Light in the New Dark Ages

A Moral and Constitutional Responsibility

2009-04-14T09:38:00.000-07:00

As I type this, the President of the United States is reading from his teleprompters before a crowd of professional applauders. Yay, Socialism. Yay, Big Government Spending. Hooray for Meaningless Catch Phrases: Fiscal Responsibility. Moral Alternatives. Economic Recovery.
.
"We're going to cut the deficit." A little hard to swallow, in my opinion, coming from an administration that has already tripled the deficit in its first two months. "We're going to make quality health care affordable to all Americans." Yeah, right. More meaningless catch phrases, read from an array of teleprompters, before the cheering masses.
.
Look. The bottom line is this. Your health care is your responsibility. I would LOVE for there to be some massive, magic bucket full of money, from which those needing some for their medical expenses could grab a grand here or there. But that's not how life works.
.
When the government tells you it's going to improve your life, ask around and see how many people have been HELPED by the government. Go to the library and dig into the archives. See how many people were happy with Jimmy Carter's government help. Read up on the New Deal and the Great Society and other Liberal Democrat Socialist programs. When the government promises to pay for your medical expenses, ask people who've lived in places like Canada and Great Britain about their government-provided medical care. Ask about the ratio of quality versus cost. It's there, sure. And so are the taxes to support it. Pay more for less. Yay, Socialism. .
Paying for your health care is your responsibility. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for so many Americans to accept. How you get the money is up to you, as long as you don't take it from me.
.
And therein lies the rub. The American way of life includes ownership of the fruits of our own labor. It includes the simple, well-established responsibility for our own (and our families') expenses. When those elements of our way of life are threatened, Americans have a moral responsibility to protect our families from Socialism in all its forms. We have a constitutional responsibility to oppose the enemies of our way of life. Find a means of political resistance. Hold a tea party. Look up "We Surround Them," and "Grassfire.org," or seek alternatives to the Parties of Big Government Spending.
.
We have a responsibility to return this country to its individualistic, non-Statist way of life. We have a responsibility to end attempts at Socialist Wealth Redistribution and Post-American Globalism.

It's a moral and constitutional responsibility, and it supersedes anything anyone can read from a teleprompter.

We Are All Socialists Now...

2009-02-17T11:30:00.000-08:00

...and you, Newsweek, are all idiots.
Seriously, this "socialist" rhetoric is exactly the kind of crap that touches off civil wars in only slightly less stable countries. See, there's one MAJOR factor you elitist media snobs didn't take into acount when writing the opinion piece upon which this cover is based: That factor is the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES. We do not want to live in a socialist country, you self-righteous asshats.

And know this: I am no more a socialist than you are an objective journalist. I will NEVER be a socialist, and I think it's a fair statement that no one who writes for Newsweek has the authority to assert otherwise.

A Couple of Opinions

2009-02-12T08:05:00.000-08:00

I haven’t posted much to this blog lately. To be perfectly honest, I’ve been kinda bored with it in the last few months. But right now, I feel like I have to express a couple of opinions that may be seen as not related to the usual topic of this blog. I have a couple of other blogs, but these opinions don’t fit any better on them that they do here.
.

My apologies for the vulgar and unprofessional language included in this post. I just feel strongly about these things.

First of all, Steven Fowler. It may be Stephen instead of Steven, but I don’t give a shit how to spell this asshole’s name. This is the guy who lambasted most of the United States on national television a couple of weeks ago, simply because he felt like he’s above the rest of us.

