“If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq,” Mr. Rangel, a Democrat representing Manhattan and Queens, said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“If there’s anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment,” the congressman said.
I am becoming quite fond of Mr. Rangel because he provides me with so much for my blogsite. For some reason, ever since the election Charles Rangel seems to be perpetually shoving his foot into his pie-hole. Thanks Chuckie, you make running this blog so much easier.
Once again, we have evidence that the Left has NO IDEA what it means to serve in the military. And the shocking thing is that both John Kerry and Charles Rangel are war veterans. Have they just forgotten? Or has politics superceded loyalty to the military? Rangel seems to have forgotten that our entire military is strictly volunteer. He has forgotten that re-enlistment is up, and that many people in Iraq RIGHT NOW volunteered for the assignment. He doesn't get it, because he doesn't get the cause. He doesn't understand that a good thing was done in Iraq, and the military is proud to have freed over 30 million oppressed humans. He doesn't understand what honor is, what 'service before self' means, how 'integrity first and excellence in all we do' acts as a foundation for an entire lifestyle and subculture. He doesn't get it. Few politicians do.
That's alright, Charlie. You can spew your insults and offend our service all you want. We'll continue to serve. That's what we do, whether or not you agree with it. You're not the first and certainly won't be the last.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Global warming becomes global wipeout
Climatologist predicts global wipeout
Professor James Lovelock, a leading climatologist, recently issued an opinion that within the next century the earth’s climate will change drastically with temperature increases of about 8 degrees Celsius, leading to a major reduction in its ability to sustain life. He predicts that the earth will be unable to sustain the 6.5 billion people that currently inhabit it and human population will decrease to approximately 500 million.
That’s not all. According to him, this event is a foregone conclusion and any effort to prevent it is futile.
So now what?
Can we end the debate on global warming? Since it is unavoidable, should we just continue with the status quo and hope that our offspring are included among the 500 million survivors? Of course not.
I linked to this in an effort to show just how maniacal the "global warming" believers have become. Now, it’s to the point where they are just throwing up their hands and saying ‘it doesn’t matter, we’re all gonna die!’. They have these doomsday attitudes, but no one seems to have a viable solution. On this very sight, I have proposed more nuclear power. Of course, that gets criticized and cast aside, without an alternative plan of course.
Lovelock says that China builds a new coal-based power plant every week. India is nearly on the same pace. In fairness, those are countries wrought with poverty and electricity is one way of getting out of poverty. Shouldn’t these countries be the target of the enviro-nazi criticism? Granted, in the US, coal is still a primary form of energy, yet we have the technology and the money to change that. Why don’t we?
My solution is nuclear power for home and commercial use and grain-based fuels for vehicles. It really is that simple. So why the resistance? What alternative do we have? Is Lovelock right? Is it futile to try a change? Is that why the enviro-nazis oppose more nuclear power?
I think that if we spent less time arguing and more time working on a solution then the whole debate about global warming can be closed, and we can all enjoy the comforts of a modern life without worrying about the environment, yet I still don’t hear any viable solutions from the eco-crazies. So we’ll probably just argue about it until: 1) 6 billion people die, or 2) nothing happens. Then the debate will move on to something else.
Professor James Lovelock, a leading climatologist, recently issued an opinion that within the next century the earth’s climate will change drastically with temperature increases of about 8 degrees Celsius, leading to a major reduction in its ability to sustain life. He predicts that the earth will be unable to sustain the 6.5 billion people that currently inhabit it and human population will decrease to approximately 500 million.
That’s not all. According to him, this event is a foregone conclusion and any effort to prevent it is futile.
So now what?
Can we end the debate on global warming? Since it is unavoidable, should we just continue with the status quo and hope that our offspring are included among the 500 million survivors? Of course not.
I linked to this in an effort to show just how maniacal the "global warming" believers have become. Now, it’s to the point where they are just throwing up their hands and saying ‘it doesn’t matter, we’re all gonna die!’. They have these doomsday attitudes, but no one seems to have a viable solution. On this very sight, I have proposed more nuclear power. Of course, that gets criticized and cast aside, without an alternative plan of course.
Lovelock says that China builds a new coal-based power plant every week. India is nearly on the same pace. In fairness, those are countries wrought with poverty and electricity is one way of getting out of poverty. Shouldn’t these countries be the target of the enviro-nazi criticism? Granted, in the US, coal is still a primary form of energy, yet we have the technology and the money to change that. Why don’t we?
My solution is nuclear power for home and commercial use and grain-based fuels for vehicles. It really is that simple. So why the resistance? What alternative do we have? Is Lovelock right? Is it futile to try a change? Is that why the enviro-nazis oppose more nuclear power?
I think that if we spent less time arguing and more time working on a solution then the whole debate about global warming can be closed, and we can all enjoy the comforts of a modern life without worrying about the environment, yet I still don’t hear any viable solutions from the eco-crazies. So we’ll probably just argue about it until: 1) 6 billion people die, or 2) nothing happens. Then the debate will move on to something else.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Convenience or security...you decide
Imams claim discrimination
Regardless of what anyone says, this is proof that security measures in airports work. This story makes me feel safer when I fly. The Imams in question, and their kool-aid drinking supporters, would have us believe that they were quietly praying to themselves, weren’t disturbing anyone and thus posed no threat. Well, actual eye witness reports say otherwise. These people were security threats even under the loosest definition of the term. Now, they want us all to shed a tear for them because their rights were violated, and many on the Left are echoing this message.
I honestly believe that if the airlines had removed the 19 hijackers from the planes on the morning of 9/11, the Left would have cried foul. There is no debating that. I know this because these Imams displayed the same behavior as the 9/11 hijackers and because they were removed, as they should have been, the airlines are being accused of civil rights violations. And the Left has the balls to claim that Bush and Rice were negligent in "ignoring" security threats?
That’s the difference between the Right and the Left when it comes to national security. There is nothing proactive about the Left. They feel that being proactive means violating rights. So, in their eyes, security risks are acceptable, because potentially violating civil rights is a worse crime than potentially allowing terrorists to murder thousands of people. Who’s right? That’s for the individual to decide.
The truth is, anyone who has flown since 9/11 has been inconvenienced in some way, and if anyone has displayed suspicious behavior (like these men) then they’ve been inconvenienced more. The trade off is that you don’t have to worry as much about someone standing up on your flight and slitting the pilot’s throat. To me, it’s a fair deal. Others may disagree. The point is, we live in a new world now. Gone are the days when you can walk on the plane without having to show an ID, or take off your shoes. Get over it.
If the Imams really want to do something constructive in this matter, then maybe they should direct their frustration at their "brothers" who are hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings, and not at America for trying to stop them from hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. If they don’t want to do this, then they should take their shoes off, walk through to metal detectors, board the plane quietly and in general AVOID acting like a terrorist like the rest of us…and quit whining about discrimination.
Regardless of what anyone says, this is proof that security measures in airports work. This story makes me feel safer when I fly. The Imams in question, and their kool-aid drinking supporters, would have us believe that they were quietly praying to themselves, weren’t disturbing anyone and thus posed no threat. Well, actual eye witness reports say otherwise. These people were security threats even under the loosest definition of the term. Now, they want us all to shed a tear for them because their rights were violated, and many on the Left are echoing this message.
I honestly believe that if the airlines had removed the 19 hijackers from the planes on the morning of 9/11, the Left would have cried foul. There is no debating that. I know this because these Imams displayed the same behavior as the 9/11 hijackers and because they were removed, as they should have been, the airlines are being accused of civil rights violations. And the Left has the balls to claim that Bush and Rice were negligent in "ignoring" security threats?
That’s the difference between the Right and the Left when it comes to national security. There is nothing proactive about the Left. They feel that being proactive means violating rights. So, in their eyes, security risks are acceptable, because potentially violating civil rights is a worse crime than potentially allowing terrorists to murder thousands of people. Who’s right? That’s for the individual to decide.
