Sunday, April 30, 2006

America's closest enemies

From NEWSMAX
]
Bolivia's new left-leaning president signed a pact with Cuba and Venezuela on Saturday rejecting U.S.-backed free trade and promising a socialist version of regional commerce and cooperation.
Cuban authorities did not release copies of the so-called Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas signed by Bolivia's Evo Morales, so its contents were unclear.


America's enemies are closer than they appear. Castro is still a dangerous man and the fact that Chavez is in control of the world's number six oil exporter makes him equally dangerous. I'm not exactly concerned that Bolivia's new leader has joined their pact, but anytime a group of countries comes together to oppose the US, we should at least take notice.

Chavez has A LOT of pull within OPEC, and if anyone doesn't think OPEC is intentionally squeezing the West, just take a look at gas prices in Venezuela. At last check, Venezuelans were paying 12 cents a gallon. What's even more worrisome is that one of Chavez's OPEC buddies is Iran.

Could these nations be circling us like sharks? I don't know, but their comraderie certainly interests me. Personally, I don't think Castro or Chavez have the guts to do anything more than they're already doing.

Saturday, April 29, 2006

State senate supports criminal behavior

The California Senate is now officially on record supporting illegal immigration. Read this article for more.

This doesn't surprise me. Everyone knows the people of California are adrift on a sea illusion. Their perception of reality matches that of Peter Pan. So it's only fitting for them to elect representatives with the same imagination.

But what really struck me about this article are the comments of one Senator comparing the plight of illegal aliens to slavery and women's suffrage. I'm not black and I'm not female, and this still offended me greatly. My hope is that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and all the feminist leadership lash out at this guy for making such a desecrating remark.

Illegal immigrants are hardly suffering. These people are getting paid better than they ever would in their own country, the get free health care, access to social security, food stamps and other government programs and do all of this without having to pay taxes. If anything, they are one of the most privilidged sub-classes in American history. Yet, one deranged California Senator likens them to the slaves and the oppresion of women. Is anyone else disgusted by this?

At some point, California became disconnected from the rest of the nation. I think too much sunshine must do damage to the part of the brain responsible for perceiving reality.

Friday, April 28, 2006

Iran getting closer

According to Israeli Intelligence, Iran now has missiles capable of reaching Europe and if Iran developes nuclear weapons these same missiles could be fitted with nuclear warheads. Granted, the Israelis were among the many intelligence services who also said Iraq had WMD’s, so this may be dismissed by many, but it will be interesting to see how the Europeans react.

I wonder if France and Germany will now become more interested in the situation in Iran?

There is no doubt in my mind that Iran has become the most dangerous nation on earth. There is also no doubt that if they acquire WMDs, they WILL use them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either na├»ve or just plain ignorant. And if you don’t "think" Iran would use their nukes, are you convinced enough to allow them to continue their current progress unimpeded? Are you willing to take that chance? If so, then prove it by doing this one little experiment. Go get a pistol, load it, take the safety off and then pull the hammer back. Then hand it to your nearest 4-year old child. But be sure and tell them that there will be punishment if someone gets shot. Are you comfortable doing that?

Amadinejad is a maniac, in fact he's probably clinically insane. Allowing him to get nukes is out of the question and the UN can't stop him. So the only decision now is when do we go in and how hard do we hit when we do?

I can’t wait to see how Europe responds to those questions.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Boycott Exxon?

Here is a story about Bee County, Texas where a local judge has issued a call for a county-wide boycott of Exxon-Mobil in the wake of one of their executives receiving a multi-million dollar retirement package and suspicion of price-gauging among the major oil companies.

Now, I am 100% in favor of capitalism. If a major oil company wants to give one of their executives a multi-million dollar retirement, so be it. They have that right. But, I, as a consumer also have the right to choose not to buy their product, which is what I choose to do.

Do I agree with boycotts? Sometimes. To me, a boycott is nothing more than a group of people making a similar choice. Will this hurt Exxon-Mobil? I doubt it. In fact, it will likely hurt local gas station owners more than the oil company, but the message is still there nonetheless.

Consumers are getting fed up. Something must be done. In my opinion, OPEC is much more to blame for high oil prices than the major oil companies, but when one of these companies gives an executive such an obscene amount of money in the face of current gas prices, it is somewhat of an insult. I defend their right to do it, but I also criticize the fact that they did it. It’s clear that Exxon-Mobil doesn’t really care that much about their consumers. Therefore, I don’t really care that much about their company.

So the next time I pull off of a highway exit ramp and see an Exxon-Mobil station next to, say, a BP or Texaco, I will choose the latter. That’s what makes capitalism great. You reap what you sow, some folks may say. Here’s to free will!

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Patriot Guard

A friend of a friend is a member of this group. And although I'm sure many of you are familiar with them, I still felt compelled to place their link on this blog. It's people like this who make me proud to be an American.

