I left the last post up for a week because I knew it would generate conversation, and I think conversation is important after events like this. I knew I would be criticized. I knew there would be a lot of tsk-tsking. But that doesn't change the facts of the situation.
I appreciate those who proposed their own ideas. I think bringing campuses under city police jurisdiction is a good idea. And I also believe that students with mental illnesses, especially those deemed dangerous, have no business living in a college dorm. Thanks for the ideas and the input.
And as for the "bad things happen" theory...well, I'm sorry but I don't buy it. I refuse to shake my head and say 'that's a shame' and 'oh well, life sucks' whenever something of this magnitude happens. That's the kind of attitude I take when I get a flat tire. When a student once declared mentally ill buys a gun legally and blows away over thirty of his classmates, then that signals to me the presence of a serious problem that should be fixed. I'm not going to just shrug my shoulders and say there's nothing I can do.
We are now nearly 6 years since 9-11. We are engaged in a global war on terror. Many of you may not believe that or share that sentiment, but you can bet our enemies do. They've been at war with us much longer than we've been at war with them. And so, 6 years after 9-11, a terrorist walks into an American college classroom and commits mass murder, and no one (save for one) acts to stop him. Yes, that bothers me.
If Katrina didn't teach us, then Virginia Tech hopefully will. The government, whether it's the police, the Dept of Defense, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA or anyone else with a badge and a title, they can't protect all of us all the time. There is a chance that at some point in our lives we will come face to face with evil, and there will be no allies around to help, no government aid, no FEMA. And evil will never just go away. At some point we're gonna have to fight back. At some point we must say enough is enough. That's what I believe and, yes, that's what my children will be taught. If enough people felt the same, then those who do evil would have few places to hide and, although they may prosper for a time, that prosperity would always be short-lived.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
"My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee," Joe Librescu said in a telephone interview from his home outside of Tel Aviv. "Students started opening windows and jumping out."
So, I'm not some gun nut, but I do support the right to bear arms, especially by law-abiding citizens who also happen to be sane. I understand the fundamental theory that no guns equal no shootings. However, I don't buy it. I think gun control is something we can all come to an agreement on. No guns for criminals, no guns for the mentally ill. In exchange, no restrictions on the rest of us who simply want to protect our home and our family. I think that's reasonable. Why is it so difficult?
Personally, if I'm a teacher in Anywhere, USA, then I'm getting a carrying permit and I'm packing heat to class every day. I'd tote my gun to class in my briefcase, right next to that stack of spelling papers that I need to grade. Deterrent....D-E-T-E-R-R-E-N-T....deterrent. I think that maybe if every teacher had the option of arming themselves in class, and every student knew that their teachers may or may not be packing heat, then there'd likely be a lot fewer of these senseless shootings. After all, these maniacs committ suicide, which means they are cowards by nature, so they certainly aren't going to risk going up against someone of equal strength.
Remember Joel Myrick? No? He was the Pearl, Mississippi High School principle who arrived one morning to find Luke Woodham, a student, shooting his schoolmates one 1997 morning. This was the first of many in a rash of school shootings that have spread across the nation. Just as Woodham was packing up his stuff to head to Pearl Junior High and continue his rampage on younger students, he found himself face to face with Myrick's .45 pistol. Woodham surrendered and sits in jail today.
How many lives did Joel Myrick and his evil gun save that day? What if there was a Joel Myrick at Columbine?
But that's not the big issue of the Virginia shooting. The big issue centers around a key question that no one seems to be asking...Why didn't someone try to stop this guy?
This nut bag attacked those people with two handguns. We're not exactly talking about a fully automatic weapon capable of cutting down a small forest. These are pistols. They fire one round with each trigger pull. They hold 15 rounds each. This idiot discharged over 100 rounds into dozens of people, which means that he had to stop and reload multiple times, all in the presence of young, capable, college-aged students. This lunatic was Korean, about half the size of the average college-aged American male. You know where I'm going with this.
Now, I'm not here to bash victims. It's not my style. I see this shooting, in many ways, as a metaphor for much of American society. Let me continue.
I find it stunning that while this maniac is carrying on with his random killings, the need to take action only came to one man. This brave soul was named Liviu Librescu. He was a 76 year old Engineering professor who, by the way, also survived the holocaust and escaped communist oppression in Romania. Yes, this man had seen evil before. And when evil came knocking on his classroom door, he moved toward it...as many of his generation had done before. He barricaded his classroom door to protect his students, and was shot dead in the process.
While he was making the ultimate sacrifice, his students - 1/4th his age with 4 times his strength - dove under their desks and out the windows. Again, the metaphor speaks volumes.
It appears to me as though the legacy of the greatest generation - that of freeing the world from oppression - was passed to a perpetually selfish baby boomer generation and on to a generation that knows nothing of self-sacrifice. Again, I'm not bashing the victims. I'm bashing the generation they belong to. If this is who will inherit our country, then America is doomed.
Yes, I know that there are thousands of this generation dying every day in Iraq. But these aren't typical. In fact, the soldiers of our youth are the ones who are looked down upon by their peers. At one time, a soldier was respected and honored. Now, they are greeted with a "better-you-than-me" sneer, and treated as though they have somehow been duped by the government to serve, while it's the college elites who are too wise to fall for such ploys. Silly, foolish soldiers.
It's obvious to me that if Flight 93 had been full of coed spring breakers heading to Daytona Beach, we'd be rebuilding the US Capitol right now. Can anyone honestly dispute that?
Don't believe me? Then answer this: If a psychopathic self-pitying Korean maniac knocks on your child's door with a 9mm Glock, who would you want standing beside your child -- the 76 year old holocaust survivor or the 20 year old metrosexual college jock with his favorite Starbucks beverage who can't find Normandy beach on a map but can name every cast member from Real World 8? It's a no-brainer for me, and was even before this massacre in Virginia.
So one day in the future America will be confronted by evil as we have many times before. It will be today's college students facing that evil. What will happen? My fear is that they will dive under their desks and hope for evil to pass them by. One thing is brutally clear. If tomorrow's generation doesn't pull their pants above their ass-crack and flip their upside-down golf visors around soon - or, basically, act like men - then this country is doomed to fall. There are many more homicidal maniacs out there, and some will come with more than a couple of pistols.
So, I'm not some gun nut, but I do support the right to bear arms, especially by law-abiding citizens who also happen to be sane. I understand the fundamental theory that no guns equal no shootings. However, I don't buy it. I think gun control is something we can all come to an agreement on. No guns for criminals, no guns for the mentally ill. In exchange, no restrictions on the rest of us who simply want to protect our home and our family. I think that's reasonable. Why is it so difficult?
Personally, if I'm a teacher in Anywhere, USA, then I'm getting a carrying permit and I'm packing heat to class every day. I'd tote my gun to class in my briefcase, right next to that stack of spelling papers that I need to grade. Deterrent....D-E-T-E-R-R-E-N-T....deterrent. I think that maybe if every teacher had the option of arming themselves in class, and every student knew that their teachers may or may not be packing heat, then there'd likely be a lot fewer of these senseless shootings. After all, these maniacs committ suicide, which means they are cowards by nature, so they certainly aren't going to risk going up against someone of equal strength.
Remember Joel Myrick? No? He was the Pearl, Mississippi High School principle who arrived one morning to find Luke Woodham, a student, shooting his schoolmates one 1997 morning. This was the first of many in a rash of school shootings that have spread across the nation. Just as Woodham was packing up his stuff to head to Pearl Junior High and continue his rampage on younger students, he found himself face to face with Myrick's .45 pistol. Woodham surrendered and sits in jail today.
How many lives did Joel Myrick and his evil gun save that day? What if there was a Joel Myrick at Columbine?
But that's not the big issue of the Virginia shooting. The big issue centers around a key question that no one seems to be asking...Why didn't someone try to stop this guy?
This nut bag attacked those people with two handguns. We're not exactly talking about a fully automatic weapon capable of cutting down a small forest. These are pistols. They fire one round with each trigger pull. They hold 15 rounds each. This idiot discharged over 100 rounds into dozens of people, which means that he had to stop and reload multiple times, all in the presence of young, capable, college-aged students. This lunatic was Korean, about half the size of the average college-aged American male. You know where I'm going with this.
Now, I'm not here to bash victims. It's not my style. I see this shooting, in many ways, as a metaphor for much of American society. Let me continue.
I find it stunning that while this maniac is carrying on with his random killings, the need to take action only came to one man. This brave soul was named Liviu Librescu. He was a 76 year old Engineering professor who, by the way, also survived the holocaust and escaped communist oppression in Romania. Yes, this man had seen evil before. And when evil came knocking on his classroom door, he moved toward it...as many of his generation had done before. He barricaded his classroom door to protect his students, and was shot dead in the process.
While he was making the ultimate sacrifice, his students - 1/4th his age with 4 times his strength - dove under their desks and out the windows. Again, the metaphor speaks volumes.
It appears to me as though the legacy of the greatest generation - that of freeing the world from oppression - was passed to a perpetually selfish baby boomer generation and on to a generation that knows nothing of self-sacrifice. Again, I'm not bashing the victims. I'm bashing the generation they belong to. If this is who will inherit our country, then America is doomed.
Yes, I know that there are thousands of this generation dying every day in Iraq. But these aren't typical. In fact, the soldiers of our youth are the ones who are looked down upon by their peers. At one time, a soldier was respected and honored. Now, they are greeted with a "better-you-than-me" sneer, and treated as though they have somehow been duped by the government to serve, while it's the college elites who are too wise to fall for such ploys. Silly, foolish soldiers.
It's obvious to me that if Flight 93 had been full of coed spring breakers heading to Daytona Beach, we'd be rebuilding the US Capitol right now. Can anyone honestly dispute that?