Seriously. I won’t bore you with the details, because either you’ve already seen the episode or read about it elsewhere, etc, or you’re probably not all that interested – which is a good thing, believe me. While channel-surfing that night, I accidently landed on the ABC show “Wife Swap”, and I was subjected to this piece of shit’s arrogance. Really, it hit me like a Mack truck. I never would have believed anyone could behave that badly toward another person. Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Ted Bundy were never subjected to that level of abuse, and I feel sorry for the woman this Fowler asshole was mistreating on the show.
.
I actually couldn’t watch more than a few minutes of the show, but I’ve read most of the horrible things he said and did – to include telling his small children to join him in his terrible behavior. I wonder if anyone from Child Services (or whatever they call it in California) noticed that?
.
I read today that his incredibly bitchy wife has blamed his behavior on stress. Really – stress! Anyway, this guy is the reason I won’t be watching that show any more. I realize that my little boycott isn’t going to break them, especially since I’ve only seen one or two other episodes (I try not to watch too much TV, although I’ve been watching entirely too much of it lately). But not watching the show will certainly insulate me from allowing people like Fowler and his circus-freak wife to intrude into my home in the future.

You can even buy an anti-Fowler T-shirt!

Okay, enough about that. Next up is…(drum roll please)…

The United States Congress. What a bunch of asshats. I read yesterday that one of my favorite baseball players, Miguel Tejada, was charged yesterday with lying to Congress about past steroid use.

Honestly, can you believe this bullshit? To shamelessly paraphrase a line from one of my favorite movies: Assigning criminal charges for lying in Congress is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. Congress only dislikes people lying to them because they can’t handle the competition.

.
I wonder. Does anyone else feel like these dumbasses should be doing something more constructive with their taxpayer-funded time than persecuting athletes? Like, oh, I dunno…how about opposing this horrible bailout bill that’s going to bankrupt the federal government for generations to come? You think that might be a more useful activity for these people to get into? Seriously. We’ve got bigger problems right now than lying baseball players.
.

And let me get this straight, while I’m at it. I despise drugs, and I don’t associate with anyone I know to be a drug user. Period. That’s not to say that I’ve never made a mistake or anything, but that would be way back in my strange past, just as it is in the case of most of these baseball players.

.
But if you were to ask me if I’ve ever done an illegal drug, or whether or not I’ve ever made a misstep in the field of legal matters, the response I give you may or may not be true. And I would have absolutely no problem lying to a politician. I would consider it an act of kindness to address them in their own language.

Does ANYONE in the Obama Administration have to pay taxes?

2009-02-03T10:22:00.001-08:00

GOOD LORD!

No wonder the Reverend Lord Utmost Obama X (the Benevolent, the Merciful) has already promised to raise taxes on a certain percentage of the American people! He has a cabinet full of tax cheats to make up for!

Today, Light In The New Dark Ages learned of a yet another Messianic appointee to have “tax errors” is his or her past. This time, it’s Nancy Killefer – and you’re gonna love this.

Killefer was a big wig in the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration, and spent the Bush years making lots of money (my guess is in the millions) as a “Management Consultant” for private practice.

She was appointed by Reverend Lord Utmost Obama X (thy will be done o lord) to be the new – get this – “Chief Performance Officer”. This is an entirely new post, intended to “scrub” government waste.

Oh my goodness. Scrub government waste. It’s gotta be some kind of a joke, right? I mean, how much does this person make? And how many people will be working for him or her? In what world does it make sense to “scrub” government waste by inventing whole new beaurocracies, whole new government agencies, headed by big-shot Clintonista bean-counters with a talent for tax evasion?

CHANGE HAS COME TO WASHINGTON, FOLKS! We've changed right back to the Clinton years! Big government spending and zero moral accountability! Yippee!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom Is Deeply Embarassed

2009-02-02T10:47:00.000-08:00

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” - Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

It seems that Tom Daschle is “deeply embarrassed” about the irregularities in his tax record.

Deeply embarrassed?
.
Daschle owed more than $120,000 in back taxes. Not taxes on $120,000 of income over the last ten years or so, but the amount of $120,000.
.
What, Tom - you forgot? Let me guess: that’s the kind of money you blow on a haircut, right? How much do you have to make in a year to forget to pay $120,000 in taxes on it? How much do you pay when you don’t pay $120,000?
.
Does anyone remember that big Obama ad? You know, the one where the Reverend Lord Utmost Obama X (hear the angels singing) said, “We now have CEOs making more in one week than most people make in a year. We need to close the gap between Wall Street and Main Street.”
.
Do you remember that?
.
Do you suppose Tom Daschle remembers that?
.
How much does someone have to make in a week, in order to (whoops!) forget to pay $120,000 to the IRS?! How much do you have to make to make that kind of an error?