Keep up the good fight guys!

http://www.patriotguard.org/

A soldier's perspective

I found this on Fox News. This is a recent entry in a daily diary from US Army Captain Dan Sukman, currently deployed in Iraq. This link will take you to the full entry, but I will include a portion of it below. Capt Sukman offers his own unique perspective on the group of retired Generals who are now speaking out against the Pentagon and Rumsfeld, and the way the war has been fought.

Reading and listening to the news and discussing it, the criticism that seems to be continually brought up is: Why are they speaking up now? The answer is, because now they are no longer in the military. I know, it’s not a deep analysis, but I don’t think there is anything more to it.

He goes on to discuss the "how" and "why", but concludes with this:

I don't know the exact number, but if I were a betting man, I would wager all my money that there are some recently retired general officers who disagree with the ones speaking out now. It would be interesting to see if anyone ever attempts to interview them or get their opinion.

I couldn’t agree more, Capt Sukman. Stay safe over there and God bless you, Sir.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

I guess Nagin did a good job after all

On Saturday, the citizens of New Orleans had the opportunity to finally allow their voices to be heard. Eight months after Hurricane Katrina, and the disastrous governmental response, at last the people get to speak out. So they turned out at polling places to voice their opinion of the city’s leadership…and the results: Ray Nagin received more votes than any other candidate.
That’s right.

The people of New Orleans are so upset about how their leaders responded to the crisis of Katrina that the incumbent received more votes than any other competitor. This while the reconstruction is stalled, bulldozers sit idly like a New Orleans school bus, dumbtrucks drive around town empty, yet more people vote for Ray Nagin…the man who "led" New Orleans through this crisis than for any other candidate. Does this make sense to anyone?

I’ve been to New Orleans recently, and the most shocking part of the visit was the glaring inactivity. Houses sat in shambles, street lights were non-functional, roads were in disrepair. And how many clean up crews did I see in 4 days? TWO. That’s right. Over 100 billion dollars spent on New Orleans and I see two crews working. They must be really good crews.

In all fairness, Nagin still did not receive a majority vote, no candidate did, but he led all candidates with 38% of the vote and will face the Lt Governor of Louisiana in a May runoff to decide the position. But 38 percent? Are you kidding me? This man shouldn’t have gotten nowhere near that number and should have finished somewhere below the write-in votes for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. That is, IF the people were truly letting Nagin’s performance in office determine their vote, which is obviously not the case. I’m not one to speculate, but I would venture a guess that of those 38%, the vast majority were racially driven…but that’s my opinion.

Are 38 percent of New Orleans’ citizens really that disconnected, out of touch with reality and downright ignorant? Are 38% of the people satisfied with how things are going down there? If so, then I say we call their bluff and cut federal aid to Katrina recovery by 38%. At the very least, I no longer think the people of New Orleans have a right to gripe about the response to the disaster. Or maybe they should reduce their complaints by 38%. After all, this was their chance, their opportunity to show the city’s leader how they felt…and they failed. I think the message that sends is fairly loud. According to the people of New Orleans, Nagin did a pretty good job.

Does anyone out there agree?

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Support immigration law enforcement

I stumbled across this on the blogosphere (thanks to the IRATE NATION and Numbers USA). There is an organization that promotes candidates for the upcoming elections who are determined to ENFORCE our nation's immigration laws. I have posted their link in my sidebar and the link to their website is below so others can do the same.

This is one of the top 3 issues in this election (along with the war on terror and bringing down OPEC) and I for one will support ANY candidate who commits themselves to enforcing our immigration laws.

Numbers USA

Bringing down OPEC...part III

We already have the technology needed to replace oil as an energy source and the alternative sources COST LESS than oil, so the conversion will actually produce profit. Read that sentence four of five times, because it needs to sink in before you read the options below.

In his book Over a Barrel Raymond Learsy cites Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute of Colorado as a leading advocate and researcher into these alternate energy resources. Lovins’ proposal: an initial investment of $180 billion over ten years could save the nation $70 billion a year by the year 2025, thus it would pay for itself in under 3 years. Americans spent $285 billion dollars on transportation costs in 2000. You do the math. By 2040, Lovins asserts that the US could stop importing oil altogether, by 2050 we would only be using oil as a raw material for plastics. How? Keep reading.

1) Use oil more efficiently – We doubled our efficiency of oil use after the embargo of the 1970s. We can do it again. We can double our efficiency with an investment of $12 a barrel. For example, hybrid cars are more expensive to purchase, but the added cost is made up after only 3 years of driving. Another example, Trek Bicycle Corporation. They make the carbon fiber composite for Lance Armstrong’s racing bicycles. This is a lighter and stronger frame than any other on the market resulting in a third of the weight. This same concept could be applied to the auto industry. Lighter materials like carbon fiber, new steel alloys, and advanced polymer composites would cut fuel consumption drastically without sacrificing safety (yes, it HAS been studied). It would cost more up front, like hybrid cars, but would save more in the long run. The same ideas could also be used in heavy trucks and airlines
.
Fuel efficient homes need to be built. Lovins, on a challenge by PG&E, built a home in Davis, California using high-end windows and extra insulation that actually cost $4500 less than a comparable non-energy efficient home but only consumed 48% of the energy!