Don't believe me? Then answer this: If a psychopathic self-pitying Korean maniac knocks on your child's door with a 9mm Glock, who would you want standing beside your child -- the 76 year old holocaust survivor or the 20 year old metrosexual college jock with his favorite Starbucks beverage who can't find Normandy beach on a map but can name every cast member from Real World 8? It's a no-brainer for me, and was even before this massacre in Virginia.
So one day in the future America will be confronted by evil as we have many times before. It will be today's college students facing that evil. What will happen? My fear is that they will dive under their desks and hope for evil to pass them by. One thing is brutally clear. If tomorrow's generation doesn't pull their pants above their ass-crack and flip their upside-down golf visors around soon - or, basically, act like men - then this country is doomed to fall. There are many more homicidal maniacs out there, and some will come with more than a couple of pistols.
It's been over a week and thus time for me to comment on the Virginia shooting.
1) I am a BIG gun advocate. I love guns. I own many of them. I think they do more good than harm. I’m all for protecting the second amendment. But, even I have to wonder, how on earth someone once declared mentally ill walks into a gun shop and legally purchases a gun within half an hour? We have all these gun control laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and yet no one thought to include the mentally ill on that list. Seems to me like the gun control lobby is barking up the wrong tree. You’ll never keep guns away from criminals, they simply know too many people who know too many ways around the law. But the mentally ill? This is where gun control laws can do some good. The Brady Bill itself came about as the result of a mentally ill lunatic with a gun, not a convicted criminal. Shouldn’t we include mental health checks as part of our background check before selling someone a firearm? Shouldn’t we include “not crazy” as a prerequisite to purchase a gun in this country? That’s a check box that we all should have to fill….Have you ever committed a crime – check; Have you ever served time in prison – check; Have you ever been declared mentally ill and an imminent threat to self or others – check. Stop me if I appear out of line in demanding that mentally ill people should not be allowed to purchase firearms. This is so fundamentally sound that the fact that we aren’t doing it represents a breech in the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens…and it should change immediately.
2) At what point were we going to recognize that this kid might be dangerous? In 8th grade he put together a “death list” of people he wanted to kill. This included classmates and teachers. He was suspended for a month. In college, one of his creative writing teachers was so disturbed by his work that she threatened to resign if action was not taken to intervene. One of these writings was a play about a distressed father and son where one of them eventually goes on a shooting rampage. He had multiple complaints filed against him for stalking girls on campus. He was declared mentally ill and an “imminent threat to self and others” by a court order, and was ordered into mental health treatment. How many flares does this guy have to send up before we realize that he might be dangerous? And what on earth was this kid doing in a college dorm? I understand the right to privacy when it comes to mental health, but at some point that right to privacy begins to infringe on the rights of others…like the right to NOT be murdered by a raging Korean lunatic while taking notes in German language class. Eventually, we have to recognize the potential for danger in people like this and maybe do something to prevent them from a shooting rampage. Just a thought.
3) I’m all for the freedom of the press, but I think airing this sicko’s whiny, self-gratifying video is despicable. This is not news. Just report that the maniac sent a video to NBC news that was turned over to the FBI and then promptly destroyed. Don’t give anymore airtime to this kid. That’s exactly what he wants. In doing this, you’ve just made him the hero of self-pitying homicidal maniacs all over the country. He idolized Kliebold and Harris. Now, there will one day be a kid who does something similar with admiration for Crazy Cho. Not that I’m surprised. NBC is slowly becoming the Globe of network news. I wouldn’t expect them to do anything that requires character. They don’t bat an eye at wallowing in the mud when it comes to reporting the news, and this is no different. I think it’s horrible that these families are grieving their loss and at the same time have to endure this idiot’s mindless rants about how much of a loser he is and how much his life sucked....boo-friggin-hoo. Yes, another network would have likely aired the video, so what. At least take the high road and say that NBC news refuses to gratify maniacal whiny murderers. How much better would NBC look after that? Give it a rest. Have a little respect for the families. Don’t send that message to future would-be whiny ass killers. Don’t air the video.
4) At some point we as a society have to acknowledge that our culture has become one that does not respect human life. I challenge anyone to argue that point. Whether on the radio, at the movies, in video games or on primetime television, we have become a culture that no longer recognizes the humanity in human beings. Go to a movie theater and you can buy a ticket to any number of movies that show murder, rape, incest, dismemberment and extreme violence that, in many ways, glorifies those committing the violence. Take a random pick from the Hip-Hop shelf at the local record store and you’ll hear about shooting cops, beating women ( or Ho's as they are affectionately called), punching pregnant women in the stomach and killing rival gang members. You can buy a video game that allows you to go on an urban killing spree while earning points and bonuses in the process. Get pregnant, and an abortion is just a phone call away. And don’t even get me started on fetal stem cell research. We are a culture that views human life much differently than we did 50 years ago, and the problem goes way beyond the availability of guns. We’ve had guns for centuries. We’ve only had school shootings for a few decades. We have lost our respect for each other, and we’ve lost our respect for the precious gift that is human life. Now, we see this reflected in our children and we are all paying dearly for it. Yet, we seem to think that bullying is a problem...what!? There isn't a person alive who wasn't bullied at some point. The difference is that prior generations grew up knowing that taking a gun to school and murdering your classmates was actually wrong. Somewhere along the line we forgot to cover that one with this generation. Now, any 6 year old can simulate murder on their X-Box to get to level 4 of Grand Theft Auto. But that's OK. It's freedom of the something that allows this so it must be good for us, right? Oh, but it's a gun problem, or a bullying problem, or a failure to properly express ourselves problem, or a lack of counseling problem? Our heads are buried so deep in the sand (or some other dark orifice) that by the time we grasp the concept that a culture that doesn't respect life is a culture that embraces death, it will be too late.
Tomorrow's post will address another aspect of this tragedy. It's something that I noticed the day after the shootings and it has me a little disgusted, and a lot disturbed. I promise it will be controversial and I'm sure to catch A LOT of flak over it.
1) I am a BIG gun advocate. I love guns. I own many of them. I think they do more good than harm. I’m all for protecting the second amendment. But, even I have to wonder, how on earth someone once declared mentally ill walks into a gun shop and legally purchases a gun within half an hour? We have all these gun control laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and yet no one thought to include the mentally ill on that list. Seems to me like the gun control lobby is barking up the wrong tree. You’ll never keep guns away from criminals, they simply know too many people who know too many ways around the law. But the mentally ill? This is where gun control laws can do some good. The Brady Bill itself came about as the result of a mentally ill lunatic with a gun, not a convicted criminal. Shouldn’t we include mental health checks as part of our background check before selling someone a firearm? Shouldn’t we include “not crazy” as a prerequisite to purchase a gun in this country? That’s a check box that we all should have to fill….Have you ever committed a crime – check; Have you ever served time in prison – check; Have you ever been declared mentally ill and an imminent threat to self or others – check. Stop me if I appear out of line in demanding that mentally ill people should not be allowed to purchase firearms. This is so fundamentally sound that the fact that we aren’t doing it represents a breech in the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens…and it should change immediately.
2) At what point were we going to recognize that this kid might be dangerous? In 8th grade he put together a “death list” of people he wanted to kill. This included classmates and teachers. He was suspended for a month. In college, one of his creative writing teachers was so disturbed by his work that she threatened to resign if action was not taken to intervene. One of these writings was a play about a distressed father and son where one of them eventually goes on a shooting rampage. He had multiple complaints filed against him for stalking girls on campus. He was declared mentally ill and an “imminent threat to self and others” by a court order, and was ordered into mental health treatment. How many flares does this guy have to send up before we realize that he might be dangerous? And what on earth was this kid doing in a college dorm? I understand the right to privacy when it comes to mental health, but at some point that right to privacy begins to infringe on the rights of others…like the right to NOT be murdered by a raging Korean lunatic while taking notes in German language class. Eventually, we have to recognize the potential for danger in people like this and maybe do something to prevent them from a shooting rampage. Just a thought.
3) I’m all for the freedom of the press, but I think airing this sicko’s whiny, self-gratifying video is despicable. This is not news. Just report that the maniac sent a video to NBC news that was turned over to the FBI and then promptly destroyed. Don’t give anymore airtime to this kid. That’s exactly what he wants. In doing this, you’ve just made him the hero of self-pitying homicidal maniacs all over the country. He idolized Kliebold and Harris. Now, there will one day be a kid who does something similar with admiration for Crazy Cho. Not that I’m surprised. NBC is slowly becoming the Globe of network news. I wouldn’t expect them to do anything that requires character. They don’t bat an eye at wallowing in the mud when it comes to reporting the news, and this is no different. I think it’s horrible that these families are grieving their loss and at the same time have to endure this idiot’s mindless rants about how much of a loser he is and how much his life sucked....boo-friggin-hoo. Yes, another network would have likely aired the video, so what. At least take the high road and say that NBC news refuses to gratify maniacal whiny murderers. How much better would NBC look after that? Give it a rest. Have a little respect for the families. Don’t send that message to future would-be whiny ass killers. Don’t air the video.
