Israel investigating Qana
The bombing at Qana is tragic and regretable. I don't think anyone would argue that. But, tragic as it may be, war is war. Israel did not choose this war. This war was thrust upon them by the aggressive action of a brutal and peace-hating terrorist group that only wants one thing - death of the Jewish people in the Middle East.
Who is crying more for the dead at Qana? Israel or Hezbollah? I don't think I need to answer that question.
And yet attacks on Jewish institutions have sprung up all over the globe...from Sydney to Seattle there seems to be a resurgence of anti-Jewish crime. What does the Anti-defamation league have to say? Well, I'm sure they'll let us know as soon as they get Mel Gibson ostracised in Hollywood (as if that hadn't already happened).
So, the US is now pressing for peace in the Middle East. My guess is Israel will likely once again sit down at the negotiating table and once again strike a peace deal with a terrorist organization that will once again be broken by that organization and we'll be doing this again in another 18 months. Does anyone else see a pattern here?
It's obvious that peace will not be realized in the Middle East UNTIL we eliminate the war-loving killers that don't want peace.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006
OPEC not looking out for us
OPEC "can’t bring down prices"
So the leader of OPEC has basically thrown his hands up and said ‘it’s not our fault’. This is a load of garbage. For one, he follows this by saying that there ‘is no shortage in world oil supply’. I agree. There is not one shred of evidence suggesting that we are on the brink of exhausting earth’s crude oil reserves. So the question I have is: Why the high prices?
If there is no shortage of oil supply, then that means supply and demand can be balanced to keep the price steady and static. UNLESS, that supply is artificially manipulated to keep things in a constant state of imbalance, thus driving the price higher. That’s precisely what OPEC is doing.
OPEC has the means to supply more oil. Even they wouldn’t argue that. But they simply choose not to. Iran has said they are ‘happy’ with the current price of oil, and who wouldn’t be? They are turning a 4600% profit on each barrel sold and no one has done a thing to stop it. Of course they are happy.
Our dependence on foreign oil is one of the top three problems we face as a nation, and it must stop. Drill more in the Gulf, in the arctic, who cares? Spend more for nuclear power and alternative fuel sources. Do what it takes to keep our enemies (and OPEC members DO fund terrorists) from holding this power over us. The sooner the better.
So the leader of OPEC has basically thrown his hands up and said ‘it’s not our fault’. This is a load of garbage. For one, he follows this by saying that there ‘is no shortage in world oil supply’. I agree. There is not one shred of evidence suggesting that we are on the brink of exhausting earth’s crude oil reserves. So the question I have is: Why the high prices?
If there is no shortage of oil supply, then that means supply and demand can be balanced to keep the price steady and static. UNLESS, that supply is artificially manipulated to keep things in a constant state of imbalance, thus driving the price higher. That’s precisely what OPEC is doing.
OPEC has the means to supply more oil. Even they wouldn’t argue that. But they simply choose not to. Iran has said they are ‘happy’ with the current price of oil, and who wouldn’t be? They are turning a 4600% profit on each barrel sold and no one has done a thing to stop it. Of course they are happy.
Our dependence on foreign oil is one of the top three problems we face as a nation, and it must stop. Drill more in the Gulf, in the arctic, who cares? Spend more for nuclear power and alternative fuel sources. Do what it takes to keep our enemies (and OPEC members DO fund terrorists) from holding this power over us. The sooner the better.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Andrea Yates...not guilty
I do not, for one second, dispute the claim that Andrea Yates is insane. Anyone who would willingly murder her own children would have a difficult time convincing me they are of sound mind. That's not what bothers me about this case.
What bothers me is this whole '..by reason of insanity' mess. I never understood giving somone a free pass for murder based on mental illness (and please don't give me any two-bit freshman year psych lectures about conscious awareness). Personally, if someone is insane enough to murder another human being, that person belongs in prison or in the electric chair. Under NO circumstances should they be allowed back into society.
Yet, there is a good chance that Andrea Yates will be back in society one day.
The sad thing is that our justice system failed these poor children. As is often the case, the story became about the lunatic mother and NOT the victims. These kids were murdered, and our government failed to deliver justice to their killer. It failed to protect other children in similar situations. Once again, our government has failed the next generation.
Tonight I will pray for those poor kids, and for the many others who may one day suffer the same fate under a legal system designed to protect the offenders moreso than the victims.
What bothers me is this whole '..by reason of insanity' mess. I never understood giving somone a free pass for murder based on mental illness (and please don't give me any two-bit freshman year psych lectures about conscious awareness). Personally, if someone is insane enough to murder another human being, that person belongs in prison or in the electric chair. Under NO circumstances should they be allowed back into society.
Yet, there is a good chance that Andrea Yates will be back in society one day.
The sad thing is that our justice system failed these poor children. As is often the case, the story became about the lunatic mother and NOT the victims. These kids were murdered, and our government failed to deliver justice to their killer. It failed to protect other children in similar situations. Once again, our government has failed the next generation.
Tonight I will pray for those poor kids, and for the many others who may one day suffer the same fate under a legal system designed to protect the offenders moreso than the victims.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
PETA and stem cells
PETA's position on stem cell research
This story is fascinating and I think it does a lot in illustrating how extreme and nonsensical PETA really is. They support embryonic stem cell research...ok, no big deal. There are some sound arguments for it (even though I don't buy any of them).
But what's incredible is WHY. PETA supports ESCR because it is a means that could decrease the amount of animal testing that is being done throughout the country. What?
Yes, it's true. Stem cell research COULD lead to scientific advances that benefit humans. PETA doesn't particularly care about that. What's important to them is that it means less testing on animals. So, in summation, PETA's position is 'more scientific testing on humans, less on animals'.
Is anybody else frightened by the insanity of this? I think these people have seen too many Bambi movies, not that I have anything against deer (I think everyone should have one in the crosshairs of their rifle), but to elevate animals above humans?
I wonder if these tree-hugging, granola-eating, whale-watching, baby-seal-saving quacks have any credibility with the general American public? My guess is, they probably have about as much as the ACLU and the UN. And whatever credibility was left will probably disappear with this story.
This story is fascinating and I think it does a lot in illustrating how extreme and nonsensical PETA really is. They support embryonic stem cell research...ok, no big deal. There are some sound arguments for it (even though I don't buy any of them).
But what's incredible is WHY. PETA supports ESCR because it is a means that could decrease the amount of animal testing that is being done throughout the country. What?
Yes, it's true. Stem cell research COULD lead to scientific advances that benefit humans. PETA doesn't particularly care about that. What's important to them is that it means less testing on animals. So, in summation, PETA's position is 'more scientific testing on humans, less on animals'.
Is anybody else frightened by the insanity of this? I think these people have seen too many Bambi movies, not that I have anything against deer (I think everyone should have one in the crosshairs of their rifle), but to elevate animals above humans?
I wonder if these tree-hugging, granola-eating, whale-watching, baby-seal-saving quacks have any credibility with the general American public? My guess is, they probably have about as much as the ACLU and the UN. And whatever credibility was left will probably disappear with this story.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Right and Left
Nobel Peace price winner threatens Bush’s life
In this article, once I get past the moronic remark about our Commander-in-Chief, I see an inherent difference between Right and Left.
For one, the Nobel prize winner seems to blame Bush for the death of so many children, and suggests the America’s involvement in Iraq has contributed to those deaths. That’s a typical Lefty position, and I don’t deny the fact that many civilians have suffered in this war on terrorism. That truly is a shame. But, unfortunately, it is a fact of life when it comes to war. There is no such thing as ‘zero collateral damage’. It’s part of what makes war so horrible. But is this enough to say ‘never’ when it comes to war?