The truth is, anyone who has flown since 9/11 has been inconvenienced in some way, and if anyone has displayed suspicious behavior (like these men) then they’ve been inconvenienced more. The trade off is that you don’t have to worry as much about someone standing up on your flight and slitting the pilot’s throat. To me, it’s a fair deal. Others may disagree. The point is, we live in a new world now. Gone are the days when you can walk on the plane without having to show an ID, or take off your shoes. Get over it.
If the Imams really want to do something constructive in this matter, then maybe they should direct their frustration at their "brothers" who are hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings, and not at America for trying to stop them from hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. If they don’t want to do this, then they should take their shoes off, walk through to metal detectors, board the plane quietly and in general AVOID acting like a terrorist like the rest of us…and quit whining about discrimination.
Monday, November 27, 2006
More bad news for chicken little
2006 – Calmest hurricane season in a decade
I’ve posted on this before, so I’ll be brief. The hurricane season will officially end this week and it is the calmest season in a decade despite doomsday predictions including some that said one in six Americans would be directly affected by a hurricane this year. Apparently, the global warming hysteria that blamed last year’s killer storms on human induced climate change didn’t pan out. I’m sure Al Gore is very disappointed.
What interests me is this: In the spring, many of the world’s leading climatologists all agreed that 2006 would be a year of disasters, mirroring 2005. It seemed a foregone conclusion that America would endure more killer storms and no one really questioned their expertise. But they were wrong. One wonders what would happen if we held them to the same standard as we have with the WMD issue, but that’s another post.
Many of the same experts are the ones who similarly forecast environmental disasters related to human-induced climate change. So, it makes me wonder, if these people can’t predict the earth’s climate 6 months out, then how can they possibly claim to predict the earth’s climate 10, 20 or 30 years from now?
If someone told you that you’d be struck by lightning tomorrow, and it didn’t happen, then would you listen if they said that you’d be struck by lightning 10 years from now? I wouldn’t.
The fact is, there is much we don’t know about the earth’s climate. There is much we don’t understand about the many factors that affect earth’s climate. It’s dangerous to echo a theory based on questionable data and demand major changes in our commercial endeavors that could adversely affect the economy and thus millions of citizens. It’s especially dangerous to do this when we can’t even accurately predict a hurricane season. Remember, no one predicted that 2005 would be as bad as it was. Do human beings cause global warming? The answer is "we don’t know". And until we do know we need to stay away from things like the Kyoto Treaty that could mean loss of jobs and an economic recession.
Show me definable evidence of human-induced climate change, and I’ll be the first to demand harsh restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. But if that evidence doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t exist and we all need to work on discovering the truth, uncovering the facts and avoiding the chicken little baseless hysteria. I hope Al Gore gets the message.
I’ve posted on this before, so I’ll be brief. The hurricane season will officially end this week and it is the calmest season in a decade despite doomsday predictions including some that said one in six Americans would be directly affected by a hurricane this year. Apparently, the global warming hysteria that blamed last year’s killer storms on human induced climate change didn’t pan out. I’m sure Al Gore is very disappointed.
What interests me is this: In the spring, many of the world’s leading climatologists all agreed that 2006 would be a year of disasters, mirroring 2005. It seemed a foregone conclusion that America would endure more killer storms and no one really questioned their expertise. But they were wrong. One wonders what would happen if we held them to the same standard as we have with the WMD issue, but that’s another post.
Many of the same experts are the ones who similarly forecast environmental disasters related to human-induced climate change. So, it makes me wonder, if these people can’t predict the earth’s climate 6 months out, then how can they possibly claim to predict the earth’s climate 10, 20 or 30 years from now?
If someone told you that you’d be struck by lightning tomorrow, and it didn’t happen, then would you listen if they said that you’d be struck by lightning 10 years from now? I wouldn’t.
The fact is, there is much we don’t know about the earth’s climate. There is much we don’t understand about the many factors that affect earth’s climate. It’s dangerous to echo a theory based on questionable data and demand major changes in our commercial endeavors that could adversely affect the economy and thus millions of citizens. It’s especially dangerous to do this when we can’t even accurately predict a hurricane season. Remember, no one predicted that 2005 would be as bad as it was. Do human beings cause global warming? The answer is "we don’t know". And until we do know we need to stay away from things like the Kyoto Treaty that could mean loss of jobs and an economic recession.
Show me definable evidence of human-induced climate change, and I’ll be the first to demand harsh restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. But if that evidence doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t exist and we all need to work on discovering the truth, uncovering the facts and avoiding the chicken little baseless hysteria. I hope Al Gore gets the message.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Thankful for godly Founding Fathers
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.
George Washington
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.
George Washington
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Aussie's buyback gun control plan
Australia fails in its attempt at gun control
In 1996, after the Port Arthur shooting that claimed 35 lives, the government of Australia began a $500 million gun buyback campaign. In short, the citizens of Australia could "sell" their guns to the government. In return, they get guns off the street and crime rates fall.
Like many liberal-progressive ideas, it sounds great in theory, but the reality is much different. A recent study of crime statistics in Australia over the past decade shows that even though the government is spending lots of money buying guns from its citizens, crime rates have remained unchanged. Apparently, the only people selling their guns are the law-abiding citizens, something I'm sure Australia's criminals are really loving.
I guess the Australian government miscalculated when they thought all the criminals in that country would give up their crime careers and make a few bucks on their guns and then maybe get a job at Wendy's. Now, I like Australia, they've shown a lot of guts in the war on terror, but it's clear they have their own liberal-progressive problem as we do.
Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law, so it doesn't do any good to pass laws that depend on the compliance of criminals for effectiveness. This statement sounds like common sense, but it's amazing how many liberal ideas are lacking in this. Criminals aren't interested in a lawful society, just like terrorists aren't interested in a peaceful planet. We're negotiating with the wrong carrot and the wrong stick.
I doubt these statistics will change any minds. Somehow, I think the Left will still blame guns for crime and we'll probably try something like this in our country.
Thanks to Rob for the tip
In 1996, after the Port Arthur shooting that claimed 35 lives, the government of Australia began a $500 million gun buyback campaign. In short, the citizens of Australia could "sell" their guns to the government. In return, they get guns off the street and crime rates fall.
Like many liberal-progressive ideas, it sounds great in theory, but the reality is much different. A recent study of crime statistics in Australia over the past decade shows that even though the government is spending lots of money buying guns from its citizens, crime rates have remained unchanged. Apparently, the only people selling their guns are the law-abiding citizens, something I'm sure Australia's criminals are really loving.
I guess the Australian government miscalculated when they thought all the criminals in that country would give up their crime careers and make a few bucks on their guns and then maybe get a job at Wendy's. Now, I like Australia, they've shown a lot of guts in the war on terror, but it's clear they have their own liberal-progressive problem as we do.
Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law, so it doesn't do any good to pass laws that depend on the compliance of criminals for effectiveness. This statement sounds like common sense, but it's amazing how many liberal ideas are lacking in this. Criminals aren't interested in a lawful society, just like terrorists aren't interested in a peaceful planet. We're negotiating with the wrong carrot and the wrong stick.
I doubt these statistics will change any minds. Somehow, I think the Left will still blame guns for crime and we'll probably try something like this in our country.
Thanks to Rob for the tip
Monday, November 20, 2006
Rangel wants a draft...again
Rangel will call for draft
In his second monstrously stupid move since the election, Rep. Charles Rangel will be introducing a bill that will reinstate the draft, saying that current troop levels in Iraq are not high enough. Our military leaders disagree. But that doesn’t matter to Charles Rangel. HE feels the troop levels aren’t high enough and so he wants to draft you, your kid or someone else you love into service to correct that.
