Fox ad sparks controversy
I saw the ad last night. There was Michael Fox, speaking about stem cell research. He says one candidate supports it, the other opposes it. Then he implies (in my opinion) that if you vote for the one candidate, then certain diseases like his own can be cured. The whole time he is writhing to and fro, clearly having difficulty controlling his own body movements. I saw the ad. And I simply disagree with Fox. I don’t think voting for one candidate will cure disease and I don’t see any scientific evidence that embryonic stem cell research will lead to miracle cures. I’ve seen theory, but no evidence.
Now for the controversy. Rush Limbaugh suggested that Fox may have been intentionally off of his medication to ad drama to the commercial. He is dead wrong and such a suggestion is unfair. As a physician, I’ll say that the medications used for Parkinson’s have some dramatic side effects including inducing writhing movements like those seen on the ad. Further, when Limbaugh says something like that it detracts from the message that many people simply disagree with Fox and, not only that, but also he was a little misleading when he said the Republican senate candidate did not support stem cell research. But that gets lost when Limbaugh makes the comment that Fox "wasn’t on his medication". It makes him look like he’s picking on someone with Parkinson’s Disease. In short, it makes him look mean.
But, there are people who were upset with this ad, and they have a point in contending that it was done in poor taste. Is Fox exploiting Parkinson’s Disease for political purposes? I personally don’t think so. He has a right to support whomever he chooses for whatever reason. The fact that he has money allows him to run ads during the World Series, but he earned that money himself so more power to him. But I can see how some would take offense. For example:
I could place a camera in the delivery room while a partial birth abortion is performed. I could film the process, film the needle puncturing the baby’s skull, film the last minutes of that child’s life. Or I could simply show pictures of dead babies and say "candidate X supports partial birth abortion, candidate Y does not. If you vote for candidate X, then you vote for partial birth abortion."
I wonder what kind of outrage such an ad would generate? Once again, the media double standard would rear its ugly head. But I wouldn’t have a problem with anyone making such an ad, just like I don’t have a problem with Fox’s ad. Limbaugh shouldn’t speak about medical matters that he knows nothing of, and instead of criticizing Fox the right thing to do would be to make a counter ad – which is exactly what’s being done. Democracy at its finest.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Culture Warrior
America is at war. There is no denying this truth. But what some may not realize is that we are fighting a war on two-fronts against two very different, yet very real, enemies. There are of course the Islamo-Fascists, the radicals who hate everything that resembles democracy and everyone who does not accept their radical religious views. We all know about this enemy. We’ve all seen what they can do first-hand. We may disagree on how to fight them, but we don’t deny their existence or their intentions.
But then there is the war on the home front, a war of culture. This involves the traditionalists, those who honor America’s traditions, the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian principles on which this nation was founded. Countering the traditionalists are the secular progressives. They are a small segment of the population, but they have a lot of power and financial backing. They believe America is inherently flawed, that this country requires drastic change. Their main targets are the Judeo-Christian ethic, free enterprise, freedom of religion and capitalism. Leading the charge is the ACLU – whose founder was a self-proclaimed socialist – and they have chosen the American court system as the battleground.
Bill O’Reilly details this fight in Culture Warrior. Unlike many Americans, I already knew this country was engaged in a fight for her culture. So there wasn’t much new to me. But O’Reilly did a masterful job of pointing out the tactics and strategy of the "SPs" as he calls them. He calls out their leaders, those who provide the financial support for their causes and the top SP supporters in the mainstream media (which is crawling with secular progressives). In short, they have a gameplan and O’Reilly has exposed it. The only question is what will America do about it?
This is not about "separation of church and state". No, this is about separation of church and behavior. This is about humanism conquering spirituality. And it’s not a Republican versus Democrat issue either, as O’Reilly points out. This war is not being fought at the polls because the SPs know that their measures have been and will continue to be defeated in votes, that is until they can corrupt enough of the younger generation to have their will prevail democratically. Until then, they have chosen the court system as a means of imposing their vision for America on the common American and, so far, it’s working. Billionaires like George Soros provide the funds, the ACLU launches the offensives and the mainstream media acts as the defense perimeter – attacking anyone who offers a dissenting opinion or attempts to expose this campaign for what it is.
I don’t know how this will end, who will emerge victorious. But I do know, without a doubt, that if the secular progressive segment of America’s population have their way, then America will become a socialist state where income is redistributed, deity worship is banned, freedom of speech becomes limited, our borders are opened, human life becomes meaningless and humanism becomes the "religion" of choice. Basically, the Constitution would cease to exist and we would begin to flirt with anarchy. That’s the vision for America that the secular progressives share and that’s the domestic enemy America must confront. Mr. O’Reilly has taken this to challenge and I salute him for it. Now, if America would only join the fight.
But then there is the war on the home front, a war of culture. This involves the traditionalists, those who honor America’s traditions, the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian principles on which this nation was founded. Countering the traditionalists are the secular progressives. They are a small segment of the population, but they have a lot of power and financial backing. They believe America is inherently flawed, that this country requires drastic change. Their main targets are the Judeo-Christian ethic, free enterprise, freedom of religion and capitalism. Leading the charge is the ACLU – whose founder was a self-proclaimed socialist – and they have chosen the American court system as the battleground.
Bill O’Reilly details this fight in Culture Warrior. Unlike many Americans, I already knew this country was engaged in a fight for her culture. So there wasn’t much new to me. But O’Reilly did a masterful job of pointing out the tactics and strategy of the "SPs" as he calls them. He calls out their leaders, those who provide the financial support for their causes and the top SP supporters in the mainstream media (which is crawling with secular progressives). In short, they have a gameplan and O’Reilly has exposed it. The only question is what will America do about it?
This is not about "separation of church and state". No, this is about separation of church and behavior. This is about humanism conquering spirituality. And it’s not a Republican versus Democrat issue either, as O’Reilly points out. This war is not being fought at the polls because the SPs know that their measures have been and will continue to be defeated in votes, that is until they can corrupt enough of the younger generation to have their will prevail democratically. Until then, they have chosen the court system as a means of imposing their vision for America on the common American and, so far, it’s working. Billionaires like George Soros provide the funds, the ACLU launches the offensives and the mainstream media acts as the defense perimeter – attacking anyone who offers a dissenting opinion or attempts to expose this campaign for what it is.
I don’t know how this will end, who will emerge victorious. But I do know, without a doubt, that if the secular progressive segment of America’s population have their way, then America will become a socialist state where income is redistributed, deity worship is banned, freedom of speech becomes limited, our borders are opened, human life becomes meaningless and humanism becomes the "religion" of choice. Basically, the Constitution would cease to exist and we would begin to flirt with anarchy. That’s the vision for America that the secular progressives share and that’s the domestic enemy America must confront. Mr. O’Reilly has taken this to challenge and I salute him for it. Now, if America would only join the fight.
Monday, October 23, 2006
A few thoughts on Monday
I got a letter from the Make-a-Wish foundation today. It's basically a newsletter. My wife and I contribute regularly as part of our tithe. In this letter they talk about some of the things they've accomplished this year. And then something stands out. They've received a record amount in donations this year.
I think that says a lot about capitalism and the tax system. Right now, taxes are lower (I won't say low because I still think they are obscenely high), the DOW is breaking records every day and has reached the 12,000 mark. Home ownership is up, especially among minorities. Corporate taxes are down and government revenue is climbing - which is starting to drive the deficit down. And in all this, what has happened to charitable contributions? Well, I don't know about charity in general, but one of the most well-known has had a banner year. Take that Karl Marx (or should I say, Howard Dean?).
While listening to the radio this weekend, I hear two pretty interesting stats. First, the defense budget. It's somewhere around 600 billion. Sounds like a lot, but put it in perspective. When looking at it in regards to the GNP, it's actually lower than average. The other thing, spending on social programs is about 1.9 TRILLION. We're spending outrageous amounts of money on social programs (and that's just this year) in an attempt heal our social "ills". Yet, teenage pregnancy is up, so are fatherless households. Divorce rates are up. The crystal meth epidemic is crippling the midwest. The poverty rate hasn't changed all that much since the 60s. Obesity has become epidemic. Our kids have become more violent. Our prisons have developed revolving doors. And we pay 1.9 Trillion a year for this? When do we start questionning the efficacy of these social programs?
Finally, it occus to me that the Dems have a good shot at winning the House, maybe even the Senate. Perhaps the scariest thing about this is the thought of Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House. This woman is San Francisco politics, that is pro-gay marriage, anti-military, anti-traditional values, pro-income redistribution. Basically, she is a socialist, an extremist, an ultra-progressive. This is a political point of view that only about 10% of the US population shares, yet she could become the Speaker of the House. As if Washington isn't gridlocked enough, if she gets this position NOTHING will happen in Washington for 2 years. And the border situation (the most important social issue facing Washington)? Forget anything being done about it. For 2 more years the border will remain open and our security will remain threatened. Hopefully that won't happen, but we'll see.
I think that says a lot about capitalism and the tax system. Right now, taxes are lower (I won't say low because I still think they are obscenely high), the DOW is breaking records every day and has reached the 12,000 mark. Home ownership is up, especially among minorities. Corporate taxes are down and government revenue is climbing - which is starting to drive the deficit down. And in all this, what has happened to charitable contributions? Well, I don't know about charity in general, but one of the most well-known has had a banner year. Take that Karl Marx (or should I say, Howard Dean?).
While listening to the radio this weekend, I hear two pretty interesting stats. First, the defense budget. It's somewhere around 600 billion. Sounds like a lot, but put it in perspective. When looking at it in regards to the GNP, it's actually lower than average. The other thing, spending on social programs is about 1.9 TRILLION. We're spending outrageous amounts of money on social programs (and that's just this year) in an attempt heal our social "ills". Yet, teenage pregnancy is up, so are fatherless households. Divorce rates are up. The crystal meth epidemic is crippling the midwest. The poverty rate hasn't changed all that much since the 60s. Obesity has become epidemic. Our kids have become more violent. Our prisons have developed revolving doors. And we pay 1.9 Trillion a year for this? When do we start questionning the efficacy of these social programs?
Finally, it occus to me that the Dems have a good shot at winning the House, maybe even the Senate. Perhaps the scariest thing about this is the thought of Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House. This woman is San Francisco politics, that is pro-gay marriage, anti-military, anti-traditional values, pro-income redistribution. Basically, she is a socialist, an extremist, an ultra-progressive. This is a political point of view that only about 10% of the US population shares, yet she could become the Speaker of the House. As if Washington isn't gridlocked enough, if she gets this position NOTHING will happen in Washington for 2 years. And the border situation (the most important social issue facing Washington)? Forget anything being done about it. For 2 more years the border will remain open and our security will remain threatened. Hopefully that won't happen, but we'll see.
Friday, October 20, 2006
"Sorry"
Il 'sorry' for nuclear test
So another of Il's multiple personalities has emerged from that dark chasm of a soul. One minute he's threatening the UN with nuclear war, the next minute he's sorry. Give it a few weeks, and he'll be back to his threats and illegal tests. This guy needs an entire team of psychiatrists.
But I have to give credit to the Chinese. I don't know what their Korean envoy had to say to Il, but obviously it got his attention. Perhaps the Chinese didn't like us suggesting that Japan may need nukes of their own to counter Il's threat. Secretary Rice's visit to Japan had a lot to do with it as well.
I think this again shows the incompetence and obsoleteness of the UN. They were unable to do a thing about this situation, yet a single envoy from China put an end to it, albeit likely a temporary end. One wonders just what good is the UN? When was the last time they actually did something beneficial for the the world, not to mention America?
I agree with Newt Gingrich. The only way this issue will be resolved is through a regime change in North Korea. It's good that China is taking the sort of initiative they're taking, but these results will only be temporary. The world will not be safe until Kim Jong Il is no longer in power.
So another of Il's multiple personalities has emerged from that dark chasm of a soul. One minute he's threatening the UN with nuclear war, the next minute he's sorry. Give it a few weeks, and he'll be back to his threats and illegal tests. This guy needs an entire team of psychiatrists.
But I have to give credit to the Chinese. I don't know what their Korean envoy had to say to Il, but obviously it got his attention. Perhaps the Chinese didn't like us suggesting that Japan may need nukes of their own to counter Il's threat. Secretary Rice's visit to Japan had a lot to do with it as well.
I think this again shows the incompetence and obsoleteness of the UN. They were unable to do a thing about this situation, yet a single envoy from China put an end to it, albeit likely a temporary end. One wonders just what good is the UN? When was the last time they actually did something beneficial for the the world, not to mention America?
I agree with Newt Gingrich. The only way this issue will be resolved is through a regime change in North Korea. It's good that China is taking the sort of initiative they're taking, but these results will only be temporary. The world will not be safe until Kim Jong Il is no longer in power.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
No excuse
Priest admits inappropriate behavior with Foley.
Rep Foley has stated that he was abused by a priest at age 12-13. He named that priest recently and, apparently, the priest in question admits to some inappropriate behavior with Foley, specifically: skinny dipping with him in Lake Worth, massaging Foley in the nude and taking nude saunas with him. He denies having sex with Foley, but admits that there was an incident that he doesn’t clearly remember because he was in a drug-induced stupor.
First of all, this is no excuse for Foley. I firmly believe that each individual is responsible for his own actions regardless of their past. Having mean parents or a difficult childhood does not excuse illegal or inappropriate behavior, does not diminish the severity of that behavior and should not diminish the punishment for that behavior. I am sympathetic towards Foley, but it doesn’t change what he did. I stand by what I said before: If he broke the law and molested a minor, then he needs to go to jail for a long time.
As for the priest, he should be prosecuted. Regardless of what he thinks, giving a 13 year-old a nude massage, or taking a nude sauna or skinny dipping is not okay. In fact, it’s probably criminal. His being a priest doesn’t make it any less criminal and his "problems" that he speaks of are no excuse either. If he molested Foley – regardless of his drug induced stupor – he should also go to jail for a long time. I don’t care if he is 80 years old. I’m a little fed up with society turning a blind eye to the abuse of our children and I want it to stop. This should not be tolerated in any culture or society. We’re not talking about a mental illness or a psychiatric condition here…we’re talking about a crime and a serious one at that.
In short, Foley was wrong and so was this priest, they should both pay dearly for what they did. They have no one to blame but themselves and their behavior should have dire consequences.
Rep Foley has stated that he was abused by a priest at age 12-13. He named that priest recently and, apparently, the priest in question admits to some inappropriate behavior with Foley, specifically: skinny dipping with him in Lake Worth, massaging Foley in the nude and taking nude saunas with him. He denies having sex with Foley, but admits that there was an incident that he doesn’t clearly remember because he was in a drug-induced stupor.