The Right position would say: "Yes, there are some children dead because of the war, but how many lives were saved as a result of removing this madman from power?"
It’s a fair question and, unfortunately, one that can’t be answered outside of ‘a lot’. After all, if you look at Hussein’s track record, he is responsible for much more innocent dead than has occurred in the 3 years of warfare that has gripped Iraq. So is America the brutal animal that everyone makes them out to be? The sad thing about history is that man does not have the luxury of viewing the outcome of decisions NOT made. Such is the case with Iraq.
They say shame on us for taking action, while I would say shame on us for not taking action. It’s a debate that began in the 60’s and may never end.
She also mentions a story about British soldiers killing an IRA operative, resulting in his car careening onto the sidewalk and killing two innocent children. Tragic. But who’s to blame? The Left would say it’s the British soldiers who are to blame. The Right, myself included, blame the IRA. They were, after all, a terrorist organization that killed MANY innocent people in the struggle they called a revolution. These two poor children were amongst those.
I hope we can all agree that terrorists must be stopped. The question is how. My hope is that we won’t be looking back twenty years from now and wondering about the possible outcome of decisions not made.
In this article, once I get past the moronic remark about our Commander-in-Chief, I see an inherent difference between Right and Left.
For one, the Nobel prize winner seems to blame Bush for the death of so many children, and suggests the America’s involvement in Iraq has contributed to those deaths. That’s a typical Lefty position, and I don’t deny the fact that many civilians have suffered in this war on terrorism. That truly is a shame. But, unfortunately, it is a fact of life when it comes to war. There is no such thing as ‘zero collateral damage’. It’s part of what makes war so horrible. But is this enough to say ‘never’ when it comes to war?
The Right position would say: "Yes, there are some children dead because of the war, but how many lives were saved as a result of removing this madman from power?"
It’s a fair question and, unfortunately, one that can’t be answered outside of ‘a lot’. After all, if you look at Hussein’s track record, he is responsible for much more innocent dead than has occurred in the 3 years of warfare that has gripped Iraq. So is America the brutal animal that everyone makes them out to be? The sad thing about history is that man does not have the luxury of viewing the outcome of decisions NOT made. Such is the case with Iraq.
They say shame on us for taking action, while I would say shame on us for not taking action. It’s a debate that began in the 60’s and may never end.
She also mentions a story about British soldiers killing an IRA operative, resulting in his car careening onto the sidewalk and killing two innocent children. Tragic. But who’s to blame? The Left would say it’s the British soldiers who are to blame. The Right, myself included, blame the IRA. They were, after all, a terrorist organization that killed MANY innocent people in the struggle they called a revolution. These two poor children were amongst those.
I hope we can all agree that terrorists must be stopped. The question is how. My hope is that we won’t be looking back twenty years from now and wondering about the possible outcome of decisions not made.
Friday, July 21, 2006
A right wing lunatic
Proof that lunacy is not just a moonbat trait
Add Pat Buchanan to the list of anti-Israel columnists that seem to have forgotten that we are currently immersed in a global war on Islamofascism. In this column, Buchanan basically advocated an isolationist policy that, as history has told us, is a policy doomed to failure. He is overtly critical of Israel’s proactive defensive actions and, while at it, takes a stab at Bush’s similar approach. This is my response to some of Buchanan’s comments.
"Binyamin Netanyahu says the ruination of Lebanon is Hezbollah's doing. But is it Hezbollah that is using U.S.-built F-16s, with precision-guided bombs and 155-mm artillery pieces to wreak death and devastation on Lebanon?"
I suppose a better option would be for Israel to simply allow Hezbollah to attack their soldiers unprovoked, kidnap them at will, and maintain a constant threat of attack from just beyond the Lebanon border. Yet, somehow, that’s Israel’s fault? I live about 15 miles from the state line. If there were a terrorist group on the other side with thousands of rockets aimed at my town, I would want something done about it…apparently Pat Buchanan wouldn’t (unless of course it were his town under threat).
"Where does George W. Bush get the authority to launch a war on Iran? When did Congress declare war or authorize a war on Iran?"
Congress hasn’t declared war since 1941, yet that hasn’t stopped us from defending ourselves when the time came. The Constitution does not forbid using military force to protect our interests overseas, Mr. Buchanan.
"none of them has attacked our country, nor has Syria,"
Since when does it take an attack to identify a threat? Did Germany attack us in the 1940s? By Buchanan’s reasoning, we wouldn’t have taken any action against the Third Reich until they had conquered Europe and Asia.
"there is no evidence Iran has any tighter control over Hezbollah than we have over Israel"
Proof? How about 13,000 Iranian-made rockets? Did they spontaneously manifest themselves or did Iran possibly supply them? And these very rockets are killing many Israelis as we speak, yet no one seems to care about that. No, they’re too busy weeping for the terrorists that have clearly bitten off more than they can chew.
"there is no solid proof Iran is in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty"
And you prefer to wait for proof? That, to me, means waiting until Iran has a nuclear weapon. That’s NOT acceptable. If we do that, then Tel Aviv will be destroyed before we can act. This is foolish and irresponsible. If we have any shred of evidence suggesting Iran is even close to having the bomb, then they must be taken out. Either that, or face a nuclear war.
Mr. Buchanan is as wacked as Howard Dean. Neither one of them have any semblance of a clue regarding the nature of the enemy. They’re still deluded enough to think that diplomacy is an option when dealing with blood-thirsty hoodlums. Their thinking endangers us all and I don’t appreciate it. We ARE at war, gentlemen, despite what you may think, and the enemy will overcome us if we don’t stop them before they become too powerful to stop. Do it now, or wait until they can strike us with WMDs, which do you prefer?
Add Pat Buchanan to the list of anti-Israel columnists that seem to have forgotten that we are currently immersed in a global war on Islamofascism. In this column, Buchanan basically advocated an isolationist policy that, as history has told us, is a policy doomed to failure. He is overtly critical of Israel’s proactive defensive actions and, while at it, takes a stab at Bush’s similar approach. This is my response to some of Buchanan’s comments.
"Binyamin Netanyahu says the ruination of Lebanon is Hezbollah's doing. But is it Hezbollah that is using U.S.-built F-16s, with precision-guided bombs and 155-mm artillery pieces to wreak death and devastation on Lebanon?"
I suppose a better option would be for Israel to simply allow Hezbollah to attack their soldiers unprovoked, kidnap them at will, and maintain a constant threat of attack from just beyond the Lebanon border. Yet, somehow, that’s Israel’s fault? I live about 15 miles from the state line. If there were a terrorist group on the other side with thousands of rockets aimed at my town, I would want something done about it…apparently Pat Buchanan wouldn’t (unless of course it were his town under threat).
"Where does George W. Bush get the authority to launch a war on Iran? When did Congress declare war or authorize a war on Iran?"
Congress hasn’t declared war since 1941, yet that hasn’t stopped us from defending ourselves when the time came. The Constitution does not forbid using military force to protect our interests overseas, Mr. Buchanan.
"none of them has attacked our country, nor has Syria,"
Since when does it take an attack to identify a threat? Did Germany attack us in the 1940s? By Buchanan’s reasoning, we wouldn’t have taken any action against the Third Reich until they had conquered Europe and Asia.