For 3 years the Dems have been screaming quagmire every time Iraq is mentioned. Now, the one thing that could actually transform the war into a quagmire will be introduced by one of their congressional leaders (a measure he introduced and voted AGAINST in 2003). I wonder if the American people are rethinking their vote yet?
They rationalize such legislation by saying "this way, the rich kids will be at risk as much as the poor". Legislating should not be done in such a passive-aggressive nitpicky manner. And besides, service is voluntary, which doesn’t put anyone at risk against their will, hence the term voluntary. I’m personally a little sick and tired of these ignorant Democrats looking down at us in the military as though we’re victims in need of pity. My advice to Charles Rangel would be to stay out of the military’s way. Victory will be achieved unless you morons in Washington step in and screw it up.
Yes, the situation in Iraq is difficult, but flooding that area with inexperienced draftees will not help, so says the troops on the ground and the commanders who lead them. Today’s Private becomes tomorrow’s Sergeant, in charge of a group of people there against their will and bitter because of it. When will Charles Rangel and his lot learn to listen to those who know what they’re talking about? But, no, he has votes to think about and an image to protect. He must protect the "little man", and he thinks a draft does this. He wants us out of Iraq now, but he doesn’t have the sack to demand unconditional withdrawal, and he knows that a draft will make an already unpopular war even more unpopular – giving the Dems a chance to step in and "save the day" by getting our troops out some time in future….but certainly not before the ’08 election.
It’s all about politics. Don’t ever forget that. And now, you may be inducted into military service. Why? Think about it.
In his second monstrously stupid move since the election, Rep. Charles Rangel will be introducing a bill that will reinstate the draft, saying that current troop levels in Iraq are not high enough. Our military leaders disagree. But that doesn’t matter to Charles Rangel. HE feels the troop levels aren’t high enough and so he wants to draft you, your kid or someone else you love into service to correct that.
For 3 years the Dems have been screaming quagmire every time Iraq is mentioned. Now, the one thing that could actually transform the war into a quagmire will be introduced by one of their congressional leaders (a measure he introduced and voted AGAINST in 2003). I wonder if the American people are rethinking their vote yet?
They rationalize such legislation by saying "this way, the rich kids will be at risk as much as the poor". Legislating should not be done in such a passive-aggressive nitpicky manner. And besides, service is voluntary, which doesn’t put anyone at risk against their will, hence the term voluntary. I’m personally a little sick and tired of these ignorant Democrats looking down at us in the military as though we’re victims in need of pity. My advice to Charles Rangel would be to stay out of the military’s way. Victory will be achieved unless you morons in Washington step in and screw it up.
Yes, the situation in Iraq is difficult, but flooding that area with inexperienced draftees will not help, so says the troops on the ground and the commanders who lead them. Today’s Private becomes tomorrow’s Sergeant, in charge of a group of people there against their will and bitter because of it. When will Charles Rangel and his lot learn to listen to those who know what they’re talking about? But, no, he has votes to think about and an image to protect. He must protect the "little man", and he thinks a draft does this. He wants us out of Iraq now, but he doesn’t have the sack to demand unconditional withdrawal, and he knows that a draft will make an already unpopular war even more unpopular – giving the Dems a chance to step in and "save the day" by getting our troops out some time in future….but certainly not before the ’08 election.
It’s all about politics. Don’t ever forget that. And now, you may be inducted into military service. Why? Think about it.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Who will stop them?
Israel walks out of UN session
The UN, in an emergency session, passed an order demanding that Israel end its military operations in Gaza. The US and Australia voted against this measure. By the way, my respect for Australia keeps growing. They seem to be the only country, along with us, willing to confront evil. But I digress.
There are a few things about this vote that interest me. First, it was approved in the General Assembly by a vote of 156-7. This is pretty amazing. How often does the UN General Assembly ever get that close to unanimous? To me, it confirms a growing anti-Israel sentiment in the UN and in Europe. The Israelis are clearly viewed as the aggressor in their fight for survival, which is a dangerous view for the world to have. Even though Israel has signed numerous peace agreements with the Palestinians, and even though those peave agreements have been repeatedly violated BY the palestinians, it is still Israel who is to blame in most cases for the ongoing conflict. Just look at their recent invasion of Lebanon, and the Iranian backed Hezbollah terrorists. Was Hezbollah condemned by the UN or by Europe? Even though they were deliberately firing rockets into civillian communities? Nope, it was Israel, whose invasion was looked at as impulsive and just plain mean. The Israelis are slowly losing their right to defend themselves and you can bet the radical Islamists have taken notice.
Ahmadinejad is months from having a nuke. He has clearly stated that he intends on "wiping Israel off the map". This is nothing tongue-in-cheek, he has admitted it and seems proud of it. In fact, he believes it to be his destiny. He thinks god has chosen him to trigger the apocolyptic war that brings on the end times. I'm not making this up. That's what this guy believes. He is not deterred by our threats, because if we take action against him then it would fulfill his mission. So he is close to his nuke, the UN repeatedly condemns Israel and their right to defend themselves, the US general population has made it clear what they think about military action in that part of the country. Put these together, and what do you think will happen the moment Ahmadinejad gets the bomb?
Anyone else shifting in their seat uncomfortably?
Hopefully, the UN will shift gears. There will be a new Secretary General in December and let's hope this person has a new vision and is capable of actually seeing good and evil...and sides with the good, but don't hold your breath. The UN has become a body of enablers and appeasers. They have decided that confronting the radicals is less constructive than submitting to them, which is why they're telling Israel to stop things in Gaza, while Iran has nearly achieved nuclear military capability. The radicals have made it clear that their purpose is to dominate the world, and the world is doing nothing to resist. In fact, those who are resisting are now being demonized as war mongers. So who will stop these radicals? Who will keep them from dominating the world?
The UN, in an emergency session, passed an order demanding that Israel end its military operations in Gaza. The US and Australia voted against this measure. By the way, my respect for Australia keeps growing. They seem to be the only country, along with us, willing to confront evil. But I digress.
There are a few things about this vote that interest me. First, it was approved in the General Assembly by a vote of 156-7. This is pretty amazing. How often does the UN General Assembly ever get that close to unanimous? To me, it confirms a growing anti-Israel sentiment in the UN and in Europe. The Israelis are clearly viewed as the aggressor in their fight for survival, which is a dangerous view for the world to have. Even though Israel has signed numerous peace agreements with the Palestinians, and even though those peave agreements have been repeatedly violated BY the palestinians, it is still Israel who is to blame in most cases for the ongoing conflict. Just look at their recent invasion of Lebanon, and the Iranian backed Hezbollah terrorists. Was Hezbollah condemned by the UN or by Europe? Even though they were deliberately firing rockets into civillian communities? Nope, it was Israel, whose invasion was looked at as impulsive and just plain mean. The Israelis are slowly losing their right to defend themselves and you can bet the radical Islamists have taken notice.
Ahmadinejad is months from having a nuke. He has clearly stated that he intends on "wiping Israel off the map". This is nothing tongue-in-cheek, he has admitted it and seems proud of it. In fact, he believes it to be his destiny. He thinks god has chosen him to trigger the apocolyptic war that brings on the end times. I'm not making this up. That's what this guy believes. He is not deterred by our threats, because if we take action against him then it would fulfill his mission. So he is close to his nuke, the UN repeatedly condemns Israel and their right to defend themselves, the US general population has made it clear what they think about military action in that part of the country. Put these together, and what do you think will happen the moment Ahmadinejad gets the bomb?
Anyone else shifting in their seat uncomfortably?
Hopefully, the UN will shift gears. There will be a new Secretary General in December and let's hope this person has a new vision and is capable of actually seeing good and evil...and sides with the good, but don't hold your breath. The UN has become a body of enablers and appeasers. They have decided that confronting the radicals is less constructive than submitting to them, which is why they're telling Israel to stop things in Gaza, while Iran has nearly achieved nuclear military capability. The radicals have made it clear that their purpose is to dominate the world, and the world is doing nothing to resist. In fact, those who are resisting are now being demonized as war mongers. So who will stop these radicals? Who will keep them from dominating the world?