4) At some point we as a society have to acknowledge that our culture has become one that does not respect human life. I challenge anyone to argue that point. Whether on the radio, at the movies, in video games or on primetime television, we have become a culture that no longer recognizes the humanity in human beings. Go to a movie theater and you can buy a ticket to any number of movies that show murder, rape, incest, dismemberment and extreme violence that, in many ways, glorifies those committing the violence. Take a random pick from the Hip-Hop shelf at the local record store and you’ll hear about shooting cops, beating women ( or Ho's as they are affectionately called), punching pregnant women in the stomach and killing rival gang members. You can buy a video game that allows you to go on an urban killing spree while earning points and bonuses in the process. Get pregnant, and an abortion is just a phone call away. And don’t even get me started on fetal stem cell research. We are a culture that views human life much differently than we did 50 years ago, and the problem goes way beyond the availability of guns. We’ve had guns for centuries. We’ve only had school shootings for a few decades. We have lost our respect for each other, and we’ve lost our respect for the precious gift that is human life. Now, we see this reflected in our children and we are all paying dearly for it. Yet, we seem to think that bullying is a problem...what!? There isn't a person alive who wasn't bullied at some point. The difference is that prior generations grew up knowing that taking a gun to school and murdering your classmates was actually wrong. Somewhere along the line we forgot to cover that one with this generation. Now, any 6 year old can simulate murder on their X-Box to get to level 4 of Grand Theft Auto. But that's OK. It's freedom of the something that allows this so it must be good for us, right? Oh, but it's a gun problem, or a bullying problem, or a failure to properly express ourselves problem, or a lack of counseling problem? Our heads are buried so deep in the sand (or some other dark orifice) that by the time we grasp the concept that a culture that doesn't respect life is a culture that embraces death, it will be too late.
Tomorrow's post will address another aspect of this tragedy. It's something that I noticed the day after the shootings and it has me a little disgusted, and a lot disturbed. I promise it will be controversial and I'm sure to catch A LOT of flak over it.
Monday, April 23, 2007
"only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required"
After reading this article, you may have to wait a few minutes to allow your own laughter to die down before reading my commentary. Sheryl Crow proposes a limit on the amount of toilet paper that we use at each “sitting”. Her idea is to only use one square. That’s right, sacrifice your own personal hygiene for the benefit of a tree. Yes, I know, I know. Unfortunately, I’ve already used up my daily allotment wiping the tears of laughter from my face. Guess I’ll have to either hold it till tomorrow or figure out another plan.
Sheryl Crow seems to have joined Sean Penn and Al Gore in the stratosphere of sanity. I wonder what she proposes we do about the foul stench that will inevitably rise from our backsides while we’re practicing this sound environmental policy? Talk about air pollution! I for one would have to find a new set of friends, a new wife and probably a new dog. They love me and all, but not enough to deal with that kind of carbon footprint. But I digress.
Even though I highly doubt that she adheres to her own recommendation, I have to give her some credit for not being a total hypocrite. She is touring in a biofuel-powered bus. However, she could go a step further. Judging by media reports, she could use the ethanol that’s stocked in her dressing room every night to fuel that bus for another decade.
I’m all for protecting the environment, but not at the expense of my peers’ olfactory sense. Sorry, Sheryl, but one square just won’t hack it. But I’m a reasonable guy and I’m willing to compromise. How about today I use the CD insert from your latest album? Then, I’ll start with Bill Clinton’s autobiography. And I thought that book would never contribute anything to society! Gives new meaning to the term ‘bathroom reading’. Guess I won’t have to hold it after all!
After reading this article, you may have to wait a few minutes to allow your own laughter to die down before reading my commentary. Sheryl Crow proposes a limit on the amount of toilet paper that we use at each “sitting”. Her idea is to only use one square. That’s right, sacrifice your own personal hygiene for the benefit of a tree. Yes, I know, I know. Unfortunately, I’ve already used up my daily allotment wiping the tears of laughter from my face. Guess I’ll have to either hold it till tomorrow or figure out another plan.
Sheryl Crow seems to have joined Sean Penn and Al Gore in the stratosphere of sanity. I wonder what she proposes we do about the foul stench that will inevitably rise from our backsides while we’re practicing this sound environmental policy? Talk about air pollution! I for one would have to find a new set of friends, a new wife and probably a new dog. They love me and all, but not enough to deal with that kind of carbon footprint. But I digress.
Even though I highly doubt that she adheres to her own recommendation, I have to give her some credit for not being a total hypocrite. She is touring in a biofuel-powered bus. However, she could go a step further. Judging by media reports, she could use the ethanol that’s stocked in her dressing room every night to fuel that bus for another decade.
I’m all for protecting the environment, but not at the expense of my peers’ olfactory sense. Sorry, Sheryl, but one square just won’t hack it. But I’m a reasonable guy and I’m willing to compromise. How about today I use the CD insert from your latest album? Then, I’ll start with Bill Clinton’s autobiography. And I thought that book would never contribute anything to society! Gives new meaning to the term ‘bathroom reading’. Guess I won’t have to hold it after all!
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Senator Harry Reid has declared that the war is lost and that the troop surge has failed. The basis of his claim: The violent car bombings that occurred the past week. This opinion was not given to him by the Secretary of Defense, or the Joint Chiefs, or the CENTCOM commander, or the military leaders on the ground in Iraq. No, this is Harry’s own personal opinion based on what he’s seen on the news. Harry Reid says the war is lost.
Now, there are a lot of people out there who feel the same. And, yes, there are many people in the world who give uninformed opinions about many things. But Harry Reid is a prominent US Senator and with that comes a certain responsibility. One of those responsibilities is not undermining the US military in its efforts abroad, which is exactly what Reid’s uninformed opinion has done. Again, Reid is not basing this on any statement made by the Dept of Defense. No, this is how he sees it. But how he sees it is also how our enemies see it and when a prominent US Senator agrees with our enemies then it certainly goes a long way in boosting their morale and damaging the morale of our troops. But I’m sure Harry doesn’t care about that. The Democrats must win back the White House no matter what.
I’ve lost all respect for Reid, and for most Democrats. I’ve ranted on this site before about how low they’re willing to stoop for political gain. This is no different. Harry Reid is a bad man who is making statements that do nothing but endanger our soldiers overseas and empower the enemy that they fight. But, as I said, he doesn’t care. The Dems think they’ve been given a mandate, but I disagree. The US people may want the war to end, and I am one of them, but I don’t think the US people want their elected leaders making these kinds of statements – statements that enable and embolden those who fight our troops every day. Harry Reid is a fool and he should be ashamed of himself. And before he makes grand statements about conditions on the ground, maybe he should consult with the military leaders who are living in those conditions. Just a suggestion.
Again, if the Dems feel they truly have a mandate then why not end the war now? Cut the funding and end it. No, they won't do that because it takes balls. Instead, they continue to fund the war while doing whatever they can to ensure our defeat. After all, that's the key to their White House victory in '08. American success in Iraq would be disastrous for the Dems. And cutting the funding would be equally disastrous. So they will fund the war, but continue with these antics to do what they can in helping defeat our troops. This is your Democrat Party. Feel proud?
Now, there are a lot of people out there who feel the same. And, yes, there are many people in the world who give uninformed opinions about many things. But Harry Reid is a prominent US Senator and with that comes a certain responsibility. One of those responsibilities is not undermining the US military in its efforts abroad, which is exactly what Reid’s uninformed opinion has done. Again, Reid is not basing this on any statement made by the Dept of Defense. No, this is how he sees it. But how he sees it is also how our enemies see it and when a prominent US Senator agrees with our enemies then it certainly goes a long way in boosting their morale and damaging the morale of our troops. But I’m sure Harry doesn’t care about that. The Democrats must win back the White House no matter what.
I’ve lost all respect for Reid, and for most Democrats. I’ve ranted on this site before about how low they’re willing to stoop for political gain. This is no different. Harry Reid is a bad man who is making statements that do nothing but endanger our soldiers overseas and empower the enemy that they fight. But, as I said, he doesn’t care. The Dems think they’ve been given a mandate, but I disagree. The US people may want the war to end, and I am one of them, but I don’t think the US people want their elected leaders making these kinds of statements – statements that enable and embolden those who fight our troops every day. Harry Reid is a fool and he should be ashamed of himself. And before he makes grand statements about conditions on the ground, maybe he should consult with the military leaders who are living in those conditions. Just a suggestion.
Again, if the Dems feel they truly have a mandate then why not end the war now? Cut the funding and end it. No, they won't do that because it takes balls. Instead, they continue to fund the war while doing whatever they can to ensure our defeat. After all, that's the key to their White House victory in '08. American success in Iraq would be disastrous for the Dems. And cutting the funding would be equally disastrous. So they will fund the war, but continue with these antics to do what they can in helping defeat our troops. This is your Democrat Party. Feel proud?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Another thanks to Vlado for this feed. Keep your antennas up out there. You guys do a good job of keeping me busy...
Ever wonder how the Hollywood elites justify their lavish carbon-laden lifestyles while condemning us underlings for our environmentally-unfriendly ways? Well, here you go.
This is a brilliant article from TIME magazine written by Charles Krauthammer. Here is a sample...
Written without a hint of irony--if only your neighborhood dry cleaner sent his employees home by hybrid limousine--this front-page dispatch captured perfectly the eco-pretensions of the rich and the stupefying gullibility with which they are received.
Remember the Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore global-warming pitch at the Academy Awards? Before they spoke, the screen at the back of the stage flashed not-so-subliminal messages about how to save the planet. My personal favorite was "Ride mass transit." This to a conclave of Hollywood plutocrats who have not seen the inside of a subway since the moon landing and for whom mass transit means a stretch limo seating no fewer than 10.
Leo and Al then portentously announced that for the first time ever, the Academy Awards ceremony had gone green. What did that mean? Solar panels in the designer gowns? It turns out that the Academy neutralized the evening's "carbon footprint" by buying carbon credits....
What's happening appears to be the building of a new social caste system where the rich continue their ungreen ways while buying their right to continue these ways from the not-so-rich. Does this sound like a good idea to anyone? Seems like if I wanted to profit from this then I'd build the foulest most polluting factory possible then take bids from Hollywood to close it down. Can anyone say scam? How about hypocrisy?