"there is no evidence Iran has any tighter control over Hezbollah than we have over Israel"
Proof? How about 13,000 Iranian-made rockets? Did they spontaneously manifest themselves or did Iran possibly supply them? And these very rockets are killing many Israelis as we speak, yet no one seems to care about that. No, they’re too busy weeping for the terrorists that have clearly bitten off more than they can chew.
"there is no solid proof Iran is in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty"
And you prefer to wait for proof? That, to me, means waiting until Iran has a nuclear weapon. That’s NOT acceptable. If we do that, then Tel Aviv will be destroyed before we can act. This is foolish and irresponsible. If we have any shred of evidence suggesting Iran is even close to having the bomb, then they must be taken out. Either that, or face a nuclear war.
Mr. Buchanan is as wacked as Howard Dean. Neither one of them have any semblance of a clue regarding the nature of the enemy. They’re still deluded enough to think that diplomacy is an option when dealing with blood-thirsty hoodlums. Their thinking endangers us all and I don’t appreciate it. We ARE at war, gentlemen, despite what you may think, and the enemy will overcome us if we don’t stop them before they become too powerful to stop. Do it now, or wait until they can strike us with WMDs, which do you prefer?
Thursday, July 20, 2006
A new Axis
Iranians witnessed North Korea’s missile test
This is becoming a much more dangerous situation than I at first thought. I never was concerned about North Korea doing something stupid. Granted, their leader is certifiably nuts, but even he isn’t stupid enough to launch an attack against the United States.
But I am concerned about this alliance building. Does anyone remember the Axis powers? Or the Warsaw Pact? When two or more evil powers get together, NOTHING good can come from it.
There is a scheduled meeting between Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez in September, and now this news about Iran witnessing Il’s missile tests. This is unacceptable and has the markings of a planning stage. You’d better believe that if Hussein was still around he would be in on it as well (forget this Sunni/Shia garbage, they BOTH hate the US and Israel).
Here’s a hypothetical: A liberal wins in ’08, effectively giving our enemies a perceived green light to carry on. Chavez and Il launch on America (Chavez will do doubt be provided nukes from North Korea by then). Iran (and maybe Syria) launches on Israel and our troops in Iraq (if they are still there). Europe has been effectively neutered by the progressive voice leaving only Great Britain as our ally. What happens next?
It’s an open-ended question and perhaps my scenario sounds a little far-fetched…but is it? If you can name three lunatic world leaders then Il, Ahmadinejad and Chavez would head most people’s lists. We need to stop this mess before it gets out of hand.
This is becoming a much more dangerous situation than I at first thought. I never was concerned about North Korea doing something stupid. Granted, their leader is certifiably nuts, but even he isn’t stupid enough to launch an attack against the United States.
But I am concerned about this alliance building. Does anyone remember the Axis powers? Or the Warsaw Pact? When two or more evil powers get together, NOTHING good can come from it.
There is a scheduled meeting between Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez in September, and now this news about Iran witnessing Il’s missile tests. This is unacceptable and has the markings of a planning stage. You’d better believe that if Hussein was still around he would be in on it as well (forget this Sunni/Shia garbage, they BOTH hate the US and Israel).
Here’s a hypothetical: A liberal wins in ’08, effectively giving our enemies a perceived green light to carry on. Chavez and Il launch on America (Chavez will do doubt be provided nukes from North Korea by then). Iran (and maybe Syria) launches on Israel and our troops in Iraq (if they are still there). Europe has been effectively neutered by the progressive voice leaving only Great Britain as our ally. What happens next?
It’s an open-ended question and perhaps my scenario sounds a little far-fetched…but is it? If you can name three lunatic world leaders then Il, Ahmadinejad and Chavez would head most people’s lists. We need to stop this mess before it gets out of hand.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Bush's Veto
I wrote the words below some time back in regards to partial birth abortion, and in light of Bush's recent veto I'd like to post them again because I think it is applicable.
"I believe that human life is a sequence of events. A human being grows from a single cell, to an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a child, a teenager, etc...until life ends. This is a process that moves through many phases, but that process ALWAYS begins with fertilization. There is no other way for life to exist. Any 'boundaries' that are placed within that process are man-made, and thus can change. For example, if we place a boundary and say that life begins at birth, then who's to say that one day that boundary can be moved to another age? Perhaps when the child is self-dependent, or capable of working or voting? Obviously, this is dangerous thinking. So the answer is to look at nature, and nature shows that the process of life has a beginning...and that beginning is ALWAYS at fertilization."
I hope that Bush stands strong on his position and that Congress backs off of this stem cell thing. To me, prioritizing life is playing with fire. Are we prepared to say that an adult with Alzheimer's is worth more and is more important than an embryo in a fertility clinic?
Whenever a society begins to experiment with and kill it's members for the greater good then it has crossed a boundary that puts its very existence in jeopardy. This is dangerous thinking and I stand by the President and his decision. At some point, we must recognize life for what it is and not for what it can do for us. I hope that time comes sooner rather than later. Our moral fiber may be at stake.
"I believe that human life is a sequence of events. A human being grows from a single cell, to an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a child, a teenager, etc...until life ends. This is a process that moves through many phases, but that process ALWAYS begins with fertilization. There is no other way for life to exist. Any 'boundaries' that are placed within that process are man-made, and thus can change. For example, if we place a boundary and say that life begins at birth, then who's to say that one day that boundary can be moved to another age? Perhaps when the child is self-dependent, or capable of working or voting? Obviously, this is dangerous thinking. So the answer is to look at nature, and nature shows that the process of life has a beginning...and that beginning is ALWAYS at fertilization."
I hope that Bush stands strong on his position and that Congress backs off of this stem cell thing. To me, prioritizing life is playing with fire. Are we prepared to say that an adult with Alzheimer's is worth more and is more important than an embryo in a fertility clinic?
Whenever a society begins to experiment with and kill it's members for the greater good then it has crossed a boundary that puts its very existence in jeopardy. This is dangerous thinking and I stand by the President and his decision. At some point, we must recognize life for what it is and not for what it can do for us. I hope that time comes sooner rather than later. Our moral fiber may be at stake.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Olmert's words
This was lifted from my Australian friend, Gravelrash. Check out his blog, it is truly worth your time.
These are a few excerpts from Olmert's address yesterday. I am impressed. You can see the rest at Gravelrash's site. This speech is inspirational in every sense of the word.
“Only a nation that can defend its freedom truly deserves it.”
“There are moments in the life of a nation, when it is compelled to look directly into the face of reality and say: no more! And I say to everyone: no more! ”
”We are entitled to our freedom, and when necessary, we know how to fight for it and defend it.”
This is the reaction of someone who truly feels that their liberty is in jeopardy and is willing to do what it takes to preserve that liberty. I applaud him for it.
These are a few excerpts from Olmert's address yesterday. I am impressed. You can see the rest at Gravelrash's site. This speech is inspirational in every sense of the word.
“Only a nation that can defend its freedom truly deserves it.”
“There are moments in the life of a nation, when it is compelled to look directly into the face of reality and say: no more! And I say to everyone: no more! ”
”We are entitled to our freedom, and when necessary, we know how to fight for it and defend it.”
This is the reaction of someone who truly feels that their liberty is in jeopardy and is willing to do what it takes to preserve that liberty. I applaud him for it.
Monday, July 17, 2006
I spoke too soon
Leftists march in Tel Aviv in protest of war
Looks like I spoke too soon in praise of the Israeli people. I guess the "service before self" mentality will die with world war two generation.
I believe it was Lenin who referred to the American left as ‘useful idiots’, knowing that the actions of the Left were extremely beneficial to his own cause. The ‘idiot’ part was in reference to the Left’s lack of insight into the harm that their actions cause their own country. Lenin knew what he was talking about.