Friday, November 17, 2006
OJ...again?
Alright, I figure I’ve had enough time to collect the information needed to now comment on the latest OJ controversy. My first question is: When will this guy go away? For those who don’t know, OJ’s latest endeavor is to tell a story in book and movie format about how he "would have" killed his ex-wife Nicole and Ron Goldman, IF he were actually the one who did it. Of course, this is strictly hypothetical and apparently OJ’s criminology expertise has a lot to offer this seemingly "unsolved" mystery.
The publisher has already gone on record with an open-palmed shoulder-shrug statement that she looked at this as a "confession" from OJ and that she didn’t actually pay HIM the $3 million he supposedly received for his expert opinion. Instead, the publisher contests, she thought the money would be going to his 2 children. Take that explanation for what it’s worth. And soon Fox will be airing a television special that details his elaborate hypothetical plot.
Mark Fuhrman stated on Fox News that Simpson is insane. He may not be too far from the truth. But I think shameless and sociopathic may be better terms of description. Suppose he didn’t actually murder those two people. What he is now doing is rehashing the most traumatic experience his two children have ever endured, and profiting from it. He is making a lot of money on the brutal murder of the mother of his children.
Suppose he did murder them. Well, in that case, he is profiting from a murder that he committed while defiantly mocking our justice system. Either way, this is not okay. Remember, even though he was acquitted on criminal charges, a civil court did find that he was responsible for the deaths of these people, and now he stands to make money off of those murders. Are we as a culture, as a society, prepared to allow this?
Hopefully not, but that will ultimately depend on the consumer. Of course, I will not buy this book. To me it’s filth and the only ones who should actually read this garbage are the 12 jurors who acquitted him on those criminal charges. But the TV special is different. I do plan to watch for one reason…to make notes about which corporations and businesses advertise during the show. I will keep a list of those who advertise and will publish that list on this blog site. I will not buy products from any of these companies. You can do with it whatever you want. The idea is to hold people accountable for supporting the kind of garbage that does nothing but erode the moral fiber of our nation. An individual should never be allowed to profit from a murder that he was deemed responsible for…period.
The publisher has already gone on record with an open-palmed shoulder-shrug statement that she looked at this as a "confession" from OJ and that she didn’t actually pay HIM the $3 million he supposedly received for his expert opinion. Instead, the publisher contests, she thought the money would be going to his 2 children. Take that explanation for what it’s worth. And soon Fox will be airing a television special that details his elaborate hypothetical plot.
Mark Fuhrman stated on Fox News that Simpson is insane. He may not be too far from the truth. But I think shameless and sociopathic may be better terms of description. Suppose he didn’t actually murder those two people. What he is now doing is rehashing the most traumatic experience his two children have ever endured, and profiting from it. He is making a lot of money on the brutal murder of the mother of his children.
Suppose he did murder them. Well, in that case, he is profiting from a murder that he committed while defiantly mocking our justice system. Either way, this is not okay. Remember, even though he was acquitted on criminal charges, a civil court did find that he was responsible for the deaths of these people, and now he stands to make money off of those murders. Are we as a culture, as a society, prepared to allow this?
Hopefully not, but that will ultimately depend on the consumer. Of course, I will not buy this book. To me it’s filth and the only ones who should actually read this garbage are the 12 jurors who acquitted him on those criminal charges. But the TV special is different. I do plan to watch for one reason…to make notes about which corporations and businesses advertise during the show. I will keep a list of those who advertise and will publish that list on this blog site. I will not buy products from any of these companies. You can do with it whatever you want. The idea is to hold people accountable for supporting the kind of garbage that does nothing but erode the moral fiber of our nation. An individual should never be allowed to profit from a murder that he was deemed responsible for…period.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Is human-induced climate change real?
Today's post is a series of links for the Global Warming Kool-Aid drinkers. I would normally have posted this in "comments" for the previous post, but I want it to get the proper attention. Enjoy.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
National Review Online
http://www.globalwarming.org/index.php
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/734749/posts
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/pointlss.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/hot.htm
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294
The fact is, this is a political issue and most people will believe what they want typically along political lines. Myself: I'm an evidenced-based guy. I DO have a vested interest in the earth's future and if I saw evidence of human-induced climate change, then I would be first in line demanding action. But, the evidence just isn't there, and I am not going to be bullied through fear.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
National Review Online
http://www.globalwarming.org/index.php
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/734749/posts
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/pointlss.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/hot.htm
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294
The fact is, this is a political issue and most people will believe what they want typically along political lines. Myself: I'm an evidenced-based guy. I DO have a vested interest in the earth's future and if I saw evidence of human-induced climate change, then I would be first in line demanding action. But, the evidence just isn't there, and I am not going to be bullied through fear.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
A long two years
Well, I asked just one week ago who will run Congress, the Extreme Left or the Moderates? It's only been a week, and it seems they're already answering. Dennis Kucinich has gone on record saying that Congress MUST cut the military funding to Iraq. There are 141,000 American troops fighting our terrorist enemies, along with millions of Iraqis struggling to establish their fledgling, frail democracy, and Kucinich wants to just cut their money.
Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee pressed General John Abizaid on setting a withdrawal deadline, 4-6 months, to get out of Iraq. Of course, the General objected to this, but the opinion of our military leaders means little to the Dems. I'm wondering why they didn't invite Al Qaeda to the committee meeting. After all, no one has a more vested interest in our withdrawal and they would like nothing more than to be able to mark their calenders for the date we're gone and they're free to wreak havoc on the Iraqi people.
Charles Rangel had a few choice words for Mississippi one day after the election. John Murtha and Steny Hoyer are engaged in a nasty political power grab that I thought was promised not to happen. And the Dems are ALREADY talking about raising taxes. And where are the moderates? One can almost hear the silence and the crickets chirping. Not a word from them. It's becoming apparent that the extreme Left wing of the Democratic party is poised to dominate Washington politics. All this, and the new Congress hasn't even been sworn in yet. It's gonna be a long two years. Here's more:
Abramoff offers testimony on 6-8 Democratic Senators
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff states that he can give testimony on dealings with at least 6-8 "very corrupt" Democrat Senators. That’s funny, I thought the Abramoff scandal was a Republican problem…or maybe that’s just how the New York Times sees it, along with the majority of America’s Kool-aid drinking Left.
Boxer to hold Senate hearings on Global Warming
The new leader of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Barbara Boxer, plans to begin a long series of Senate hearings aimed at global warming.
"I think there ought to be a global-warming bill that looks at all the contributors to carbon-dioxide emissions," she said.
So we may be enacting legislation, potentially costly legislation, aimed at curbing a hoax. Hopefully, the Senate hearings will reveal what most responsible, but intimidated, scientists already know…that there is no evidence supporting the theory that human activity has negatively affected the earth’s climate. But, then again, the theory has made it this far.
Democrat Congress may seek to scrap border fence
My only problem with the recent bill passed by Congress mandating a fence along the US Southern border is that the fence isn’t long enough. It only traverse about a fourth of the border. But, at least, it was progress on an issue that our elected leaders seemed to be hesitant about solving. Now, enter the Democrats. They no doubt had help from the Hispanic voting block in America in the recent elections, and they obviously intend on keeping those votes. So, what will they do? That’s right. They’re likely going to kill the law that mandates a fence. I feel safer already.