.
Now, you tell me: Is nominating your fellow politicians, your political cronies, to high office in your Cabinet - even if those cronies happen to be FELLONS - is that change? Is that the kind of ruling class we need in this country? I thought the Reverend Lord Utmost Obama X (trumpets from On High) promised to transcend all that steaming politics as usual. Didn't he?
.
Is it me, folks, or is anyone else getting the feeling that the new ruling class hasn't brought a whole hell of a lot of "change" to Washnigton?

I'd Like to Thank President Obama for This Win

2009-02-02T05:20:00.000-08:00

They used to thank God, didn't they? Does this mean America has a new god now?

Last night, after the Pittsburg Steelers narrowly edged out the Arizona Cardinals for their record 6th Super Bowl win, Steelers president Dan Rooney - handed the Lombardi Tropy at the microphone - opened with this: "I want to thank President Obama..."

What exactly does Obama have to do with football? Did his presidential nod somewhow help the Steelers win the Super Bowl? Of course not.

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand that Rooney and Obama are good friends - a friendship stemming from Rooney's vocal support for Obama during his campaign for president. And I also understand that this is a free country, at least for now, so Rooney can say whatever he likes, legally speaking. But isn't there such a thing as the right time and place for political shmoozing? Isn't there a limit, imposed by common decency, beyond which we leave politics aside and focus on our sporting endeavors (or whatever else we choose to occupy our lives)?

Shouldn't the Super Bowl be free of a billionaire's vocal support for a Marxist schill?

We're now thriteen days into the Obama presidency, and each new passing day causes me a little more worry. The hype isn't dying down as quickly as I thought it would. It's actually getting worse. I understand supporting Barack Obama. I really do. It's only human nature to reach for the candy instead of the Brussels sprouts, regardless which one is better for you. In another (but not far removed) metaphor, it's the same reason I almost never stop at the convenience store for milk on the way home, but will frequently stop for a Coke. We want what's easy, what's convenient.

We want the candy.

The trouble is, this country is now in the grips of Obama mania. It's scary. Seriously, I'm honestly very worried. When a whole nation falls so solidly under the spell of a single politician - when a whole people becomes so enraptured with one guy, one leader - that the winning football team thanks him for their trophy as if they only won it through his support and glorious permission, that nation is in serious trouble.

And So It Begins

2008-12-18T05:20:00.000-08:00

Folks, we're looking at the new Clinton era. You could also call it the era of the Black Jimmy Carter. Keep a close eye on this president. I predict that there will be scandals erupting all around him, from virtually day one.
Actually, day one doesn't come for a little over a month yet, and already we've seen the first one - the Bloggomasonofabitch scandal in Illinois - in which the governor of Illinois is preparing for a lengthy stay in federal prison (in the Illinois Governors' wing) for trying to sell Obama's vacated Senate seat. Obama and his people say they had no inappropriate contact with Bloggo, and the media aren't even looking into it. Somehow, with media collusion, the Obama "team" has wiggled its way out of this one, but there will be others. And I'm not so sure Jesse Jackson Jr. (the longtime FBI informant) is done singing yet, anyway.

All of Three Seconds

2008-10-10T09:37:00.000-07:00

I told someone this morning that I'm tired of the liberal media bias. I was going to leave it at that, but she wanted to press the issue. "Can you give me one good example of liberal bias in the media?" she asked.

"Sure," I said. It took me all of three seconds. Go to Yahoo.com, and you'll see this headline:

McCain raises Ayers in anti-Obama ad

See, here's where the bias is obvious. The story leads off with this:

WASHINGTON - John McCain is hammering Barack Obama over his association with former 1960s radical William Ayers in a new TV ad.