He also built a home with solar heating via rooftop solar cells that saved 99% of the heating cost and resulted in a 90% reduction in electricity, with no loss of comfort! Why don’t we do more of this?

2) Develop a biofuel program – Brazil uses sugar cane for ethanol that fuels 4 million cars. This reduced their imports by $50 billion dollars. GM and Volkswagon currently sell "total flex" cars to Brazil that can use ANY pure or blended fuel, from 100% ethanol to 100% gasoline…we HAVE the technology. Why not use it? Well, the oil industry is a mighty lobbying power.

The only biofuel program the US has right now is nothing more than a way to subsidize farmers and agribusinesses for growing corn. But corn-based alcohol is too expensive, and without the government subsidies it would cost 52 cents more per gallon than gasoline. But switchgrass and woody crops like hybrid willow and poplar are a different story.

Liquid fuels from these sources cost far less, and are, of course, much cleaner burning. Not only that, but producing these crops would not interfere with food production, but would rather help farmers by preventing erosion associated with row crops.

New technology can get twice as much ethanol from these woody crops as corn and at less cost in both capital and energy. This ethanol program could generate over 700,000 new jobs (as it has done in Brazil). Government funded farm subsidies could be cut as profitable biofuel crops replaced subsidized grains, and farm income could triple.

This possibility hasn’t gone unnoticed. Shell and BP are looking into it.

So there it is, America’s way out from under the boot of OPEC. I highly encourage everyone to read Raymond Learsy’s book. You’ll never look at big oil and OPEC the same way again. This isn't a perfect solution, but it is the best option out there. To be honest, no one else seems to have a plan to get out from under OPEC's boot, and the status quo will lead us into economic disaster. Something must be done NOW.

Friday, April 21, 2006

Bringing down OPEC...Part II

How to we bring down OPEC?

Raymond Learsy offers a few suggestions on how to do this in his latest book. Here are some details of what he suggests:

1) Tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – The actual number of barrels released would not make much of a difference on the "supply" side of supply and demand, but it would have a profound impact on the oil price. Oil prices are not driven by the free market and supply and demand. Instead, it inflates by OPEC-inspired rumor and irrational fear of certain events that attract investors seeking to make a buck on price gyrations. The result is people buying oil futures and pushing the price higher and higher. But if the government showed that a certain price for oil would trigger a release of a large quantity from the strategic reserve, then it would increase the risk of these investments and drive the speculators to the sidelines. The result…oil prices drop.

2) Nuclear Power – France is 80% nuclear. We are nowhere close to that. Why? Mainly because of political foot-dragging about nuclear waste disposal. One kg of oil produces 4 kw of electricity. One kg of uranium generates 400,000 kw of electricity (more than 7 million kw if uranium is recycled, but Jimmy Carter banned uranium recycling in 1977). It is cleaner, cheaper and if recycled will reduce the volume of nuclear waste that needed disposal. If the enviro-kooks would come to the table on this, we could get more plants built and not only reduce oil consumption, but also help protect the environment.

3) Control demand – Bush pushed through a cap-and-trade Clear Skies initiative as part of his environmental policy. This states that power companies have so many "emission credits" that they can consume, basically keeping a tally on the amount of pollution they dump into the environment. Go over your allotted credits, and you can buy more from a "cleaner" power company. This does two things. It rewards those who are friendly to the environment with more money (and NO tax dollars) and it increases costs for those who don’t take measures to reduce pollution. Why not do the same for gasoline?

Everyone gets an allotment of Gasoline Purchase Permits. Reach your allotment, and you can purchase more on the free market from the private sector (those who take the proper measures to reduce gasoline consumption). You CAN’T buy these credits from the government and therefore it won’t be a hidden tax. Instead, it will reward those who carpool, own fuel-efficient cars, and avoid discretionary driving and it will increase costs for those who don’t. The result is less oil consumption nationwide. This can even be pushed as part of the war on terror. In WWII, people who wanted to do their part against the Nazis planted victory gardens. Now, people could reduce their fuel consumption, make money by selling their allotted extra GPPs and feel that they are doing their part in keeping American money out of the pockets of the rich oil barons of the Middle East. And it would go a long way in altering the world’s perception of Americans as self-indulgent anti-environment consumers.

4) Put OPEC on trial – Oil prices are governed by collusion and OPEC is not afraid to show this when they hold meetings for the purpose of setting production quotas. The idea of these quotas is to limit the amount of crude produced and thus keep the price of oil high. THIS IS ILLEGAL. The World Trade Organization has a rule equivalent to antitrust laws in which it prohibits members from setting quantitative restrictions on imports and exports. This is an outright ban on conspiracies to artificially manipulate markets. If the US led an international "posse" aimed at putting the OPEC nations on trial for this, the "fear factor" that drives much of the oil price could begin to work in our favor and thus lead to lower prices.