Once again, if Al Gore wants to convince me that global warming is real, then this is not the way to do it. As long as he continues to pollute, then so will I. After all, if global warming's most vocal messenger can get away with this stuff then why should I bother listening?
Ever wonder how the Hollywood elites justify their lavish carbon-laden lifestyles while condemning us underlings for our environmentally-unfriendly ways? Well, here you go.
This is a brilliant article from TIME magazine written by Charles Krauthammer. Here is a sample...
Written without a hint of irony--if only your neighborhood dry cleaner sent his employees home by hybrid limousine--this front-page dispatch captured perfectly the eco-pretensions of the rich and the stupefying gullibility with which they are received.
Remember the Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore global-warming pitch at the Academy Awards? Before they spoke, the screen at the back of the stage flashed not-so-subliminal messages about how to save the planet. My personal favorite was "Ride mass transit." This to a conclave of Hollywood plutocrats who have not seen the inside of a subway since the moon landing and for whom mass transit means a stretch limo seating no fewer than 10.
Leo and Al then portentously announced that for the first time ever, the Academy Awards ceremony had gone green. What did that mean? Solar panels in the designer gowns? It turns out that the Academy neutralized the evening's "carbon footprint" by buying carbon credits....
What's happening appears to be the building of a new social caste system where the rich continue their ungreen ways while buying their right to continue these ways from the not-so-rich. Does this sound like a good idea to anyone? Seems like if I wanted to profit from this then I'd build the foulest most polluting factory possible then take bids from Hollywood to close it down. Can anyone say scam? How about hypocrisy?
Once again, if Al Gore wants to convince me that global warming is real, then this is not the way to do it. As long as he continues to pollute, then so will I. After all, if global warming's most vocal messenger can get away with this stuff then why should I bother listening?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
More global warming debate (thanks to Vlado for the feed).....
A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.
"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech....full article
Natural changes in ocean currents are to blame for increased Atlantic hurricane activity in recent years, not man-made global warming as many scientists believe, hurricane forecaster William Gray said on Friday.
"I think the whole human-induced greenhouse gas thing is a red herring," Gray said in a speech at the National Hurricane Conference.
Gray, whose annual forecasts for the hurricane season are closely watched, said the Earth has warmed the past 30 years, but that it was due to flucuations in ocean currents. He predicted a cooling off period would begin in five to 10 years as the currents change again....full article
So, according to Dr Gray, we will see a cooling trend in the next 5-10 years. Surely, that will answer the global warming question. Hopefully, we haven't damaged the world economy beyond repair before then.
A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.
"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech....full article
Natural changes in ocean currents are to blame for increased Atlantic hurricane activity in recent years, not man-made global warming as many scientists believe, hurricane forecaster William Gray said on Friday.
"I think the whole human-induced greenhouse gas thing is a red herring," Gray said in a speech at the National Hurricane Conference.
Gray, whose annual forecasts for the hurricane season are closely watched, said the Earth has warmed the past 30 years, but that it was due to flucuations in ocean currents. He predicted a cooling off period would begin in five to 10 years as the currents change again....full article
So, according to Dr Gray, we will see a cooling trend in the next 5-10 years. Surely, that will answer the global warming question. Hopefully, we haven't damaged the world economy beyond repair before then.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Iraqi oil contracts going to non-American companies.
It’s interesting how many out there still believe that George W Bush invaded Iraq to “get their oil”. The truth is that most of the Iraqi oil contracts are going to foreign companies. Yet, something tells me this won’t do much to silence the kooky Rosie O’Donnell conspiracy theorists who believe that America’s actions are always driven by bad intentions.
On the other side, I’m sure there will be some who take offense at this, claiming that perhaps the Iraqis owe us something for their freedom. I disagree. After all, the French haven’t really done much to pay that debt, so why should the Iraqis. The fact is we, as Americans, were founded on the very notion that “all men are created equal, endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights…”. That very sentence has been the driving force of foreign policy for centuries. We believe that God (whomever that may be for you) has mandated the freedom of every human being, including the Iraqis, and with that freedom they can sell their oil to whomever they want. We don’t have a right to object. It’s that simple
Ford pays CEO $28 million for 4 months of work
I like to post stories like this because the American auto makers have a bad habit of poor mouthing to Congress about how much money they're losing, and justifying job cuts across the nation. The next time you hear a story like that, remember this post. If they can afford to pay a CEO $7 million a month then they can’t be hurting too bad.
And, don’t get me wrong, Ford has a right to pay their executives whatever they want. Just like I have a right to NEVER buy a Ford as long as things like this continue to go on. They say that the company is losing money, and then follow that with job cuts across middle America. Yet, this bonehead takes home $7 million a month. Gimme a break. Looks like I’ll be buying foreign or GMC.
It’s interesting how many out there still believe that George W Bush invaded Iraq to “get their oil”. The truth is that most of the Iraqi oil contracts are going to foreign companies. Yet, something tells me this won’t do much to silence the kooky Rosie O’Donnell conspiracy theorists who believe that America’s actions are always driven by bad intentions.
On the other side, I’m sure there will be some who take offense at this, claiming that perhaps the Iraqis owe us something for their freedom. I disagree. After all, the French haven’t really done much to pay that debt, so why should the Iraqis. The fact is we, as Americans, were founded on the very notion that “all men are created equal, endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights…”. That very sentence has been the driving force of foreign policy for centuries. We believe that God (whomever that may be for you) has mandated the freedom of every human being, including the Iraqis, and with that freedom they can sell their oil to whomever they want. We don’t have a right to object. It’s that simple
Ford pays CEO $28 million for 4 months of work
I like to post stories like this because the American auto makers have a bad habit of poor mouthing to Congress about how much money they're losing, and justifying job cuts across the nation. The next time you hear a story like that, remember this post. If they can afford to pay a CEO $7 million a month then they can’t be hurting too bad.
And, don’t get me wrong, Ford has a right to pay their executives whatever they want. Just like I have a right to NEVER buy a Ford as long as things like this continue to go on. They say that the company is losing money, and then follow that with job cuts across middle America. Yet, this bonehead takes home $7 million a month. Gimme a break. Looks like I’ll be buying foreign or GMC.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
I am posting this article for several reasons. First, I find it interesting that Elizabeth Edwards has become a major part of the Edwards campaign. I don’t remember this being the case on ’04, but maybe it’s just heightened awareness. I was hoping that after she was diagnosed with breast cancer, her illness wouldn’t be an issue. Personally, my wife wouldn’t be making campaign appearances and doing TV interviews for several reasons. One, I wouldn’t want to jeopardize her health. The woman has cancer. Touring the country can be very exhausting. Two, I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I am exploiting her diagnosis. Contributions to the Edwards campaign have increased since her announcement and, at least in my eyes, so have her media appearances. That is concerning. But back to business.
I also posted this to show how shallow I feel the Edwardses are, and this article in many ways makes Elizabeth Edwards look like a fool. She is basically blasting her neighbor at a media event for being a “rabid Republican”. She says that she would not let her children go around him and criticizes him for not keeping up his “slummy” property. Then she follows that up by admitting that she has never actually met the man, but if she did she “wouldn’t be very nice” to him. Wow! That is impressive.
For the record, John & Elizabeth Edwards live in a 28,000 square foot home valued at 5.3 million dollars. I mention that because I feel it is pertinent. They are arguably the wealthiest couple in the presidential race. And here she is criticizing her neighbor that she has never met, who obviously doesn’t have that kind of wealth and says that the high property taxes are part of the reason why he struggles to keep the property up. I guess that’s not much of a concern for Elizabeth Edwards, who has taken offense at his “slummy” home.
I wonder how the media would have reacted to Laura Bush saying something similar? Well, we will leave that one alone. But I will venture a guess and say that if this gentleman had an “Edwards ‘08” sign on his fence then Ms Edwards wouldn’t be so vocal about her disgust. And the guns? Ms. Edwards seems to think of the man as a Yosemite Sam type who shoots at people he “doesn’t like”. Actually, what I read suggests that two men entered his property for a “survey”. Perhaps this didn’t warrant pulling a gun, but I can’t say that I blame the guy for being alarmed at the site of two strangers snooping around his property. Is this a reason to “not be very nice” to him? Doesn’t he have a right to protect his property?
The point is this: John Edwards’ neighbor and the state of his property has no bearing on the national presidential campaign. It is a non-issue, unless you want to use it as an example of what high taxes do to people. But outside of that, I don’t understand the point of blasting your neighbor like this. It’s insensitive, presumptuous and downright mean. I used to think of Elizabeth Edwards as a classy lady, but that has changed. If this is what she thinks of America’s “slummy” class then maybe America should remember that on election day.
I also posted this to show how shallow I feel the Edwardses are, and this article in many ways makes Elizabeth Edwards look like a fool. She is basically blasting her neighbor at a media event for being a “rabid Republican”. She says that she would not let her children go around him and criticizes him for not keeping up his “slummy” property. Then she follows that up by admitting that she has never actually met the man, but if she did she “wouldn’t be very nice” to him. Wow! That is impressive.
For the record, John & Elizabeth Edwards live in a 28,000 square foot home valued at 5.3 million dollars. I mention that because I feel it is pertinent. They are arguably the wealthiest couple in the presidential race. And here she is criticizing her neighbor that she has never met, who obviously doesn’t have that kind of wealth and says that the high property taxes are part of the reason why he struggles to keep the property up. I guess that’s not much of a concern for Elizabeth Edwards, who has taken offense at his “slummy” home.