First of all, this is no excuse for Foley. I firmly believe that each individual is responsible for his own actions regardless of their past. Having mean parents or a difficult childhood does not excuse illegal or inappropriate behavior, does not diminish the severity of that behavior and should not diminish the punishment for that behavior. I am sympathetic towards Foley, but it doesn’t change what he did. I stand by what I said before: If he broke the law and molested a minor, then he needs to go to jail for a long time.
As for the priest, he should be prosecuted. Regardless of what he thinks, giving a 13 year-old a nude massage, or taking a nude sauna or skinny dipping is not okay. In fact, it’s probably criminal. His being a priest doesn’t make it any less criminal and his "problems" that he speaks of are no excuse either. If he molested Foley – regardless of his drug induced stupor – he should also go to jail for a long time. I don’t care if he is 80 years old. I’m a little fed up with society turning a blind eye to the abuse of our children and I want it to stop. This should not be tolerated in any culture or society. We’re not talking about a mental illness or a psychiatric condition here…we’re talking about a crime and a serious one at that.
In short, Foley was wrong and so was this priest, they should both pay dearly for what they did. They have no one to blame but themselves and their behavior should have dire consequences.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The double standard
Democrat describes Steele as "slavish"
The double standard in Washington and the "politically correct" arena continues. When a democrat says something clearly insensitive and politically incorrect, then there really aren’t many waves made about it. But let a republican do the same thing, and all hell breaks loose. Anyone remember what happened to Trent Lott? Hillary Clinton?
Recently, Steve Lyons was fired from his broadcasting position for ‘insensitive remarks’ about latinos. I read Lyons’ remarks. He was clearly saying something in good humor and, as far as I can tell, Lou Pinella (whom Lyons was referring to) took no offense. Yet, Lyons still lost his job.
In this article, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer refers to Michael Steele (a black Republican candidate) as someone who "slavishly" supported the Republican Party. I think his words were tasteless and stupid, but I don’t think Hoyer should lose his job over it. And, as far as I could tell, it didn’t really bother Steele all that much. Steele seems to prefer sticking to the issues, especially when he has a clear edge in that area.
But what bothers me is that the media didn’t really jump on this issue. When George Allen mistakingly uses a Hindu slang term, he gets crucified for what can arguably be called an honest mistake. Yet, we haven’t really heard much from the media about Hoyer’s comments. Is it because Steele is a Republican? Should we then think that it’s OK to use insensitive politically incorrect descriptions for black Republicans or any other minority Republicans? That’s what it seems to me.
Hillary Clinton can describe Ghandi as a gas-station owner. Not a word is spoken. Robert Byrd can have – in his past – service in the KKK, that’s alright, unless they decide to switch parties. It seems the Dems are immune to the "racist" label.
I don’t think Clinton or Hoyer are racists, and neither is Trent Lott. All I’m asking for is fairness in Washington and the media. There is no doubt that if Steele was a Democrat and Hoyer a Republican, then Hoyer would have been demonized and probably forced out of the election for this remark.
Being politically incorrect is OK if you're a Democrat, but unacceptable if you're a Republican. That's the double standard in America.
The double standard in Washington and the "politically correct" arena continues. When a democrat says something clearly insensitive and politically incorrect, then there really aren’t many waves made about it. But let a republican do the same thing, and all hell breaks loose. Anyone remember what happened to Trent Lott? Hillary Clinton?
Recently, Steve Lyons was fired from his broadcasting position for ‘insensitive remarks’ about latinos. I read Lyons’ remarks. He was clearly saying something in good humor and, as far as I can tell, Lou Pinella (whom Lyons was referring to) took no offense. Yet, Lyons still lost his job.
In this article, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer refers to Michael Steele (a black Republican candidate) as someone who "slavishly" supported the Republican Party. I think his words were tasteless and stupid, but I don’t think Hoyer should lose his job over it. And, as far as I could tell, it didn’t really bother Steele all that much. Steele seems to prefer sticking to the issues, especially when he has a clear edge in that area.
But what bothers me is that the media didn’t really jump on this issue. When George Allen mistakingly uses a Hindu slang term, he gets crucified for what can arguably be called an honest mistake. Yet, we haven’t really heard much from the media about Hoyer’s comments. Is it because Steele is a Republican? Should we then think that it’s OK to use insensitive politically incorrect descriptions for black Republicans or any other minority Republicans? That’s what it seems to me.
Hillary Clinton can describe Ghandi as a gas-station owner. Not a word is spoken. Robert Byrd can have – in his past – service in the KKK, that’s alright, unless they decide to switch parties. It seems the Dems are immune to the "racist" label.
I don’t think Clinton or Hoyer are racists, and neither is Trent Lott. All I’m asking for is fairness in Washington and the media. There is no doubt that if Steele was a Democrat and Hoyer a Republican, then Hoyer would have been demonized and probably forced out of the election for this remark.
Being politically incorrect is OK if you're a Democrat, but unacceptable if you're a Republican. That's the double standard in America.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
28 months
Attorney gets 28 months for aiding a terrorist.
We are currently waging a war on terror. There are people who are intent on killing innocent civilians and needlessly attacking American targets. These are the people we are waging war on. Basically, there is an enemy, we know who that enemy is and they are the ones who must be stopped. So what should happen to someone who knowingly aids that enemy? What should happen to someone who passes messages for these people when they otherwise couldn’t do it themselves?
Such was the case with Lynn Stewart, who helped her terrorist client by passing messages to his terrorist buddies while he was in prison. Isn’t that aiding the enemy? Isn’t that espionage? Isn’t that treason?
She was convicted for her actions which is a good thing. But her sentence leaves something to be desired…28 months in prison. 28 months for someone who knowingly aided people who actively target civilians in deliberate and deadly attacks. 28 months. One wonders what would have happened in the 40s to someone who did the same for the Japanese or the Nazis. I can confidently say it would have been a lot more than 28 months. In fact, it may have been death. That was then. This is now.
This says a lot about our determination to win the war on terror and it pales in comparison to our attitude in the ‘40s. If we give our enemies – and Ms Stewart IS an enemy of the United States – this kind of weak punishment, we will NOT win the war on terror. We need to be sending messages that supporting terrorist networks will not be tolerated and 28 months is not the message to send.
Stewart’s sentence is a victory for our enemies and should alert us to the fact that we are not waging this war properly. Our current attitude is, in a word, half-ass and a half-ass attitude will spell defeat. Ms Stewart acted as a spy and even if you follow the most stringent rules of war the punishment for espionage can be death. Should she get the death penalty? I won’t go that far, but she should have gotten much more than 28 months.
We are currently waging a war on terror. There are people who are intent on killing innocent civilians and needlessly attacking American targets. These are the people we are waging war on. Basically, there is an enemy, we know who that enemy is and they are the ones who must be stopped. So what should happen to someone who knowingly aids that enemy? What should happen to someone who passes messages for these people when they otherwise couldn’t do it themselves?
Such was the case with Lynn Stewart, who helped her terrorist client by passing messages to his terrorist buddies while he was in prison. Isn’t that aiding the enemy? Isn’t that espionage? Isn’t that treason?
She was convicted for her actions which is a good thing. But her sentence leaves something to be desired…28 months in prison. 28 months for someone who knowingly aided people who actively target civilians in deliberate and deadly attacks. 28 months. One wonders what would have happened in the 40s to someone who did the same for the Japanese or the Nazis. I can confidently say it would have been a lot more than 28 months. In fact, it may have been death. That was then. This is now.
This says a lot about our determination to win the war on terror and it pales in comparison to our attitude in the ‘40s. If we give our enemies – and Ms Stewart IS an enemy of the United States – this kind of weak punishment, we will NOT win the war on terror. We need to be sending messages that supporting terrorist networks will not be tolerated and 28 months is not the message to send.
Stewart’s sentence is a victory for our enemies and should alert us to the fact that we are not waging this war properly. Our current attitude is, in a word, half-ass and a half-ass attitude will spell defeat. Ms Stewart acted as a spy and even if you follow the most stringent rules of war the punishment for espionage can be death. Should she get the death penalty? I won’t go that far, but she should have gotten much more than 28 months.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Seeking asylum in the UK land of entitlements
UK asylum seekers getting out of hand.
This article is a great representation of what happens to a country with open borders and a massive system of entitlements, all paid for by the working class of course. The UK has seen a dramatic rise in those seeking "asylum", including some Americans. These people are then given free healthcare, free accommodations and a weekly government stipend and they aren’t even UK citizens.
They continue to receive these entitlements while they’re asylum application is reviewed which gives them ample time to blend into the populace. If the request is rejected, rarely do they get evicted or deported. Apparently, the word has gotten out and the UK is being inundated with these people. Obviously, it has and will continue to take its toll on the economy and the tax payers. Not only that, but there is very little background checking, which means that this is not only a social threat but also a national security threat.
Next month we will elect a new Congress and you’d better believe that if the Left takes over, this is the direction we will be heading. There will be nothing done about the border, entitlements will increase and, as a result, so will taxes. In the end, we will be paying for non-citizens to come to America to leech off of our hard work. Sound good to you? I say no thanks. Hopefully, America agrees.
But my concern is that the average American is not very well informed politically. They hear the soundbites on CNN or CBS and base their vote on that. They have no idea what a Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would mean for this country’s future. They have no idea what a "cut and run" policy in Iraq would do to our national defense. And they certainly have no idea how high our taxes will go with the Left in office.
This article is a great representation of what happens to a country with open borders and a massive system of entitlements, all paid for by the working class of course. The UK has seen a dramatic rise in those seeking "asylum", including some Americans. These people are then given free healthcare, free accommodations and a weekly government stipend and they aren’t even UK citizens.
They continue to receive these entitlements while they’re asylum application is reviewed which gives them ample time to blend into the populace. If the request is rejected, rarely do they get evicted or deported. Apparently, the word has gotten out and the UK is being inundated with these people. Obviously, it has and will continue to take its toll on the economy and the tax payers. Not only that, but there is very little background checking, which means that this is not only a social threat but also a national security threat.
Next month we will elect a new Congress and you’d better believe that if the Left takes over, this is the direction we will be heading. There will be nothing done about the border, entitlements will increase and, as a result, so will taxes. In the end, we will be paying for non-citizens to come to America to leech off of our hard work. Sound good to you? I say no thanks. Hopefully, America agrees.
But my concern is that the average American is not very well informed politically. They hear the soundbites on CNN or CBS and base their vote on that. They have no idea what a Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would mean for this country’s future. They have no idea what a "cut and run" policy in Iraq would do to our national defense. And they certainly have no idea how high our taxes will go with the Left in office.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
From Amazon.com
Here is a review posted on Amazon.com written by Byron Justice, author of Violent Night.
Upon reading this incredible book, it's hard to believe it's written by a NEW author. The writing flows naturally, even when there are flashbacks which build the background for the characters. And these are very well-developed characters, many whom will root for, and a few that'll make you cringe. Although the category listed on the back cover is Christian fiction, this is more of a contemporary political thriller. I don't think non-Christian readers will stumble over the Christian aspect.
The characters behave in a manner similar to how Morgan Freeman played the president in the movie "Deep Impact." The dialogue between the characters is most profound. Whoever writes the speeches for our current politians would only wish to be that good! One does not have to wait at all for the story to build. There is a terrorist attack in the first few pages--and after that, this book is addictive. The book is well-edited; everything in the text moves the story along. The print is rather dense, but broken into short sections.
WHEN EVIL PROSPERS is pure adventure: no sex, no vulgarity, no long Bible passages to muddle through. Washburn holds a traditionalist political view; therefore, this novel has an agenda. When the characters conflict over politics, the readers are treated to some very well-crafted drama. Washburn is adept at handling politics. All of the key characters stand by their principles, so I admired even those characters who stand on the other side of the political spectrum from me. Washburn does not pre-judge the characters--those who make the right decisions are vindicated by the results of their actions; those who make poor decisions fail to win the outcome they desire.
I would give this book six stars if I could. If you read my other reviews, you'll know how much this book impressed me. Reading this book will inspire you and make you proud to be an American. If you are an American Muslim, it will make you proud to be an American Muslim (that's not true with many other post 9/11 novels!). If you are a Texan, this book will make you feel proud to be a Texan. You will take from WHEN EVIL PROSPERS a hope that Washburn accurately captured the soul of the average American, and a worry that "when evil prospers," no one will rise to defend our way of life. Better buy this book and read it fast! The story takes place in 2009!
Byron C. Justice, author of "Violent Night"
Upon reading this incredible book, it's hard to believe it's written by a NEW author. The writing flows naturally, even when there are flashbacks which build the background for the characters. And these are very well-developed characters, many whom will root for, and a few that'll make you cringe. Although the category listed on the back cover is Christian fiction, this is more of a contemporary political thriller. I don't think non-Christian readers will stumble over the Christian aspect.
The characters behave in a manner similar to how Morgan Freeman played the president in the movie "Deep Impact." The dialogue between the characters is most profound. Whoever writes the speeches for our current politians would only wish to be that good! One does not have to wait at all for the story to build. There is a terrorist attack in the first few pages--and after that, this book is addictive. The book is well-edited; everything in the text moves the story along. The print is rather dense, but broken into short sections.
WHEN EVIL PROSPERS is pure adventure: no sex, no vulgarity, no long Bible passages to muddle through. Washburn holds a traditionalist political view; therefore, this novel has an agenda. When the characters conflict over politics, the readers are treated to some very well-crafted drama. Washburn is adept at handling politics. All of the key characters stand by their principles, so I admired even those characters who stand on the other side of the political spectrum from me. Washburn does not pre-judge the characters--those who make the right decisions are vindicated by the results of their actions; those who make poor decisions fail to win the outcome they desire.
I would give this book six stars if I could. If you read my other reviews, you'll know how much this book impressed me. Reading this book will inspire you and make you proud to be an American. If you are an American Muslim, it will make you proud to be an American Muslim (that's not true with many other post 9/11 novels!). If you are a Texan, this book will make you feel proud to be a Texan. You will take from WHEN EVIL PROSPERS a hope that Washburn accurately captured the soul of the average American, and a worry that "when evil prospers," no one will rise to defend our way of life. Better buy this book and read it fast! The story takes place in 2009!
Byron C. Justice, author of "Violent Night"
Friday, October 13, 2006
A look at the headlines
North Korea threatens attack again
How many threats will we tolerate? If we or South Korea or Japan gets attacked by Il, how long will it take for the Left to start blaming Bush and the military. After all, he issued several threats right? That’s what they’re doing with 9/11, assigning blame. Yet, the Left seems to be opposed to actually taking these threats seriously
Iran continues nuclear plans
One nut already has the bomb, another is on the verge. The UN has still done NOTHING in either case. My question is "What’s it gonna take?"
Dems would raise taxes if they controlled Congress
This is filed in the category of …Duh!