5) Alternative sources of fuel – There are A LOT of options here. To do it justice, I will discuss these in a separate post. Tune in tomorrow (or later tonight depending on how much time I have).

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Bringing down OPEC...part I

As oil eclipses the $70 a barrel mark, it’s evident that we have a serious problem, and the Arabs have us by the…you know what. We consume 25 million barrels of oil a day, 60% of that is imported from OPEC. The problem is that OPEC controls the price, which is driven by fear and NOT by the free market. When you consider that it costs $1.50 to pump a barrel of oil from a Saudi well, then obviously somebody is doing some major price gauging along the way…and it needs to stop.

Personally, I’m tired of overpaying for oil. Our dollars are funding extremist governments that hate America, and it’s impossible to deny that this money doesn’t end up in the hands terrorist organizations determined to destroy our nation. The Middle East is becoming more of a power and it’s because of only one reason, oil. They have us hostage and loom over us like the execution videos that they so regularly release. We, the American consumer, are on our knees hoping the worst doesn’t happen. Well, I’m tired of it. Action needs to be taken to bring down OPEC, and I’m willing to do whatever it takes.

No one in leadership seems to have any ideas. That's concerning because the status quo is simply unacceptable. The only viable ideas I've heard have been from Raymond Learsy in his book Over A Barrel. In tomorrow's post I'll detail his ideas, sure to bring OPEC to its knees. Meanwhile, I want to hear from others. I want to know how YOU would deal with our current oil situation. I'm interested to know what some think.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

On the brink of another...

Believe it or not, history is actually a hobby for me, and after reading these articles on Drudge it’s almost like reading a history book from the 1930s. A crazed dictator is building his military strength with intentions of reclaiming land (ie, Israel) that was once lost. He is supported by a minority, while most of his people suffer. Neighboring nations are expressing concern about the buildup. Europe and the UN is intent on appeasement.
Doesn’t this sound familiar?

The problem is: we, as Americans, don’t have the luxury to sit this one out while waiting for Europe to realize that appeasement is a failed policy. If Iran gets nukes, our military troops and bases are in imminent danger…not to mention Israel who, along with Britain, may be our only true ally. Couple that with the fact that we import 60% of our oil from that region and suddenly the United States is facing a potential catastrophe. After all, you can’t field an army without oil, and believe me the Iranian leaders know this.

While I would like to sit back and say to the Middle East "this is your problem, deal with it", I know that is not an option. Iran and Syria are very much the world’s problem. Could they be pushing us to the brink of World War III? I say it’s VERY possible.

I’m not afraid to admit, we NEED the Middle East to be stable because we need that oil. Without it, we’re crippled. Our economy plunges and our military stalls. If America is crippled, who will stop the Islamo-fascists? Especially if the Russians, Chinese and many of our own are basically apathetic towards the whole situation and completely oblivious to the building threat. Thank God Hussein and the Taliban are no longer in power or they could very well be playing the part of Mussolini to Iran’s Nazi-like buildup.

My prayers are with President Bush and his Cabinet as they face this crisis. Once again he's going into a very difficult task. May God give him strength and wisdom.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Europe, thy name is cowardice

Some of you may have seen this before. I got it in an email from a friend. It was written by the Chief Executive of a major German publisher in the nation's largest daily paper, Die Welt. It's good to know that not everyone in Europe is completely naive.

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the

Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance,"now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.

Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Happy Easter

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to aniont Jesus' body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb?"

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him, just as He told you.'"

Mark 16:1-8

AMEN! and Happy Easter

Saturday, April 15, 2006

A "decaying power"

A recent quote from one of Iran's religious leaders has caught my attention. It's interesting how Iran has become extremely bold over the past few years, basically daring the United States to try stopping them from getting nukes. The threat of UN has hardly drawn a shutter. We're now considering military action, and still the Iranians aren't flinching. Why?

The words of senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Janati can explain: "the US is a decaying power...and lacks the stamina to block Iran's ambitions"

Is anyone offended by this? I'm not, because he's not far from the truth. Just three years ago, Iran's neighbor was up to the same thing and the UN refused to take action and the half the US population opposed action. The President has suffered as a result, and now more than half want to "cut and run" just to get out. Hardly a show of stamina on our part. The way we handled Iraq, as a nation, is very telling about our resolve to stop maniacs from doing bad things. Now, as a result, the maniacs aren't scared. You see, all you anti-war folks, why I think you should rally behind our troops in Iraq and call for victory? Wouldn't that send a different message to the maniacs?