I wonder how the media would have reacted to Laura Bush saying something similar? Well, we will leave that one alone. But I will venture a guess and say that if this gentleman had an “Edwards ‘08” sign on his fence then Ms Edwards wouldn’t be so vocal about her disgust. And the guns? Ms. Edwards seems to think of the man as a Yosemite Sam type who shoots at people he “doesn’t like”. Actually, what I read suggests that two men entered his property for a “survey”. Perhaps this didn’t warrant pulling a gun, but I can’t say that I blame the guy for being alarmed at the site of two strangers snooping around his property. Is this a reason to “not be very nice” to him? Doesn’t he have a right to protect his property?
The point is this: John Edwards’ neighbor and the state of his property has no bearing on the national presidential campaign. It is a non-issue, unless you want to use it as an example of what high taxes do to people. But outside of that, I don’t understand the point of blasting your neighbor like this. It’s insensitive, presumptuous and downright mean. I used to think of Elizabeth Edwards as a classy lady, but that has changed. If this is what she thinks of America’s “slummy” class then maybe America should remember that on election day.
Monday, April 09, 2007
"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.
For those who don’t know, the background of this story is as follows: Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, decided that she wanted to take a trip to the Middle East to visit with foreign dignitaries, one of those nations being Syria. The United States does not maintain diplomatic relations with Syria mainly because they harbor and sponsor terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, especially within Israel. Because of that, President Bush requested that Pelosi not make the trip. This is his foreign policy. That request was denied and Pelosi, along with many other members of Congress (both Democrat and Republican) took the trip and eventually met with leaders from the Syrian government. And now begins the controversy.
What’s the big deal? Well, from a political perspective, I think Pelosi has made a big error. She is now “bringing friendship” to a terrorist-sponsoring nation, despite the objections of the Presidential administration. Her actions have drawn praise and applause from terrorist groups and she has basically reaffirmed the notion that the Democrats are soft on terror and given us all a glimpse into the foreign policy of a Democrat president – which is basically to negotiate with terrorist organizations and those nations that sponsor them. The American people will not approve of this and I suspect it will backfire tremendously. If I were Howard Dean or any other prominent Democrat, I would immediately condemn Pelosi for this as the Washington Post (arguably a liberal-slanted paper) has done. But that won’t happen. In fact, what I’m seeing is many Democrat leaders defending her trip. Big mistake.
Have you seen the pictures of the Syrian leaders with her? These guys are beaming. They see her as a sucker. Isn’t it obvious? Any moment I expect one of them to open his jacket and ask her if she wants to buy a genuine gold Rolex for ten bucks. It has long been America’s suspicion that terrorist groups favor the Democratic party, and this does nothing but verify that suspicion. And now there are terrorist groups (Palestinian militants) actually praising her visit. In addition, she misrepresented Israel’s message by saying they are “ready to negotiate for peace”, drawing an immediate response from Olmert that his position has not changed. Clearly, she leaves Damascus looking foolish and weak, which is no doubt why the Palestinian militants and the Syrian leaders love her.
I’ve heard the talking points. “She reaffirmed Bush’s foreign policy…she took a hard line…she did not contradict the administration…” blah, blah, blah. The FACT is that she DID violate Bush’s policy by making the trip and meeting with the Syrian government. It doesn’t matter what she said. That has absolutely no bearing on this issue. The President’s foreign policy is that there be no diplomatic relation with Syria until they give up their terror harboring and sponsoring behavior….period. That foreign policy is mandated by the Constitution to come from only one person, the President of the United States, and no one else, and is protected under the separation of powers.
But there’s more to this story. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial cites the Logan Act as a reason to suggest that Nancy Pelosi may have committed a felony with this visit. The facts of the law are clear. Foreign policy is dictated by the Executive Branch of government. The other two branches have no say. This is in the Constitution. The Logan Act, a result of similar disputes in America’s earlier days, was enacted to reinforce the Constitutional law for the very purpose of preventing anyone outside of the Executive branch to implement foreign policy without Presidential authority. It states clearly that a government official can NOT visit with a foreign government without Presidential authority, regardless of the purpose for that visit. It’s the law, and it appears as though Pelosi, and many other Congressmen, violated that law. It doesn’t matter if she agrees with the President or not. That is completely beside the point. She can disagree all she wants but she has no authority…none…to implement her own foreign policy, and holding a diplomatic discussion with Syria IS indeed implementing her own foreign policy. As a citizen, she has the right to travel wherever she wants, but she crosses the line of legality when she engages in diplomatic action without Presidential authority. So this transcends politics. This is not about the Speaker showing the President that he can’t tell her what to do. This is about an elected leader potentially committing a felony and clearly violating her oath to the Constitution.
Folks, this is a big story. This is about an elected leader clearly overstepping her Constitutional bounds, and I feel she should be prosecuted for it, just as I would had Gingrich done something similar while Clinton was in office.
Let’s be clear about this, because I’m sure some of you will chime in with the typical talking points. The Speaker of the House has NO right to engage in diplomatic activity without Presidential authority, especially if that activity directly violates the President’s Constitutionally-protected power of implementing US Foreign Policy. Bush did NOT grant her the authority to engage in diplomatic talks with Syria and his policy is clear…the United States will not engage in dialogue with Syria until they give up terrorism. By simply meeting with Syria’s leaders, Pelosi violated US foreign policy. Because of that, regardless of what was said, Pelosi has broken the law and must answer for that.
For those who don’t know, the background of this story is as follows: Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, decided that she wanted to take a trip to the Middle East to visit with foreign dignitaries, one of those nations being Syria. The United States does not maintain diplomatic relations with Syria mainly because they harbor and sponsor terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, especially within Israel. Because of that, President Bush requested that Pelosi not make the trip. This is his foreign policy. That request was denied and Pelosi, along with many other members of Congress (both Democrat and Republican) took the trip and eventually met with leaders from the Syrian government. And now begins the controversy.
What’s the big deal? Well, from a political perspective, I think Pelosi has made a big error. She is now “bringing friendship” to a terrorist-sponsoring nation, despite the objections of the Presidential administration. Her actions have drawn praise and applause from terrorist groups and she has basically reaffirmed the notion that the Democrats are soft on terror and given us all a glimpse into the foreign policy of a Democrat president – which is basically to negotiate with terrorist organizations and those nations that sponsor them. The American people will not approve of this and I suspect it will backfire tremendously. If I were Howard Dean or any other prominent Democrat, I would immediately condemn Pelosi for this as the Washington Post (arguably a liberal-slanted paper) has done. But that won’t happen. In fact, what I’m seeing is many Democrat leaders defending her trip. Big mistake.
Have you seen the pictures of the Syrian leaders with her? These guys are beaming. They see her as a sucker. Isn’t it obvious? Any moment I expect one of them to open his jacket and ask her if she wants to buy a genuine gold Rolex for ten bucks. It has long been America’s suspicion that terrorist groups favor the Democratic party, and this does nothing but verify that suspicion. And now there are terrorist groups (Palestinian militants) actually praising her visit. In addition, she misrepresented Israel’s message by saying they are “ready to negotiate for peace”, drawing an immediate response from Olmert that his position has not changed. Clearly, she leaves Damascus looking foolish and weak, which is no doubt why the Palestinian militants and the Syrian leaders love her.
I’ve heard the talking points. “She reaffirmed Bush’s foreign policy…she took a hard line…she did not contradict the administration…” blah, blah, blah. The FACT is that she DID violate Bush’s policy by making the trip and meeting with the Syrian government. It doesn’t matter what she said. That has absolutely no bearing on this issue. The President’s foreign policy is that there be no diplomatic relation with Syria until they give up their terror harboring and sponsoring behavior….period. That foreign policy is mandated by the Constitution to come from only one person, the President of the United States, and no one else, and is protected under the separation of powers.
But there’s more to this story. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial cites the Logan Act as a reason to suggest that Nancy Pelosi may have committed a felony with this visit. The facts of the law are clear. Foreign policy is dictated by the Executive Branch of government. The other two branches have no say. This is in the Constitution. The Logan Act, a result of similar disputes in America’s earlier days, was enacted to reinforce the Constitutional law for the very purpose of preventing anyone outside of the Executive branch to implement foreign policy without Presidential authority. It states clearly that a government official can NOT visit with a foreign government without Presidential authority, regardless of the purpose for that visit. It’s the law, and it appears as though Pelosi, and many other Congressmen, violated that law. It doesn’t matter if she agrees with the President or not. That is completely beside the point. She can disagree all she wants but she has no authority…none…to implement her own foreign policy, and holding a diplomatic discussion with Syria IS indeed implementing her own foreign policy. As a citizen, she has the right to travel wherever she wants, but she crosses the line of legality when she engages in diplomatic action without Presidential authority. So this transcends politics. This is not about the Speaker showing the President that he can’t tell her what to do. This is about an elected leader potentially committing a felony and clearly violating her oath to the Constitution.
Folks, this is a big story. This is about an elected leader clearly overstepping her Constitutional bounds, and I feel she should be prosecuted for it, just as I would had Gingrich done something similar while Clinton was in office.
Let’s be clear about this, because I’m sure some of you will chime in with the typical talking points. The Speaker of the House has NO right to engage in diplomatic activity without Presidential authority, especially if that activity directly violates the President’s Constitutionally-protected power of implementing US Foreign Policy. Bush did NOT grant her the authority to engage in diplomatic talks with Syria and his policy is clear…the United States will not engage in dialogue with Syria until they give up terrorism. By simply meeting with Syria’s leaders, Pelosi violated US foreign policy. Because of that, regardless of what was said, Pelosi has broken the law and must answer for that.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
He is Risen
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
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
Thursday, April 05, 2007
the ultimate sacrifice
Then Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, said to them, “You have brought this Man to me, as one who misleads the people. And indeed, having examined Him in your presence, I have found no fault in this Man concerning those things of which you accuse Him; no, neither did Herod, for I sent you back to him; and indeed nothing deserving of death has been done by Him. I will therefore chastise Him and release Him” (for it was necessary for him to release one to them at the feast).