It amazes me that some of the Congressman speaking against this fence represent some of the poorest districts in America, ie Bennie Thompson. Thompson is from Mississippi and represents a very impoverished population. His constituents compete for jobs with illegal immigrants who are willing to work for less with fewer demands. In essence, the illegals are driving down wages for American citizens, especially the poorer, least educated American citizens like the ones found in Thompson’s district. Either he doesn’t know that, or he just doesn’t care and his party loyalty is trumping his obligation to those who put him in office. I don’t know which is worse. But I hope that either he or his constituents eventually learn the truth about illegal immigration and how it harms this country in so many ways.
Murtha seeking House majority position
John Murtha has a good shot at being our House Majority leader. That’s right, the anti-war, anti-military Congressman whose words of criticism do nothing but embolden our enemies in their efforts against our troops may be the majority leader of the House of Representatives. This is our new Congress. We elected these people, and the consequences may be more than we bargained for.
Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee pressed General John Abizaid on setting a withdrawal deadline, 4-6 months, to get out of Iraq. Of course, the General objected to this, but the opinion of our military leaders means little to the Dems. I'm wondering why they didn't invite Al Qaeda to the committee meeting. After all, no one has a more vested interest in our withdrawal and they would like nothing more than to be able to mark their calenders for the date we're gone and they're free to wreak havoc on the Iraqi people.
Charles Rangel had a few choice words for Mississippi one day after the election. John Murtha and Steny Hoyer are engaged in a nasty political power grab that I thought was promised not to happen. And the Dems are ALREADY talking about raising taxes. And where are the moderates? One can almost hear the silence and the crickets chirping. Not a word from them. It's becoming apparent that the extreme Left wing of the Democratic party is poised to dominate Washington politics. All this, and the new Congress hasn't even been sworn in yet. It's gonna be a long two years. Here's more:
Abramoff offers testimony on 6-8 Democratic Senators
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff states that he can give testimony on dealings with at least 6-8 "very corrupt" Democrat Senators. That’s funny, I thought the Abramoff scandal was a Republican problem…or maybe that’s just how the New York Times sees it, along with the majority of America’s Kool-aid drinking Left.
Boxer to hold Senate hearings on Global Warming
The new leader of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Barbara Boxer, plans to begin a long series of Senate hearings aimed at global warming.
"I think there ought to be a global-warming bill that looks at all the contributors to carbon-dioxide emissions," she said.
So we may be enacting legislation, potentially costly legislation, aimed at curbing a hoax. Hopefully, the Senate hearings will reveal what most responsible, but intimidated, scientists already know…that there is no evidence supporting the theory that human activity has negatively affected the earth’s climate. But, then again, the theory has made it this far.
Democrat Congress may seek to scrap border fence
My only problem with the recent bill passed by Congress mandating a fence along the US Southern border is that the fence isn’t long enough. It only traverse about a fourth of the border. But, at least, it was progress on an issue that our elected leaders seemed to be hesitant about solving. Now, enter the Democrats. They no doubt had help from the Hispanic voting block in America in the recent elections, and they obviously intend on keeping those votes. So, what will they do? That’s right. They’re likely going to kill the law that mandates a fence. I feel safer already.
It amazes me that some of the Congressman speaking against this fence represent some of the poorest districts in America, ie Bennie Thompson. Thompson is from Mississippi and represents a very impoverished population. His constituents compete for jobs with illegal immigrants who are willing to work for less with fewer demands. In essence, the illegals are driving down wages for American citizens, especially the poorer, least educated American citizens like the ones found in Thompson’s district. Either he doesn’t know that, or he just doesn’t care and his party loyalty is trumping his obligation to those who put him in office. I don’t know which is worse. But I hope that either he or his constituents eventually learn the truth about illegal immigration and how it harms this country in so many ways.
Murtha seeking House majority position
John Murtha has a good shot at being our House Majority leader. That’s right, the anti-war, anti-military Congressman whose words of criticism do nothing but embolden our enemies in their efforts against our troops may be the majority leader of the House of Representatives. This is our new Congress. We elected these people, and the consequences may be more than we bargained for.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Infanticide...or "mercy killing"?
Euthanasia for infants being discussed in Britain
The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has made a statement that the medical community should consider withholding and withdrawing life saving medical care from infants born with severe life-threatening and permanent conditions; and, in some cases, they endorse euthanasia as a possibility as well.
Anyone who has read this blog knows that I have advocated against abortion and against stem cell research for one primary reason – it cheapens human life and places us on the verge of a slippery slope that we don’t want to step out onto. This announcement from the Britain Obstetrics society confirms my contention.
While I don’t have a problem with withdrawing or withholding treatment (I feel that is a medical decision that should be made by the parents from an informed point of view), I do have a serious problem with the notion of euthanasia. This, in my opinion, mirrors the Kevorkian notion of assisted suicide except for the fact that an infant can’t commit suicide. So it’s, in essence, unassisted suicide which, by definition is murder. Yes, I have a problem with that.
Infanticide is a word that we should all get used to, because it is a word that we will soon be hearing more of. There are people, mainly "reproductive rights" groups who advocate infanticide for mothers who do not wish to be mothers. This is abortion rights to the extreme. Some have editorialized that one’s humanity should not be recognized until that person has the capability of self-awareness, and therefore anyone who kills the self-unaware should not be held to the same standard as someone who kills an adult. This is the slippery slope of which I speak and it’s not fictitious.
Look around, people, this is what’s going on in society. We make arguments along moral relativist lines for things like abortion and stem cell research without realizing what the next step is and, believe me, there are people who are making some convincing arguments for infanticide. I’m wondering where we, as a society, draw the line?
Today we argue for "euthanasia" of babies as a means of mercy killing. What will it be tomorrow? If we advocate for mercy killing of someone with spina bifida, well then what about a child born blind? What about a child born with a clubbed foot? The same arguments can be made for killing these infants and then what have we become as a society?
I see the link between these arguments and abortion/stem cell research. To me, they are intricately connected which is why I argue adamantly against both. We can’t have human life cheapened in a culture of moral relativism, because it soon becomes a threat to us all.
The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has made a statement that the medical community should consider withholding and withdrawing life saving medical care from infants born with severe life-threatening and permanent conditions; and, in some cases, they endorse euthanasia as a possibility as well.
Anyone who has read this blog knows that I have advocated against abortion and against stem cell research for one primary reason – it cheapens human life and places us on the verge of a slippery slope that we don’t want to step out onto. This announcement from the Britain Obstetrics society confirms my contention.
While I don’t have a problem with withdrawing or withholding treatment (I feel that is a medical decision that should be made by the parents from an informed point of view), I do have a serious problem with the notion of euthanasia. This, in my opinion, mirrors the Kevorkian notion of assisted suicide except for the fact that an infant can’t commit suicide. So it’s, in essence, unassisted suicide which, by definition is murder. Yes, I have a problem with that.
Infanticide is a word that we should all get used to, because it is a word that we will soon be hearing more of. There are people, mainly "reproductive rights" groups who advocate infanticide for mothers who do not wish to be mothers. This is abortion rights to the extreme. Some have editorialized that one’s humanity should not be recognized until that person has the capability of self-awareness, and therefore anyone who kills the self-unaware should not be held to the same standard as someone who kills an adult. This is the slippery slope of which I speak and it’s not fictitious.
Look around, people, this is what’s going on in society. We make arguments along moral relativist lines for things like abortion and stem cell research without realizing what the next step is and, believe me, there are people who are making some convincing arguments for infanticide. I’m wondering where we, as a society, draw the line?
Today we argue for "euthanasia" of babies as a means of mercy killing. What will it be tomorrow? If we advocate for mercy killing of someone with spina bifida, well then what about a child born blind? What about a child born with a clubbed foot? The same arguments can be made for killing these infants and then what have we become as a society?
I see the link between these arguments and abortion/stem cell research. To me, they are intricately connected which is why I argue adamantly against both. We can’t have human life cheapened in a culture of moral relativism, because it soon becomes a threat to us all.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Is Bin Laden smiling yet?