Too late now. Not only are they NOT supporting Iraq, but they're already calling out against action in Iran. So the Iranians aren't going to give in to our demands, because they simply don't think we have the guts to follow through on them. And they may be right, thanks to our "healthy dissent" crowd.

So here's the question. We're rapidly approaching a major crisis in Iran. Once they get nukes, they're launching on Israel. Our borders are wide open, and it's not far-fetched to think that they could smuggle one of those things into the US and use at as blackmail to force us out of the Middle East. Or worse, simply detonate it in downtown wherever for the sake of killing Americans. If you don't think this can happen, then you need to join the rest of us in the real world. If you think the UN is going to stop these maniacs, well, you may be more deranged than the Iranians. So what do YOU do? I especially want to hear from the anti-war folks on this one. Do you try to "contain" the threat? How? Especially when we have troops vulnerable to tactical battlefield nukes in the area already. So, you're the President, what do you do?

Friday, April 14, 2006

He just won't go away

It’s no secret that I’m not particularly fond of Bill Clinton. I could type paragraph after paragraph about why, launching into things like his high taxation leading us into a recession, his failure to act in the face of a growing Islamo-fascist threat, his disdain for the military, not to mention his gaping void where most people would store their moral fiber. But I’m not going to use the space. Instead, I think Mr. Clinton does a pretty good job illustrating his shortcomings himself.

For instance, here are a few recent quotes. The first in reference to his extramarital affair where he described himself as “the world’s most famous sinner.” Think about that one for a moment. Let it sink in. I’ll get back to it.

The second is his routine response whenever someone brought up the possibility of military action: “I always asked the same question for eight years: "Can we kill 'em tomorrow? If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way.” Think about that for a moment as well.

I don’t know about you, but the first thought that came to mind about the ‘can we kill em tomorrow’ line was: How many times did he ask that question in the ‘90s when Bin Laden was growing bolder and bolder by the day? How many times did he defer decisive action? He seems to be proud of such a policy, but it’s this sort of policy that allows our enemies to strike us first. Yes, we can always kill ‘em tomorrow, but at what cost? And how long do we say such a thing? Technically, we can use this line every single day as a means of avoiding conflict forever. Many on the left would be happy with such a policy. I call it cowardice.

As for his “famous sinner” line, I realize this was mainly a jab at the conservative Christians who were critical of his sexual endeavors. He was basically mocking them for being “uppity”. But, even so, most people are ashamed of doing what he did. Most people don’t boast about adultery. I understand that, for most people, much of the shame comes from the dire consequences that occur as a result of their extramarital affairs, which were absent in Clinton’s case. But nonetheless, adultery is still wrong. This is a basic truth…It’s not good to cheat on your spouse. Even the most ardent Clinton supporter can’t argue with that. So why does he joke about it? Why has he been given a free pass? I think the answer to those questions also explains why our nation is terribly ill from a morality standpoint.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Cut it out...you bunch of spazzes

Although I’m not a big fan of Tiger Woods, I have to say this goes beyond ridiculous. For those who haven’t read the article, people are offended by Tiger’s use of the word "spaz" to describe his golf game. That’s right. Apparently "spaz" is now one of the many non-PC terms that are forbidden in common everyday discussion. It’s just too offensive to people who suffer from spastic disorders…not that the ones criticizing Woods are all sufferers of these conditions, and not that Woods actually had these people in mind specifically when he used the term, that’s not the point. The point is: Tiger used a non-mainstream term to describe his golf game in a way that "some people" may consider a little brash. So it’s simply not acceptable.

So at the request of an LA Times reporter, Tiger agreed to replace "spaz" with "wreck", as in "I played like a wreck". But wait a minute, doesn’t he run the risk of offending people who have been involved in horrible traffic accidents? Doesn’t this belittle their suffering?

OK, well how about "I played like a nightmare."
No, too many people suffer from night terrors.

OK, "My game was a disaster"
Nope, too many Katrina victims to offend.

OK, "I looked like a geek."
One word, Columbine.

"I played like crap."
What about people who don’t have full control of their bowels?

"I looked like a moron."
Too many Howard Dean fans would get upset.

"It was tough out there"
What about all those wimps who suffer from hypo-toughness?

"My swing was ugly."
Do you think Chelsea Clinton would appreciate that?

"It was murder on the greens."
Two words, O…J…

"My game was just plain bad."
Maybe, but then again, as someone who really is bad at golf…that offends me.

So the point is: the PC crowd has migrated beyond the outer levels of normalcy and is lingering somewhere between insanity and fantasy. Someone once called this the twilight zone. Perhaps we should rename it the PC Zone. After all, the term ‘light’ may offend blind people.

(By the way, this is satire, so please don’t attack me for saying something jokingly. And if you’re OK with satire and think it’s actually funny, well, congratulations, you’re human)

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Call it a hunch

"Any student who engages in or promotes sexual behavior not consistent with Christian principles (including sex outside marriage and homosexuality) may be suspended or asked to withdraw."