And they all cried out at once, saying, “Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas”— who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder. Pilate, therefore, wishing to release Jesus, again called out to them. But they shouted, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!” Then he said to them the third time, “Why, what evil has He done? I have found no reason for death in Him. I will therefore chastise Him and let Him go.” But they were insistent, demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these men and of the chief priests prevailed. So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. And he released to them the one they requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but he delivered Jesus to their will.
Now as they led Him away, they laid hold of a certain man, Simon a Cyrenian, who was coming from the country, and on him they laid the cross that he might bear it after Jesus. And a great multitude of the people followed Him, and women who also mourned and lamented Him. But Jesus, turning to them, said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!’ Then they will begin ‘to say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!”’ For if they do these things in the green wood, what will be done in the dry?”
There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death. And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” And they divided His garments and cast lots. And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God.”
The soldiers also mocked Him, coming and offering Him sour wine, and saying, “If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself.” And an inscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew:
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS
Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.” But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’” Having said this, He breathed His last.
Luke 23 13:46 NKJV
Amen.
And they all cried out at once, saying, “Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas”— who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder. Pilate, therefore, wishing to release Jesus, again called out to them. But they shouted, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!” Then he said to them the third time, “Why, what evil has He done? I have found no reason for death in Him. I will therefore chastise Him and let Him go.” But they were insistent, demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these men and of the chief priests prevailed. So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. And he released to them the one they requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but he delivered Jesus to their will.
Now as they led Him away, they laid hold of a certain man, Simon a Cyrenian, who was coming from the country, and on him they laid the cross that he might bear it after Jesus. And a great multitude of the people followed Him, and women who also mourned and lamented Him. But Jesus, turning to them, said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!’ Then they will begin ‘to say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!”’ For if they do these things in the green wood, what will be done in the dry?”
There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death. And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” And they divided His garments and cast lots. And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God.”
The soldiers also mocked Him, coming and offering Him sour wine, and saying, “If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself.” And an inscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew:
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS
Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.” But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’” Having said this, He breathed His last.
Luke 23 13:46 NKJV
Amen.
Experts predict a busy hurricane season
Now why does this sound familiar to me? Oh yeah, that’s exactly what was said last year. Of course, last year there were no major hurricanes and the forecasters were proven wrong, but who’s counting? After all, according to the experts, it was global warming that caused the quiet hurricane season. But, then again, the destructive 2005 hurricane season was caused by global warming as well…that and George W Bush (it was mainly Bush’s fault). But this year will be different. This year will be bad.
The latest prediction comes from Colorado State and let me tell you, when I think of a great place to study hurricanes I immediately think of Colorado (they’re just as good as the blizzard experts in Havana I’m sure). According to them, this season will be much worse than last year and I’m sure that’s also because of global warming. After all, scientists think that’s why the penguins are dying and once those little birds start to die out then you’d better get yourself to Home Depot for a generator and some plywood cause it’s gonna be bad, baby! This might even prompt Al Gore to lose a few dozen pounds so his private jet won’t have to burn as much fuel hauling him across the country for one of those high-dollar personal appearances…you know, to do his part and all.
And since we’re predicting things, I have a few of my own. First, I predict that whatever happens this summer, whether it’s another 2005 disastrous season or a 2006 sleeper, I know for a fact it will be due to global warming. That’s just the way global warming works. No matter what the weather does it’s invariably related to human beings doing bad things to the earth. Second, I also predict that whatever happens this summer it will most certainly be because of George W Bush’s environmental policy. After all, global warming and George W Bush are strongly interconnected. The guy was born in 1946 and scientists say that the earth has been getting warmer over the past 5-6 decades. Coincidence? I think not.
So take those two predictions to the bank. If Vegas were putting odds on this then by October I’d be a rich man. Look out Mr. Nostradamus, there’s a new prophet in town!
Now why does this sound familiar to me? Oh yeah, that’s exactly what was said last year. Of course, last year there were no major hurricanes and the forecasters were proven wrong, but who’s counting? After all, according to the experts, it was global warming that caused the quiet hurricane season. But, then again, the destructive 2005 hurricane season was caused by global warming as well…that and George W Bush (it was mainly Bush’s fault). But this year will be different. This year will be bad.
The latest prediction comes from Colorado State and let me tell you, when I think of a great place to study hurricanes I immediately think of Colorado (they’re just as good as the blizzard experts in Havana I’m sure). According to them, this season will be much worse than last year and I’m sure that’s also because of global warming. After all, scientists think that’s why the penguins are dying and once those little birds start to die out then you’d better get yourself to Home Depot for a generator and some plywood cause it’s gonna be bad, baby! This might even prompt Al Gore to lose a few dozen pounds so his private jet won’t have to burn as much fuel hauling him across the country for one of those high-dollar personal appearances…you know, to do his part and all.
And since we’re predicting things, I have a few of my own. First, I predict that whatever happens this summer, whether it’s another 2005 disastrous season or a 2006 sleeper, I know for a fact it will be due to global warming. That’s just the way global warming works. No matter what the weather does it’s invariably related to human beings doing bad things to the earth. Second, I also predict that whatever happens this summer it will most certainly be because of George W Bush’s environmental policy. After all, global warming and George W Bush are strongly interconnected. The guy was born in 1946 and scientists say that the earth has been getting warmer over the past 5-6 decades. Coincidence? I think not.
So take those two predictions to the bank. If Vegas were putting odds on this then by October I’d be a rich man. Look out Mr. Nostradamus, there’s a new prophet in town!
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
The most important man in Iraq....
This is a phenomenal piece from NY Sun reporter, Eli Lake. This is exactly the type of news that the "major" news outlets find too uplifting to report. It appears as though the wave of freedom is indeed washing across Iraq and more and more people are taking up the cause, and the responsibility of reclaiming their country from the terrorists.
" The most important man in Iraq is someone of whom most Americans have never heard. He is not the general, David Patraeus, whom President Bush sent to Baghdad to win the war his wise men said could not be won. He is not Prime Minister Maliki, whose commitment to a unified Iraq Mr. Bush's national security adviser questioned in a leaked memo last winter. Nor is he the ethnic cleansing cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has not shown his head in Baghdad since February.
Meet Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi, the Sheikh who leads the Anbar Salvation Front. The front, a model now being emulated in Diyala and other provinces, could — if it works —win the war. It is an affiliation of 42 local tribal chiefs dedicated to expelling al-Qaeda from Iraq. As opposed to the other Sunni Iraqi leaders, who spent the last four years trying to broker deals between the Americans and the less pious terrorists devoted to destroying any government that failed to reflect the Ba'athist fiction that Sunni Arabs are a majority in Iraq, the Anbar Salvation Front is coordinating its counter-terrorism with both the Marines and the elected government....."
If you are truly interested in what's going on over, if America has a chance at success, if Iraq has a chance at freedom, then you MUST read this column. Excellent work, Mr. Lake. Keep up the good work!
This is a phenomenal piece from NY Sun reporter, Eli Lake. This is exactly the type of news that the "major" news outlets find too uplifting to report. It appears as though the wave of freedom is indeed washing across Iraq and more and more people are taking up the cause, and the responsibility of reclaiming their country from the terrorists.
" The most important man in Iraq is someone of whom most Americans have never heard. He is not the general, David Patraeus, whom President Bush sent to Baghdad to win the war his wise men said could not be won. He is not Prime Minister Maliki, whose commitment to a unified Iraq Mr. Bush's national security adviser questioned in a leaked memo last winter. Nor is he the ethnic cleansing cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has not shown his head in Baghdad since February.
Meet Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi, the Sheikh who leads the Anbar Salvation Front. The front, a model now being emulated in Diyala and other provinces, could — if it works —win the war. It is an affiliation of 42 local tribal chiefs dedicated to expelling al-Qaeda from Iraq. As opposed to the other Sunni Iraqi leaders, who spent the last four years trying to broker deals between the Americans and the less pious terrorists devoted to destroying any government that failed to reflect the Ba'athist fiction that Sunni Arabs are a majority in Iraq, the Anbar Salvation Front is coordinating its counter-terrorism with both the Marines and the elected government....."
If you are truly interested in what's going on over, if America has a chance at success, if Iraq has a chance at freedom, then you MUST read this column. Excellent work, Mr. Lake. Keep up the good work!
This is the radical Left’s idea of “peaceful assembly”. Karl Rove was the victim of assault last night while visiting American University. He was there to address the college Republicans and while leaving a group of protesters began throwing various objects at him and his vehicle. Security had to come in for crowd control just so Rove could drive off. And, yet again, we have an example of the radical Left attempting to forcefully silence those who disagree with them.
Ann Coulter had a pie thrown at her. The Minutemen had their stage rushed and were shouted down by them. A Michigan Congressman’s office was vandalized. Even Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have been targeted by these anti-democracy, anti-free speech loons. It seems there is nothing about free speech these people cherish and only the ACLU seems to support them. There is nothing about peaceful assembly they respect. All that matters to them is their agenda, and anyone who disagrees has become a target. In my mind, it’s only a matter of time before these people become even more violent and someone really gets hurt.
Pope blames Western colonialism for plundering Africa
To some degree, the Pope has a point. Colonialism has had some detrimental effects on Africa. I can see where one can make that argument. But let me argue the other side for a moment because I think this guy is way off on the big picture. If you look at the more “developed” parts of Africa you will see that they are the direct result of European colonization. The Mediterranean coast has strong French influence and, of course, the Dutch brought a good deal of progress into South Africa. Where Africa is hurting is in the central region, the Congo basin. Yes, European colonialism played a role here too, but I see that much of that area’s problem rests with sectarian violence and civil unrest. Basically, these people are killing, starving, enslaving and oppressing each other to a substantial degree. And the Pope wants to blame the West for that? Gimme a break.