Air America files for bankruptcy
This is a good indication of the attitude mainstream America has towards the radical Left. I’ve listened to Air America, more out of curiosity than anything, and it was truly vile. I’ve never heard such hatred and anti-American rhetoric from the commentators on that network. There was no healthy debate. There were a lot of character attacks. In short, there was nothing constructive going on. I’m glad that America rejected this nonsense.
How many threats will we tolerate? If we or South Korea or Japan gets attacked by Il, how long will it take for the Left to start blaming Bush and the military. After all, he issued several threats right? That’s what they’re doing with 9/11, assigning blame. Yet, the Left seems to be opposed to actually taking these threats seriously
Iran continues nuclear plans
One nut already has the bomb, another is on the verge. The UN has still done NOTHING in either case. My question is "What’s it gonna take?"
Dems would raise taxes if they controlled Congress
This is filed in the category of …Duh!
Air America files for bankruptcy
This is a good indication of the attitude mainstream America has towards the radical Left. I’ve listened to Air America, more out of curiosity than anything, and it was truly vile. I’ve never heard such hatred and anti-American rhetoric from the commentators on that network. There was no healthy debate. There were a lot of character attacks. In short, there was nothing constructive going on. I’m glad that America rejected this nonsense.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Paying too much for gas? How about more taxes?
Al Gore appears in commercial supporting Proposition 87.
Proposition 87 is an initiative appearing on the California ballot that is aimed at stopping California’s dependence on foreign oil. The goal is to cut oil usage by 25% over 10 years while also encouraging new technology that will help eliminate our oil dependancy. How do you think they are going to do this? Well, it’s a measure proposed by Democrats, so that should be your first big clue.
Yes, they will raise taxes. They will tax America oil companies. And the beat goes on.
The Left still clings to the notion that raising taxes does good things – that it encourages positive behavior. I don’t get it. This is capitalism and in such an economy raising taxes on the corporations only hurts the consumer. We’re already paying $3 a gallon for gas with OPEC threatening to cut production even more and these morons want to RAISE taxes on oil companies and thus make us pay MORE at the pump? I guess they can tell us "it's for your own good". And they somehow think this will stimulate research into alternative fuel sources?
Surely not even the people of California will fall for this nonsense. If the 90s proved anything, it’s that R&D is encouraged by lower taxes. The tech boom of that decade was a direct result of the corporate tax breaks from the Reagan era. The ensuing economic collapse of 2000-01 was a direct result of Clinton’s massive corporate tax-hike. Raising taxes on oil companies won’t hurt the oil companies and it won’t encourage more research. It will simply lead to HIGHER prices at the pump, likely industry job cuts and a more sluggish economy.
We ALREADY have the technology. Instead of taxing oil companies, how about building more nuclear power plants? How about setting up financial incentives to increase alcohol-based fuels or biofuels?
I’m all for eliminating our foreign oil dependence. But raising taxes and slowing down the economy is not the way to do it. Good intention, but very bad idea.
Proposition 87 is an initiative appearing on the California ballot that is aimed at stopping California’s dependence on foreign oil. The goal is to cut oil usage by 25% over 10 years while also encouraging new technology that will help eliminate our oil dependancy. How do you think they are going to do this? Well, it’s a measure proposed by Democrats, so that should be your first big clue.
Yes, they will raise taxes. They will tax America oil companies. And the beat goes on.
The Left still clings to the notion that raising taxes does good things – that it encourages positive behavior. I don’t get it. This is capitalism and in such an economy raising taxes on the corporations only hurts the consumer. We’re already paying $3 a gallon for gas with OPEC threatening to cut production even more and these morons want to RAISE taxes on oil companies and thus make us pay MORE at the pump? I guess they can tell us "it's for your own good". And they somehow think this will stimulate research into alternative fuel sources?
Surely not even the people of California will fall for this nonsense. If the 90s proved anything, it’s that R&D is encouraged by lower taxes. The tech boom of that decade was a direct result of the corporate tax breaks from the Reagan era. The ensuing economic collapse of 2000-01 was a direct result of Clinton’s massive corporate tax-hike. Raising taxes on oil companies won’t hurt the oil companies and it won’t encourage more research. It will simply lead to HIGHER prices at the pump, likely industry job cuts and a more sluggish economy.
We ALREADY have the technology. Instead of taxing oil companies, how about building more nuclear power plants? How about setting up financial incentives to increase alcohol-based fuels or biofuels?
I’m all for eliminating our foreign oil dependence. But raising taxes and slowing down the economy is not the way to do it. Good intention, but very bad idea.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
"It was just a mistake"
Mom throws infant at father
A northwestern Pennsylvania woman accused of using her baby to batter her child's father said she didn't realize what she was doing until it was too late. Chyrotia Graham, 27, of Erie, told police she had been drinking when an argument with the child's father turned violent early Sunday morning, according to an affidavit filed to support Graham's arrest. Graham said she "snapped" and began grabbing things and throwing them at Deangelo Troop, 20, not realizing she had picked up her 4-week-old son, Jarron Troop, telling police she held the child by his legs and swung him at his father. "People are trying to make a big deal about it, but she did not do it on purpose. ... It was just a mistake," he (the father) said.
This story is not a joke, it really happened. A mother used her 4 week old son to assault her mate. Let’s think about this a moment. There is something terribly wrong in our culture. I’ve said so many times on this blog that we, as Americans (indeed as humans) have lost touch with the value of human life. That makes for a solid argument against legalized abortion. In the past, I’ve felt that abortion was wrong but didn’t want to go far enough to say that the government should make it illegal…but the news over the past several years have made me rethink that.
When a society begins to lose its morality, then laws have to be inacted to keep the peace. The fewer morals we have, the more laws have to be passed. Abortion has fallen into that category. Before, we could rationalize its legality by saying that we must protect the woman’s health, or we must have a way for victims of rape or incest to keep from bearing their attacker’s child. That’s a good argument and would hold if we maintained our moral fiber. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Now, abortion is being used as birth control and as a means of avoiding an "inconvenience". We’ve overstepped our bounds here.
So what does abortion have to do with this story? By using it as a tool to eliminate an inconvenience or an ‘oops’, we’ve cheapened human life immeasurably. And I think what started with fetuses is now beginning to spill into infancy. After all, if a fetus has no value then what real value does a 4-week-old have? It’s a disturbing trend, the evidence of which we’ve seen over the past two decades. Just last night, there was a story of a newborn found in a wooded area in Boston wrapped in a Hefty bag, placenta and umbilical cord still attacked, tossed away like yesterday’s trash. And many groups that advocate for abortion on demand are beginning to subscribe to the idea of infanticide as a means of "protecting the mother’s health". Soon, people will use things like post-partum depression and anxiety as a reason to do away with newborns. Some may scoff at this, but there is a real possibility here.
So I support overturning Roe v Wade, mainly because we as a society have demonstrated that we can’t handle legalized abortion as it was meant to be. Like a teenager who gets his curfew extended to midnight, we decided to come home at 4 AM. Legalized abortion is beyond our scope of responsibility and if it remains, I feel it will threaten much more than the human fetus. How long until we base the right to exist for the young and the old on how much they contribute to society or how little they inconvenience society? This is not a medical issue, it’s a moral issue. Medically, abortion should be safe, legal and rare; but that’s NOT how we utilize. Morally, abortion should not be an option for a society that can’t see the value of human life, a society that says "it was just a mistake" when a mother hurls her infant at someone in anger.
A northwestern Pennsylvania woman accused of using her baby to batter her child's father said she didn't realize what she was doing until it was too late. Chyrotia Graham, 27, of Erie, told police she had been drinking when an argument with the child's father turned violent early Sunday morning, according to an affidavit filed to support Graham's arrest. Graham said she "snapped" and began grabbing things and throwing them at Deangelo Troop, 20, not realizing she had picked up her 4-week-old son, Jarron Troop, telling police she held the child by his legs and swung him at his father. "People are trying to make a big deal about it, but she did not do it on purpose. ... It was just a mistake," he (the father) said.
This story is not a joke, it really happened. A mother used her 4 week old son to assault her mate. Let’s think about this a moment. There is something terribly wrong in our culture. I’ve said so many times on this blog that we, as Americans (indeed as humans) have lost touch with the value of human life. That makes for a solid argument against legalized abortion. In the past, I’ve felt that abortion was wrong but didn’t want to go far enough to say that the government should make it illegal…but the news over the past several years have made me rethink that.
When a society begins to lose its morality, then laws have to be inacted to keep the peace. The fewer morals we have, the more laws have to be passed. Abortion has fallen into that category. Before, we could rationalize its legality by saying that we must protect the woman’s health, or we must have a way for victims of rape or incest to keep from bearing their attacker’s child. That’s a good argument and would hold if we maintained our moral fiber. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Now, abortion is being used as birth control and as a means of avoiding an "inconvenience". We’ve overstepped our bounds here.
So what does abortion have to do with this story? By using it as a tool to eliminate an inconvenience or an ‘oops’, we’ve cheapened human life immeasurably. And I think what started with fetuses is now beginning to spill into infancy. After all, if a fetus has no value then what real value does a 4-week-old have? It’s a disturbing trend, the evidence of which we’ve seen over the past two decades. Just last night, there was a story of a newborn found in a wooded area in Boston wrapped in a Hefty bag, placenta and umbilical cord still attacked, tossed away like yesterday’s trash. And many groups that advocate for abortion on demand are beginning to subscribe to the idea of infanticide as a means of "protecting the mother’s health". Soon, people will use things like post-partum depression and anxiety as a reason to do away with newborns. Some may scoff at this, but there is a real possibility here.
So I support overturning Roe v Wade, mainly because we as a society have demonstrated that we can’t handle legalized abortion as it was meant to be. Like a teenager who gets his curfew extended to midnight, we decided to come home at 4 AM. Legalized abortion is beyond our scope of responsibility and if it remains, I feel it will threaten much more than the human fetus. How long until we base the right to exist for the young and the old on how much they contribute to society or how little they inconvenience society? This is not a medical issue, it’s a moral issue. Medically, abortion should be safe, legal and rare; but that’s NOT how we utilize. Morally, abortion should not be an option for a society that can’t see the value of human life, a society that says "it was just a mistake" when a mother hurls her infant at someone in anger.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Once again, it's Bush's fault
North Korea threatens US with a nuclear strike, and the Dems blame Bush.
This is unbelievable and if it wasn’t for the behavior of the Left over the past 3 years I wouldn’t believe it. A senior North Korean official actually threatened to launch a nuclear warhead on the United States if we did not agree to one-on-one talks. So they are demanding that we do their will under threat.
This is not the stunning part. They’ve been tossing these threats around for years. What shocks me is that while they’re threatening us, the Democratic party is calling FOR unilateral talks with North Korea AND criticizing Bush for mishandling the situation. So, Il is saying "do this or we’ll attack" and the Dems are saying "yep, he’s right, we should do as he says."
Bill Clinton gave in on the unilateral talks. He allowed Il to acquire a nuclear reactor and because of this they eventually developed nuclear weapons. They took our technology, stabbed us in the back and now they are threatening us with that same technology. And the Democrats think we should trust him AGAIN, that somehow this is all Bush’s fault.
What some would do or say to gain political favor is disgusting. They criticize Bush for going unilateral with Iraq and criticize him for NOT going unilateral with North Korea. It’s all politics and it does NOTHING to help the situation. And these are the people asking America for control of Congress?
This is unbelievable and if it wasn’t for the behavior of the Left over the past 3 years I wouldn’t believe it. A senior North Korean official actually threatened to launch a nuclear warhead on the United States if we did not agree to one-on-one talks. So they are demanding that we do their will under threat.
This is not the stunning part. They’ve been tossing these threats around for years. What shocks me is that while they’re threatening us, the Democratic party is calling FOR unilateral talks with North Korea AND criticizing Bush for mishandling the situation. So, Il is saying "do this or we’ll attack" and the Dems are saying "yep, he’s right, we should do as he says."
Bill Clinton gave in on the unilateral talks. He allowed Il to acquire a nuclear reactor and because of this they eventually developed nuclear weapons. They took our technology, stabbed us in the back and now they are threatening us with that same technology. And the Democrats think we should trust him AGAIN, that somehow this is all Bush’s fault.
What some would do or say to gain political favor is disgusting. They criticize Bush for going unilateral with Iraq and criticize him for NOT going unilateral with North Korea. It’s all politics and it does NOTHING to help the situation. And these are the people asking America for control of Congress?
Sunday, October 08, 2006
It's time to draw a line
North Korea set to test nuke
I've posted on this lunatic several times. I've said that North Korea and Iran WILL obtain nuclear weapons. They're both rubbing elbows with Chavez, someone who lives in the Western Hemisphere, and if you remember your Monroe Doctrine then you know that's a bad thing. I've felt and still feel that Il, Chavez and Ahmadinejad could unite in a three pronged attack against us and Israel. Some have scoffed at me for saying this, and I hope to God it won't happen. But we seem to be heading in that direction.
Ahmadinejad and Chavez deliver a two day UN comedy routine bashing us on our own soil. Iran has YET to meet any UN demands for halting their nuclear program and no one seems to know how close they are to having the bomb. But Ahmadinejad has made it clear what his intentions are, even though he contradicts himself daily. Anyone who says Israel should be wiped off the map has no business getting anywhere near nuclear weapons, yet we sit back and wait for the UN to do something. And, for some ungodly reason, the Left seems to be more concerned about Darfur.
Now, Il is on the verge of a nuclear test. What happens when the voices in his head tell him to launch against us, or Japan, or South Korea, or even China? Nothing is beyond possible for him.
You better believe that the first chance that comes, they will find a way to share their nukes with Chavez. We don't have an effective missile defense shield and we could very well be facing a nuclear attack from three different directions. Paranoid? No. This possibility is very real. I'd feel safer giving a one-year old child a handgun. At least that child doesn't know how to use the weapon. These three are absolutely nuts, and soon they will all three have "the bomb". It's not paranoia. There's a very good reason to feel fearful.
We should send a clear signal NOW! I'm talking about opening a few silos and fueling a few missiles to somehow help these idiots understand that what they are doing WILL NOT be tolerated, UN be damned! If not that, then we should park a couple of submarines in Pyongyang's backyard so Il will understand that if he launches he'll only have a few minutes to enjoy it. Enough with these idle threats. Somehow people have the idea that nuclear action is NEVER an option and I think that's a mistake. There is a proper time to use our most powerful weapon and, folks, we're getting close to that time. Conventional strikes may not get the job done and there is no denying the fact that allowing Il to test and possess a nuclear bomb is simply unacceptable. A line must be drawn and actions must occur when that line is crossed. Kennedy drew that line with the Soviets, as did Reagan, and now we must do it again.
