “terrible abuses” now, what would it have been before 9/11? Gore has the audacity to accuse his own country of terrible abuses for trying to close the very gap that allowed those attackers to hit us. How dare we!

One other thing. I think Al needs to speak for himself. The MAJORITY of the people in this country have no problem with us enforcing the immigration laws. If someone’s visa is expired, then they are here illegally and should be dealt with. I don’t know, maybe Al is planning on running for office in Saudi Arabia. I think he’d fit in well over there

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Periodic posting of a little known Hillary fact

Some of the latest banter from Mrs. Clinton:

Saying she takes "a backseat to nobody when it comes to fighting terrorism," Clinton accused the White House of portraying critics of Iraq and Afghanistan policy as comforting the enemy.

Oh really. So I guess the Clinton’s repeated invitations to Yassar Arafat were part of this strategy. Mr Arafat stayed at the White House during Clinton's presidency more than any other foreign dignitary.

"Since when has it been part of American patriotism to keep our mouths shut?" she said.

Since when? Since we have troops dying overseas. Does it do them any good to oppose their cause? Dissent is OK, but shouldn’t it wait until our troops are all home. Can’t we delay the voice of protest until we’re sure it’s not going to inspire the enemy to continue their fight. If you people HAD kept your mouths shut perhaps we would have been victorious in Vietnam and maybe the Cold War could have ended sooner.

Clinton drew thunderous applause when she mocked the administration's failure to track down the 6-foot-5 bin Laden. "You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan," she said.

I can explain, because the Pakistanis are helping, Afghanistan is a very big country with lots of hiding places. Plus, your husband passed on an opportunity to do the job himself. I bet it's not very common knowledge that Slick Willie was so busy rubbing elbows with the Hollywood elite at a charity golf event that he failed to order an airstrike attack on a target where Bin Laden was suspected to be. Maybe we would've gotten him that day...maybe not. We'll never know. One thing's for sure, Senator Clinton should remember her husband's administration before she goes accusing Bush of being soft on terror.

More cartoon silliness

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - The leader of Hezbollah, heading a march by hundreds of thousands of Shiite Muslims Thursday, said President Bush and his secretary of state should "shut up" after they accused Syria and Iran of fueling protests over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

In Beirut, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah urged Muslims worldwide to keep demonstrating until there is an apology over the drawings and Europe passes laws forbidding insults to the prophet.

The head of the guerrilla group, which is backed by Iran and Syria, spoke before a mass Ashoura procession. Whipping up the crowds on the most solemn day for Shiites worldwide, Nasrallah declared:
"Defending the prophet should continue all over the world. Let Condoleezza Rice and Bush and all the tyrants shut up. We are an Islamic nation that cannot tolerate, be silent or be lax when they insult our prophet and sanctities."
Iran has rejected the U.S. accusations. Syria has not commented publicly.

I know this is a serious matter, but I can’t help but find comments like this humorous. It makes my point for me (from my previous posts). This guy is upset that Rice accused them of inflaming the situation, and in the very next breath he tells his followers to continue their actions! The contradiction is laughable.

Saturday, February 11, 2006

I aint sayin he a narcissist...

Cocky rap star KANYE WEST is calling for a revised edition of THE BIBLE, because he thinks he should be a character in it.

The JESUS WALKS hitmaker, who picked up three Grammy Awards last night (08FEB06), feels sure he'd be "a griot" (West African storyteller) in a modern Bible.
He says, "I bring up historical subjects in a way that makes kids want to learn about them. I'm an inspirational speaker.

"I changed the sound of music more than one time... For all those reasons, I'd be a part of the Bible. I'm definitely in the history books already."

“I aint sayin he a narcissist…” Look, I post this with hesitation because this guy is obviously looking to draw attention to himself by being controversial. I just wanted to point out that he has ONE hit song, and that one is about a woman who chases men because they have money. Of course, it’s riddled with foul language and racial slurs, but that’s the underlying message (if rap can even have an underlying message). I’m not sure, but I highly doubt that would be considered worthy of the Bible. If Mr West REALLY wants to be controversial and inspirational, he could learn something from Bill Cosby…start criticizing your own people for their trends of self-destruction. At least you’ll be delivering an important message.

Friday, February 10, 2006

Come on, Mr Brown

The latest story on Fox News about Michael Brown's testimony:

"Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., told Brown: "You have been selected as the designated scapegoat. ... You try to do your best. But we are, after all, human beings. And human beings make mistakes."

Really? Funny, that’s not what the Left was saying in the immediate aftermath. I seem to remember them saying there is no excuse for the government’s poor response. Now they say “oh we’re all human, everyone makes mistakes.” What a bunch of hypocritical bozos. I think Senator Lautenberg will find what's next very interesting.