Frankly, I’m a little tired of hearing about Africa’s problems. The Mediterranean nations and South Africa have taken it upon themselves to better their countries and, for the most part, they’ve done a pretty good job. That very well could be due to Western influence, or simply because they realized that killing and enslaving each other is generally not a good thing. The point is, if Africa wants to rise out of the depths of the third world then it’s going to take a little effort on their part, and that begins with stopping the killing, genocide and enslavement. Consider it a good first step.
What really bugs me is that the West is criticized by the Pope for too much influence in Africa, and then criticized by the Lefty goons for NOT taking enough action, as if Darfur is a threat to our national security. So which is it? Are we supposed to let Africa sort things out themselves, like the Left wants Iraq to do, or are we supposed to send in troops to “occupy” the area and restore order?
Ann Coulter had a pie thrown at her. The Minutemen had their stage rushed and were shouted down by them. A Michigan Congressman’s office was vandalized. Even Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have been targeted by these anti-democracy, anti-free speech loons. It seems there is nothing about free speech these people cherish and only the ACLU seems to support them. There is nothing about peaceful assembly they respect. All that matters to them is their agenda, and anyone who disagrees has become a target. In my mind, it’s only a matter of time before these people become even more violent and someone really gets hurt.
Pope blames Western colonialism for plundering Africa
To some degree, the Pope has a point. Colonialism has had some detrimental effects on Africa. I can see where one can make that argument. But let me argue the other side for a moment because I think this guy is way off on the big picture. If you look at the more “developed” parts of Africa you will see that they are the direct result of European colonization. The Mediterranean coast has strong French influence and, of course, the Dutch brought a good deal of progress into South Africa. Where Africa is hurting is in the central region, the Congo basin. Yes, European colonialism played a role here too, but I see that much of that area’s problem rests with sectarian violence and civil unrest. Basically, these people are killing, starving, enslaving and oppressing each other to a substantial degree. And the Pope wants to blame the West for that? Gimme a break.
Frankly, I’m a little tired of hearing about Africa’s problems. The Mediterranean nations and South Africa have taken it upon themselves to better their countries and, for the most part, they’ve done a pretty good job. That very well could be due to Western influence, or simply because they realized that killing and enslaving each other is generally not a good thing. The point is, if Africa wants to rise out of the depths of the third world then it’s going to take a little effort on their part, and that begins with stopping the killing, genocide and enslavement. Consider it a good first step.
What really bugs me is that the West is criticized by the Pope for too much influence in Africa, and then criticized by the Lefty goons for NOT taking enough action, as if Darfur is a threat to our national security. So which is it? Are we supposed to let Africa sort things out themselves, like the Left wants Iraq to do, or are we supposed to send in troops to “occupy” the area and restore order?
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
"It's time the self-appointed strategists on Capitol Hill understood a very simple concept: You cannot win a war if you tell the enemy you're going to quit," Vice President Dick Cheney.
I’ve never left any doubts about how I feel about our political leaders, namely those in Congress who are supposedly representing the people. This post will be not different, and if I get a bit over the top it’s because I’m extremely pissed at these people and what they’re doing to further their own political party – now to the point of endangering the lives of American servicemen. What this Congress has done - the Congress that WE THE PEOPLE put in office - has to be one of the lowest, most deceitful, subhuman, dishonest acts ever perpetrated on Capitol Hill. We were scammed in November ’06 and every day that goes by reveals that the scam is worse and worse. What have we done to this country?
It has long been my position that if the Democrats want to end the war, if they want to do what “the majority of Americans wish” then they can end the war immediately by cutting the funding. It’s that simple. They think they have the majority on their side. They think the people want the war over. Fine. End it. Now. Vote the funds down and bring the troops home. If they were representing the people, wouldn’t that be the right thing to do? But that’s not what happened. Instead, they vote to fund the war – despite their own personal objections to the war – and they add a number of domestic spending "carrots" to ensure they get the votes for this nonsense. In effect, they bribed this bill through Congress. Then they add a poison pill to the funding which undermines the military effort and telegraphs our intentions to the enemy by setting a drop-dead withdrawal date…basically, they put together a bill that they KNOW the President will not ever sign. They know he will veto it and the war will go unfunded. Why do this? So they can point at the President and say that HE is the one putting the troops in danger.
In other words, they lack the sack to actually do what they feel the American people want, so they're going to force Bush to do it by sending him an unsignable bill. To say this is incomprehensible would be an understatement. These people have sunken to scum level. Check that, they're worse than scum, these people have sunken to attorney level - which fits since most of them are attorneys anyway.
But that’s not all. Before actually agreeing on the details of the bill, before actually voting and passing the bill and putting it on the President’s desk…Congress takes their 2 week Easter vacation while we approach the 2 month mark of having no funds for the troops. That’s right, folks. As we speak, the war is not funded, the troops are not funded, and those responsible for providing that funding are home sipping mimosas and playing golf. Do any of my readers get 2 weeks off for Easter? Think about that as your taxes are jacked through the roof next year. Meanwhile, we are at day 58 since Bush asked Congress for continued funding and our military leaders are now saying that operations will soon need to be scaled back, including troop rotations. Which means that some of the troops scheduled to rotate out of Iraq may not be able to because we don't have the money to do it. And YOUR Congressman has taken 2 weeks off while this goes on. And this goes on while leaders in Baghdad have loosened the nightly curfew on the citizens, citing an improvement in security on the ground.
So, it appears the troop surge is working and it's now obvious to me that THAT'S why the Dems have stooped to this level. What they fear most is success in Iraq. What would be devastating to their party is a stable, secure Iraq. So in order to ensure that doesn't happen, they basically waffle on the funding in hopes that it may disrupt the surge and tilt things back toward the insurgents. Over the top? I doubt it. These tactics are grotesque and offensive to me. Instead of acknowledging the recent success in Iraq, they decide to backdoor the support from under the feet of the troops. Is there any other explanation for their actions?
These people are incompetent bastards. I doubt any of them would have done this if their son or daughter were overseas fighting this war. But it’s the President who’s putting their lives at risk…right? Every day that goes by with this Congress in power it becomes more evident that her mighty Pompassness, Queen Pelosi and King Reid – along with their court of Dick “the troops are Nazis” Durbin; John “the troops are dumb” Kerry; Barak “the troops are wasted” Obama; John “I can hear dead people” Edwards; Ted “my past is irrelevant” Kennedy; Robert “KKK” Byrd; and Hillary “stand by my lyin cheatin stealin man but not our military” Clinton - more closely resemble common disease ridden sewer rats than actual human beings, which may be quite insulting to sewer rats. At least sewer rats live in the sewer, these people reside on snob hill while looking down upon the rest of us from their egocentric perches, all the while claiming to represent “the little guy”. But at least Sean Penn thinks they’re doing a good job. After all, he really does have his finger on the pulse of America.
It’s nice to know that Congress has risen up to their responsibility. It’s nice to know that they pay themselves obscene amounts of money to take 2 weeks off for Easter without funding the US military. It’s nice to know that Pelosi thinks she’s entitled to military transport but can’t ensure the same thing for the common US Corporal due to come home this month until she’s done hiding Easter eggs and eating chocolate bunnies. It’s a good thing Congress left the troops unfunded, otherwise the ACLU might have taken exception to their Easter holiday. After all, if there’s one thing the ACLU hates more than God, it’s the American soldier.
Perhaps if Congress would stop thumping their chests about the ’06 election they would be able to notice that the latest polls show that 60% of the American people disapprove of the job they are doing. That's right, it's not just President Bush that has bad numbers. I’m wondering how a 2 week Easter holiday, a politically-weighted bribe-laden war bill, and the largest tax increase in human history will play into that approval rating. And if you think that Congress is representing your interest, then you’re basically endorsing this behavior, and you need a hefty dose of reality. Which begs the question – Who’s worse, the lying political backstabbing, self-interest seeking, rhetoric spilling, troop endangering, terrorist enabling politician or the common citizen who voted for him?
I’ve never left any doubts about how I feel about our political leaders, namely those in Congress who are supposedly representing the people. This post will be not different, and if I get a bit over the top it’s because I’m extremely pissed at these people and what they’re doing to further their own political party – now to the point of endangering the lives of American servicemen. What this Congress has done - the Congress that WE THE PEOPLE put in office - has to be one of the lowest, most deceitful, subhuman, dishonest acts ever perpetrated on Capitol Hill. We were scammed in November ’06 and every day that goes by reveals that the scam is worse and worse. What have we done to this country?
It has long been my position that if the Democrats want to end the war, if they want to do what “the majority of Americans wish” then they can end the war immediately by cutting the funding. It’s that simple. They think they have the majority on their side. They think the people want the war over. Fine. End it. Now. Vote the funds down and bring the troops home. If they were representing the people, wouldn’t that be the right thing to do? But that’s not what happened. Instead, they vote to fund the war – despite their own personal objections to the war – and they add a number of domestic spending "carrots" to ensure they get the votes for this nonsense. In effect, they bribed this bill through Congress. Then they add a poison pill to the funding which undermines the military effort and telegraphs our intentions to the enemy by setting a drop-dead withdrawal date…basically, they put together a bill that they KNOW the President will not ever sign. They know he will veto it and the war will go unfunded. Why do this? So they can point at the President and say that HE is the one putting the troops in danger.