I've posted on this lunatic several times. I've said that North Korea and Iran WILL obtain nuclear weapons. They're both rubbing elbows with Chavez, someone who lives in the Western Hemisphere, and if you remember your Monroe Doctrine then you know that's a bad thing. I've felt and still feel that Il, Chavez and Ahmadinejad could unite in a three pronged attack against us and Israel. Some have scoffed at me for saying this, and I hope to God it won't happen. But we seem to be heading in that direction.
Ahmadinejad and Chavez deliver a two day UN comedy routine bashing us on our own soil. Iran has YET to meet any UN demands for halting their nuclear program and no one seems to know how close they are to having the bomb. But Ahmadinejad has made it clear what his intentions are, even though he contradicts himself daily. Anyone who says Israel should be wiped off the map has no business getting anywhere near nuclear weapons, yet we sit back and wait for the UN to do something. And, for some ungodly reason, the Left seems to be more concerned about Darfur.
Now, Il is on the verge of a nuclear test. What happens when the voices in his head tell him to launch against us, or Japan, or South Korea, or even China? Nothing is beyond possible for him.
You better believe that the first chance that comes, they will find a way to share their nukes with Chavez. We don't have an effective missile defense shield and we could very well be facing a nuclear attack from three different directions. Paranoid? No. This possibility is very real. I'd feel safer giving a one-year old child a handgun. At least that child doesn't know how to use the weapon. These three are absolutely nuts, and soon they will all three have "the bomb". It's not paranoia. There's a very good reason to feel fearful.
We should send a clear signal NOW! I'm talking about opening a few silos and fueling a few missiles to somehow help these idiots understand that what they are doing WILL NOT be tolerated, UN be damned! If not that, then we should park a couple of submarines in Pyongyang's backyard so Il will understand that if he launches he'll only have a few minutes to enjoy it. Enough with these idle threats. Somehow people have the idea that nuclear action is NEVER an option and I think that's a mistake. There is a proper time to use our most powerful weapon and, folks, we're getting close to that time. Conventional strikes may not get the job done and there is no denying the fact that allowing Il to test and possess a nuclear bomb is simply unacceptable. A line must be drawn and actions must occur when that line is crossed. Kennedy drew that line with the Soviets, as did Reagan, and now we must do it again.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Praise from MyShelf.com
I just received another review of my book When Evil Prospers. This one from MyShelf.com. Thanks for the feedback. If anyone else would like to comment on the book, you can do so at the website www.whenevilprospers.com
"When a terrorist bomb explodes in the Arlington, Texas football stadium there are many casualties. One of them is Teresa, the beloved wife of Dr. Mark Daltry. Teresa, Mark, and his brother, Andrew were taking a well-deserved break from their medical duties to view a crucial baseball game, when the peaceful excitement of the game was shattered by the violent explosion caused by the terrorist bomb.
Two terrorists were captured: one in London, the other in Texas. The Texas terrorist is beaten while being interrogated by Dallas police... a violation of the Geneva Convention. This issue will be the source of controversy and taken to the UN. From their interrogation, it is learned that the terrorists were aided by Iran, Mexico and Cuba. The U.S. turns over this evidence to the UN for action. The UN is now controlled by the Third World nations. It is rampant with bribery and corruption, a safe haven for terrorists, and is bent on decreasing the US influence in the world.
President Hillman is a dove, and in turning the evidence over to the UN hopes to avoid military action against Iran, Cuba and Mexico. The UN, Cuba, Mexico and Iran repudiate the U S claims and cast the US in the role of using the tragedy to exploit their nations. Hillman's refusal to take direct action frustrates Texas governor, Ed Hood. His state has been attacked; his borders are overrun by illegal immigrants; the Mexican drug cartel is in control of the border. The Mexican president refuses any assistance in controlling the situation. Hood, who was raised under the standard of God, country and family is a hawk, and when he is given no assistance from the President, determines to bring in his National Guard to minimize the illegal activity. All points of entry are closed; no one leaves and no one comes over without documentation of citizenship or legality.
Mark desires action of some sort to combat those people who violated his private life. His days of practicing medicine are replaced by a mission to help fight against those who slaughter the innocent. America is in trouble and heading for disaster. He and a small group of Texans prepare for the first strike. Events escalate, causing a change in the political future of some and causing a division in the country. Only strong leadership brings about the beginning of the healing of the nation.
To me the book is a platform for the author's views on the decline of social and spiritual mores of the country and its people, and the need for a few good men to take control to bring the country back to its high standards... men of purpose with the help of God. The characterizations are strong with detailed backgrounds which show the influences in their lives. There is considerable stress on the need to have faith in God in all endeavors. The views of the author are presented in a strong and clear manner. You may not agree with all of them, but you do understand what he is saying and are challenged by them. The premises brought forth in the book are alarming to contemplate, and hopefully the future will be brighter. A fascinating read."
"When a terrorist bomb explodes in the Arlington, Texas football stadium there are many casualties. One of them is Teresa, the beloved wife of Dr. Mark Daltry. Teresa, Mark, and his brother, Andrew were taking a well-deserved break from their medical duties to view a crucial baseball game, when the peaceful excitement of the game was shattered by the violent explosion caused by the terrorist bomb.
Two terrorists were captured: one in London, the other in Texas. The Texas terrorist is beaten while being interrogated by Dallas police... a violation of the Geneva Convention. This issue will be the source of controversy and taken to the UN. From their interrogation, it is learned that the terrorists were aided by Iran, Mexico and Cuba. The U.S. turns over this evidence to the UN for action. The UN is now controlled by the Third World nations. It is rampant with bribery and corruption, a safe haven for terrorists, and is bent on decreasing the US influence in the world.
President Hillman is a dove, and in turning the evidence over to the UN hopes to avoid military action against Iran, Cuba and Mexico. The UN, Cuba, Mexico and Iran repudiate the U S claims and cast the US in the role of using the tragedy to exploit their nations. Hillman's refusal to take direct action frustrates Texas governor, Ed Hood. His state has been attacked; his borders are overrun by illegal immigrants; the Mexican drug cartel is in control of the border. The Mexican president refuses any assistance in controlling the situation. Hood, who was raised under the standard of God, country and family is a hawk, and when he is given no assistance from the President, determines to bring in his National Guard to minimize the illegal activity. All points of entry are closed; no one leaves and no one comes over without documentation of citizenship or legality.
Mark desires action of some sort to combat those people who violated his private life. His days of practicing medicine are replaced by a mission to help fight against those who slaughter the innocent. America is in trouble and heading for disaster. He and a small group of Texans prepare for the first strike. Events escalate, causing a change in the political future of some and causing a division in the country. Only strong leadership brings about the beginning of the healing of the nation.
To me the book is a platform for the author's views on the decline of social and spiritual mores of the country and its people, and the need for a few good men to take control to bring the country back to its high standards... men of purpose with the help of God. The characterizations are strong with detailed backgrounds which show the influences in their lives. There is considerable stress on the need to have faith in God in all endeavors. The views of the author are presented in a strong and clear manner. You may not agree with all of them, but you do understand what he is saying and are challenged by them. The premises brought forth in the book are alarming to contemplate, and hopefully the future will be brighter. A fascinating read."
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Secret votes and unfree speech
Senators have power to place secret hold on Senate Bills
A bill comes before the Senate. It allows for full public disclosure of government spending. If Congress spends $800 on a toilet, we can find out. Sounds like a good idea, but when the vote comes up any Senator has the ability to place a "secret hold" on the bill. Basically, the vote is stopped, and the Senator in question remains anonymous.
Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd did just that. Byrd later lifted his hold, but the fact that any Senator can do something like this anonymously is pretty outrageous. IN fact, our elected leaders shouldn't be doing ANYTHING at work anonymously. The last time I looked, a democratic government was supposed to be transparent. I guess our politicians don't agree.
Hopefully the bill gets through and hopefully this "secret hold" rule is canned, but I doubt it. Until the politicians are booted out of Washington, things like this will continue.
And speaking of fascists, did anyone see the news clips of the student protests at Columbia University? Apparently, the leaders of the Minutemen were invited to speak, and about one hour into it a socialist student political group stormed the stage and incited a physical altercation. One of the Minutemen leaders (a black man) was even verbally assaulted with racial slurs. So much for free speech. I thought the Left was supposed to support tolerance and openness. I guess that only applies to those who share their point of view. Add Columbia University to the long list of far left institutions that have lost touch with mainstream America.
A bill comes before the Senate. It allows for full public disclosure of government spending. If Congress spends $800 on a toilet, we can find out. Sounds like a good idea, but when the vote comes up any Senator has the ability to place a "secret hold" on the bill. Basically, the vote is stopped, and the Senator in question remains anonymous.
Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd did just that. Byrd later lifted his hold, but the fact that any Senator can do something like this anonymously is pretty outrageous. IN fact, our elected leaders shouldn't be doing ANYTHING at work anonymously. The last time I looked, a democratic government was supposed to be transparent. I guess our politicians don't agree.
Hopefully the bill gets through and hopefully this "secret hold" rule is canned, but I doubt it. Until the politicians are booted out of Washington, things like this will continue.
And speaking of fascists, did anyone see the news clips of the student protests at Columbia University? Apparently, the leaders of the Minutemen were invited to speak, and about one hour into it a socialist student political group stormed the stage and incited a physical altercation. One of the Minutemen leaders (a black man) was even verbally assaulted with racial slurs. So much for free speech. I thought the Left was supposed to support tolerance and openness. I guess that only applies to those who share their point of view. Add Columbia University to the long list of far left institutions that have lost touch with mainstream America.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
It's the guns, right?
My heart goes out to the families in Pennsylvania. As for their killer, he's likely getting what he deserves at this moment. Say hello to Zharqawi and Hitler for us you sick S.O.B.
It's only a matter of time before the Left starts with their usual outcry. Right now, they're a little distracted with the Hastert witch hunt, but give it time. Soon you'll hear the gun control crowd pipe up. Yes, surely all the school violence and the horrendous crime against our kids can be attributed to the evil guns and gun makers of this country. Give it time. You'll hear from them soon.
In my mind, guns aren't the problem. We've had guns in this country for over 200 years. We've only started murdering our children over the past decade. It doesn't take a genius to see that we've become morally bankrupt in this country. That's the problem with America. That's why our children are in danger. Taking away the guns won't solve a damn thing. Immoral people can kill with a lead pipe just as easy as they can with a gun.
Don't believe me? Stop at any moment in your day tomorrow. Take 5 minutes to look around. What do you see? Kids are growing up without proper parental supervision. The 'single-parent' has become just as common as the two parent household. Child abuse is rampant and now we're calling the pedophiles' criminal behavior an illness. We say they need treatment rather than punishment.
We advocate every form of violence, sex acts and graphic scenes on TV and in art as 'free speech' but we invoke the Constitution as a means of keeping God away from our public school system. Today, you can drink a beer nude while uttering every profanity known to man on television. That's OK. But try to mention Jesus and you'll be mobbed faster than you can say Madeline Murray O'Hare.
We call abortion a medical treatment and the death penalty murder. We turn our heads from the adulterous behavior of a President and instead of our elected leaders taking action to protect our kids, they contribute to the problem. "Separation of Church and State" has been inserted into the Constitution as a means of eliminating God from government and public life. We let our kids watch decapitations, stabbings, shootings, disembowements and eviscerations on TV and in video games, but if one of them tries to read the Bible in school it generates a lawsuit.
Child sex predators are "sentenced" to 60 days in jail, while Martha Stewart gets 5 months for insider trading. It's a greater crime to buy stock with inside information than to rape a child in this country. Abortion is advocated as a form of birth control, but try and detain a group of anti-American terrorists and suddenly we're violating human rights.
And we have the gall to be shocked when a man walks into a school and executes a group of young girls?
Either we are in a massive state of denial, or we've collectively agreed to continue on our self-destructive path, consumed with our self-serving agendas that ignores the needs of the next generation and basically don't care about the end result of our sins. Maybe it's a little bit of both. But, either way, it's a national tragedy and our kids are paying the ultimate price. It's something we will ALL have to answer to one day.
It's only a matter of time before the Left starts with their usual outcry. Right now, they're a little distracted with the Hastert witch hunt, but give it time. Soon you'll hear the gun control crowd pipe up. Yes, surely all the school violence and the horrendous crime against our kids can be attributed to the evil guns and gun makers of this country. Give it time. You'll hear from them soon.
In my mind, guns aren't the problem. We've had guns in this country for over 200 years. We've only started murdering our children over the past decade. It doesn't take a genius to see that we've become morally bankrupt in this country. That's the problem with America. That's why our children are in danger. Taking away the guns won't solve a damn thing. Immoral people can kill with a lead pipe just as easy as they can with a gun.
Don't believe me? Stop at any moment in your day tomorrow. Take 5 minutes to look around. What do you see? Kids are growing up without proper parental supervision. The 'single-parent' has become just as common as the two parent household. Child abuse is rampant and now we're calling the pedophiles' criminal behavior an illness. We say they need treatment rather than punishment.
We advocate every form of violence, sex acts and graphic scenes on TV and in art as 'free speech' but we invoke the Constitution as a means of keeping God away from our public school system. Today, you can drink a beer nude while uttering every profanity known to man on television. That's OK. But try to mention Jesus and you'll be mobbed faster than you can say Madeline Murray O'Hare.
We call abortion a medical treatment and the death penalty murder. We turn our heads from the adulterous behavior of a President and instead of our elected leaders taking action to protect our kids, they contribute to the problem. "Separation of Church and State" has been inserted into the Constitution as a means of eliminating God from government and public life. We let our kids watch decapitations, stabbings, shootings, disembowements and eviscerations on TV and in video games, but if one of them tries to read the Bible in school it generates a lawsuit.
Child sex predators are "sentenced" to 60 days in jail, while Martha Stewart gets 5 months for insider trading. It's a greater crime to buy stock with inside information than to rape a child in this country. Abortion is advocated as a form of birth control, but try and detain a group of anti-American terrorists and suddenly we're violating human rights.
And we have the gall to be shocked when a man walks into a school and executes a group of young girls?
Either we are in a massive state of denial, or we've collectively agreed to continue on our self-destructive path, consumed with our self-serving agendas that ignores the needs of the next generation and basically don't care about the end result of our sins. Maybe it's a little bit of both. But, either way, it's a national tragedy and our kids are paying the ultimate price. It's something we will ALL have to answer to one day.
Another unethical policitian....no way?
Democratic Congressional candidate with suspect expense account
Democrat congressional candidate Mike Arcuri, while serving as district attorney of Oneida County, N.Y., has billed taxpayers for several questionable expenses, including a call to a phone-sex hotline, according to records obtained by HumanEvents.com.Arcuri, running in New York’s 24th District against Republican Ray Meier, has spent the past 12 years as Oneida County’s district attorney. During that period, his annual expense reimbursements have skyrocketed. From 1998 to 2005, they increased nearly 7,000%....click link for more
Hmmm...seems like we have a recurring theme. Yet, it's the Republicans who have ethical issues.