A letter sent from Senator Lautenberg to Governor Jon Corzine on Sept 27, 2005:

"Michael Brown was never qualified to head FEMA and proved himself totally inept for the job. It is an insult to taxpayers to pay him as a consultant to the agency. The only reasonhe should still be in DCis to be held accountable in a court of lawfor the lives his ineptitude cost the victimsof Katrina."

January 19, 2006: Michael Brown said this:

"These are not FEMA roles," Brown said at the time. "FEMA doesn't evacuate communities. FEMA does not do law enforcement. FEMA does not do communications."

But the White House does? Which is it Mr. Brown?

"Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., implied that the federal government was happily allowing Brown to take the blame, to which Brown said, "I certainly feel somewhat abandoned."

Ahh…isn’t that sweet. I can almost see Pryor walking over and giving Brown a hug. The fact is, Brown was the head of FEMA. It was HIS job to coordinate the Federal response. If the President wasn’t aware of what was going on, or if the President was misinformed, it was HIS job to correct that. The White House is not responsible for responding to natural disasters, FEMA is. If what Brown says is true, then FEMA should be disbanded and all relief efforts in the future should be coordinated from the Oval Office. Is that what the Left wants?

Brown's appearance in front of the Senate investigative panel came as new documents reveal that 28 federal, state and local agencies — including the White House — reported levee failures on Aug. 29, according to a timeline of e-mails, situation updates and weather reports.
That litany was at odds with the administration's contention that it didn't know the extent of the problem until much later. At the time, President Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

This very statement by the President may be pointed at by the Left as a smoking gun, but I think it’s clear evidence that Brown failed at his job of FEMA director. Bush said he didn’t think anyone anticipated this, which makes it obvious that Brown didn’t make the White House aware of it…that’s HIS JOB. If he failed to do that, then the Secretary of Homeland Security should have done it…but obviously he failed too. I’m glad he resigned. I only regret that Chertoff hasn’t done the same. If I were Bush, I would’ve cleaned out the entire Department.

News story Sept 27, 2005:

"Mr Brown told the congressional panel that Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin were not co-ordinating their efforts and had been "reticent" in calling mandatory evacuations.
"I very strongly personally regret that I was unable to persuade Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin to sit down, get over their differences, and work together," he said.

So at that time it was Nagin and Blanco, now it’s Bush. Ironically, the Democrats have now found favor in Brown.

Same story:

Following the hurricane, US media and Democratic politicians strongly criticised Mr Brown - saying he lacked disaster expertise."

Now they say “It’s not your fault, you’re only human.” Funny how that tone changed once Brown started pointing fingers at Bush. I'm not saying Brown deserves all the blame, but at the federal level, it stops at the cabinet level

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Excuse me while a rebuke a few lefties

Came across this yesterday.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld heard from critics including panel Chairman John Warner, R-Va. The comments marked a continuation of bipartisan criticism the administration has received in recent months from members of Congress over its Iraq policies.

Warner said that without an effective Iraqi government that has leaders with "strong backbones, not subject to secular pulls," it was unclear whether U.S. troops would be able to return home even if Iraq's military and security forces are competent.

Excuse me, but can someone tell me what qualifies Mr Warner to make such an assessment? Has he even been to Iraq? Is he in the military? Does he have any military experience? I say this because the troop commanders in Iraq are saying exactly the opposite. They say that we can have a stable Iraqi government. Is Mr Warner saying these men are incorrect in that assessment?

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said he was troubled by the administration's suggestion that it wasn't likely to contribute any more U.S. money for Iraq's reconstruction.

Interesting. I thought Congress controlled the money and how it’s paid out.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the panel's top Democrat, said the Bush administration has failed to clearly tell Iraqis they must amend their constitution to ensure power and resources are shared equitably and a government is created that reflects the country, not sectarian groups. The newly elected Iraqi parliament seems likely to be controlled by Shiites, leaving Sunnis with a small role.

Oh really, Senator Levin? Well, it took me about 5 minutes to find the following on net.

President Bush in Donnelly, Idaho, Aug 23, 2005
"...women have rights, inherent rights recognized in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about not "the religion," but "a religion." Twenty-five percent of the assembly is going to be women, which is embedded in the constitution. I repeat to you that we're watching an amazing event unfold, and that is the writing of a constitution which guarantees minority rights, women's rights, freedom to worship, in a part of the world that had only -- in a country that had only known dictatorship.

After a meeting with an Iraqi spokesman:
The spokesman, Haitham al-Husseini, said Bush wanted to talk about developments in the constitutional process and to make sure no sides were left out of the negotiations.