Indeed, the Muslim extremists have no ally as precious as the international Leftists, whether in France, Spain, England, the US or Israel. Without the Left, their cause would be doomed. Just look at what these people are saying…
"Peretz, don't worry, we'll be seeing you at The Hague."
"Stop the war monstrosity."
"The Israeli aggression leads to an overall war no one wants. I think that Israel should negotiate with Hizbullah and Hamas and release Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the hostages. This way this story will come to an end."
"What Israel is doing now resulted in the death of civilians, innocent children, and it serves no purpose except for the government's vindictiveness."
They make a better case for Nasrallah and Hezbollah than Nasrallah himself. If these extremists were wise, they’d start putting some of these Lefties on the payroll as spokespeople.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. IF this world becomes dominated by Islamic extremists, it will be the direct result of the actions of the Left. THEY are the only ones enabling these lunatics, and I’m not sure what it will take to convince them of their error.
Looks like I spoke too soon in praise of the Israeli people. I guess the "service before self" mentality will die with world war two generation.
I believe it was Lenin who referred to the American left as ‘useful idiots’, knowing that the actions of the Left were extremely beneficial to his own cause. The ‘idiot’ part was in reference to the Left’s lack of insight into the harm that their actions cause their own country. Lenin knew what he was talking about.
Indeed, the Muslim extremists have no ally as precious as the international Leftists, whether in France, Spain, England, the US or Israel. Without the Left, their cause would be doomed. Just look at what these people are saying…
"Peretz, don't worry, we'll be seeing you at The Hague."
"Stop the war monstrosity."
"The Israeli aggression leads to an overall war no one wants. I think that Israel should negotiate with Hizbullah and Hamas and release Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the hostages. This way this story will come to an end."
"What Israel is doing now resulted in the death of civilians, innocent children, and it serves no purpose except for the government's vindictiveness."
They make a better case for Nasrallah and Hezbollah than Nasrallah himself. If these extremists were wise, they’d start putting some of these Lefties on the payroll as spokespeople.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. IF this world becomes dominated by Islamic extremists, it will be the direct result of the actions of the Left. THEY are the only ones enabling these lunatics, and I’m not sure what it will take to convince them of their error.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Israel's lesson for us all
I gotta say, I'm extremely impressed with the Israeli people. They are waging war the way I wish America could. It's been several days of relentless bombing and the use of "disproportionate" force (in the eyes of some), and I have yet to hear a single word of dissent from an Israeli citizen, political leader, or media outlet. And you'd better believe that if people were voicing dissent, the MSM would be all over them.
Does that mean that every single Israeli agrees with what it's government is currently doing? I doubt that. There are some pretty deep political divisions within that country. So, I'm sure there are many who believe in a policy of restraint, or at least woundn't advocate all-out war over three kidnapped soldiers.
So what's impressive about it is that, even though I'm sure there is disagreement within Israel, we aren't hearing it. The Israeli's know that they are surrounded by danger, and they know that disarming Hamas and Hezbollah is in the best interest if the WORLD. So, they keep their mouths shut. Perhaps, when all of this is over, they will debate the merits of the current campaign, but not while it's ongoing. America could learn a lesson from them.
Like us, they believe in healthy dissent, but the difference is that the dissenters know of the proper time and place to voice their dissent...and it's NOT when their soldiers are engaged in a violent campaign with the enemy.
My guess is the Left is probably actively criticizing Israel, so I doubt the lesson will be learned. But it would be nice if we, as a nation, followed their example.
Does that mean that every single Israeli agrees with what it's government is currently doing? I doubt that. There are some pretty deep political divisions within that country. So, I'm sure there are many who believe in a policy of restraint, or at least woundn't advocate all-out war over three kidnapped soldiers.
So what's impressive about it is that, even though I'm sure there is disagreement within Israel, we aren't hearing it. The Israeli's know that they are surrounded by danger, and they know that disarming Hamas and Hezbollah is in the best interest if the WORLD. So, they keep their mouths shut. Perhaps, when all of this is over, they will debate the merits of the current campaign, but not while it's ongoing. America could learn a lesson from them.
Like us, they believe in healthy dissent, but the difference is that the dissenters know of the proper time and place to voice their dissent...and it's NOT when their soldiers are engaged in a violent campaign with the enemy.
My guess is the Left is probably actively criticizing Israel, so I doubt the lesson will be learned. But it would be nice if we, as a nation, followed their example.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Don't kick a bear
Israel has retaliated with brutal force against an enemy that doubted their will to use that force.
That’s what this all boils down to. Israel is a much more powerful entity than Hezbollah or Hamas. They are capable of much more destruction. So why would these smaller, weaker organizations provoke them?
Americans can answer that better than anyone else. Back on Sept. 11, 2001, we were struck in similar circumstances. The most powerful nation in the world was hit by a smaller, weaker organization. Why?
There are many reasons why, but one of them has to be…because they didn’t think we had to will or the resolve to use the force that we possessed. If Bin Laden knew that attacking on 9/11 would ultimately lead to the toppling of two of the most terror-friendly regimes in the world, would he still have done it?
It’s a fair question. And if Hamas/Hezbollah knew that Lebanon would undergo the attacks that are currently underway, would they have thought twice about kidnapping those soldiers? That also is a fair question.
I think it’s safe to say that the resolve of both America and Israel have been underestimated…so far. I think in many ways the jury is still out on our resolve.
Yet, this article shows one phrase repeated many times in the international response to Israel’s actions… "disproportionate force". What? Israel is being criticized for using the one thing that should discourage her enemies from attacking her?
Disproportionate force is what keeps whatever peace we have on this planet
Disproportionate force is what ended the bloodiest war in human history
Disproportionate force is probably the only thing keeping North Korea from attacking its neighbors, including us
Disproportionate force, or the threat of it, is the very thing that gives the UN whatever power it has
Disproportionate force is what discourages bad people from doing bad things
It may not be fair to use it, but Israel didn’t start this mess, and WE didn’t start our war with Al Qaida and international terrorism. So, don’t blame the powerful for using the force that everyone knew was there.
If I kick a grizzly bear in the groin, then would the bear be at fault for mauling me afterward?
That’s what this all boils down to. Israel is a much more powerful entity than Hezbollah or Hamas. They are capable of much more destruction. So why would these smaller, weaker organizations provoke them?
Americans can answer that better than anyone else. Back on Sept. 11, 2001, we were struck in similar circumstances. The most powerful nation in the world was hit by a smaller, weaker organization. Why?
There are many reasons why, but one of them has to be…because they didn’t think we had to will or the resolve to use the force that we possessed. If Bin Laden knew that attacking on 9/11 would ultimately lead to the toppling of two of the most terror-friendly regimes in the world, would he still have done it?
It’s a fair question. And if Hamas/Hezbollah knew that Lebanon would undergo the attacks that are currently underway, would they have thought twice about kidnapping those soldiers? That also is a fair question.
I think it’s safe to say that the resolve of both America and Israel have been underestimated…so far. I think in many ways the jury is still out on our resolve.
Yet, this article shows one phrase repeated many times in the international response to Israel’s actions… "disproportionate force". What? Israel is being criticized for using the one thing that should discourage her enemies from attacking her?