Democrat congressional candidate Mike Arcuri, while serving as district attorney of Oneida County, N.Y., has billed taxpayers for several questionable expenses, including a call to a phone-sex hotline, according to records obtained by HumanEvents.com.Arcuri, running in New York’s 24th District against Republican Ray Meier, has spent the past 12 years as Oneida County’s district attorney. During that period, his annual expense reimbursements have skyrocketed. From 1998 to 2005, they increased nearly 7,000%....click link for more
Hmmm...seems like we have a recurring theme. Yet, it's the Republicans who have ethical issues.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Where is our Third Party?
I’ve made no bones about my ire towards politicians, and this Foley scandal is doing nothing to assuage that. I posted yesterday on Foley’s actions. He resigned and is out of politics forever. The GOP has asked the proper authorities to investigate for evidence of any state or federal law violation and, if found, hopefully will call for full prosecution of Foley. That would be the right thing to do. This blogger will be watching.
Now comes the politics, as expected. One by one the Left is parading in front of the cameras, condemning the Republicans and speaker Hastert, as though the entire party is guilty. Fox News, The Miami Herald and The ‘Leningrad’ Times are being criticized for ‘sitting’ on an email in which Foley asked the page in question for a photograph. But, Hastert is taking the brunt of the criticism. Apparently, Hastert should have known there was inappropriate behavior from Foley, even though these three major news outlets – all of which had the same information Hastert had – didn’t see a "story" worth reporting. And anyone who knows The ‘Leningrad’ Times also knows that if they had some dirt on a Republican Congressman they wouldn’t hesitate to report it. They aren’t exactly supportive of the GOP. But they didn’t report it, probably because they are familiar with the defamation and libel laws in this country.
But Hastert should have known, and now they want him to resign. I’m no big fan of Denny Hastert and his do-nothing GOP fatcats, but I don’t see how he is responsible in any way for Foley’s wrongdoing. And when scores of Democrats start claiming moral high ground, it brings the putrid taste of bile into my mouth. I’ll say it again. NEITHER party has ANY basis for claiming moral superiority. I’m tired of this partisan hypocrisy that overlooks the wrongdoing of one only to point fingers at others when it benefits them politically. Politics is a mental illness that has infected our elected leaders and somehow prevents them from ‘calling it as it is’. For some reason, these people only see wrong behavior when it can help them politically. It’s disgusting.
In my opinion, the only Dems who have the right to criticize Foley are the ones who also criticized Rep Jefferson in his questionable financial dealings and Clinton in his adulterous behavior. Does anyone in that party fit this description? No? Then shut it. I don’t want to hear of Congressmen having inappropriate relationships with minors any more than I want to hear of hypocritical charges from the other party. I’m sure I am not the only one who feels that way. Come November, if I had my way, they would ALL be looking for a job. I’m tired of Americans electing people who would better serve this country behind bars than in the halls of Congress, yet we continue to do so. Where is the credible third party that we all so desperately need?
Now comes the politics, as expected. One by one the Left is parading in front of the cameras, condemning the Republicans and speaker Hastert, as though the entire party is guilty. Fox News, The Miami Herald and The ‘Leningrad’ Times are being criticized for ‘sitting’ on an email in which Foley asked the page in question for a photograph. But, Hastert is taking the brunt of the criticism. Apparently, Hastert should have known there was inappropriate behavior from Foley, even though these three major news outlets – all of which had the same information Hastert had – didn’t see a "story" worth reporting. And anyone who knows The ‘Leningrad’ Times also knows that if they had some dirt on a Republican Congressman they wouldn’t hesitate to report it. They aren’t exactly supportive of the GOP. But they didn’t report it, probably because they are familiar with the defamation and libel laws in this country.
But Hastert should have known, and now they want him to resign. I’m no big fan of Denny Hastert and his do-nothing GOP fatcats, but I don’t see how he is responsible in any way for Foley’s wrongdoing. And when scores of Democrats start claiming moral high ground, it brings the putrid taste of bile into my mouth. I’ll say it again. NEITHER party has ANY basis for claiming moral superiority. I’m tired of this partisan hypocrisy that overlooks the wrongdoing of one only to point fingers at others when it benefits them politically. Politics is a mental illness that has infected our elected leaders and somehow prevents them from ‘calling it as it is’. For some reason, these people only see wrong behavior when it can help them politically. It’s disgusting.
In my opinion, the only Dems who have the right to criticize Foley are the ones who also criticized Rep Jefferson in his questionable financial dealings and Clinton in his adulterous behavior. Does anyone in that party fit this description? No? Then shut it. I don’t want to hear of Congressmen having inappropriate relationships with minors any more than I want to hear of hypocritical charges from the other party. I’m sure I am not the only one who feels that way. Come November, if I had my way, they would ALL be looking for a job. I’m tired of Americans electing people who would better serve this country behind bars than in the halls of Congress, yet we continue to do so. Where is the credible third party that we all so desperately need?
Monday, October 02, 2006
When will we say 'enough is enough'?
Rep Foley resigns, enters rehab
In yet another story of a politician doing something immoral and possibly illegal, Representative Mark Foley resigns and enters alcohol rehab. I've had it.
Politicians are politicians, and neither party has proven to me that they have any interest in serving this country and their constituents ahead of serving themselves. Regardless which party takes control of Congress in November, this will not change. And it's amazing to me how the 'other' party suddenly jumps up screaming about the opposition's shortcomings whenever a scandal like this breaks. I have news for ALL of you...neither party in Washington has ANY basis to claim moral high ground at ANY point, so don't even try it.
Our elected leaders in Congress have failed us, and this latest scandal is just more evidence supporting that. So do we put the Dems in control? Yeah, right. That's the equivalent of dumping gasoline on a fire if you ask me...just because it's liquid and you feel the need to do something doesn't mean you should throw it on the flames.
Politics in Washington won't change until we take the politicians out of it. How? Take the money out. Stop the lobbyists, cut campaign finance to the bone and prosecute fiercely anyone who violates these laws. Cut Congressional salaries to minimum wage or just above and cut benefits.
"No public office should be so profitable as to make it desirable" - Ben Franklin
Until this becomes true, there will always be scandals in Washington. I'm glad Foley resigned and I hope this is investigated. If he solicited sex from a minor, he needs to go to jail for a LONG time.
In yet another story of a politician doing something immoral and possibly illegal, Representative Mark Foley resigns and enters alcohol rehab. I've had it.
Politicians are politicians, and neither party has proven to me that they have any interest in serving this country and their constituents ahead of serving themselves. Regardless which party takes control of Congress in November, this will not change. And it's amazing to me how the 'other' party suddenly jumps up screaming about the opposition's shortcomings whenever a scandal like this breaks. I have news for ALL of you...neither party in Washington has ANY basis to claim moral high ground at ANY point, so don't even try it.
Our elected leaders in Congress have failed us, and this latest scandal is just more evidence supporting that. So do we put the Dems in control? Yeah, right. That's the equivalent of dumping gasoline on a fire if you ask me...just because it's liquid and you feel the need to do something doesn't mean you should throw it on the flames.
Politics in Washington won't change until we take the politicians out of it. How? Take the money out. Stop the lobbyists, cut campaign finance to the bone and prosecute fiercely anyone who violates these laws. Cut Congressional salaries to minimum wage or just above and cut benefits.
"No public office should be so profitable as to make it desirable" - Ben Franklin
Until this becomes true, there will always be scandals in Washington. I'm glad Foley resigned and I hope this is investigated. If he solicited sex from a minor, he needs to go to jail for a LONG time.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Which one are you?
This was emailed to me by someone who read and enjoyed my book. I thought I would share it.
ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGSBy LTC (RET)
Dave Grossman, RANGER,Ph.D., author of "On Killing."
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true.Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of
being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year.
Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell.
Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf.But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs.
We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial.
The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16.
The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.
There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language:Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a policeofficer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids'school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime.Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and out walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
Dave Grossman , LTC (ret)
ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGSBy LTC (RET)
Dave Grossman, RANGER,Ph.D., author of "On Killing."
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true.Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of
being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year.
Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell.
Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf.But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs.
We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial.
The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16.
The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.
There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language:Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a policeofficer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids'school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime.Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and out walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
Dave Grossman , LTC (ret)
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Set the facts straight?
Here is a recent quote from Mr. Soundbite himself, Howard Dean:
'President Bill Clinton fought back against the right-wing misinformation and smear campaign and stood up for the truth. President Clinton set the facts straight on his administration’s record fighting the war on terror.'
Set the facts straight? Not yet...but keep reading.
So the Left is up in arms about the recent mini-series on the events leading up to 9/11...well, mainly they take issue with the parts that depict Clinton as more or less sitting on his hands while the Islamo-fascist threat built steam. As for the former President himself, the recent interview with Chris Wallace (you know, the one where his face changed colors four times) is evidence enought that Mr. Clinton is a little perturbed about it as well. I have to admit, when Mr. Smooth-and-Slick gets so upset I kind of wonder what he's hiding...but that's another post.
What I don't understand is why can't the Dems simply admit that the Clinton administration made MANY mistakes that contributed to the 9/11 attacks? The GOP has admitted the same about the Bush administration, and they've set in place measures to prevent those mistakes from being repeated. The Dems seem more apt to point fingers, keep their distance and criticize. Then when a reporter questions their beloved ex-President, he explodes.
Maybe Clinton has a short memory. I recommend Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson's book Dereliction of Duty. Col. Patterson was the Air Force lliason responsible for following Clinton for several years with the 'nuclear football'. In short, he was close to the President on many occasions and witnessed, first hand, Clinton's "efforts" to combat terrorism. What he reveals in this book is beyond stunning. Clinton's missed oppurtunities at getting Bin Laden and other high-ranking Al Qaeda figures detailed in this book would (or at least SHOULD) have any American boiling mad. On multiple occasions one decision by Clinton, one simple commitment, could have prevented 9/11 and the ensuing invasion of Afghanistan. And before someone writes in attacking the source you should know that Col. Patterson is a retired US Military Officer with an impeccable service record who professes no allegiance to any one party (very much my kind of guy). So, be careful with the smear.
One such incident involved the Sudan, who had arrested Bin Laden, held him in prison and offered him to the US. Clinton said no (and he admitted to this two years ago). That's just one, there are others.
Yet, the Left, and Clinton himself, seem to think that Bush should shoulder most of the blame. I don't get it. One man was in office for eight years, the other for eight months. Are they trying to say that Al Qaeda only came to power over a period of eight months? Clinton would have done his credibility justice by just nodding and saying "yes, I made some mistakes, and I regret them...next question." Instead, he made a fool of himself...yet again.
'President Bill Clinton fought back against the right-wing misinformation and smear campaign and stood up for the truth. President Clinton set the facts straight on his administration’s record fighting the war on terror.'
Set the facts straight? Not yet...but keep reading.
So the Left is up in arms about the recent mini-series on the events leading up to 9/11...well, mainly they take issue with the parts that depict Clinton as more or less sitting on his hands while the Islamo-fascist threat built steam. As for the former President himself, the recent interview with Chris Wallace (you know, the one where his face changed colors four times) is evidence enought that Mr. Clinton is a little perturbed about it as well. I have to admit, when Mr. Smooth-and-Slick gets so upset I kind of wonder what he's hiding...but that's another post.
What I don't understand is why can't the Dems simply admit that the Clinton administration made MANY mistakes that contributed to the 9/11 attacks? The GOP has admitted the same about the Bush administration, and they've set in place measures to prevent those mistakes from being repeated. The Dems seem more apt to point fingers, keep their distance and criticize. Then when a reporter questions their beloved ex-President, he explodes.
Maybe Clinton has a short memory. I recommend Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson's book Dereliction of Duty. Col. Patterson was the Air Force lliason responsible for following Clinton for several years with the 'nuclear football'. In short, he was close to the President on many occasions and witnessed, first hand, Clinton's "efforts" to combat terrorism. What he reveals in this book is beyond stunning. Clinton's missed oppurtunities at getting Bin Laden and other high-ranking Al Qaeda figures detailed in this book would (or at least SHOULD) have any American boiling mad. On multiple occasions one decision by Clinton, one simple commitment, could have prevented 9/11 and the ensuing invasion of Afghanistan. And before someone writes in attacking the source you should know that Col. Patterson is a retired US Military Officer with an impeccable service record who professes no allegiance to any one party (very much my kind of guy). So, be careful with the smear.
One such incident involved the Sudan, who had arrested Bin Laden, held him in prison and offered him to the US. Clinton said no (and he admitted to this two years ago). That's just one, there are others.
Yet, the Left, and Clinton himself, seem to think that Bush should shoulder most of the blame. I don't get it. One man was in office for eight years, the other for eight months. Are they trying to say that Al Qaeda only came to power over a period of eight months? Clinton would have done his credibility justice by just nodding and saying "yes, I made some mistakes, and I regret them...next question." Instead, he made a fool of himself...yet again.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Come on Spike, be fair!
On September 11, I watched Spike Lee's recent documentary "When the Levees Broke" on HBO. Yes, I thought it was an odd night for them to show it, but that's a different post. And yes, I said before that I wouldn't watch it because it was going to be far too biased to be educational. I was wrong. I later found out it was too biased to justify the time spent watching it. But it was educational. It enlightened me on how vastly out of touch with reality many on the Left really are. Spike did not disappoint with his one-sided portrayal of events. Here are some of the highlights:
- Hugo Chavez was framed as a decent man for offering assistance and much of this framing was in the words of Harry Belafonte
- Ray Nagin was portrayed as a victim, just like the citizens of New Orleans. A small amount of blame was thrown towards the Governor but, of course, most of the blame was on Bush. Even FEMA Director Michael Brown (a white guy) was portrayed as a victim of the evil Bush machine. No one from FEMA or the Bush administration was given equal time to give their side of things...this may have been offered, I don't know, but it wasn't there
- Al Sharpton actually stated that Kanye West's comment about Bush 'not liking black people' was one of the most constructive things ever said by a rap artist....constructive?