August 26, 2005
President Bush took a break during his trip to Nampa, Idaho, this week, and made an unusual call to a key Shiite leader in Iraq about the talks underway in Baghdad on a new constitution.
The call to Abdul-Aziz Hakim, first reported by the New York Times, urged him to continue including Sunni leaders in the final discussions about the constitution being drafted by an elected assembly.

Sorry, just making sure the facts are clear. I can't these guys get away with stuff like that.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Religion of Peace?

Lately everyone seems to be posting about the ‘cartoon’ issue in the Middle East. It has become a hot topic, so I figure it’s time to make this blog’s position clear. For what it’s worth, here is my 2 cents.

I’ve looked at the cartoons in question, and I must say that I understand if they offend some Muslims. This is, after all, their deity. If Christ were pictured in an offensive manner, I probably wouldn’t be that happy about it either. So I understand if they’re not happy about their religion being characterized in such a way. But that’s where the understanding stops.

To put it in perspective, I am a Christian in what has become a much more secular nation. People are tolerant of just about everything except Christianity. So on more than one occasion I’ve had to point out to someone how and why they’ve misjudged my religion. But I do it in a tactful, civilized manner. For example, you’d never hear this conservation:
“You Christians are nothing but a bunch of damn hypocrites”
“Oh yeah, well you’re going to hell for cursing, you son of a b#$@!”
Not an exactly an intelligent remark. About as intelligent as saying:
“Islam is not a violent religion, and I will kill you for saying that.”
Obviously, that wouldn’t go very far at making the argument. In one statement, the entire position collapses and one sounds like a complete fool, which brings us to the Muslims.

I could argue that these cartoons would never have been drawn if representatives of the Muslim faith weren’t crashing airplanes into buildings, lopping off the heads of journalists or blowing up subway stations. We’re not seeing any cartoons of Buddha because Buddha’s followers have never strapped themselves with dynamite and strolled into a daycare center. So the reason their deity and their religion is being portrayed in a cartoon, and portrayed in a violent manner is because they are violent. There are no ulterior motives here. But the Muslims disagree. They don’t want their deity’s image portrayed at all, much less in such a demeaning way. So how do they express their disagreement? By saying things like: “Death to those who insult Islam.” So by objecting in such a way they pretty much validate the very thing they object to.

At least maybe now the Europeans will eventually realize the vastness of the insanity that possesses these people. I mean, there are riots and calls for war over what? A friggin cartoon? And they call themselves a religion of peace?

Is there anyone out there who agrees that Islam is a religion of peace? Anyone? If so, please explain yourself and explain the actions of these people, because this isn’t a radical faction of fanatics. The people we see calling for death to those who insult Islam appear to be the mainstream. So is this the religion of peace?

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Mrs. King's funeral a debacle

From Drudge:

Today's memorial service for civil rights activist Coretta Scott King -- billed as a "celebration" of her life -- turned suddenly political as one former president took a swipe at the current president, who was also lashed by an outspoken black pastor!
The outspoken Rev. Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, ripped into President Bush during his short speech, ostensibly about the wife of Martin Luther King Jr." She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there," Lowery said. The mostly black crowd applauded, then rose to its feet and cheered in a two-minute-long standing ovation. A closed-circuit television in the mega-church outside Atlanta showed the president smiling uncomfortably. "But Coretta knew, and we know," Lowery continued, "That there are weapons of misdirection right down here," he said, nodding his head toward the row of presidents past and present. "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!" The crowd again cheered wildly.

Former President Jimmy Carter later swung at Bush as well, not once but twice. As he talked about the Kings, he said: "It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps." The crowd cheered as Bush, under fire for a secret wiretapping program he ordered after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, again smiled weakly. Later, Carter said Hurricane Katrina showed that all are not yet equal in America. Some black leaders have blamed Bush for the poor federal response, and rapper Kayne West said that Bush "hates" black people.

This is beyond disgusting. I have no problem with people voicing their opinion on any issue, but there is a time and a place. The funeral of a fallen American hero IS NOT the place! I am ashamed of this behavior. It's a disgrace to the civil rights movement whose very message was tolerance. What's worse is that these comments actually received applause! We expect this kind of behavior from Jimmy Carter and certain black leaders. But an entire congregation of people there to pay tribute to Mrs. King should condemn these words. Honor Mrs King and her life. Please leave the politics out of it.

Monday, February 06, 2006

Good news from Iraq

Today’s post is an attempt to spread news that should be leading every news broadcast and plastered on the front page of every newspaper, but for some interesting reason is not.