This is a quote from the University of the Cumberlands student handbook. This is a private Baptist school that can basically make whatever rules they want about what is acceptable behavior from its students. So this school can expel a gay student just like a private gay and lesbian college could expel me for being a Christian. Yet, something tells me that the mainstream media won't see it this way. Something tells me this college will be demonized in the press. Call it a hunch.

Here is the full story from Drudge.

Whether or not this school should do something like this is the basis for other debates, and it really doesn't matter. What matters is that they have the right to do it, and the mainstream and the far left should put their money where their mouth is when it comes to rights and support this college...or at least avoid chastising it. But, something tells me that won't happen. Call it a hunch.

Monday, April 10, 2006

When will majority rule?

The majority of Americans want a wall built along the entire southern border. Not only that, but they also want illegal immigrants deported. This is according to a Time magazine poll, which makes it surprising that they would even publish the results

"By a margin of 56 to 40 percent, respondents said they want the wall built from sea to shining sea - not just the 700 miles stipulated in the House plan, a proposal the press calls "draconian."

"62 percent told Time that they favored using the military to guard the border. Just 35 percent opposed."

"75 percent say illegals should be denied government supplied health care and food stamps"

"69 percent, say illegals shouldn't be allowed to get U.S. drivers licenses."

And keep in mind, this is Time, which means that if you factor in their 2-3% liberal bias then these numbers would probably be higher. What really irks me is that with numbers like these, our politicians are still cowering to the immigrants and their protests (see my prior post), which just goes to show that they're a bunch of weasels.

They're in no position to strike "plea bargains" when it comes to our immigration laws. In fact, if I were a political leader, I'd have INS at each one of these rallies checking green cards. But no one in our 'leadership' has that kind of guts.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Call it what you will...I call it a sell-out

SO now our beloved Senators are singing the praises of their great compromise on immigration reform. Yes, they've struck a deal and they're confident that their deal will become law. So now the illegal immigrants will finally be given the amnesty that they so desire.

Lindsey Graham and Bill Frist, once strongly vocal about immigration reform, have succomed to the pressure of protest. Senator Graham himself described this deal, with a smile, as a plea bargain. A PLEA BARGAIN! And so that is what our federal law has become. Breaking that law no longer carries consequences, as long as you can gather enough people to wave another country's flag in protest.

The message is clear: break our law...it's OK, maybe one day we'll grant you citizenship. Motivation to immigrate legally? ZERO.

As I predicted, our brave politicians acted in the face of this growing danger on our southern border and have devised a plan that could more accurately be described as gutless, spineless, yellow.

Break the law and avoid getting caught for 5 years = citizenship
Break the law for 2-5 years = identify yourself and THEN get citizenship
Break the law for 2 years = go home and come back and THEN get citizenship

Brilliant!

Politicians will always be politicians...and most politicians these days behave like geldings.

To be an effective leader means that sometimes you have to do things that may not be overwhelmingly popular...our senators have failed to realize this.

Well, at least the latest shows that this poor-excuse for reform may be bogged down...we'll see what happens. But if this passes it can only be viewed as one thing...a sell out.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Moussouai...death penalty or life without parole?

According to the latest reports, today at the Moussouai trial the jury watched video of the 9/11 attacks. They saw pictures of jets crashing into buildings, explosions, screams...people jumping out of windows to their deaths. The whole time Moussouai was "nodding and smiling". He was proud.

It would seem to be a sure bet that Moussouai would be sentenced to death. After all, it's hard for even the most extreme of bleeding-hearts to argue that this man can be rehabilitated in prison. So will Moussouai get the death penalty?

In my opinion, it's a toss-up. Obviously, it wouldn't surprise me if he were executed...after all, he deserves it. But it also wouldn't be a shocker to me if he got life without parole. Why would someone NOT vote to execute this animal? I don't think the insanity plea will stick. I don't think the jury will be lenient on him in any way. I think the biggest argument against the death penalty in this case will be: "We don't want to make him a martyr."

It may be a long shot, but for some reason I don't see the jury doing the obvious thing and they will have a legitimate reason for it. In fact, we could debate this for a while. Do we put him away forever or do we kill him and instantly make him a hero in the world of Islamo-fascism?

If you ask me, call him a murderer, call him a hero of Islam, call him a radical nut, call him a martyr....I don't care, as long as you call him dead. Execute the S.O.B., the world will be a better place once he's gone.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Harry Reid HAD a great idea!

This is one of the things I love about the Drudge Report. No one calls politicians for flip-flopping like they do. Here is another brilliant example: In 1993, Harry Reid proposed the Immigration Stabilization Act. The link provided has details, here are a few:

Specific provisions of Reid's Immigration Stabilization Act include the following:
-- Reduces annual legal immigration levels from approximately 800,000 admissions per year to about 300,000. Relatives other than spouse or minor children will be admitted only if already on immigration waiting lists and their admission does not raise annual immigration levels above 300,000.