Now, you tell me: Would you call a murdering terrorist like Ayers a "former 1960s radical"? Most of his bombings weren't in the 1960, but were instead between 1970 and 1972. William Ayers and his wife were responsible for more than a dozen terrorist bombings in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Ayers spent ten years on the lam as a federal fugitive, and then beat the system on a technicality – and all the Obama-loving media has to say about him is “former 1960s radical”.

Folks, we're not talking about nasty speeches made on open mic night at the Student Democrats Club. We're talking about wide-open terrorist murders committed in the United States, against United States citizens - some of them military!

And still, the media says "former 1960s radical". One reporter (I guess you could call him that) called Ayers "rehabilitated". What part of this man's past suggests rehabilitation? Can anyone point to some defining moment that rehabilitated him? If so, it would have to have happened after 2007, when he said that he regretted not planting more bombs, right?

You know, to the best of my knowledge, Osama Bin Laden hasn't been able to carry out any large-scale terrorist acts against the United States since 2001. So does that mean the Obama campaign would call Bin Laden a "former" terrorist? A "former" radical?

Of course not. So why Ayers? Because Obama has something to hide here, that's why. Because when it comes to the story of the connections between Obama and Ayers, just as in the connections between Obama and Wright, and Obama and Rezko, Barack has something to hide.

But the media won't pursue that. And that's some pretty blatant evidence of media bias. Don't ya think?

Olberman is an Ass

2008-10-07T07:16:00.000-07:00

Ah, once again, the Liberal Media rares its ugly head in defense of the indefensible. Now this Olberman guy (I have no idea where he came from or why he's on TV in the first place) is now calling Sarah Palin's pastor a terrorist.
.
Of course, check it out for yourself, you can find it on his webpage. Google it. I'm not going to link to it, because it's riddled with advertising, and of course because it's just plain crap. But this is indicative of the kind of people we're dealing with.
.
These talking-head Liberals don't know the difference between a terrorist like William Ayers, who actually bombed people and was part of an organization that actually killed people, and the Alaska Seccesion Party, which may be nuts but as far as I know has never set a bomb.
.
These talking-head Liberals apparently don't know the difference between the moderately strange antics of the Assemblies of God churches around this country, which have been steadily gaining ground into the mainstream for decades (and are actually quite normal and tame), and preachers like Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.
.
Commentators like this guy, who literally can't tell the difference between a pastor and a bomb-setting terrorist...Is this who you want influencing your kids? And isn't it just par for the course, for such maxi-Liberal farces like this guy, to simply wash over the whole issue of the difference between right and wrong? Isn't it just completely normal for these people to hold someone like Obama up as some kind of hero - and by extension, someone like Ayers - while villanizing Sarah Palin?

This is why I can't stand Liberals, folks. What's wrong with Ayers? EVERYTHING. And I for one am thankful to have at least SOMEONE in this political season to stand behind. Palin isn't perfect, but there are no terrorist skeletons in her closet. The Liberals sent two hundred muck-dredging lawyers into Alaska, and the fact that she has a pastor in the Assemblies of God system is the worst thing they could come up with - so now this guy, this Olberman, who looks like some wierd kind of a joke, to me, has to play attack dog and act like there's a scandal here.

And here's the upshot. The more these moral-compass-less Liberals froth at the mouth about the Assemblies of God and Sarah Palin's connections thereto, the more Christians will vote for her ticket. See the difference between articulate, which Olberman is, and smart, which Olberman is (evidently) not?

PS...As an afterthought it occurs to me that, if Alaska were to become its own country, I would probably want to live there. Heck, I might run for Secretary of State there. WOO HOO!!!!!

Why Care about Bill Ayers?

2008-10-06T10:37:00.000-07:00

Why do people like Sarah Palin care so much that Barack Obama knows William Ayers? After all, when Ayers and his people were bombing the Pentagon and other sites around this country, Obama was only eight years old.