Here is the link to the article that sparked this post.

It seems as though the Iraqi people have finally had enough of Al-Qaeda, which comforts me in the sense that this truth is what will eventually be a distinguishing characteristic of the Iraq War. This should be enough to silence the “it’s another Vietnam” critics. The locals are fighting for their own freedom. They want to be free. They want democracy. They reject the radical fanatics that are trying to hijack their country. God bless them for that.

To the administration’s credit, they believed this would happen all along and so did I. The only problem is that it didn’t happen as soon as they thought it would, which is what brought about all of the criticism heaped at them from the Left.

What’s especially encouraging is the poll showing that only 7% of Iraqis feel that attacks on Iraqis are justified. Granted, a larger percentage still support attacks on Americans, but this seems to be due to the fact that they want us out and want to rule their country themselves. A local leader in Anbar Province said this: "Iraq has its men, its honorable resistance, and we will drive out the Americans and liberate our country ourselves." I understand they want us out, and we want to get out. So we agree on this point. At least they have begun to recognize who the bad guys really are. At least they now recognize that the radicals aren’t on their side. This is what will get us out of Iraq quicker than anything else.

What really bothers me about this is that I found this report on the Christian Science Monitor, which begs the question: Why isn’t this being reported fervently all over the major networks and newspapers? I know the answer to that question, but I would like for someone who doesn’t believe that the media is biased towards the Left to give their answer to this question. The comment line is wide open!

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Democrats Code of Conduct

So the democrats are working on a code of conduct and one of their proposals is banning lobbyists gifts. Please keep the snickering to a minimum, this is serious business. Don’t worry Jesse Jackson, this won’t apply to you since you’re not a member of Congress.

I like the idea of a code of conduct, so I have a few suggestions of my own for the dems.

Democrats Code of Conduct...learn it, live it
1) Don't refer to American troops as Nazis, Khmer Rouge or Gulag
2) If there's a stain on the dress, it's common courtesy to pay for the dry cleaning
3) If a girl drowns in your car, don't name your dog Splash
4) When on the campaign trail, try not to howl into the microphone like someone just gave you a bourbon enema
5) Abortion is now a bad thing, but it's still not bad enough to outlaw
6) Guns still kill people, unless it's in the hands of Tookie--then it's just a setup
7) If you say something negative about the war, always follow it with "I support the troops"
8) Keep promising handouts...gotta keep that minority vote
9) If you raise taxes, just tell them it "only affects the rich"
10) If you fail code 1-9, blame it on a vast right wing conspiracy

Periodic posting of a little known Hillary fact

Hillary is quite the commodities trader. Reeling from her losses in the Whitewater land development, she decided to try and get it back through investing in cattle futures. She put forth an initial investment of $1000. She says she became knowledgable about commodities by reading Barron's and The Wall Street Journal.

So she uses this knowledge to make a series of phenomenal trades that many experts say could only be made by a well-experienced market veteran. Eventually, she makes nearly $100,000 through these investments, which is a 10,000% return on the initial $1000....WOW!

The Journal of Economics and Statistics looked into it, the odds of her pulling this off were 1 in 250 million. Conclusion, Hillary had help.

Does anyone remember what happened to Martha Stewart for insider trading????

Friday, February 03, 2006

Must read recommendation for the week

Flags of Our Fathers

By James Bradley and Ron Powers

For you history buffs, or those who just love the military, this is a can't miss. It was written by the son of one of the six men who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. It is an incredible account of the fight for Iwo Jima, and the battle scenes helped me realize a newfound respect for the marines. It's by far one of the best books I've ever read.

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Well said Reverend Peterson

A column discovered on the net. It was written by Jesse Peterson. So please, no emails calling me a racist.

By Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Say a hurricane is about to destroy the city you live in. Two questions:

1. What would you do?
2. What would you do if you were black?

Sadly, the two questions don't have the same answer.
To the first: Most of us would take our families out of that city quickly to protect them from danger. Then, able-bodied men would return to help others in need, as wives and others cared for children, elderly, infirm and the like.

For better or worse, Hurricane Katrina has told us the answer to the second question. If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, then you'll probably wait for the government to save you. his was not always the case. Prior to 40 years ago, such a pathetic performance by the black community in a time of crisis would have been inconceivable. The first response would have come from black men. They would take care of their families, bring them to safety, and then help the rest of the community. Then local government would come in. No longer. When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out. This, as we know, did not turn out good results.