-- Reforms asylum rules to prevent aliens from entering the United States illegally under phony "asylum" claims.-- Expands list of felonies considered "aggravated" felonies requiring exclusion and deportation of criminal aliens. Allows courts to order deportation at time of sentencing.

-- Increases penalties for failing to depart or re-entering the United States after a final order of deportation order. Increases maximum penalties for visa fraud from five years to 10 years.

-- Curtails alien smuggling by authorizing interdiction and repatriation of aliens seeking to enter the United States unlawfully by sea. Increases penalties for alien smuggling.

-- Adds "alien smuggling" to the list of crimes subject to sanctions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Expands the categories of property that are forfeited when used to facilitate the smuggling or harboring of illegal aliens.

-- Clarifies that a person born in the United States to an alien mother who is not a lawful resident is not a U.S. citizen. This will eliminate incentive for pregnant alien women to enter the United States illegally, often at risk to mother and child, for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and accompanying federal financial benefits.

But that’s not all. Here are a few things Mr. Reid had to say about our immigration problem back in 1993:

"We are a country founded upon fairness and justice. An individual in real threat of torture or long-term incarceration because of his or her political beliefs can still seek asylum, but this bill closes the door to those who want to abuse America's inherent generosity and legal system…

Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs…

The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement…

Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes…

Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world…

Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."

WOW, what happened, Harry. You seemed so much more intelligent back then! Did 9/11 drain you of your intellect? Was the "Clinton Era" really that much of a negative influence on your party? If you were talking like this today, I would consider actually voting for you!

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

TR...where are you when we need you?

This quote was sent to me by a friend, thanks for the blog material, Rob. Teddy Roosevelt was not only a tough S.O.B., but he was also pretty smart. God knows Washington could use wisdom like his nowadays.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, heshall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrageto discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Amen, Mr. President. Where are men like you when we need them most?

Monday, April 03, 2006

Would you consider Doritos a luxury item?

Yesterday my wife witnessed something quite remarkable, and my blood pressure has still not recovered from her account of it. She was standing in line at a local convenience store. In front of her were a woman and her (supposedly) 4 children, ages approximately 7-12.

This woman weighed at least 300 pounds (and my wife does not exaggerate), yet her 4 children looked as though they had missed their share of meals. When it came their turn to check out, they emptied their arms onto the counter. Here is their shopping list: Two bags of Doritos (large bags), 2 packages of Ding-Dongs, 2 packages of Sno-Balls, one Icee, 4 sodas, 3 burritos and an assortment of candy including Twix and Snickers. Her purchases were totaled and she paid with...you guessed it...food stamps.

Now, I suppose one could put forth a hardy argument about why food stamps are a good thing, and why the taxpayer should foot the bill to feed those less-priviledged. But can anyone, even the most liberal of bleeding hearts, justify what I just described?

First, these people are buying what I consider luxury items. Ding-dongs and Doritos are not a human right, they are priviledges reserved for those of us who can afford them. Sound silly? Maybe so, but I don't like the idea of American tax dollars being spent in such a way.

Second, we already have a HUGE health problem bubbling as America grows more and more overweight. Obesity rates are climbing very fast among our youth. Many of these kids will become diabetic. They will require expensive health care. Who's going to pay for that? You guessed it...the taxpayer. And, apparently, we're literally feeding the problem through our foodstamp program.

This is beyond ridiculous, and I thought I should share it with all of you.

Another University blow-hole

This stolen from Drudge:

UT professor says death is imminent

Here are a few noteworthy quotes from this menace to humanity:

"[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity," Pianka said. "We're looking forward to a huge collapse."

"The biggest enemy we face is anthropocentrism," he said, describing the belief system in which humans are the central element of the universe. "This is that common attitude that everything on this Earth was put here for [human] use."

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm growing weary of these college professors spewing their hate speech all over our taxpayer-funded campuses. Yes, Texas, YOU pay this guy's salary so he can spread his message like a mutant Ebola! Isn't there a way to shut these people up? He calls for sterilization practices to control the human population, and it would almost be worth it if people like him were first in line.

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Immigration reform? Yeah right.

With all the ongoing debate about illegal immigration now suddenly rising to the front page, I wanted to make a few comments of my own. I find it interesting how this has suddenly become a critical issue for our political leaders. Illegal immigration has been a problem for years, dating well into the 1980s and beyond. It’s been nearly 5 years since the 9/11 attack. Why now? I don’t suppose it has anything to do with the upcoming elections.

Perhaps it’s my cynicism towards politicians, but despite all the heated debate I don’t think a damn thing will be done about the illegal immigration problem. The fact is: 1) the latino vote is too precious to the Democrats. 2) the cheap labor is too precious to the economy and thus precious to Republicans. It’s in no politician’s best interest to stop illegal immigration. So if anyone thinks that Bill Frist or Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton are going to solve this problem, think again.