Disproportionate force is what keeps whatever peace we have on this planet
Disproportionate force is what ended the bloodiest war in human history
Disproportionate force is probably the only thing keeping North Korea from attacking its neighbors, including us
Disproportionate force, or the threat of it, is the very thing that gives the UN whatever power it has
Disproportionate force is what discourages bad people from doing bad things
It may not be fair to use it, but Israel didn’t start this mess, and WE didn’t start our war with Al Qaida and international terrorism. So, don’t blame the powerful for using the force that everyone knew was there.
If I kick a grizzly bear in the groin, then would the bear be at fault for mauling me afterward?
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Tomorrow our paycheck is ours
Today, July 12, is the day that we stop working for the government and start working for ourselves! Yes, that's right, from January 1 to now we've all been working to pay for that mammoth bureaucracy that we call the federal government, but not anymore.
Entitlements for immigrants? Yes, that was pretty much the entire month of February. Their health care and social security are just a few of the many things that we all worked for over the past half-year.
Social Security? We'll probably NEVER get to benefit from this dinosaur concept, but we worked for it, probably several weeks in March or April.
Welfare and Food Stamps? Those people didn't work for it, but we did, no doubt a few weeks in May.
Foreign Aid? Hundreds of millions of dollars were given to countries who hate us, and we probably worked most of June to pay for it.
How about the money that goes to the UN? We furnish a LARGE amount of that organization's budget and probably had to work a few days in January to pay them.
But no more! Starting tomorrow, the money we earn is ours! So get up early, have a good breakfast and an extra cup of coffee because tomorrow we're all working for ourselves! I'm gonna put in a good ten hours and whistle a catchy tune all the way home knowing that my paycheck is ALL MINE.
Here's to all of you taxpayers, and a prayer that a liberal won't take the White House in '08, otherwise we may not be working for ourselves until October.
Entitlements for immigrants? Yes, that was pretty much the entire month of February. Their health care and social security are just a few of the many things that we all worked for over the past half-year.
Social Security? We'll probably NEVER get to benefit from this dinosaur concept, but we worked for it, probably several weeks in March or April.
Welfare and Food Stamps? Those people didn't work for it, but we did, no doubt a few weeks in May.
Foreign Aid? Hundreds of millions of dollars were given to countries who hate us, and we probably worked most of June to pay for it.
How about the money that goes to the UN? We furnish a LARGE amount of that organization's budget and probably had to work a few days in January to pay them.
But no more! Starting tomorrow, the money we earn is ours! So get up early, have a good breakfast and an extra cup of coffee because tomorrow we're all working for ourselves! I'm gonna put in a good ten hours and whistle a catchy tune all the way home knowing that my paycheck is ALL MINE.
Here's to all of you taxpayers, and a prayer that a liberal won't take the White House in '08, otherwise we may not be working for ourselves until October.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Human rights abuse? Not if it's an American
Mutilation of 2 GIs claimed to be in retaliation for alleged rape.
So much for ‘innocent until proven guilty’. I don’t even know where to begin on this story. First, why are we reporting on "alleged" crimes when we know it does nothing but fuel the insurgency…and I’m blaming the military as much as the media on this one. How did these nutcases even know about the alleged rape? Granted, that’s NOT why they killed these two soldiers, but it still makes it clear that they listen to our press and feed off of what’s said. We should take heed.
Second, I searched the big three human rights websites for this story: Amnesty International, The International Red Cross and the ACLU. Guess what, I didn’t find it anywhere. This story is non-existent on their websites. In fact, when these two troops were initially murdered, the story wasn’t even covered THEN…
Why?
This IS a human rights abuse. This IS a violation of the Geneva Convention. This IS a violation of the civil liberties of two Americans. So why isn’t it being covered. It seems that such an action would be a direct challenge to what these organizations stand for. Shouldn’t they at least have SOMETHING…how about, "this happened and it was bad"
That’s all I’m asking for. Just acknowledge that terrorists are bad people. I think it’s evident that the reason these organizations aren’t interested is simply because the victims here are Americans. Had they been Iraqi or Al-Qaida, then you better believe they would be up in arms about it...like dynamite on a suicide bomber. The message hear is 'we're willing to overlook human rights abuses so long as the abuses are against the right people'. That's does a lot for the credibility of these organizations.
What are the odds of one of these organizations one day asking the UN to recognize Al-Qaida as a legitimate state or government? Don't laugh. After all, they're not too much different than the Palestinians.
Just another illustration of how the Left has weakened our beloved country.
So much for ‘innocent until proven guilty’. I don’t even know where to begin on this story. First, why are we reporting on "alleged" crimes when we know it does nothing but fuel the insurgency…and I’m blaming the military as much as the media on this one. How did these nutcases even know about the alleged rape? Granted, that’s NOT why they killed these two soldiers, but it still makes it clear that they listen to our press and feed off of what’s said. We should take heed.
Second, I searched the big three human rights websites for this story: Amnesty International, The International Red Cross and the ACLU. Guess what, I didn’t find it anywhere. This story is non-existent on their websites. In fact, when these two troops were initially murdered, the story wasn’t even covered THEN…
Why?
This IS a human rights abuse. This IS a violation of the Geneva Convention. This IS a violation of the civil liberties of two Americans. So why isn’t it being covered. It seems that such an action would be a direct challenge to what these organizations stand for. Shouldn’t they at least have SOMETHING…how about, "this happened and it was bad"
That’s all I’m asking for. Just acknowledge that terrorists are bad people. I think it’s evident that the reason these organizations aren’t interested is simply because the victims here are Americans. Had they been Iraqi or Al-Qaida, then you better believe they would be up in arms about it...like dynamite on a suicide bomber. The message hear is 'we're willing to overlook human rights abuses so long as the abuses are against the right people'. That's does a lot for the credibility of these organizations.
What are the odds of one of these organizations one day asking the UN to recognize Al-Qaida as a legitimate state or government? Don't laugh. After all, they're not too much different than the Palestinians.
Just another illustration of how the Left has weakened our beloved country.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Doctor Moore to tell us the 'truth'
Michael Moore sets his eyes on the health care industry
I can sum it up without even seeing the movie, so put your 6 bucks away. Here you go:
"Look at all these poor, helpless people who don’t have health insurance. Cry a tear for them. How tragic. This country is so rich, why can’t we just GIVE them health insurance. Blame to HMO, blame the drug companies, blame anyone who has prospered in America. Shame on them for their success when others fail to achieve. We need to give everyone in this country free health care, and we should make the rich (aka, anyone who makes over $50,000 a year) pay for it. It’s the humane thing to do."
Whaaaaa…here’s a better idea. How about if you don’t have health insurance, you just renounce your US citizenship, then you can be seen in any ER in any of the border states for free.
I can sum it up without even seeing the movie, so put your 6 bucks away. Here you go:
"Look at all these poor, helpless people who don’t have health insurance. Cry a tear for them. How tragic. This country is so rich, why can’t we just GIVE them health insurance. Blame to HMO, blame the drug companies, blame anyone who has prospered in America. Shame on them for their success when others fail to achieve. We need to give everyone in this country free health care, and we should make the rich (aka, anyone who makes over $50,000 a year) pay for it. It’s the humane thing to do."
Whaaaaa…here’s a better idea. How about if you don’t have health insurance, you just renounce your US citizenship, then you can be seen in any ER in any of the border states for free.
Just run a tab for them
Dallas hospital to bill Mexico for indigent care.
This is a good idea, even though the bill won’t get paid. I don’t think people realize how taxing the illegal immigration problem is on health care. It’s putting hospitals out of business and it’s shutting down emergency rooms. Keep in mind, this is making access to health care even worse for those law-abiding citizens who pay taxes.