- The increase in Houston's crime rate after Katrina was rationalized by more or less saying that the people of New Orleans had been through sooooo much in the prior months
- After screaming to be rescued for days, what was the consensus response among many when that rescue finally came? Were they grateful? Were they thankful to be out of that hell? No, they seemed to complain about being sent to multiple spots across the country....'that is not where I wanted to go'
- Then, Lee went so far as to say that the 'evacuees' were treated like slaves...like slaves. Mainly because many had no choice in their ultimate destination
- Barbara Bush was skewered for making that comment that 'hopefully some of these citizens would end up better off than before'...insensitive? Maybe. But then Lee featured a woman in Utah who DID end up better off and opted not to return to New Orleans
- Mississippi was not mentioned. Granted, it was a documentary about New Orleans and I wouldn't be bothered about it's exclusion except for one thing. Lee DID show the clip of the ER physician making the medical world proud by telling the Vice President to 'go F--- yourself'. Yes, apparently that was the only thing about Mississippi's misfortune worth mentioning in Lee's documentary
- The same ER physician followed this up by saying 'this is how we feel'. Really? By 'we' does he mean the people of Mississippi? Because I heard what Governor Barber has said about the whining from New Orleans...."We have the same federal government as Louisiana, and we still did what we needed to do for our people." Take that Mayor Nagin
- There was no mention of the 200 city buses left idle before the storm. But Lee did show that Nagin waited an entire day before issuing an evacuation order that was recommended...however, Lee quickly moved onto other things
- There was no mention of the gunmen shooting at the rescue helicopters, but Bush was criticized for 'only flying over the disaster site' those first few days
I understand that Spike Lee hates Bush, just like many of the citizens of New Orleans. But I had family in New Orleans, friends in Mississippi. They lost their homes too. Not all of them are fond of Bush, but they didn't point fingers. They evacuated when told, even though they didn't exactly have the best means to do it. But they did, because they don't depend on the government to take care of them. And now, they're rebuilding.
There are lessons yet to be learned from Katrina, but films like this do nothing to help us learn those lessons. Blaming is not constructive, especially if it's misplaced. I hope the lessons are learned. I hope this tragedy will never be repeated again.
- Hugo Chavez was framed as a decent man for offering assistance and much of this framing was in the words of Harry Belafonte
- Ray Nagin was portrayed as a victim, just like the citizens of New Orleans. A small amount of blame was thrown towards the Governor but, of course, most of the blame was on Bush. Even FEMA Director Michael Brown (a white guy) was portrayed as a victim of the evil Bush machine. No one from FEMA or the Bush administration was given equal time to give their side of things...this may have been offered, I don't know, but it wasn't there
- Al Sharpton actually stated that Kanye West's comment about Bush 'not liking black people' was one of the most constructive things ever said by a rap artist....constructive?
- The increase in Houston's crime rate after Katrina was rationalized by more or less saying that the people of New Orleans had been through sooooo much in the prior months
- After screaming to be rescued for days, what was the consensus response among many when that rescue finally came? Were they grateful? Were they thankful to be out of that hell? No, they seemed to complain about being sent to multiple spots across the country....'that is not where I wanted to go'
- Then, Lee went so far as to say that the 'evacuees' were treated like slaves...like slaves. Mainly because many had no choice in their ultimate destination
- Barbara Bush was skewered for making that comment that 'hopefully some of these citizens would end up better off than before'...insensitive? Maybe. But then Lee featured a woman in Utah who DID end up better off and opted not to return to New Orleans
- Mississippi was not mentioned. Granted, it was a documentary about New Orleans and I wouldn't be bothered about it's exclusion except for one thing. Lee DID show the clip of the ER physician making the medical world proud by telling the Vice President to 'go F--- yourself'. Yes, apparently that was the only thing about Mississippi's misfortune worth mentioning in Lee's documentary
- The same ER physician followed this up by saying 'this is how we feel'. Really? By 'we' does he mean the people of Mississippi? Because I heard what Governor Barber has said about the whining from New Orleans...."We have the same federal government as Louisiana, and we still did what we needed to do for our people." Take that Mayor Nagin
- There was no mention of the 200 city buses left idle before the storm. But Lee did show that Nagin waited an entire day before issuing an evacuation order that was recommended...however, Lee quickly moved onto other things
- There was no mention of the gunmen shooting at the rescue helicopters, but Bush was criticized for 'only flying over the disaster site' those first few days
I understand that Spike Lee hates Bush, just like many of the citizens of New Orleans. But I had family in New Orleans, friends in Mississippi. They lost their homes too. Not all of them are fond of Bush, but they didn't point fingers. They evacuated when told, even though they didn't exactly have the best means to do it. But they did, because they don't depend on the government to take care of them. And now, they're rebuilding.
There are lessons yet to be learned from Katrina, but films like this do nothing to help us learn those lessons. Blaming is not constructive, especially if it's misplaced. I hope the lessons are learned. I hope this tragedy will never be repeated again.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Another glowing review for When Evil Prospers
When Evil Prospers - review by the Altus Times
News: Columns
When evil prospers
Evil is defined as morally wrong or bad. I personally believe there is evil in the world and it is being fostered and allowed to fester. There are bad people in the world, who demonstrate bad behavior, up to and including the killing of others, but I am not sure these people are always truly evil.Now if it is your family member who has just been murdered you may disagree. The drunk who kills your teenage daughter is not necessarily evil; criminally at fault yes, but not evil. Now the serial killer who murders multiple people and our legal system lets that person spend the rest of their life in a mental hospital instead of on death row, that person is evil. Evil is one of the hard and fast things you used to hear about at church a long time ago. Evil was out there and you needed the support of your religion to fend it off. It is not just the Christian religion that believes in evil.
Dr. John Washburn has written a new work of fiction titled WHEN EVIL PROSPERS (www.whenevilprospers.com). I will tell you that I got hooked on the book as soon as I started reading it and finished it in two days. It has a very believable story line and it was so full of fast paced action that I did not want to put it down.The story takes place in Texas, where a sports stadium is attacked using a van full of explosives and thousands of people are killed, something in excess of ten times the destruction of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. One of the terrorists who carried out this heinous act of planned evil is caught shortly after the explosion and physically forced by a Dallas policeman to give up critical information.
The time setting is 2008 and the country has just finished eight years of Republican leadership and now has an extremely left-of-center liberal Democratic President in office. The information that is garnered from the identified Muslim extremist has allowed law enforcement agencies in the US and Europe to detect and stop other factions from destroying and killing. A young doctor who was attending the ball game at the time the stadium is destroyed, watches in horror as his wife dies in front of him and he can not save her. The extracted information from the Muslim extremist identifies what countries planned the terrorist action and what other countries assisted in the carrying out of the crime. At this point you begin to see where the new administration starts to fail the country. Instead of taking action against the nations who sponsored the attack, the new liberal President wants to hand the Dallas cop over to the UN and have him tried as a war criminal. The young doctor tries to break the Dallas cop out of custody and ends up on national news as a hero. When the Governor of Texas decides to take action in spite of the failure of the President he is attacked in the liberal press as a hate monger and American terrorist. The Governor seals the Texas-Mexican border to close off the point of entry that was used by the Muslin extremist and excites the wrath of the drug lords. “Many Americans still don't acknowledge the truth that evil exists and is bent on destroying everything good in this world” states a character in Dr. Washburn's book.The author is an active duty Air Force physician who wrote the book in all his spare time while in his medical residency. He is third generation military. While interviewing Dr. Washburn I told him that his story line was a little too real and scary. It also has the possibility of becoming a true story. He stated that was part of the intent of the book, “to create at least a small scare in the reader.” Religion plays a large part in the lives of the heroes of the book. But as it is stated in the story “this is not about religion, this is about eliminating evil.” I don't think there was a single “bad” word in the book or story description that would be considered inappropriate for any age.
I believe the book would make a great political / action movie, but it would scare the heck out of the liberals of this country and our enemies, both on US soil and beyond. Doc Washburn got it right, great read--great story--great lesson.
Major Van Harl USAF Ret.
Thanks to the Altus Times for the kind words. For more information on my book click the website below.
www.whenevilprospers.com
News: Columns
When evil prospers
Evil is defined as morally wrong or bad. I personally believe there is evil in the world and it is being fostered and allowed to fester. There are bad people in the world, who demonstrate bad behavior, up to and including the killing of others, but I am not sure these people are always truly evil.Now if it is your family member who has just been murdered you may disagree. The drunk who kills your teenage daughter is not necessarily evil; criminally at fault yes, but not evil. Now the serial killer who murders multiple people and our legal system lets that person spend the rest of their life in a mental hospital instead of on death row, that person is evil. Evil is one of the hard and fast things you used to hear about at church a long time ago. Evil was out there and you needed the support of your religion to fend it off. It is not just the Christian religion that believes in evil.
Dr. John Washburn has written a new work of fiction titled WHEN EVIL PROSPERS (www.whenevilprospers.com). I will tell you that I got hooked on the book as soon as I started reading it and finished it in two days. It has a very believable story line and it was so full of fast paced action that I did not want to put it down.The story takes place in Texas, where a sports stadium is attacked using a van full of explosives and thousands of people are killed, something in excess of ten times the destruction of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. One of the terrorists who carried out this heinous act of planned evil is caught shortly after the explosion and physically forced by a Dallas policeman to give up critical information.
The time setting is 2008 and the country has just finished eight years of Republican leadership and now has an extremely left-of-center liberal Democratic President in office. The information that is garnered from the identified Muslim extremist has allowed law enforcement agencies in the US and Europe to detect and stop other factions from destroying and killing. A young doctor who was attending the ball game at the time the stadium is destroyed, watches in horror as his wife dies in front of him and he can not save her. The extracted information from the Muslim extremist identifies what countries planned the terrorist action and what other countries assisted in the carrying out of the crime. At this point you begin to see where the new administration starts to fail the country. Instead of taking action against the nations who sponsored the attack, the new liberal President wants to hand the Dallas cop over to the UN and have him tried as a war criminal. The young doctor tries to break the Dallas cop out of custody and ends up on national news as a hero. When the Governor of Texas decides to take action in spite of the failure of the President he is attacked in the liberal press as a hate monger and American terrorist. The Governor seals the Texas-Mexican border to close off the point of entry that was used by the Muslin extremist and excites the wrath of the drug lords. “Many Americans still don't acknowledge the truth that evil exists and is bent on destroying everything good in this world” states a character in Dr. Washburn's book.The author is an active duty Air Force physician who wrote the book in all his spare time while in his medical residency. He is third generation military. While interviewing Dr. Washburn I told him that his story line was a little too real and scary. It also has the possibility of becoming a true story. He stated that was part of the intent of the book, “to create at least a small scare in the reader.” Religion plays a large part in the lives of the heroes of the book. But as it is stated in the story “this is not about religion, this is about eliminating evil.” I don't think there was a single “bad” word in the book or story description that would be considered inappropriate for any age.
I believe the book would make a great political / action movie, but it would scare the heck out of the liberals of this country and our enemies, both on US soil and beyond. Doc Washburn got it right, great read--great story--great lesson.
Major Van Harl USAF Ret.
Thanks to the Altus Times for the kind words. For more information on my book click the website below.
www.whenevilprospers.com
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Another UN deadline...what else is new?
New deadline to be set for Iran
Where have we heard this before? My last post dealt with the UN as a lame duck and, almost on cue, they follow with this announcement. Iran will get another deadline. Any wagers on what will happen when they violate THAT deadline? It seems that Ahmadinejad has paired up with Li’l Kim Il and Hugo to form the modern day three stooges of world politics. They are entertaining, but unfortunately quite dangerous. Can you imagine Larry, Moe and Curly with a nuclear bomb?
By the way, as I was driving to work this morning the discussion on the radio was about Hugo Chavez and his devil comment. It occurred to me that when Chavez said that for a moment he looked and sounded just like Kathy Bates in “The Waterboy”. Remember her role? “Foosball is da debil…Gurls are da debil…Did day eba catch dat gorilla what escaped from da zoo and punched you in da eye?” Just thought I’d share that with my audience. I’ll never be able to look at Hugo Chavez without laughing.
Where have we heard this before? My last post dealt with the UN as a lame duck and, almost on cue, they follow with this announcement. Iran will get another deadline. Any wagers on what will happen when they violate THAT deadline? It seems that Ahmadinejad has paired up with Li’l Kim Il and Hugo to form the modern day three stooges of world politics. They are entertaining, but unfortunately quite dangerous. Can you imagine Larry, Moe and Curly with a nuclear bomb?
By the way, as I was driving to work this morning the discussion on the radio was about Hugo Chavez and his devil comment. It occurred to me that when Chavez said that for a moment he looked and sounded just like Kathy Bates in “The Waterboy”. Remember her role? “Foosball is da debil…Gurls are da debil…Did day eba catch dat gorilla what escaped from da zoo and punched you in da eye?” Just thought I’d share that with my audience. I’ll never be able to look at Hugo Chavez without laughing.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Dictators on Parade at the UN
Chavez, Ahmadinejad have their day on the world stage
I’ve had it with the UN. That organization is dead to me. It is a lame duck...absolutely powerless. Yesterday, one of the three world dictators in avid pursuit of nuclear weapons was given an opportunity to make his case to the UN. He spoke of peace. He spoke of justice. He spoke of democracy. He spoke against nuclear weapons.
This is the same man who supplies Hezbollah, the organization that deliberately targeted Israeli civilians just one month ago to the point where even Amnesty International condemned them. And he speaks of peace? This is the same man actively defying the UNs order to cease nuclear research. And he speaks against nuclear weapons? This is the man who denies the Holocaust and advocates for the complete and utter destruction of Israel. He is a deranged liar. And, yet, the UN opts to give him a voice, to give him a stage to spread his maniacal words. Not only that, but he was given a STANDING OVATION when he finished. Is that the organization meant to maintain peace and stability in the world? And they’re giving a vicious dictator a standing ovation?
Today, Hugo Chavez had his turn. He calls our President the devil and demands a seat on the UN Security Council…God help us. He is getting closer to Iran and North Korea in what seems to be a new axis of evil. Yet, the UN gives him a voice and a stage.
Tell me, what purpose does the UN serve other than allowing dictatorial leaders a world stage to curse America? What good does this organization do? They failed Korea, they failed Rhawanda, they failed Iraq, they failed Iran and now they are failing Darfur, and yet we still consider this a legitimate organization that serves a beneficial purpose. How insane.
The United States funds nearly 25% of the UN budget. This is our tax dollars funding an anti-American organization that provides no real benefit to America. The vast majority of the third world nations that curse us fund less than 1%, yet they have one vote in the general assembly just as we do. We are on equal footing with Cuba, Iran and Venezuela in the eyes of the UN even though we carry the most responsibility for its budget. Why? I say, cut the funding. Cut our share to less than 1% and if this draws protest, then we resign from the UN. We can do just as much good through NATO without having to listen to Iran and Venezuela curse us as evil.
I’ve had it with the UN. That organization is dead to me. It is a lame duck...absolutely powerless. Yesterday, one of the three world dictators in avid pursuit of nuclear weapons was given an opportunity to make his case to the UN. He spoke of peace. He spoke of justice. He spoke of democracy. He spoke against nuclear weapons.