Congress to call for troop "redeployment"
This is no surprise. It’s incredible to think what Osama Bin Laden and his band of evil doers has been able to accomplish since 9-11. Al Qaeda has effectively neutralized the UN, shown in that organization’s failure to do anything about anything; toppled the government of Spain; changed the balance of power in Congress, no doubt a result of their terror efforts in Iraq during October; brought down Donald Rumsfeld; and now it looks like he may achieve his goal of having the US pull out of Iraq.
It appears that Congress is going to do what our military fears – leave without completing the job. Military leaders have said that Iraq can be stabilized, that a democratic government can be kept in place, that the resistance can be stopped, but Congress doesn’t care. They think they were elected to get us out of Iraq, and that’s what they want to do. After all, they have to have something to run on in ’08.
A troop withdrawal at this time, with objectives unmet, amounts to nothing more than a Vietnam-esque defeat; and it confirms what our terrorist enemies suspect – that America is a glass-jawed paper tiger that will not take the proper course of action to defeat them. So will this lead to peace? Or more terrorist attacks?
We may get out of Iraq, but it will do nothing but embolden our enemies to move their operations from Baghdad to the US mainland. In short, we will be attacked again, and again, and again – mainly because those who want to attack us don’t think we’ll do anything about it other than seek a "common ground" or a "peaceful solution" with a group of people who don’t want peace or common grounds. No wonder terrorist leaders were celebrating the outcome of America’s midterm election. They know who needs to be in power in America for them to achieve victory.
My guess is, they will lay low for 2 years. They will let America get out of Iraq. Of course, they will take over that country, bring down the democratic government and transform it into an Iranian style theocratic dictatorship; but they will hold off on attacking America until after the ’08 election. After all, they don’t want to give American voters a reason to elect a hawkish President. So it looks good for the Dems in ’08. They will have 2 years to gloat about "getting out of Iraq" and will probably put one of their doves in the White House. And then?
My book When Evil Prospers tells the rest. It’s my prediction about our future, and I hope I’m wrong.
This is no surprise. It’s incredible to think what Osama Bin Laden and his band of evil doers has been able to accomplish since 9-11. Al Qaeda has effectively neutralized the UN, shown in that organization’s failure to do anything about anything; toppled the government of Spain; changed the balance of power in Congress, no doubt a result of their terror efforts in Iraq during October; brought down Donald Rumsfeld; and now it looks like he may achieve his goal of having the US pull out of Iraq.
It appears that Congress is going to do what our military fears – leave without completing the job. Military leaders have said that Iraq can be stabilized, that a democratic government can be kept in place, that the resistance can be stopped, but Congress doesn’t care. They think they were elected to get us out of Iraq, and that’s what they want to do. After all, they have to have something to run on in ’08.
A troop withdrawal at this time, with objectives unmet, amounts to nothing more than a Vietnam-esque defeat; and it confirms what our terrorist enemies suspect – that America is a glass-jawed paper tiger that will not take the proper course of action to defeat them. So will this lead to peace? Or more terrorist attacks?
We may get out of Iraq, but it will do nothing but embolden our enemies to move their operations from Baghdad to the US mainland. In short, we will be attacked again, and again, and again – mainly because those who want to attack us don’t think we’ll do anything about it other than seek a "common ground" or a "peaceful solution" with a group of people who don’t want peace or common grounds. No wonder terrorist leaders were celebrating the outcome of America’s midterm election. They know who needs to be in power in America for them to achieve victory.
My guess is, they will lay low for 2 years. They will let America get out of Iraq. Of course, they will take over that country, bring down the democratic government and transform it into an Iranian style theocratic dictatorship; but they will hold off on attacking America until after the ’08 election. After all, they don’t want to give American voters a reason to elect a hawkish President. So it looks good for the Dems in ’08. They will have 2 years to gloat about "getting out of Iraq" and will probably put one of their doves in the White House. And then?
My book When Evil Prospers tells the rest. It’s my prediction about our future, and I hope I’m wrong.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Germany calling US war criminals?
Rumsfeld facing potential criminal charges from Germany
And now, a test of your patriotism. Germany is hinting at bringing criminal charges against Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, George Tenet and many other ranking US officials for war crimes. Apparently, it is written in their law that they can do this. Of course, they can't ENFORCE that law. They won't be able to enact any punishment, so this is more international politics than anything else and, in my opinion, Germany's way of testing the new US political waters. In their eyes, they want to know how the new Congress will respond to this. If there are no objections, then it will be important knowledge for future dealings. An internationalist Congress is VERY GOOD for Germany. Obviously, this is bogus and the Pentagon won't give it a second thought, yet I am still intrigued about how we as Americans will respond.
Now for the test. I will say right now that if you support this, then you are Anti-American and I outright question your patriotism. This is not a matter of whether Rumsfled should or should not be investigated or charged. The question is whether he should be charged by a FOREIGN court. If you're OK with this, then you are as much a threat to America as any Taliban or Al Qaeda terrorist that we're killing in the Middle East.
Is this harsh? Of course. But it absolutely violates the Constitution and our sovereignty as a nation to support any foreign government's actions against our military and our executive branch. This internationalist attitude is dangerous and it does nothing but weaken us as a nation. How much worse will it be if a Democrat President signs on to the International Criminal Court, where punishment could actually be ENFORCED against our military leaders and elected representatives? Bush rejected this, Clinton supported it, what will Hillary or Obama do?
My hope is that Congress issues a statement now condemning Germany's actions. And that when the new Congress is sworn in they do the same. This can't be tolerated in any way, shape or form. Send the message NOW!
And now, a test of your patriotism. Germany is hinting at bringing criminal charges against Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, George Tenet and many other ranking US officials for war crimes. Apparently, it is written in their law that they can do this. Of course, they can't ENFORCE that law. They won't be able to enact any punishment, so this is more international politics than anything else and, in my opinion, Germany's way of testing the new US political waters. In their eyes, they want to know how the new Congress will respond to this. If there are no objections, then it will be important knowledge for future dealings. An internationalist Congress is VERY GOOD for Germany. Obviously, this is bogus and the Pentagon won't give it a second thought, yet I am still intrigued about how we as Americans will respond.
Now for the test. I will say right now that if you support this, then you are Anti-American and I outright question your patriotism. This is not a matter of whether Rumsfled should or should not be investigated or charged. The question is whether he should be charged by a FOREIGN court. If you're OK with this, then you are as much a threat to America as any Taliban or Al Qaeda terrorist that we're killing in the Middle East.
Is this harsh? Of course. But it absolutely violates the Constitution and our sovereignty as a nation to support any foreign government's actions against our military and our executive branch. This internationalist attitude is dangerous and it does nothing but weaken us as a nation. How much worse will it be if a Democrat President signs on to the International Criminal Court, where punishment could actually be ENFORCED against our military leaders and elected representatives? Bush rejected this, Clinton supported it, what will Hillary or Obama do?
My hope is that Congress issues a statement now condemning Germany's actions. And that when the new Congress is sworn in they do the same. This can't be tolerated in any way, shape or form. Send the message NOW!
Why live in Mississippi?
Read this quote from a prominent US Congressman and think about it.
Trent Lott: "California gets more than it's share of tax dollars, and who the hell would want to live in California anyway?"
Wow. Pretty stupid. Obviously he should apologize for something so insensitive and offensive. But what if this were his apology: "I didn't mean anything by it. I just love Mississippi so much I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to live anywhere but here."
Sounds like a lot of crap to me, and I expect the press to pound him on it.
Now for the twist. Trent Lott did not say this or anything like. I switched it up to prove another point about the double standard in today's media. Had Trent Lott said this, everyone would know about it and you wouldn't have to read this blog to learn of it. But what if it were Charles Rangel? He's the one who actually made this idiotic remark:
Rangel, D-N.Y., was quoted in an article today in The New York Times, saying: “Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?”