They may pass a bill, in fact it’s likely that "immigration reform" will be pushed through. These people want to be able to stand before voters and thump their chests about how they "cared" enough about the citizens to take action. But any bill they pass will be soft, it will have no teeth for enforcement and will accomplish very little in actually solving the problem.

In truth, the only real answer begins with kicking our political leaders—all of them—to the curb (in fact, this is the first step to solving A LOT of America’s problems). Once we do that, and the PEOPLE regain control of this country, then things can change for the better. Until then, it’s politics as usual.

Saturday, April 01, 2006

Ragged old Flag

I feel the need to change things up a bit. Visions of people waving the Mexican flag and desecrating the American flag makes me want to share my favorite poem from one of America's greatest all-time poets, Johnny Cash. Enjoy!

Ragged Old Flag
by Johnny Cash


I walked through a county courthouse square,
On a park bench an old man was sitting there.
I said, "Your old courthouse is kinda rundown,"
He said, "Naw, it'll do for our little town."

I said, "Your flagpole has leaned a bit,
And that's a Ragged Old Flag you got hanging on it."
He said, "Have a seat", and I sat down.
"Is this the first time you've been to our little town?"

I said, "I think it is." He said, "I don't like to brag,
But we're kinda proud of that Ragged Old Flag."

"You see, we got a little hole in that flag there
When Washington took it across the Delaware.
And it got powder-burned the night Francis Scott Key
Sat watching it writing 'Oh Say Can You See'.

And it got a bad rip in New Orleans
With Packingham and Jackson tuggin' at its seams."
"And it almost fell at the Alamo
Beside the Texas flag, but she waved on though.

She got cut with a sword at Chancellorsville
And she got cut again at Shiloh Hill.
There was Robert E. Lee, Beauregard, and Bragg,
And the south wind blew hard on that Ragged Old Flag."

"On Flanders Field in World War I
She got a big hole from a Bertha Gun.
She turned blood red in World War II
She hung limp and low by the time it was through.

She was in Korea and Vietnam.
She went where she was sent by her Uncle Sam."

"She waved from our ships upon the briny foam,
And now they've about quit waving her here back home.
In her own good land she's been abused...
She's been burned, dishonored, denied and refused."

"And the government for which she stands
is scandalized throughout the land.
And she's getting threadbare and wearing thin,
But she's in good shape for the shape she's in.

'Cause she's been through the fire before
and I believe she can take a whole lot more."

"So we raise her up every morning,
Take her down every night.
We don't let her touch the ground
And we fold her up right.

On second thought I DO like to brag,
Cause I'm mighty proud of that Ragged Old Flag."


Thank God for people like Johnny Cash. If you really want to enjoy this poem, you can listen to Mr Cash himself read it at this site. God bless America!

A slap in the face...of America

I know that this, like everything else, will spin into a partisan battle over right and wrong. It’s already happening. But a few quotes from our beloved political leaders need to be repeated on this post.

Nancy Pelosi: "a mistake, an unfortunate lack of recognition of a member of Congress…I would not make a big deal of this."

Really! A lack of recognition on the officer’s part? Is she implying that McKinney was justified in slapping him? Is she implying that the officer was more to blame? And when would anyone not make a big deal of a Congress member slapping a police officer? I wonder if Bill Frist had done this would Ms. Pelosi still say it wasn’t a big deal? I think everyone knows the answer to that.
But let’s not pick on just Pelosi. Here’s what Denny Hastert had to say:

"How many officers would have to be punched before it becomes a big deal?"

Punched? Are you sure she didn’t pull out a billy club and beat the guy with it? This is a gross exaggeration and it’s beneath a Congressional leader to say such a thing, just as it’s beneath one to slap a police officer. Again, if Bill Frist had done this, but HAD actually punched the guy, then I’m sure Mr. Hastert would be referring to it as a love-tap.

So this will turn into what has become a common thing in today’s Washington, partisan bickering that makes a complicated matter out of something that is NOT complicated. A person slapped a police officer. That is against the law and she should be punished for it regardless of who she is, what she does, or why she did it. But I seriously doubt there will be any punishment BECAUSE of who she is and what she does, which, oddly enough, is what many people in her party despise about our country. I also wouldn’t be surprised if this became a race issue…after all, why else would a Congresswoman be asked to pass through a metal detector for any reason other than the fact that she were black?

What I despise is the behavior of our politicians, and this will do nothing to change that opinion. There is an election in November, and I wouldn’t be upset if EVERY incumbent was booted from office. These people are adults behaving like four-year-olds, and many four-year-olds would likely take offense to that comparison. What’s worse is that they’re behaving this way while controlling the fate of our country and lives over such issues as taxation, immigration and national security. One day, God willing, the people of America will regain control of our beloved Republic and oust the politicians that are milking her dry. That day can’t come soon enough for me.