I guess that makes everything okay, then.

So for those of us who either weren't around then, or were (or have since then been) too lazy or unconcerned to do our own research [I fall into both categories], here's a breakdown of the activities of the Weather Underground, which of course was Bill Ayers's group. As you read it, imagine if this sort of thing were happening today. Remember the response those two "snipers" in the Washington DC area brought about: newsmedia, law enforcement from all over the country, people afraid to get out of their cars at the gas pump... Now imagine if the dates on this list were in the 2000's instead of the 1970's:

7 October 1969 – Bombing of Haymarket Police Statue in Chicago, apparently as a "kickoff" for the "Days of Rage" riots in the city October 8-11, 1969. The Weathermen later claim credit for the bombing in their book, "Prairie Fire."

8 October-11, 1969 – The "Days of Rage" riots occur in Chicago in which 287 Weatherman members from throughout the country were arrested and a large amount of property damage was done.

6 December 1969 – Bombing of several Chicago Police cars parked in a precinct parking lot at 3600 North Halsted Street, Chicago. The WUO stated in their book "Prairie Fire" that they had did the explosion.

27 December-31, 1969 – Weathermen hold a "War Council" meeting in Flint, MI, where they finalize their plans to submerge into an underground status from which they plan to commit strategic acts of sabotage against the government. Thereafter they are called the "Weather Underground Organization" (WUO).

13 February 1970 - Bombing of several police vehicles of the Berkeley, California, Police Department .

16 February 1970 – Bombing of Golden Gate Park branch of the San Francisco Police Department, killing one officer and injuring a number of other policemen.

6 March 1970 – Bombing in the 13th Police District of the Detroit, Michigan. 34 sticks of dynamite are discovered. During February and early March, 1970, members of the WUO, led by Bill Ayers, are reported to be in Detroit, during that period, for the purpose of bombing a police facility.

6 March 1970 – "bomb factory" located in New York's Greenwich Village accidentally explodes. WUO members die . The bomb was intended to be planted at a non-commissioned officer's dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The bomb was packed with nails TO INFILICT MAXIMUM CASUALTIES UPON DETONATION.

30 March 1970 – Chicago Police discover a WUO "bomb factory" on Chicago’s north side. A subsequent discovery of a WUO "weapons cache" in a south side Chicago apartment several days later ends WUO activity in the city.

10 May 1970 – Bombing of The National Guard Association building in Washington, D.C..21

May 1970 – The WUO under Bernardine Dohrn's name releases its "Declaration of a State of War" communique.

6 June 1970 – The WUO sends a letter claiming credit for bombing of the San Francisco Hall of Justice; however, no explosion actually took place. Months later, workmen in this building located an unexploded device which had apparently been dormant for some time. 9 June 1970 - Bombing of The New York City Police Headquarters .

27 July 1970 - Bombing of The Presidio army base in San Francisco. [NYT, 7/27/70]

12 September 1970 – The WUO helps Dr. Timothy Leary, break out and escape from the California Men's Colony prison.

8 October 1970 - Bombing of Marin County courthouse. [NYT, 8/10/70]

10 October 1970 - Bombing of Queens traffic-court building . [NYT, 10/10/70, p. 12]

14 October 1970 - Bombing of The Harvard Center for International Affairs [NYT, 10/14/70, p. 30]

1 March 1971 - Bombing of The United States Capitol . " [NYT, 3/2/71] April, 1971 – abandoned WUO "bomb factory" discovered in San Francisco, California.