But I want to take this a step further. The US currently sends $30 Million a year to Mexico as foreign aid. Why? Mexico’s leading industry is immigration. That’s no joke. Why are we giving them an additional $30 million on top of that?
I think we should take that money and give it to these hospitals who are on the verge of collapse all along the border. Then, make it optional for emergency rooms to provide health care to anyone who can’t prove US citizenship. Sound harsh? Of course it does, but we’ve been backed into a corner and it’s not fair for the US taxpayer to shoulder this burden. It’s not fair to me, or you, or anyone else who is an honest citizen paying taxes.
This is a good idea, even though the bill won’t get paid. I don’t think people realize how taxing the illegal immigration problem is on health care. It’s putting hospitals out of business and it’s shutting down emergency rooms. Keep in mind, this is making access to health care even worse for those law-abiding citizens who pay taxes.
But I want to take this a step further. The US currently sends $30 Million a year to Mexico as foreign aid. Why? Mexico’s leading industry is immigration. That’s no joke. Why are we giving them an additional $30 million on top of that?
I think we should take that money and give it to these hospitals who are on the verge of collapse all along the border. Then, make it optional for emergency rooms to provide health care to anyone who can’t prove US citizenship. Sound harsh? Of course it does, but we’ve been backed into a corner and it’s not fair for the US taxpayer to shoulder this burden. It’s not fair to me, or you, or anyone else who is an honest citizen paying taxes.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
The UN is after our guns
by Jack McLain Vice - Chairman, Constitution Party of Florida
For many years the United Nations has had their eye upon the guns of the worlds’ citizens. Socialists and Communists know from experience that removing guns from the people is the best way to remove their freedom. Americans know from experience that we needed our arms to win our freedom and that we had better keep them if we are to remain free !
The Associated Press reported in 1994, "So quietly that even the gun lobby hasn’t noticed, the United Nations is beginning to set its sights on global gun control." U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan reported to the General Assembly in 2000, "Some progress is already being made as States [nations] tighten their arms export legislation and collect and destroy surplus weapons." Today gun owners are very alert to efforts being made nationally and internationally to confiscate their guns.
Now at the very season of the 230th anniversary of the celebration of our July 4th signing of our Declaration of Independence, as if intentional, the United Nations is holding an international affair to finalize a treaty to take away the gun rights of citizens worldwide. Under such a treaty, if honored by our "wilting" leadershp, Americans could lose their rights to self-protection under the Second Amendment. Is our Constitution still effective? We had better be certain.
The United Nations has proven itself to be anti-gun. The statue at the U.N. headquarters depicts a revolver with a knotted barrel as significant of the position of the organization. U.N. forces have disarmed civilians in Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia. The U.N. funded Commission on Global Governance in 1995 published the statement, "We strongly endorse community initiatives...to encourage the disarming of civilians..."
More than 100 members of the United Nations and more than 500 gun-ban groups worldwide are involved in this conference to draft a global "Treaty on Small Arms." Six supposedly "free" countries: the United Kingdom, Sweden, The Netherlands, France, Norway, and Belgium are among those aiding and supporting the global gun ban treaty movement. As reported by Wayne LaPierre of National Rifle Association, "This past year marked the 60th anniversary of the end of WWII---a war in which liberation and freedom for dozens of nations was bought with American blood." Over 400,000 Americans died to bring freedom for others. Now many of these nations are working with dictatorships and terrorist states to render our Bill of Rights ineffective and to bring other peoples to servitude.
"Libya and Cuba are seated on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, and even Sudan--the only country that still allows slavery--is in charge of this Commission. Yet they arrogantly claim that your freedoms are to blame for the problems of the world!!!", reported LaPierre.
Surely the United Nations crowd wants to disarm the nations of the world to the end that we will be slaves to the global government being planned. Once free Americans will no longer be able to rely on the protection of our Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.
To allow such happenings in the free land of the United States of America borders on insanity. Wisdom has vanished and vision is blinded. God reminds us that, "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
Gun Owners of America is striving to awaken Americans to the dangers we face. They have sought the influence of America’s U.N. Ambassador John Bolton who has assured them that he would continue speaking out against infringements on the gun rights of Americans. Freedom loving Americans need to be alerted to respond to the call to demand that our freedoms be unchallenged. All gun groups should be especially active as well as encouraging others to join them to preserve this most essential freedom---if America is to survive.
The Constitution Party of Florida stands on our party Platform which emphasizes the guarantee of the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, that "it may not properly be infringed upon or denied." "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them." We further call for the termination of membership in the United Nations and the removal of its operations on United States territory.
While Americanists are sleeping, we are gradually being deceived and deprived of our very basic rights. It is past time to get off our comfortable couches, wake up, and to get into the battle! The days of "Let George do it" are past, my friend
If the UN wants my gun, then they can come and try to take it, along with the millions of other Americans who hold their "right to bear arms" true to heart. I qualified as an expert with a 9mm pistol. I have 16 bullets, so you'd better send at least 17 people to take it!
For many years the United Nations has had their eye upon the guns of the worlds’ citizens. Socialists and Communists know from experience that removing guns from the people is the best way to remove their freedom. Americans know from experience that we needed our arms to win our freedom and that we had better keep them if we are to remain free !
The Associated Press reported in 1994, "So quietly that even the gun lobby hasn’t noticed, the United Nations is beginning to set its sights on global gun control." U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan reported to the General Assembly in 2000, "Some progress is already being made as States [nations] tighten their arms export legislation and collect and destroy surplus weapons." Today gun owners are very alert to efforts being made nationally and internationally to confiscate their guns.
Now at the very season of the 230th anniversary of the celebration of our July 4th signing of our Declaration of Independence, as if intentional, the United Nations is holding an international affair to finalize a treaty to take away the gun rights of citizens worldwide. Under such a treaty, if honored by our "wilting" leadershp, Americans could lose their rights to self-protection under the Second Amendment. Is our Constitution still effective? We had better be certain.
The United Nations has proven itself to be anti-gun. The statue at the U.N. headquarters depicts a revolver with a knotted barrel as significant of the position of the organization. U.N. forces have disarmed civilians in Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia. The U.N. funded Commission on Global Governance in 1995 published the statement, "We strongly endorse community initiatives...to encourage the disarming of civilians..."
More than 100 members of the United Nations and more than 500 gun-ban groups worldwide are involved in this conference to draft a global "Treaty on Small Arms." Six supposedly "free" countries: the United Kingdom, Sweden, The Netherlands, France, Norway, and Belgium are among those aiding and supporting the global gun ban treaty movement. As reported by Wayne LaPierre of National Rifle Association, "This past year marked the 60th anniversary of the end of WWII---a war in which liberation and freedom for dozens of nations was bought with American blood." Over 400,000 Americans died to bring freedom for others. Now many of these nations are working with dictatorships and terrorist states to render our Bill of Rights ineffective and to bring other peoples to servitude.
"Libya and Cuba are seated on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, and even Sudan--the only country that still allows slavery--is in charge of this Commission. Yet they arrogantly claim that your freedoms are to blame for the problems of the world!!!", reported LaPierre.
Surely the United Nations crowd wants to disarm the nations of the world to the end that we will be slaves to the global government being planned. Once free Americans will no longer be able to rely on the protection of our Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.
To allow such happenings in the free land of the United States of America borders on insanity. Wisdom has vanished and vision is blinded. God reminds us that, "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
Gun Owners of America is striving to awaken Americans to the dangers we face. They have sought the influence of America’s U.N. Ambassador John Bolton who has assured them that he would continue speaking out against infringements on the gun rights of Americans. Freedom loving Americans need to be alerted to respond to the call to demand that our freedoms be unchallenged. All gun groups should be especially active as well as encouraging others to join them to preserve this most essential freedom---if America is to survive.