Enter Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. Jackson and Farrakhan laid blame on "racist" President Bush. Farrakhan actually proposed the idea that the government blew up a levee so as to kill blacks and save whites. The two demanded massive governmental spending to rebuild New Orleans, above and beyond the federal government's proposed $60 billion. Not only that, these two were positioning themselves as the gatekeepers to supervise the dispersion of funds. Perfect: Two of the most dishonest elite blacks in America, "overseeing" billions of dollars. I wonder where that money will end up.

Of course, if these two were really serious about laying blame on government, they should blame the local one. Responsibility to perform - legally and practically - fell first on the mayor of New Orleans. We are now all familiar with Mayor Ray Nagin - the black Democrat who likes to yell at President Bush for failing to do Nagin's job. The facts, unfortunately, do not support Nagin's wailing. As the Washington Times puts it, "recent reports show [Nagin] failed to follow through on his own city's emergency-response plan, which acknowledged that thousands of the city's poorest residents would have no way to evacuate the city."

One wonders how there was "no way" for these people to evacuate the city. We have photographic evidence telling us otherwise. You've probably seen it by now - the photo showing 200 parked school buses, unused and underwater. How much planning does it require to put people on a bus and leave town, Mayor Nagin?

Instead of doing the obvious, Mayor Nagin (with no positive contribution from Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the other major leader vested with responsibility to address the hurricane disaster) loaded remaining New Orleans residents into the Superdome and the city's convention center. We know how that plan turned out.

About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.

President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans' black community taken action, most would have been out of harm's way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves.

All Americans must tell blacks this truth. It was blacks' moral poverty - not their material poverty - that cost them dearly in New Orleans. Farrakhan, Jackson, and other race hustlers are to be repudiated - they will only perpetuate this problem by stirring up hatred and applauding moral corruption. New Orleans, to the extent it is to be rebuilt, should be remade into a dependency-free, morally strong city where corruption is opposed and success is applauded. Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them. We are all obligated to tell them so.

The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is founder and president of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, and author of "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America."

Well said Reverend Peterson.

New Orleans...what a mess!

From the Times-Picayune, New Orleans:

Louisiana congressional members expressed disappointment late Tuesday that President Bush didn't offer any new initiatives or plans to help the Gulf Coast recover from Hurricane Katrina in his State of the Union Address.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said she doesn't sense that the president grasps the magnitude of the problems on the Gulf Coast by devoting only one short paragraph to Katrina recovery.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said that he, too, wished Bush had devoted more time to Hurricane Katrina.

Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, said he hoped the effort to rebuild the Gulf Coast would have gotten more than one paragraph in a speech that ran 64 paragraphs

Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville, said he appreciated Bush's plea to tone down the bitter partisan rhetoric and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. "However, I cannot help but wonder if Washington grasps the situation in Louisiana," Melancon said. "Things aren't getting better by themselves and time is not on our side."

Maybe it’s just my poor memory, but didn’t Bush deliver an entire speech from Jackson Square devoted to the Gulf Coast recovery effort? Didn’t he outline a complete plan on how to rebuild the area? It was arguably the best speech he has ever given as President and his plan for recovery was brilliant. Now it’s up to the local communities to execute that plan. But the process of rebuilding is now bogged down in the courts because certain citizens feel that their homes, which were at one point under ten feet of polluted water, shouldn’t be demolished. It’s awfully hard to rebuild a city that’s full of condemned homes that can’t be demolished. My advice to the local Louisiana politicians…ensure you clean the city before demanding help from the federal government. No matter how much money is thrown your way, you can’t rebuild a city in ruins without brushing aside the ruins!

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Clap for your inaction

As usual, I enjoyed the President’s speech last night. Whether it’s his speech writers or his ability to connect with the audience, Bush has always been good at these kinds of addresses. He was on message with the war on terror. His ideas about energy and education were promising. And I appreciated his reference to “our Creator”. No matter how you feel about the man, at the very least he’s always true to his faith.

But, by far, my favorite part of the speech was when Bush stated that Congress did not pass his social security proposals. This received a standing ovation from the Democrats on the President’s right. Doesn’t this perfectly personify the Democratic Party, if not politicians in general? The President had some good proposals last night, but they chose to cheer themselves for…not doing anything. This comes at a time when, in my opinion, social security has become a major problem. It’s a problem that has to be fixed, and quickly. Yet the Democrats give themselves a standing ovation for passing the buck, for not doing a thing about one of the biggest domestic problems we face. Well, congratulations Dems. If inaction is worthy of applause, then you deserve high praise.

But the social security problem has not gone away, which the President quickly pointed out. It’s still there, staring my generation in the face. He then basically said, “Got a better idea? Let’s hear it.” So applaud all you want. Pat yourselves on the back for avoiding the issue. Perhaps one day, the voters will grow weary of this and send you guys packing.