29 August, 1971 - Bombing of the Office of California Prisons . [LAT, 8/29/71]

17 September 1971 - Bombing of The New York Department of Corrections in Albany, NY [NYT, 9/18/71]

15 October 1971 - Bombing of William Bundy's office in the MIT research center. [NYT, 10/16/71]

19 May 1972 - Bombing of The Pentagon . [NYT, 5/19/72]

18 May 1973 - Bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in New York

28 September 1973 - Bombing of ITT headquarters in New York and Rome, Italy . [NYT, 9/28/73]

6 March 1974 - Bombing of the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare offices in San Francisco

31 May 1974 - Bombing of The Office of the California Attorney General.

17 June 1974 - Bombing of Gulf Oil's Pittsburgh headquarters .

11 September 1974 – Bombing of Anaconda Corporation (part of the Rockefeller Corporation).

29 January 1975 - Bombing of the State Department in (AP. "State Department Rattled by Blast," The Daily Times-News, January 29 1975, p.1)

16 June 1975 - Bombing of Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York .

September, 1975 – Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation .

October 20, 1981 - Brinks robbery in which several members of the Weather Underground stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car near Nyack, New York. The robbers murdered 2 police officers and 1 Brinks guard. Several others were wounded.

1981 “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country,” Ayers said when interviewed by David Horowitz.

September 11, 2001 “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers is quoted in NYT article 4/18/2008 5:31 PM CDT on suntimes.com

Any questions? Well, I have one. Do you honestly believe that, if John McCain or Sarah Palin were to EVER have stood on a stage with this man, that he or she would have a political career today?

IF YOU SUPPORT AMERICAN TROOPS, then think about this: Who works at the Pentagon?

I just can't imagine that this country is that far gone - And that's why I care that Barack Obama has had past connections with William Ayers.

Sarah Says Something Stupid, Evidently

2008-10-01T09:50:00.000-07:00

According to my sources, Sarah Palin has said something stupid.

Let me get this straight. Governor Palin sat for an interview with Katie Couric, and said something dumb about foreign policy. I didn't see it, because I wouldn't watch ten seconds of Katie Couric for all the money in the world (see the post about Couric, somewhere far below). But from what I gather, she said something about Alaska being here, and Russia being there. I haven't heard the stupid part yet, but that's what I was told.

So then, this apparently stupid interview was lambasted by an actress named Tina Fey (or Fay, I don't know which) on Saturday Night Live. Another show I don't watch. Haven't seen it in years. Didn't even know it was still on, actually.

And then we have the Bill Maher thing, where he called her a bimbo on his TV show. Guess what? I'm not one of the three people who still watch his crappy-ass show, either.

Three instances of either Palin saying something stupid, or other people drilling her for saying something stupid. I counted three references to the "Alaska is over here..." remark during a meeting at work yesterday - it's gotten that bad.

So here's my point. Let's count some of the stupid things said by the other side, shall we?

Do you remember when Obama said that his parents met at the march on Selma? In fact, the march on Selma happened when he was two years old. How about when he said a Kansas tornado (which was Bush's fault, by the way) had killed thousands of people, when in fact the death toll was actually...um...12?

How about when Joe Biden called Obama "Barack America," said he was running for president and not vice-president, and then called a possible Obama administration "the Biden Administration"? How about when Biden told a wheelchair-bound state senator to stand up, called Obama "clean and articulate" (an obvious racial reference), and said that you need an Indian accent to to walk into a 7-11 in Delaware?

What about when Biden told a reporter that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had said on televesion in 1929 that the people would get through the stock market crash? (FDR wasn't president then, and there was no television.)

I also heard McCain say some stupid things. He accidentally called himself a Liberal Democrat (probably a Freudian slip), and said that his campaign would be despirited, when he meant spirited. I'm sure he;s made a lot more mistakes than that, but to be honest I don't listen to him very often, and would have missed most of what he has to say.

Look, people. We all say stupid things, sometimes. But it's pretty clear to me that, barring any serious REAL problems with her, Sarah Palin is the best person in this race. But she's not a polished Washington politician, and is, evidently, capable of saying dumb shit, just like the rest of us.