The Constitution Party of Florida stands on our party Platform which emphasizes the guarantee of the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, that "it may not properly be infringed upon or denied." "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them." We further call for the termination of membership in the United Nations and the removal of its operations on United States territory.
While Americanists are sleeping, we are gradually being deceived and deprived of our very basic rights. It is past time to get off our comfortable couches, wake up, and to get into the battle! The days of "Let George do it" are past, my friend
If the UN wants my gun, then they can come and try to take it, along with the millions of other Americans who hold their "right to bear arms" true to heart. I qualified as an expert with a 9mm pistol. I have 16 bullets, so you'd better send at least 17 people to take it!
Friday, July 07, 2006
My Second Book Review
Review by W. J. Rayment / ConservativeBookstore -- John Washburn in "When Evil Prospers" delves into what politics would become in America if a liberal president were in the White House in the midst of a war on terror. Mr. Washburn works hard to be even-handed in his characterizations and in the arguments put forth by various characters to justify their actions within the constraints of the plot line.
As in any political thriller, drama drips from every page. The characters are confronted with a new devastating terrorist attack. The Governor of Texas, where the attack occurs, is a straight-forward, self-reliant political novice who uses common sense to deal with the issues that naturally arise from a violent attack on Texas soil.
Meanwhile a liberal president has come to power, and she deals with the situation in a way that reflects the "turn the other cheek" and "consensus building" attitudes of the left. The conflict in the story becomes not a struggle between the United States and terrorists, but a struggle between political factions within the United States.
Washburn has created some interesting and plausible characters who are confronted with hard choices that challenge their beliefs. It is incredible that he has been able to pull this off without his characters becoming caricatures of the intellectual ideas they are meant to represent.
Seeing the political decisions being made, we can draw parallels with our current struggle with terrorists(and Washburn does not hesitate to mention actual historical and political figures as they come to have a bearing on the story). We are also shown how these political decisions directly affect the individuals on the front lines of the struggle.
What I like about "When Evil Prospers" is that both liberals and conservatives can read this book and feel that their own sides of the political issues depicted are well-represented. The moderate can read the book with a detached perspective and follow the story line to its logical conclusion.
In all, this is a well-written work that could be a prescient view of what our future holds in store.
Wow! Thanks to Mr. Rayment at The Conservative Monitor for the kind words.
Click HERE to learn more about When Evil Prospers or preorder at Amazon.com
As in any political thriller, drama drips from every page. The characters are confronted with a new devastating terrorist attack. The Governor of Texas, where the attack occurs, is a straight-forward, self-reliant political novice who uses common sense to deal with the issues that naturally arise from a violent attack on Texas soil.
Meanwhile a liberal president has come to power, and she deals with the situation in a way that reflects the "turn the other cheek" and "consensus building" attitudes of the left. The conflict in the story becomes not a struggle between the United States and terrorists, but a struggle between political factions within the United States.
Washburn has created some interesting and plausible characters who are confronted with hard choices that challenge their beliefs. It is incredible that he has been able to pull this off without his characters becoming caricatures of the intellectual ideas they are meant to represent.
Seeing the political decisions being made, we can draw parallels with our current struggle with terrorists(and Washburn does not hesitate to mention actual historical and political figures as they come to have a bearing on the story). We are also shown how these political decisions directly affect the individuals on the front lines of the struggle.
What I like about "When Evil Prospers" is that both liberals and conservatives can read this book and feel that their own sides of the political issues depicted are well-represented. The moderate can read the book with a detached perspective and follow the story line to its logical conclusion.
In all, this is a well-written work that could be a prescient view of what our future holds in store.
Wow! Thanks to Mr. Rayment at The Conservative Monitor for the kind words.
Click HERE to learn more about When Evil Prospers or preorder at Amazon.com
My Second Book Review
Review by W. J. Rayment / ConservativeBookstore -- John Washburn in "When Evil Prospers" delves into what politics would become in America if a liberal president were in the White House in the midst of a war on terror. Mr. Washburn works hard to be even-handed in his characterizations and in the arguments put forth by various characters to justify their actions within the constraints of the plot line.
As in any political thriller, drama drips from every page. The characters are confronted with a new devastating terrorist attack. The Governor of Texas, where the attack occurs, is a straight-forward, self-reliant political novice who uses common sense to deal with the issues that naturally arise from a violent attack on Texas soil.
Meanwhile a liberal president has come to power, and she deals with the situation in a way that reflects the "turn the other cheek" and "consensus building" attitudes of the left. The conflict in the story becomes not a struggle between the United States and terrorists, but a struggle between political factions within the United States.
Washburn has created some interesting and plausible characters who are confronted with hard choices that challenge their beliefs. It is incredible that he has been able to pull this off without his characters becoming caricatures of the intellectual ideas they are meant to represent.
Seeing the political decisions being made, we can draw parallels with our current struggle with terrorists(and Washburn does not hesitate to mention actual historical and political figures as they come to have a bearing on the story). We are also shown how these political decisions directly affect the individuals on the front lines of the struggle.
What I like about "When Evil Prospers" is that both liberals and conservatives can read this book and feel that their own sides of the political issues depicted are well-represented. The moderate can read the book with a detached perspective and follow the story line to its logical conclusion.
In all, this is a well-written work that could be a prescient view of what our future holds in store.
Wow! Thanks to Mr. Rayment at The Conservative Monitor for the kind words.
Click HERE to learn more about When Evil Prospers or preorder at Amazon.com
As in any political thriller, drama drips from every page. The characters are confronted with a new devastating terrorist attack. The Governor of Texas, where the attack occurs, is a straight-forward, self-reliant political novice who uses common sense to deal with the issues that naturally arise from a violent attack on Texas soil.
Meanwhile a liberal president has come to power, and she deals with the situation in a way that reflects the "turn the other cheek" and "consensus building" attitudes of the left. The conflict in the story becomes not a struggle between the United States and terrorists, but a struggle between political factions within the United States.
Washburn has created some interesting and plausible characters who are confronted with hard choices that challenge their beliefs. It is incredible that he has been able to pull this off without his characters becoming caricatures of the intellectual ideas they are meant to represent.
Seeing the political decisions being made, we can draw parallels with our current struggle with terrorists(and Washburn does not hesitate to mention actual historical and political figures as they come to have a bearing on the story). We are also shown how these political decisions directly affect the individuals on the front lines of the struggle.
What I like about "When Evil Prospers" is that both liberals and conservatives can read this book and feel that their own sides of the political issues depicted are well-represented. The moderate can read the book with a detached perspective and follow the story line to its logical conclusion.
In all, this is a well-written work that could be a prescient view of what our future holds in store.
Wow! Thanks to Mr. Rayment at The Conservative Monitor for the kind words.
Click HERE to learn more about When Evil Prospers or preorder at Amazon.com
Green Tax and the loony Mexican left
This article is more evidence of what happens when we allow fear to preside over logic. In an effort to curb carbon dioxide emissions from jet liners, Europe will be imposing a green tax on the airline industry. The result…you got it…higher rates. That tax is passed right on to the consumer. The airline industry doesn’t lose any profit, they still make the same amount of money on a ticket, but it could potentially wreak havoc on the European economy and the common citizen.
Why? Because there are some scientists who "think" that carbon dioxide produced from human activity adversely alters the earth’s climate. Proof of this? I’m still waiting.