This is the same man who supplies Hezbollah, the organization that deliberately targeted Israeli civilians just one month ago to the point where even Amnesty International condemned them. And he speaks of peace? This is the same man actively defying the UNs order to cease nuclear research. And he speaks against nuclear weapons? This is the man who denies the Holocaust and advocates for the complete and utter destruction of Israel. He is a deranged liar. And, yet, the UN opts to give him a voice, to give him a stage to spread his maniacal words. Not only that, but he was given a STANDING OVATION when he finished. Is that the organization meant to maintain peace and stability in the world? And they’re giving a vicious dictator a standing ovation?
Today, Hugo Chavez had his turn. He calls our President the devil and demands a seat on the UN Security Council…God help us. He is getting closer to Iran and North Korea in what seems to be a new axis of evil. Yet, the UN gives him a voice and a stage.
Tell me, what purpose does the UN serve other than allowing dictatorial leaders a world stage to curse America? What good does this organization do? They failed Korea, they failed Rhawanda, they failed Iraq, they failed Iran and now they are failing Darfur, and yet we still consider this a legitimate organization that serves a beneficial purpose. How insane.
The United States funds nearly 25% of the UN budget. This is our tax dollars funding an anti-American organization that provides no real benefit to America. The vast majority of the third world nations that curse us fund less than 1%, yet they have one vote in the general assembly just as we do. We are on equal footing with Cuba, Iran and Venezuela in the eyes of the UN even though we carry the most responsibility for its budget. Why? I say, cut the funding. Cut our share to less than 1% and if this draws protest, then we resign from the UN. We can do just as much good through NATO without having to listen to Iran and Venezuela curse us as evil.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Tax hikes? Think about that this November
Treasury sets record for corporate taxes, breaking last year’s mark
If there is one thing about the Republican Party’s vision that I buy into whole-heartedly, it’s the theory of ‘trickle down’ economics first implemented by Reagan – the theory that LOWER taxes leads to HIGHER economic growth and thus MORE government revenue. This article, and our recent history, helps support that. The treasury set a single day record, higher than last year and higher than any day in Clinton’s precious "good economy" administration.
It just don’t understand how the Democratic Party, as a whole, fails to see this reality. In the past 30 years, every time Americans have been saddled with high taxes it has inevitably led to an economic downturn, the last of which was inherited by Bush on the heels of Clinton’s monster tax system. And every time this occurred, it seems that a Republican administration followed with tax cuts that helped the economy bounce back. In a capitalistic system, corporations MUST be allowed to put as much revenue as possible back into the economy. Taking it for government purposes does nothing but bring growth to a grinding halt.
Say what you want about Bush, but he did rescue this economy and it still prospers today EVEN in the face of skyrocketing oil costs. There was a difficult period after 9/11, but the economy survived and is on its way to booming, mainly because of Bush’s tax cuts that left room for growth. No, the budget is not balanced, mainly because we are engaged in a global war, but it WILL be soon. Patience is key. Why on earth would the American people revert back to the Democratic high-tax strategy that does nothing but halt growth in the name of funding entitlement programs?
I certainly hope that’s not what we decide to do.
If there is one thing about the Republican Party’s vision that I buy into whole-heartedly, it’s the theory of ‘trickle down’ economics first implemented by Reagan – the theory that LOWER taxes leads to HIGHER economic growth and thus MORE government revenue. This article, and our recent history, helps support that. The treasury set a single day record, higher than last year and higher than any day in Clinton’s precious "good economy" administration.
It just don’t understand how the Democratic Party, as a whole, fails to see this reality. In the past 30 years, every time Americans have been saddled with high taxes it has inevitably led to an economic downturn, the last of which was inherited by Bush on the heels of Clinton’s monster tax system. And every time this occurred, it seems that a Republican administration followed with tax cuts that helped the economy bounce back. In a capitalistic system, corporations MUST be allowed to put as much revenue as possible back into the economy. Taking it for government purposes does nothing but bring growth to a grinding halt.
Say what you want about Bush, but he did rescue this economy and it still prospers today EVEN in the face of skyrocketing oil costs. There was a difficult period after 9/11, but the economy survived and is on its way to booming, mainly because of Bush’s tax cuts that left room for growth. No, the budget is not balanced, mainly because we are engaged in a global war, but it WILL be soon. Patience is key. Why on earth would the American people revert back to the Democratic high-tax strategy that does nothing but halt growth in the name of funding entitlement programs?
I certainly hope that’s not what we decide to do.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Evil and Inhuman?
Pope voices regret
Yesterday, I saw the news of the Pope voicing regret over the discontent caused by words he had spoken earlier. Apparently, during a prior address he referenced an ancient text that referred to the Muslim religion and some of Muhammed's teachings as 'evil and inhuman', and calling Islam a religion that is spread by the sword.
Much of the Muslim community was outraged...because he suggested that Islam was 'evil and inhuman'. So their response? Here are a few examples:
--Al-Qaida in Iraq warned on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world
--In southern Iraq, demonstrators carrying black flags burned an effigy of the pope.
--Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies said Muslims would be victorious..."We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the 'jizya' tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (being killed by) the sword."
--"You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq
--"If the stupid pig is prancing with his blasphemies in his house," the group said in a Web statement, referring to the pope, "then let him wait for the day coming soon when the armies of the religion of right knock on the walls of Rome."
--"Those who benefit from the pope's comments and drive their own arrogant policies should be targeted with attacks and protests," Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
--A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution. Anjem Choudary said those who insulted Islam would be "subject to capital punishment".
--A nun was shot dead in Somalia by Islamic gunmen and churches came under attack in Palestine.
--As well as placards attacking the Pope such as "Pope go to Hell", his (Choudary's) followers outside the country's principal Roman Catholic church also waved slogans aimed at offending the sentiments of Christians such as "Jesus is the slave of Allah".
Yeah. I don't know what the Pope was thinking.
Yesterday, I saw the news of the Pope voicing regret over the discontent caused by words he had spoken earlier. Apparently, during a prior address he referenced an ancient text that referred to the Muslim religion and some of Muhammed's teachings as 'evil and inhuman', and calling Islam a religion that is spread by the sword.
Much of the Muslim community was outraged...because he suggested that Islam was 'evil and inhuman'. So their response? Here are a few examples:
--Al-Qaida in Iraq warned on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world
--In southern Iraq, demonstrators carrying black flags burned an effigy of the pope.
--Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies said Muslims would be victorious..."We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the 'jizya' tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (being killed by) the sword."
--"You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq
--"If the stupid pig is prancing with his blasphemies in his house," the group said in a Web statement, referring to the pope, "then let him wait for the day coming soon when the armies of the religion of right knock on the walls of Rome."
--"Those who benefit from the pope's comments and drive their own arrogant policies should be targeted with attacks and protests," Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
--A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution. Anjem Choudary said those who insulted Islam would be "subject to capital punishment".
--A nun was shot dead in Somalia by Islamic gunmen and churches came under attack in Palestine.
--As well as placards attacking the Pope such as "Pope go to Hell", his (Choudary's) followers outside the country's principal Roman Catholic church also waved slogans aimed at offending the sentiments of Christians such as "Jesus is the slave of Allah".
Yeah. I don't know what the Pope was thinking.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Rosie: Big mouth, small mind
Rosie compares Christians to radical Islam
Again, I hate to give extra exposure to another Hollywood idiot, but Rosie O'Donnel has gone too far. Rarely does she actually contribute anything to a conversation that could be considered enlightening and constructive. She seems to feel that Christianity is just as big a threat a radical Islam.
Either she just doesn't know her current events, or she just hates Christianity.
If she paid attention to the world, she'd know that radical Islam beheads people who don't join their religion. She'd know that they would slit her throat for saying something like this about their religion. She'd know that, as a woman, she'd be oppressed and forced to submit to the will of men. She'd know that they would kill her simply because she was a lesbian.
But, honestly, I think she does know these things. I think this statement is nothing more than an expression of her hatred of Christianity. Rosie is one of these ultra-progressive ultra-liberal freedom gluttons who hates those that would impose any kind of restriction on her extreme freedom, and Christians fit that mold with our 'rules' about obeying God's law. That's all this is.
My advice to Rosie: Live in a Muslim country for one week, then come home and complain about us.
By the way, the critics are calling Sean Penn's movie a bomb. Maybe he could get a job on The View.
Again, I hate to give extra exposure to another Hollywood idiot, but Rosie O'Donnel has gone too far. Rarely does she actually contribute anything to a conversation that could be considered enlightening and constructive. She seems to feel that Christianity is just as big a threat a radical Islam.
Either she just doesn't know her current events, or she just hates Christianity.
If she paid attention to the world, she'd know that radical Islam beheads people who don't join their religion. She'd know that they would slit her throat for saying something like this about their religion. She'd know that, as a woman, she'd be oppressed and forced to submit to the will of men. She'd know that they would kill her simply because she was a lesbian.
But, honestly, I think she does know these things. I think this statement is nothing more than an expression of her hatred of Christianity. Rosie is one of these ultra-progressive ultra-liberal freedom gluttons who hates those that would impose any kind of restriction on her extreme freedom, and Christians fit that mold with our 'rules' about obeying God's law. That's all this is.
My advice to Rosie: Live in a Muslim country for one week, then come home and complain about us.
By the way, the critics are calling Sean Penn's movie a bomb. Maybe he could get a job on The View.
Friday, September 15, 2006
One of Bin Laden's closest allies
Penn says Bush will bring fascism to America
As much as I hate to bring attention to this boneheaded actor-turned-activist, I just can’t resist the opportunity to respond to what this guy is doing. First, his words about Bush, Rumsfeld and the American Right mirror what Bin Laden would say. For a second I had to make sure this was a Sean Penn interview and not one of the infamous "tapes" released by America’s number one enemy. Although, I’m sure Bin Laden would say "well done" to Mr. Penn.
Dissent is healthy, but Penn’s words are destructive, dangerous and counter-productive to the nation and the soldiers that protect his right to say them. I personally make no distinction between him and the ‘insurgents’ that are detonating IED’s on Iraqi roadsides. In fact, he may be worse. At least the insurgents don’t try to hide their hatred of American soldiers.
As an actor, I like Sean Penn. I think he is talented at what he does. But he should stick to what he does and leave international diplomacy to those who belong in that arena. Case in point: Larry King asked him how Iraq was "going". Excuse me? Does Mr Penn have any military background that I’m not aware of? If not, then he should defer that question to those capable of answering it.
As for All The King’s Men, I will not be seeing it even though I think Penn is a talented actor. I just don’t think we should reward those in Hollywood who overstep their bounds with our hard-earned dollars.
As much as I hate to bring attention to this boneheaded actor-turned-activist, I just can’t resist the opportunity to respond to what this guy is doing. First, his words about Bush, Rumsfeld and the American Right mirror what Bin Laden would say. For a second I had to make sure this was a Sean Penn interview and not one of the infamous "tapes" released by America’s number one enemy. Although, I’m sure Bin Laden would say "well done" to Mr. Penn.
Dissent is healthy, but Penn’s words are destructive, dangerous and counter-productive to the nation and the soldiers that protect his right to say them. I personally make no distinction between him and the ‘insurgents’ that are detonating IED’s on Iraqi roadsides. In fact, he may be worse. At least the insurgents don’t try to hide their hatred of American soldiers.
As an actor, I like Sean Penn. I think he is talented at what he does. But he should stick to what he does and leave international diplomacy to those who belong in that arena. Case in point: Larry King asked him how Iraq was "going". Excuse me? Does Mr Penn have any military background that I’m not aware of? If not, then he should defer that question to those capable of answering it.
As for All The King’s Men, I will not be seeing it even though I think Penn is a talented actor. I just don’t think we should reward those in Hollywood who overstep their bounds with our hard-earned dollars.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Sellout
Jewish leaders expect ban on gay Rabbis to be lifted
It appears that the Jewish church will soon be following suit with many branches of the Christian church by officially ordaining homosexuality as acceptable human behavior. I’ve already posted comments on this site about the Catholic church and their lack of opposition to the homosexual movement, so I won’t hesitate to extend those comments to the Jewish faith as well. This is a sellout…nothing more.
Like any church, the Jewish faith needs money to operate. Much of that money comes from America and anyone can see how much steam the homosexual revolution has picked up in this country. As a result, many Jewish people here have become more liberal and progressive in their views, and a lot of that has been molded by their allegiance to the progressive political party. So when something like this happens, the church must adapt or risk losing money from donations. And so they have.
It’s almost as if Caiaphus and the Sanhedrin returned with 30 pieces of silver to help the Jewish leaders make up their mind.
Homosexuality is a sin. My faith tells me that. And, yes, the Jewish faith says the same. I don’t want to hear things like "translation" and "original documents" to justify this behavior because, in my mind, the Bible is a living thing representing God’s word which is also living. And when God’s word is alive, nothing gets "lost in translation". Today’s Bible (including the Old Testament) says that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore that’s the position I take regardless of what our religious leaders say. I don’t have to modify my principles for monetary gain.
I guess it’s a debate that will rage on until the end, which may not be far off. After all, Revelations does say that the church will distance itself from God in the final days. I guess then we’ll know who’s right.
It appears that the Jewish church will soon be following suit with many branches of the Christian church by officially ordaining homosexuality as acceptable human behavior. I’ve already posted comments on this site about the Catholic church and their lack of opposition to the homosexual movement, so I won’t hesitate to extend those comments to the Jewish faith as well. This is a sellout…nothing more.
Like any church, the Jewish faith needs money to operate. Much of that money comes from America and anyone can see how much steam the homosexual revolution has picked up in this country. As a result, many Jewish people here have become more liberal and progressive in their views, and a lot of that has been molded by their allegiance to the progressive political party. So when something like this happens, the church must adapt or risk losing money from donations. And so they have.
It’s almost as if Caiaphus and the Sanhedrin returned with 30 pieces of silver to help the Jewish leaders make up their mind.
Homosexuality is a sin. My faith tells me that. And, yes, the Jewish faith says the same. I don’t want to hear things like "translation" and "original documents" to justify this behavior because, in my mind, the Bible is a living thing representing God’s word which is also living. And when God’s word is alive, nothing gets "lost in translation". Today’s Bible (including the Old Testament) says that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore that’s the position I take regardless of what our religious leaders say. I don’t have to modify my principles for monetary gain.
I guess it’s a debate that will rage on until the end, which may not be far off. After all, Revelations does say that the church will distance itself from God in the final days. I guess then we’ll know who’s right.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
A 9-11 Tribute - Thomas J. Collins
When I began this project, I searched through hundreds of web pages looking for information on Thomas J. Collins. I first found him in one of the "lists" that seem to be so common on the internet. There are dozens of them. There he was, right below Michael L. Collins, right above Joseph Collison. The name made me pause. In a list of thousands, this was the one - Thomas J. Collins - that I was going to know, to learn about and to give tribute to. "Humbling" does not even begin to describe how I felt as I looked at that name with that thought in mind.