Position Statement

2008-09-24T05:31:00.000-07:00

I recently read a piece about the Operation Politically Homeless, which I have to admit, strikes at something for me. I'm absolutely positive at this point that I'm no longer a Conservative, if this is bailout plan what Conservatives are. And of course I've never been a Liberal for one second in my life. So where does that leave me? Somewhere in the middle? I don't think so.
The mainstream way of thinking in this country would have us believe that if we're not one or the other, then we're throwing away our votes. If we're not either Democrat or Republican, we're part of some fringe movement, destined to perhaps sway the vote a little, one way or the other.

But I say this: If you don't vote according to what you really believe, then what exactly are you doing with your vote? This is neither the time nor the place for compromise. Our solemn mandate, our sworn promise, and our absolutely vital DUTY is to take a stand.

So with that in mind, here's a breakdown of my political views as I presently see them (at this point in their evolution). Let's see if you agree.

1. FOREIGN POLICY
A. Iraq
The United States was partially correct in its initial assessment that Iraq possessed, and possibly planned to use (again), banned weapons. These weapons included chemical weapons and medium-long-range delivery systems, but not the biological weapons or nuclear weapons materials that the US cited at the time. To clarify: Iraq did possess banned chemical weapons immediately prior to the US invasion in 2003. I realize this makes me sound crazy, but I base this belief on certain things I saw first-hand in Iraq in 2004, which I won't delve into here.
The United States was right to invade Iraq in 2003. Don't get me wrong, was is NEVER a good thing. But the objective of that invasion was the complete removal of the B'aath regime, for both humanitarian and regional-security reasons. That mission was accomplished. Shortly thereafter, however, the mission changed to one of provision of military security in Iraq, and the whole thing fell apart, as such things are wont to do (especially when led by particularly incompetent people).
Now, toward the end of 2008, the future of Iraq is much less uncertain than it was three or four years ago. In my opinion, the way forward lies in the reintroduction of private enterprise into the Iraqi socioeconomic structure. Because the first difference between a terrorist state and a free state is economic standing (the abolition of universal abject poverty), private entities from all corners of the world need to invest in Iraq's future, in order to secure a strong economic foundation upon which the Iraqi nation can build, going forward.
In order to invite the foreign investment that I think will save the Iraqi people in the future, the world needs to see a measure of political and military stability in that country. It is for this reason that I continue to support sustaining a US military presence in iraq. Not an open-ended committment, and not the present troop strength, but also not an artificial, arbitrary "pull out now" attitude. Gradually reduce US troop strength in Iraq over the next three or four years, until only a light, advisory contingent remains. But also, I feel it would be important to maintain a force capable of returning to a security role in Iraq if necessary in the future.

That said, I should also point out here that my support for our mission in Iraq - and in Afghanistan, as you'll see in the next paragraph - shouldn't be misunderstood. I feel that we have accomplished our objectives in Iraq, at least as well as can be expected. I also feel that this is the right time to begin the scale-down phase of our involvement there. I am not a pro-war person, as very few Americans are really "pro-war" anyway, and I scoff at some people's weak attempt to describe themselves as "Anti-war". All people are anti-war (at least, the overwhelming majority of Americans are). But this doesn't mean that we have to be so blind that we can't recognize situations that MUST be dealt with.

B. Afghanistan
The reconstitution of anti-American paramilitary insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan constitutes a clear and present danger to the United States. As such, the government of the United States has a solemn, sworn duty to destroy that danger by whatever means necessary. It's just that simple. Go after them, and destroy them. Remove the threat with the use of rast, decisive action. This is a perfect example of why we have a military in the first place.
Then leave. As soon as our military objectves are met, our next responsibility is to extricate our military personnel immediately. Building and/or rebuilding is the responsibility of the Afghan / Pakistani people, although American private enterprise should be encouraged to find creative ways to invest in the region.

2. DOMESTIC POLICY
A. Marriage
The ability to decide who should and who shouldn't be eligible for marriage is in the hands of all the wrong people. Evangelist Christians, activist judges and pandering politicans should have absolutely NOTHING to do with who gets married, in any place, at any time, or for any reason. ALL matters pertaining to marriage should be left entirely to the people who are directly involved in the marriage (ie the couple to be married), and government, the Church, etc. should be removed from the formula.