And, yes, his apology was the pathetic line that I used above. I doubt anyone out there has heard of this, probably because it was Rangel and not Lott and he was talking about Mississippi and not California and New York. Does the mainstream media in this country have any credibility with anyone these days?
This is the new chairman of the House and Ways Committee, already pulling a Kerry-esque insult of a great many people. I lived in Mississippi for many years, and it's a great place. The people are second to none and they've learned to live together - different races, social classes, religions - over the past few decades. Unlike New York or Chicago, where they have their fair share of racial problems, Mississippians have found harmony with each other. They endured the brunt of the nation's worst ever natural disaster, yet you didn't really hear them complain a whole lot did you? No, there was work to do and they did it.
It's a beautiful state consisting of large pine forests on one end, and flat delta land on the other, where the dark, black soil produces a big chunk of America's cotton and soybean crop. Mississippi has given us William Faulkner, Eudora Welty, Willie Morris, Oprah Winfrey, Elvis Presley, Walter Payton, Jerry Rice and John Grisham to name a few. It's a beautiful state with beautiful people, and it's also one of the poorest states in the union. But Rangel, this champion for the impoverished, seems to have a problem giving so many federal dollars to Mississippi. He thinks New York, one of the richest states, needs that money instead. This is the "new direction" our Congress promised? It's only been a few days, and the Dems are back to there usual hypocritical pull-the-shade BS. Why give money to Mississippi? It's a red state and we have control of Congress now.
I wonder if Charles Rangel has ever even been to Mississippi?
Well, I invite him to go see for himself before he insults over 2 million Mississippians whom he doesn't even know.
Trent Lott: "California gets more than it's share of tax dollars, and who the hell would want to live in California anyway?"
Wow. Pretty stupid. Obviously he should apologize for something so insensitive and offensive. But what if this were his apology: "I didn't mean anything by it. I just love Mississippi so much I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to live anywhere but here."
Sounds like a lot of crap to me, and I expect the press to pound him on it.
Now for the twist. Trent Lott did not say this or anything like. I switched it up to prove another point about the double standard in today's media. Had Trent Lott said this, everyone would know about it and you wouldn't have to read this blog to learn of it. But what if it were Charles Rangel? He's the one who actually made this idiotic remark:
Rangel, D-N.Y., was quoted in an article today in The New York Times, saying: “Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?”
And, yes, his apology was the pathetic line that I used above. I doubt anyone out there has heard of this, probably because it was Rangel and not Lott and he was talking about Mississippi and not California and New York. Does the mainstream media in this country have any credibility with anyone these days?
This is the new chairman of the House and Ways Committee, already pulling a Kerry-esque insult of a great many people. I lived in Mississippi for many years, and it's a great place. The people are second to none and they've learned to live together - different races, social classes, religions - over the past few decades. Unlike New York or Chicago, where they have their fair share of racial problems, Mississippians have found harmony with each other. They endured the brunt of the nation's worst ever natural disaster, yet you didn't really hear them complain a whole lot did you? No, there was work to do and they did it.
It's a beautiful state consisting of large pine forests on one end, and flat delta land on the other, where the dark, black soil produces a big chunk of America's cotton and soybean crop. Mississippi has given us William Faulkner, Eudora Welty, Willie Morris, Oprah Winfrey, Elvis Presley, Walter Payton, Jerry Rice and John Grisham to name a few. It's a beautiful state with beautiful people, and it's also one of the poorest states in the union. But Rangel, this champion for the impoverished, seems to have a problem giving so many federal dollars to Mississippi. He thinks New York, one of the richest states, needs that money instead. This is the "new direction" our Congress promised? It's only been a few days, and the Dems are back to there usual hypocritical pull-the-shade BS. Why give money to Mississippi? It's a red state and we have control of Congress now.
I wonder if Charles Rangel has ever even been to Mississippi?
Well, I invite him to go see for himself before he insults over 2 million Mississippians whom he doesn't even know.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Only time will tell
America has decided. As expected, the Democrats have regained the House and likely the Senate. Obviously, the unpopular war in Iraq was the driving reason for this, especially in states like Rhode Island, Indiana, Virginia and Montana. Many of the candidates who faced each other held similar views on just about every issue except the war, and if you had an "R" next to your name then you were behind the eight ball from the beginning.
It’s good to see that the Democratic party learned a few things from the past elections and this showed in their selection of more moderate candidates. America has rejected the liberal extremists in the past and would have likely done so again. So the new Democrat Congress won’t be much different than what we already had, except they’ll be fresh faces. The question is: Who will run things on Capitol Hill?
My concern is that even though this is a predominantly moderate Congress, the Democrat leadership is still made up of the extreme Liberals. People like Nancy Pelosi, the Representative from San Francisco; Charles Rangel, one of the leading income redistribution advocates; Ted Kennedy, Mr. "quagmire" cut-and-run; Robert Byrd, ex-KKK leader; Dick Durbin, John Kerry and Howard Dean. These are the extremists. These are the ones who pose a threat to America’s way of life. To what extent will they be able to bully the moderate rookies into their bidding? It’s a fair question and one that will soon be answered the moment the new Congress takes power. If they have their way with the fresh faces then America may get more than they bargained for.
We voted for a moderate Congress, but I don’t think we voted to have Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, or Charles Rangel as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. The term "unintended consequences" immediately comes to mind.
The Bush Administration has expressed their willingness to work with the moderates, and Rumsfeld’s decision to step down is a good-faith gesture of that willingness. It’s a peace-offering, an attempt to start on the right foot. I feel the moderates will accept this peace-offering and will be willing to their part as well to meet Bush in the middle. But what will the extremists in the leadership do? I think they’re out for blood. Hopefully, we won’t hear about investigations or subpoenas. Hopefully, we won’t hear more calls for resignations. Hopefully, there won’t be strong-arm tactics meant to push the White House around. These sorts of things aren’t good for solving our problems and, I have a feeling, it’s not what America voted for yesterday. So who will call the shots? The Moderates or the Extremists? America has given the Democratic party another chance. What will they do with it?
Only time will tell.
It’s good to see that the Democratic party learned a few things from the past elections and this showed in their selection of more moderate candidates. America has rejected the liberal extremists in the past and would have likely done so again. So the new Democrat Congress won’t be much different than what we already had, except they’ll be fresh faces. The question is: Who will run things on Capitol Hill?
My concern is that even though this is a predominantly moderate Congress, the Democrat leadership is still made up of the extreme Liberals. People like Nancy Pelosi, the Representative from San Francisco; Charles Rangel, one of the leading income redistribution advocates; Ted Kennedy, Mr. "quagmire" cut-and-run; Robert Byrd, ex-KKK leader; Dick Durbin, John Kerry and Howard Dean. These are the extremists. These are the ones who pose a threat to America’s way of life. To what extent will they be able to bully the moderate rookies into their bidding? It’s a fair question and one that will soon be answered the moment the new Congress takes power. If they have their way with the fresh faces then America may get more than they bargained for.
We voted for a moderate Congress, but I don’t think we voted to have Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, or Charles Rangel as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. The term "unintended consequences" immediately comes to mind.
The Bush Administration has expressed their willingness to work with the moderates, and Rumsfeld’s decision to step down is a good-faith gesture of that willingness. It’s a peace-offering, an attempt to start on the right foot. I feel the moderates will accept this peace-offering and will be willing to their part as well to meet Bush in the middle. But what will the extremists in the leadership do? I think they’re out for blood. Hopefully, we won’t hear about investigations or subpoenas. Hopefully, we won’t hear more calls for resignations. Hopefully, there won’t be strong-arm tactics meant to push the White House around. These sorts of things aren’t good for solving our problems and, I have a feeling, it’s not what America voted for yesterday. So who will call the shots? The Moderates or the Extremists? America has given the Democratic party another chance. What will they do with it?