Hopefully, the American airline industry won’t be facing a similar situation, that is, unless the Left take over in November. Then, get ready to pay sky-high prices.
These crazed environmentalists won’t stop until the global economy is in shambles and we’re all living in the stone age again. On second thought, maybe that’s exactly what they want.
This goes to show that even in Mexico, the loony Left don’t know when to respectfully bow out of an election. Does anyone remember the last time a Liberal candidate lost with dignity?
They remind me of a two year old who has just been told they can’t have another cookie. The only way they know to respond is to throw themselves on the floor in a tantrum. The election is over, you lost, deal with it.
Why? Because there are some scientists who "think" that carbon dioxide produced from human activity adversely alters the earth’s climate. Proof of this? I’m still waiting.
Hopefully, the American airline industry won’t be facing a similar situation, that is, unless the Left take over in November. Then, get ready to pay sky-high prices.
These crazed environmentalists won’t stop until the global economy is in shambles and we’re all living in the stone age again. On second thought, maybe that’s exactly what they want.
This goes to show that even in Mexico, the loony Left don’t know when to respectfully bow out of an election. Does anyone remember the last time a Liberal candidate lost with dignity?
They remind me of a two year old who has just been told they can’t have another cookie. The only way they know to respond is to throw themselves on the floor in a tantrum. The election is over, you lost, deal with it.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Saddam's DIY terrorism
Iraq How-to manual helped direct Afghan militants
I always supported taking out Saddam. I never doubted that he had WMDs. I never doubted that he supported terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. So this document doesn’t surprise.
I am, however, glad to see it surface. It will help debunk the naysayers who love to scream that Saddam was not part of the war on terror. I’d like to know how they respond to this training manual.
Of course, it won’t change their opinion. They will still naysay. They’ll come up with some lame explanation as to how this doesn’t prove anything. In fact, if Saddam himself were to admit to financial and military backing of Bin Laden, they would STILL find ways to explain it as inconsequential. So this won’t really change anything, except maybe it will make the naysayers look that much sillier.
But it will still be fun to hear their remarks.
I always supported taking out Saddam. I never doubted that he had WMDs. I never doubted that he supported terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. So this document doesn’t surprise.
I am, however, glad to see it surface. It will help debunk the naysayers who love to scream that Saddam was not part of the war on terror. I’d like to know how they respond to this training manual.
Of course, it won’t change their opinion. They will still naysay. They’ll come up with some lame explanation as to how this doesn’t prove anything. In fact, if Saddam himself were to admit to financial and military backing of Bin Laden, they would STILL find ways to explain it as inconsequential. So this won’t really change anything, except maybe it will make the naysayers look that much sillier.
But it will still be fun to hear their remarks.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
This must be stopped!
Venezuela to discuss arms trade with North Korea
I don’t know about anyone else, but this has another Cuban Missile Crisis written all over it. America’s enemies are circling and THIS LITTLE ARMS DEAL MUST BE STOPPED. If North Korea has nukes, then you can bet Venezuela will soon have them as well.
This is concerning on multiple levels. Another psycho is seeking WMDs, and this time it’s right in our own back yard. I wonder what the loony Left will have to say once Chavez has a missile that can reach Topeka?
I don’t know about anyone else, but this has another Cuban Missile Crisis written all over it. America’s enemies are circling and THIS LITTLE ARMS DEAL MUST BE STOPPED. If North Korea has nukes, then you can bet Venezuela will soon have them as well.
This is concerning on multiple levels. Another psycho is seeking WMDs, and this time it’s right in our own back yard. I wonder what the loony Left will have to say once Chavez has a missile that can reach Topeka?
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Happy Birthday America!
I posted this not too long ago, but it's fitting for the 4th. It's a poem by one of our country's greatest poets.
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."
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."
Monday, July 03, 2006
Notes on Monday
First, I'm a little disappointed in some of my liberal readers. Seems to me if you were committed to fighting our terrorist enemies you could at least watch the videos of them doing what they do best. You must know your enemy, right? Something tells me you guys might not.
Here is another comment on crazy Al Gore's claim that science has reached a consensus on global warming, this one from an MIT Professr. After thinking about it, in fairness to Al, maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there is global warming on whatever planet he's living on.
NYT shows Rumsfelds house, and points out a security camera. Hey, why not print his address and phone number, with blueprints of the home and include the next time he'll be there, the public deserves to know right? The New York Times has replaced Al Jazeera as the number one media ally to the Islamo-Fascists. Congrats you morons!
N Korea warns of nuclear war. Isn't this becoming a weekly thing. Kim Jong Il is insane, we all know that, this guy isn't far from putting masks on his children and dangling a baby off a balcony. But, as insane as he is, he knows that war with America would be a bad thing. As for Amadinejad, I don't think he gets that. I think he welcomes it, which puts him in a whole new category of insanity. If HE gets nukes, we WILL be involved in a nuclear holocaust within five years.
Palestinian militants issue ultimatum to Israel. I've said before, it's clear that Hamas wants war with Israel. The Israelis have given them every oppurtunity to get out of this crisis, and they've refused. Remember, it was the Palestinian PEOPLE who chose Hamas to represent them. That says a lot. So why is Israel the one responsible for 'turmoil in the Middle East'? To me, they're the answer. We should turn them lose and let them fix this whole problem.
Conservative wins in Mexico. Not that this matters. Mexico is NOT a US ally and I don't think any of us can breathe a sigh of relief about the election. But I am amused at the quote below, from the losing candidate, talking about the vote count (and hinting at a recount).
"If in the count we conduct, it turns out the final result does not favor us, I am going to abide by the result," he said. However, he added, "We are going to defend the will of the people if it favors us."
Sound familiar? IT's good to know we're not the only one with a loony Left.
Here is another comment on crazy Al Gore's claim that science has reached a consensus on global warming, this one from an MIT Professr. After thinking about it, in fairness to Al, maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there is global warming on whatever planet he's living on.
NYT shows Rumsfelds house, and points out a security camera. Hey, why not print his address and phone number, with blueprints of the home and include the next time he'll be there, the public deserves to know right? The New York Times has replaced Al Jazeera as the number one media ally to the Islamo-Fascists. Congrats you morons!
N Korea warns of nuclear war. Isn't this becoming a weekly thing. Kim Jong Il is insane, we all know that, this guy isn't far from putting masks on his children and dangling a baby off a balcony. But, as insane as he is, he knows that war with America would be a bad thing. As for Amadinejad, I don't think he gets that. I think he welcomes it, which puts him in a whole new category of insanity. If HE gets nukes, we WILL be involved in a nuclear holocaust within five years.
Palestinian militants issue ultimatum to Israel. I've said before, it's clear that Hamas wants war with Israel. The Israelis have given them every oppurtunity to get out of this crisis, and they've refused. Remember, it was the Palestinian PEOPLE who chose Hamas to represent them. That says a lot. So why is Israel the one responsible for 'turmoil in the Middle East'? To me, they're the answer. We should turn them lose and let them fix this whole problem.
Conservative wins in Mexico. Not that this matters. Mexico is NOT a US ally and I don't think any of us can breathe a sigh of relief about the election. But I am amused at the quote below, from the losing candidate, talking about the vote count (and hinting at a recount).
"If in the count we conduct, it turns out the final result does not favor us, I am going to abide by the result," he said. However, he added, "We are going to defend the will of the people if it favors us."
Sound familiar? IT's good to know we're not the only one with a loony Left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)