I wondered how many lives Thomas touched. How many people at Half Hollow Hills High School called him a friend? How many coworkers at Sandler O'Neill and Associates enjoyed his company? How many people were fortunate enough to know this man? However many, after today, there will be one more.
As I scoured the internet one repeating theme seemed to surface over and over...friendship. It seems that everyone who knew this man and took the time to write their memories of him always included the word friendship in one way or another.
"He had a gift for friendship."
"He was a genius at friendship."
How many people do you know can fit such a description? I can count them on one hand, with a few fingers to spare.
Thomas was born in July 1965 to Tom and Dottie Collins, two people who raised their children in a strong, family-centered home. His older sister, Colleen, was a mentor and a touchstone for Thomas, his proverbial "reality check". His brother, Tim, was a worthy competitor for Thomas, and the source of a healthy sibling rivalry that seemed to resurface at family functions. And he was always protective of his precious younger sister, Jen. His dad acted as the ideal father role-model, while his mother taught him the virtues of being an honorable man and a loving husband. She knew him as her most sensitive child. Despite his tough athletic exterior, he had a soft and warm heart.
Then there was Juila, his soul mate, his perfect compliment. Married in August 2000, their special bond became a template for others to follow, and a wonderful lesson for so many who failed at love and marriage. Julia was strong, smart and devoted. And they were fun to be around. They were the couple who had the funniest stories. They were the couple who would sing karoake duets at parties. They were the couple who looked at each other with looks that spoke volumns. They were the couple that everyone wanted to be around. They loved the song "More" by Bobby Darin, and it's a song that says so much. I wonder how many dances they shared to that song, how many memories. I wish I knew because as I learned about Thomas I realized how nice it would have been to know him personally. That's the kind of person he was. He possessed a magnetism that so few have. He made others feel good. That was his gift to the world. That's what I learned just by surfing the net. It boggles my mind to think how much more I could have learned by knowing him personally.
He was best man at nine weddings. I don't know if I've even been to nine weddings, my own included. When he was laid to rest, 3,000 people showed up to pay their respects. The magnetism lived on, even when his earthly body didn't.
He was an exceptional athlete, a 4 year varsity lacrosse starter at Ithaca College, and in his spare time he loved snow skiing, water skiing and wrestling, but rarely would he go out for one of these things without calling friends or family to ask "what's going on this weekend". He was always a 'genuis at friendship'.
Indeed, I think we all know a Thomas Collins, or at least we should. People like him make the world a better place, and make us better people. Even in his absence, a legacy of service to others lives on through the Thomas J Collins Memorial Fund, a charity fund that benefits the Cleft Palate Foundation of New York, the Send-a-Kid Fishing Program and the Build a Reef Foundation. Some people just refuse to quit giving of themselves to others.
As I look at that list, amazed at what I learned about Thomas Collins, I wonder how many others there were like him. I wish I could learn about all of them. And then I pause again, thankful that I learned about this one. Thankful that in the shadow of a tragedy blessings continue to flow...thankful for people like Thomas J. Collins.
Bush 'makes his case'
Bush continues attempts to make America's case
President Bush spoke to a group of military officers yesterday, outlining yet again America's strategy in Iraq and the consequences at stake. During his speech, he quoted bin Laden multiple times. Including:
One document Bush cited was what he called "a grisly al-Qaida manual" found in 2000 by British police during an anti-terrorist raid in London, which included a chapter called "Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages." He also cited what he said was a captured al-Qaida document found during a recent raid in Iraq. He said it described plans to take over Iraq's western Anbar province and set up a governing structure including an education department, a social services department, a justice department and an execution unit.
The White House also unveiled a letter from bin Laden to Taliban leader Mullah Omar in which he wrote about plans for a "media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government" so the people will pressure leaders to retreat in the fight.
Bush also quoted bin Laden saying:
- "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."
- Al-Qaida can cause the U.S. economy to collapse by implementing a "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan."
- The defeat of American forces in Beirut in 1983 is proof America does not have the stomach to stay in a fight. "In Somalia, the United States pulled out, trailing disappointment, defeat and failure behind it," Bush said bin Laden wrote.
- "The most serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war that is raging in Iraq. ... The whole world is watching this war and that it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation."
And yet we still struggle to find support for the war at home. I say this again. Iraq is the Gettysburg, the Saratoga and the Normandy landing when it comes to the global war on terror. This is an absolutely crucial campaign. Lose...and we lose the war on terror, running with our tails tucked between our legs and showing our enemies that we are the paper tiger they see us as. But if we win...it will be crippling to Islamo-fascism and will help bring an end to the Iranian dictatorship that also threatens the world.
And yet, Bush must make 'make his case' for this.
President Bush spoke to a group of military officers yesterday, outlining yet again America's strategy in Iraq and the consequences at stake. During his speech, he quoted bin Laden multiple times. Including:
One document Bush cited was what he called "a grisly al-Qaida manual" found in 2000 by British police during an anti-terrorist raid in London, which included a chapter called "Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages." He also cited what he said was a captured al-Qaida document found during a recent raid in Iraq. He said it described plans to take over Iraq's western Anbar province and set up a governing structure including an education department, a social services department, a justice department and an execution unit.
The White House also unveiled a letter from bin Laden to Taliban leader Mullah Omar in which he wrote about plans for a "media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government" so the people will pressure leaders to retreat in the fight.
Bush also quoted bin Laden saying:
- "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."
- Al-Qaida can cause the U.S. economy to collapse by implementing a "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan."
- The defeat of American forces in Beirut in 1983 is proof America does not have the stomach to stay in a fight. "In Somalia, the United States pulled out, trailing disappointment, defeat and failure behind it," Bush said bin Laden wrote.
- "The most serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war that is raging in Iraq. ... The whole world is watching this war and that it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation."
And yet we still struggle to find support for the war at home. I say this again. Iraq is the Gettysburg, the Saratoga and the Normandy landing when it comes to the global war on terror. This is an absolutely crucial campaign. Lose...and we lose the war on terror, running with our tails tucked between our legs and showing our enemies that we are the paper tiger they see us as. But if we win...it will be crippling to Islamo-fascism and will help bring an end to the Iranian dictatorship that also threatens the world.
And yet, Bush must make 'make his case' for this.
Monday, September 04, 2006
GOP = Gutless Ordinary Politicians
GOP will ease focus on illegal immigration for upcoming campaign
The GOP has just determined my vote in each congressional election of my district. I will base my vote on each candidate's position on illegal immigration.
The GOP has made it clear that they are the same sleezy politicians that infect the Left party. ALL they care about is the next election, and then the one after that. VERY FEW actually care about the issues that affect this nation, but rather which issues affect which voting groups. At least the GOP should admit that the ONLY reason they are abandoning immigration as an issue is because the Hispanic vote is too precious, and with the DEMS favoring open borders the GOP risks losing these votes. At least admit that much...but no, they hide behind some lame 'we want to focus on national security' crap. Immigration IS national security.
I'm not buying their BS platform anymore.
If my representative doesn't have the sack to do the right thing despite the political risk, then he/she doesn't deserve my vote. My vote will go to the person who makes it clear that illegal immigration must be stopped...it may not be the most pressing issue of this election, but at least a politician taking that position shows that they're willing to risk isolating a major voting group in order to say and do the right thing. That's the type of person I want representing me.
And if no one on the ballot can do this, then I won't be voting. I will abstain. I WILL NOT vote for someone who cares more about their job than their country.
The GOP has just determined my vote in each congressional election of my district. I will base my vote on each candidate's position on illegal immigration.
The GOP has made it clear that they are the same sleezy politicians that infect the Left party. ALL they care about is the next election, and then the one after that. VERY FEW actually care about the issues that affect this nation, but rather which issues affect which voting groups. At least the GOP should admit that the ONLY reason they are abandoning immigration as an issue is because the Hispanic vote is too precious, and with the DEMS favoring open borders the GOP risks losing these votes. At least admit that much...but no, they hide behind some lame 'we want to focus on national security' crap. Immigration IS national security.
I'm not buying their BS platform anymore.
If my representative doesn't have the sack to do the right thing despite the political risk, then he/she doesn't deserve my vote. My vote will go to the person who makes it clear that illegal immigration must be stopped...it may not be the most pressing issue of this election, but at least a politician taking that position shows that they're willing to risk isolating a major voting group in order to say and do the right thing. That's the type of person I want representing me.
And if no one on the ballot can do this, then I won't be voting. I will abstain. I WILL NOT vote for someone who cares more about their job than their country.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Shame on us all
Prosecutor seeks the death penalty for soldiers
Amazing! In a country that can't convict OJ Simpson, refuses to execute a confessed 9/11 conspirator and "punishes" hardened sex offenders with paltry sentences, it's obscene to think that we may actually sentence our soldiers to death for their actions in battle.
I don't advocate violence against civillians. But the 'fog of war' is something that can't be explained to any jury and must be experienced to fully grasp its nature. When you're fighting a guerrilla war against an enemy that blends with the population - violating all rules of armed conflict - then it's quite easy to mistake a common civillian for an enemy combatant. We should all understand at least that much. Therefore, when one of these civillians is killed, there should be an investigation. If malbehavior is found amongst our troops, they should be punished. But I was thinking of something like a reduction in rank or suspended pay for a few months. But DEATH? I can't believe this is something even being debated...and this from someone who adamantly supports the death penalty.
Our sons and daughters are fighting their hearts out. What do we give in return? We curse their cause, call their leader a murderer, allow the media to portray them as brutal bullies, put them on trial for something that happens naturally in war, and then seek the death penalty for these so-called crimes. Amazing!
Shame on you America for tolerating this. Shame on us all for allowing our culture to reach this point.
Amazing! In a country that can't convict OJ Simpson, refuses to execute a confessed 9/11 conspirator and "punishes" hardened sex offenders with paltry sentences, it's obscene to think that we may actually sentence our soldiers to death for their actions in battle.
I don't advocate violence against civillians. But the 'fog of war' is something that can't be explained to any jury and must be experienced to fully grasp its nature. When you're fighting a guerrilla war against an enemy that blends with the population - violating all rules of armed conflict - then it's quite easy to mistake a common civillian for an enemy combatant. We should all understand at least that much. Therefore, when one of these civillians is killed, there should be an investigation. If malbehavior is found amongst our troops, they should be punished. But I was thinking of something like a reduction in rank or suspended pay for a few months. But DEATH? I can't believe this is something even being debated...and this from someone who adamantly supports the death penalty.
Our sons and daughters are fighting their hearts out. What do we give in return? We curse their cause, call their leader a murderer, allow the media to portray them as brutal bullies, put them on trial for something that happens naturally in war, and then seek the death penalty for these so-called crimes. Amazing!
Shame on you America for tolerating this. Shame on us all for allowing our culture to reach this point.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Logic vs Emotion
Hannity and Colmes debate illegal immigrant seeking sanctuary
Let’s be clear about something. This Elvira Arellano has become the Cindy Sheehan of the illegal immigration debate. The Left has latched onto her for sympathy purposes, using her unfortunate situation in a shameless attempt to portray the ‘human’ side of illegal immigration. It’s what the Left does best. When they have no logical argument they rely on emotion, and emotion is a very powerful ally in the political spectrum.
The Left can’t argue that this woman broke the law. That’s written in black and white. So they parade her in front of cameras and say ‘look at this poor woman, she came here to support her family and now the big bad government wants to deport her…..boo hoo!’
It’s an emotion-based argument and they’ve used it effectively for decades. But take the emotion out and what’s left is someone who knowingly violated our immigration laws multiple times and cut in front of many others who went through the proper channels to enter our country legally. The law says she is to be deported. We MUST follow the law.
As for the Church, they’ve overstepped their bounds and should be charged with harboring a criminal. It’s time that our legal system got tough and sent a message that this behavior will not be tolerated. There should be HEAVY monetary penalties imposed on this church.
Like Sean Hannity, I feel for Ms Arellano on a personal level. Yes, I want the best for her and her son, WE ALL DO, but that’s emotion talking and when we’re trying to protect our borders and preserve our security, there’s no room for emotion…only logic. Logic dictates that we follow the law. Emotion dictates that we make exceptions based on human suffering. Logic dictates that laws are in place for a reason and if we make exceptions then eventually our laws break down and society slips into chaos. Emotion says that suffering should not be allowed at any cost. And logic says that the law must be enforced or we risk threatening our national security. The Church needs to stay out of it. This is an issue of law enforcement, NOT human rights, and right now the church is violating the law. There must be penalties for that.
So for those ‘middle ground’ readers out there, pay attention to political debates. Pay attention to who is arguing with logic and who is arguing with emotion. Listen close and decide which one you'd rather have representing you in Washington.
Let’s be clear about something. This Elvira Arellano has become the Cindy Sheehan of the illegal immigration debate. The Left has latched onto her for sympathy purposes, using her unfortunate situation in a shameless attempt to portray the ‘human’ side of illegal immigration. It’s what the Left does best. When they have no logical argument they rely on emotion, and emotion is a very powerful ally in the political spectrum.
The Left can’t argue that this woman broke the law. That’s written in black and white. So they parade her in front of cameras and say ‘look at this poor woman, she came here to support her family and now the big bad government wants to deport her…..boo hoo!’
It’s an emotion-based argument and they’ve used it effectively for decades. But take the emotion out and what’s left is someone who knowingly violated our immigration laws multiple times and cut in front of many others who went through the proper channels to enter our country legally. The law says she is to be deported. We MUST follow the law.
As for the Church, they’ve overstepped their bounds and should be charged with harboring a criminal. It’s time that our legal system got tough and sent a message that this behavior will not be tolerated. There should be HEAVY monetary penalties imposed on this church.
Like Sean Hannity, I feel for Ms Arellano on a personal level. Yes, I want the best for her and her son, WE ALL DO, but that’s emotion talking and when we’re trying to protect our borders and preserve our security, there’s no room for emotion…only logic. Logic dictates that we follow the law. Emotion dictates that we make exceptions based on human suffering. Logic dictates that laws are in place for a reason and if we make exceptions then eventually our laws break down and society slips into chaos. Emotion says that suffering should not be allowed at any cost. And logic says that the law must be enforced or we risk threatening our national security. The Church needs to stay out of it. This is an issue of law enforcement, NOT human rights, and right now the church is violating the law. There must be penalties for that.
So for those ‘middle ground’ readers out there, pay attention to political debates. Pay attention to who is arguing with logic and who is arguing with emotion. Listen close and decide which one you'd rather have representing you in Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)