In other words, they lack the sack to actually do what they feel the American people want, so they're going to force Bush to do it by sending him an unsignable bill. To say this is incomprehensible would be an understatement. These people have sunken to scum level. Check that, they're worse than scum, these people have sunken to attorney level - which fits since most of them are attorneys anyway.
But that’s not all. Before actually agreeing on the details of the bill, before actually voting and passing the bill and putting it on the President’s desk…Congress takes their 2 week Easter vacation while we approach the 2 month mark of having no funds for the troops. That’s right, folks. As we speak, the war is not funded, the troops are not funded, and those responsible for providing that funding are home sipping mimosas and playing golf. Do any of my readers get 2 weeks off for Easter? Think about that as your taxes are jacked through the roof next year. Meanwhile, we are at day 58 since Bush asked Congress for continued funding and our military leaders are now saying that operations will soon need to be scaled back, including troop rotations. Which means that some of the troops scheduled to rotate out of Iraq may not be able to because we don't have the money to do it. And YOUR Congressman has taken 2 weeks off while this goes on. And this goes on while leaders in Baghdad have loosened the nightly curfew on the citizens, citing an improvement in security on the ground.
So, it appears the troop surge is working and it's now obvious to me that THAT'S why the Dems have stooped to this level. What they fear most is success in Iraq. What would be devastating to their party is a stable, secure Iraq. So in order to ensure that doesn't happen, they basically waffle on the funding in hopes that it may disrupt the surge and tilt things back toward the insurgents. Over the top? I doubt it. These tactics are grotesque and offensive to me. Instead of acknowledging the recent success in Iraq, they decide to backdoor the support from under the feet of the troops. Is there any other explanation for their actions?
These people are incompetent bastards. I doubt any of them would have done this if their son or daughter were overseas fighting this war. But it’s the President who’s putting their lives at risk…right? Every day that goes by with this Congress in power it becomes more evident that her mighty Pompassness, Queen Pelosi and King Reid – along with their court of Dick “the troops are Nazis” Durbin; John “the troops are dumb” Kerry; Barak “the troops are wasted” Obama; John “I can hear dead people” Edwards; Ted “my past is irrelevant” Kennedy; Robert “KKK” Byrd; and Hillary “stand by my lyin cheatin stealin man but not our military” Clinton - more closely resemble common disease ridden sewer rats than actual human beings, which may be quite insulting to sewer rats. At least sewer rats live in the sewer, these people reside on snob hill while looking down upon the rest of us from their egocentric perches, all the while claiming to represent “the little guy”. But at least Sean Penn thinks they’re doing a good job. After all, he really does have his finger on the pulse of America.
It’s nice to know that Congress has risen up to their responsibility. It’s nice to know that they pay themselves obscene amounts of money to take 2 weeks off for Easter without funding the US military. It’s nice to know that Pelosi thinks she’s entitled to military transport but can’t ensure the same thing for the common US Corporal due to come home this month until she’s done hiding Easter eggs and eating chocolate bunnies. It’s a good thing Congress left the troops unfunded, otherwise the ACLU might have taken exception to their Easter holiday. After all, if there’s one thing the ACLU hates more than God, it’s the American soldier.
Perhaps if Congress would stop thumping their chests about the ’06 election they would be able to notice that the latest polls show that 60% of the American people disapprove of the job they are doing. That's right, it's not just President Bush that has bad numbers. I’m wondering how a 2 week Easter holiday, a politically-weighted bribe-laden war bill, and the largest tax increase in human history will play into that approval rating. And if you think that Congress is representing your interest, then you’re basically endorsing this behavior, and you need a hefty dose of reality. Which begs the question – Who’s worse, the lying political backstabbing, self-interest seeking, rhetoric spilling, troop endangering, terrorist enabling politician or the common citizen who voted for him?
Monday, April 02, 2007
When news of Iran’s illegal capture of British sailors first came across, I was not surprised. As I’ve said before, Ahmadinejad may be crazy, but he’s not stupid. Recently the international community has ratcheted up the pressure to get him to halt his nuke program. Ahmadinejad’s obvious concern would be the possibility of military action against his country…in other words, the question on his mind is “how serious are these people.” So if I’m him, I test the waters. I make a bold move, but not too bold, against the most powerful European nation and see what happens. What I want to find out is if the will to fight me exists. So that’s what Ahmadinejad has done, and I believe the question has been answered.
15 British sailors have been seized illegally, detained and held captive, coerced into giving false confessions of whatever their crime du jour may be (and coerced probably isn’t as accurate as tortured), and had these confessions broadcast on live TV. All of these things clearly violate the Geneva Convention, yet much hasn’t been said about it. By the way, where is the International Red Cross, the UN, Dick Durbin, Sean Penn and all the other psycho loons who have so vehemently protested the Gitmo detainees? Do they NOT object to what Iran has done? Will Sean Penn be making a trip to Tehran sometime in the near future?
I digress. The point is, Iran has tested the British people here, and has discovered that they basically don’t care. The British people appear to have no spine whatsoever. There is no call for action, no hard-line stance. Iran has committed what amounts to an act of war against the United Kingdom and the UK has responded with lengthy negotiations and nothing else. And the populace? Well, they’ve been basically silent on the issue. So there’s your answer. Ahmadinejad now knows that he can pursue his weapons program and Europe will not act. After all, if the most powerful European nation does nothing about the capture of their soldiers, then it’s safe to assume they won’t do anything about Iran’s nuclear program.
My guess is that Iran will divulge some new “progress” in the negotiations and release the sailors within a week, but the damage has been done. The West is indeed the paper tiger that they think we are and Iran WILL have their nuclear weapons. The question is, what happens next? It’s funny how NO ONE on the Left has an answer for this. Instead, they give this lengthy dialogue about how evil nuclear weapons are and how we have them also and how can we expect other countries…..blah, blah, blah. But no answer. What happens when Iran acquires nukes? What happens when they launch one on Israel? What happens when they sell one to Al Qaeda? What happens when one of those nukes is brought across the southern border and detonated in a major US city? DOES ANYONE ON THE LEFT HAVE THE GUTS TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS? Of course not, because they don’t want to tackle these kinds of problems. They just bury their heads in the proverbial sand and hope the bad people go away. Well, Ahmadinejad is going nowhere.
So, I hope this “crisis” will end, and by end I mean the British sailors are home soon. We’ll probably find out some gruesome details about how they were treated and how those confessions came about…not that it matters. After all, the British people don’t really seem to care…in fact, some British schools aren’t even teaching about the Holocaust anymore because it may be offensive to Muslims. That’s what the mighty British empire has become, a bunch of enablers like the American Left who have no guts and no will to confront the dangers of this generation. And yet, this problem in Iran just won’t go away. Will American troops next? My bet is, not while Bush is President. But if Hillary or Obama get in the White House? Well, it will be open season on all Americans, soldiers or otherwise, in the Middle East and here at home because there is nothing about those two that these lunatics fear. The only thing holding them back right now is the fact that Bush has made it clear that he will protect Americans no matter how low his approval numbers may be…the same can’t be said for Hillary or Obama.
15 British sailors have been seized illegally, detained and held captive, coerced into giving false confessions of whatever their crime du jour may be (and coerced probably isn’t as accurate as tortured), and had these confessions broadcast on live TV. All of these things clearly violate the Geneva Convention, yet much hasn’t been said about it. By the way, where is the International Red Cross, the UN, Dick Durbin, Sean Penn and all the other psycho loons who have so vehemently protested the Gitmo detainees? Do they NOT object to what Iran has done? Will Sean Penn be making a trip to Tehran sometime in the near future?
I digress. The point is, Iran has tested the British people here, and has discovered that they basically don’t care. The British people appear to have no spine whatsoever. There is no call for action, no hard-line stance. Iran has committed what amounts to an act of war against the United Kingdom and the UK has responded with lengthy negotiations and nothing else. And the populace? Well, they’ve been basically silent on the issue. So there’s your answer. Ahmadinejad now knows that he can pursue his weapons program and Europe will not act. After all, if the most powerful European nation does nothing about the capture of their soldiers, then it’s safe to assume they won’t do anything about Iran’s nuclear program.
My guess is that Iran will divulge some new “progress” in the negotiations and release the sailors within a week, but the damage has been done. The West is indeed the paper tiger that they think we are and Iran WILL have their nuclear weapons. The question is, what happens next? It’s funny how NO ONE on the Left has an answer for this. Instead, they give this lengthy dialogue about how evil nuclear weapons are and how we have them also and how can we expect other countries…..blah, blah, blah. But no answer. What happens when Iran acquires nukes? What happens when they launch one on Israel? What happens when they sell one to Al Qaeda? What happens when one of those nukes is brought across the southern border and detonated in a major US city? DOES ANYONE ON THE LEFT HAVE THE GUTS TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS? Of course not, because they don’t want to tackle these kinds of problems. They just bury their heads in the proverbial sand and hope the bad people go away. Well, Ahmadinejad is going nowhere.
So, I hope this “crisis” will end, and by end I mean the British sailors are home soon. We’ll probably find out some gruesome details about how they were treated and how those confessions came about…not that it matters. After all, the British people don’t really seem to care…in fact, some British schools aren’t even teaching about the Holocaust anymore because it may be offensive to Muslims. That’s what the mighty British empire has become, a bunch of enablers like the American Left who have no guts and no will to confront the dangers of this generation. And yet, this problem in Iran just won’t go away. Will American troops next? My bet is, not while Bush is President. But if Hillary or Obama get in the White House? Well, it will be open season on all Americans, soldiers or otherwise, in the Middle East and here at home because there is nothing about those two that these lunatics fear. The only thing holding them back right now is the fact that Bush has made it clear that he will protect Americans no matter how low his approval numbers may be…the same can’t be said for Hillary or Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)