Only time will tell.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Demockery
The polls have been open for about 5 hours and already there are problems being reported in multiple states including: Indiana, Colorado, Tennessee and Pennsylvania. Lawyers for the Dems are preparing to file a petition to keep the polls open later in Tennessee, and lawyers on both sides are rallying for post-election lawsuits. Once again, the legal community seems intent on making a mockery out of our Democracy.
For the past 4 elections, no one has been content with the will of the people speaking. Instead, they choose to try and subvert that will through the court system. I am calling on BOTH sides to stand down their legal teams and allow Democracy to work, regardless which party comes on top. On the other side of the world, Iraq is struggling to build their democracy - thousands have given their lives for it - using our own as a model, yet we don't seem to be doing a good job as a role model. Election Tuesday is no longer quite as important as Lawsuit Wednesday, and this patriot is getting a little sick of it all.
Are there problems? Yes. Voting machines may malfunction, lines may be long, and some people may not possess enough cognitive ability to operate their ballot properly. But there has not been any evidence of one party deliberately seeking to disenfranchise any voter, so I think they should BOTH cool it with these circus acts.
Eventually, the people will get tired of it all and we'll kick ALL the politicians out of Washington. They're nothing but a bunch of whiney, spoiled, greedy, egomaniacal do-nothings anyway. It would be nice if I could wake up tomorrow and know who won the election, know who my representative will be. But, somehow, I doubt that's what will happen. With the lawsuits and the dog-and-pony show that BOTH parties seem intent on staging, it will probably be January before we know who will be in control of Congress. Not that it matters, because whichever party wins it will mean nothing but more gridlock for the next 2 years - indeed until a third party, a People's Party, emerges to reclaim our nation and our government from the special interests. Until then, sit back and enjoy the exit polls, court petitions, press conferences and the occasional interview with a "disenfranchised" voter.
For the past 4 elections, no one has been content with the will of the people speaking. Instead, they choose to try and subvert that will through the court system. I am calling on BOTH sides to stand down their legal teams and allow Democracy to work, regardless which party comes on top. On the other side of the world, Iraq is struggling to build their democracy - thousands have given their lives for it - using our own as a model, yet we don't seem to be doing a good job as a role model. Election Tuesday is no longer quite as important as Lawsuit Wednesday, and this patriot is getting a little sick of it all.
Are there problems? Yes. Voting machines may malfunction, lines may be long, and some people may not possess enough cognitive ability to operate their ballot properly. But there has not been any evidence of one party deliberately seeking to disenfranchise any voter, so I think they should BOTH cool it with these circus acts.
Eventually, the people will get tired of it all and we'll kick ALL the politicians out of Washington. They're nothing but a bunch of whiney, spoiled, greedy, egomaniacal do-nothings anyway. It would be nice if I could wake up tomorrow and know who won the election, know who my representative will be. But, somehow, I doubt that's what will happen. With the lawsuits and the dog-and-pony show that BOTH parties seem intent on staging, it will probably be January before we know who will be in control of Congress. Not that it matters, because whichever party wins it will mean nothing but more gridlock for the next 2 years - indeed until a third party, a People's Party, emerges to reclaim our nation and our government from the special interests. Until then, sit back and enjoy the exit polls, court petitions, press conferences and the occasional interview with a "disenfranchised" voter.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Wednesday comments
Poll shows majority feel that government is too big
The majority of Americans feel the government is too big. This is not good news for Democrats, because even the least politically proficient person knows that if the Democrats win back Congress they will make the government bigger.
I think this is an important poll. Most Americans believe in what the Constitution says, and the Constitution does not advocate a large and powerful federal government. The only thing the Constitution demands the government provide for its citizens is military defense. There is no mention of health care, unemployment, welfare, retirement, Medicaid or prescription drugs. Somehow, I think the Founding Fathers would have wanted the individual states to decide whether or not the government should have a roll in the citizens’ social lives. It seems the majority of Americans agree.
So I recommend the Democrats actually read the Constitution. It may help them in the future the next time they start pushing for higher taxes and more government control in our lives.
Hillary calls for "internationalist" foreign policy
I have to include this. Hillary Clinton has set forth her vision for foreign policy. We must involve other nations in diplomacy, but we must also engage in bilateral talks. By her reasoning, we didn’t go through WWII or the Cold War alone, and so we shouldn’t go through the war on terror alone. Okay, sounds reasonable, but then she advocated for talking to Cuba and North Korea…alone. And what she didn’t address is the question of what we should do when other countries aren’t interested in cooperating with us. Should we just drop the issue? Or go it alone?
Despite what she and others think, aside from Vietnam (a war started by Democrats, by the way) I don’t recall of any major military campaign in which America has taken unilateral action. So what she says is nothing new.
But I don’t understand the contradiction. Should we engage in multilateral or bilateral diplomacy? She says both. So does anyone know what Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy will be if she actually wins the White House in ’08?
The majority of Americans feel the government is too big. This is not good news for Democrats, because even the least politically proficient person knows that if the Democrats win back Congress they will make the government bigger.
I think this is an important poll. Most Americans believe in what the Constitution says, and the Constitution does not advocate a large and powerful federal government. The only thing the Constitution demands the government provide for its citizens is military defense. There is no mention of health care, unemployment, welfare, retirement, Medicaid or prescription drugs. Somehow, I think the Founding Fathers would have wanted the individual states to decide whether or not the government should have a roll in the citizens’ social lives. It seems the majority of Americans agree.
So I recommend the Democrats actually read the Constitution. It may help them in the future the next time they start pushing for higher taxes and more government control in our lives.
Hillary calls for "internationalist" foreign policy
I have to include this. Hillary Clinton has set forth her vision for foreign policy. We must involve other nations in diplomacy, but we must also engage in bilateral talks. By her reasoning, we didn’t go through WWII or the Cold War alone, and so we shouldn’t go through the war on terror alone. Okay, sounds reasonable, but then she advocated for talking to Cuba and North Korea…alone. And what she didn’t address is the question of what we should do when other countries aren’t interested in cooperating with us. Should we just drop the issue? Or go it alone?
Despite what she and others think, aside from Vietnam (a war started by Democrats, by the way) I don’t recall of any major military campaign in which America has taken unilateral action. So what she says is nothing new.
But I don’t understand the contradiction. Should we engage in multilateral or bilateral diplomacy? She says both. So does anyone know what Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy will be if she actually wins the White House in ’08?
Just do it, Senator Kerry
This photo is for everyone who still doesn't believe that John Kerry offended our troops
Kerry refuses to apologize
This isn’t difficult. All he has to say is: "I mis-spoke. What I said was stupid. I did not intend to offend anyone serving in the military, but my words did just that and for that I apologize."
Easy. Done. The bomb is defused. So why is he being so stubborn? Let’s take a look:
"As a combat veteran, I know the dedication, integrity, and commitment of American troops. I've lived it. Had George Bush and Dick Cheney been in combat one minute of their comfortable lives they would never have sent American troops to war without body armor or without a plan to win the peace and they wouldn't be exploiting our troops today," Kerry said in a statement after the president spoke.
For the record, Kerry voted for the Iraq War resolution, then voted against added military funds to support that measure.
"There is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the — historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not."
Speaking about American commanders in Iraq: "They brought more troops from Kuwait, they concentrated those troops in Baghdad and they have failed miserably."
So Kerry has a history of saying some not-so-supportive things about the military, which is fine. He has a right to do so. You decide how to interpret this. For me, this is not someone who should be serving in public office, but that’s up to the people in Massachussetts.
It’s just interesting to me how George Allen can mispronounce someone’s name and be labeled a racist, but when Kerry botches a joke he thinks he can get away with just saying it was a botched joke. If a standard exists, then it should be applied. Kerry needs to apologize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)