B. Abortion
I see abortion as a dinner table issue, and not a legislative issue. In fact, this is a good example of an issue that has been used by both the Republicans and the Democrats as a divider, to purposely drive an ideological wedge down the middle of American society, for their own political purposes. But it's really a matter to be decided by the individual(s) directly involved, with the help of family, friends or whatever social network (support structure, whatever) that individual has in place. NOT the government.

C. Taxes
All taxes are too high.
On the national level, income tax is heavy-handed and oppressive, because funds gained through income tax are frequently used in ways that don't represent the best interests of the American People, from whom those monies were taken in the first place. This alone could be construed as taxation without representation, and is itself grounds for the abolition of the federal income tax.
On the local level, oppressive tactics are used to extract taxes in the form of property tax paid to school districts (by taxpayers with no children in those schools), double-dipping government agencies like departments of transportation (who collect one tax for roads and bridges, etc, per year, and then also profit from state monies, and then require annual registration payments from motorists - not to mention government-operated toll roads), and others.
All taxes should be minimized, and would be, if the government itself would only limit its functions to those tasks specifically mandated to government. The upkeep of roads, bridges, highways, etc., should be funded privately, not publically. This would result in better efficiency, better quality work for a lower cost, completed in a more timely manner.

D. Health Care
Privatized. Period. Look at it this way: What has the government ever done as well as a private company could? By "as well", I mean as cost-effectively, as hgihg quality, and in as timely a manner?

E. Corporate Welfare
Instead of the federal government forking over $85 billion bailout of a private insurance company (AIG), I would propose (I cannot take credit for this, but it's brilliant):

I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a "We Deserve It" dividend. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bona fide U.S. citizens, aged 18+. Our population is about 301 million counting every man, woman and child. So, 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. Now, divide 200 million, 18+ adults into $85 billion - that equals $425,000.00 each! Yes, my plan is to give that $425,000 to every adult as a "We Deserve It" dividend. Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So, let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every person would pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25.5 billion right back to Uncle Sam! It also means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife would have $595,000.00!

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00?·

Pay off your mortgage? – housing crisis solved·
Repay college loans? – what a great boost to new grads·
Put away money for college? – it'll really be there·
Save in a bank? – create money to loan to entrepreneurs·
Buy a new car? – create jobs·
Invest in the market? – capital drives growth·
Pay for your parent's medical insurance? – health care improves·
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean?

Remember this is for every adult U.S. citizen, 18 and older (including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehmann Brothers and every other company that is cutting back) and of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces. If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it! Instead of trickling out a puny $1,000.00 economic incentive. If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U.S. citizen!! As for AIG – liquidate it! Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General! Sell off the real estate! Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it out. Because if the government has a bailout responsibility, it's to the American people, not to some private company.

F. Outsourcing
Oustsourcing is a function of private enterprise operating in a free-market economy, and as such, is a good thing. It creates healthy competition and removes government involvement in tasks that the government lacks the ability to perform efficiently anyway.

G. Second Amendment
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly stipulates that our right to carry weapons shall not be infringed. Sorry if it offends anyone, but that sounds pretty straightforward to me. IF we as a nation decide that we need more stringent gun controls, we'd need to first do a few things. First, we'd need to abolish all existing gun laws. Second, we'd need to amend the Constitution to redress the Second Amendment. And third, we'd need to forge an entirely new set of gun laws, and actually enforce them according to the law itself.
Or, we could just leave the Second Amendment alone. While recognizing that nuclear weapons, for example, are not covered under the Second Amendment, we should also recognize that "assault rifles" (an entirely arbitrary and meaningless term) are covered.

H. Crime and Punishment
I'm concerned about violent crime. I'm also concerned that the police are more interested when my neighbor smokes a joint than they are when someone breaks into my house. I don't condone drug use, but some things are just more important than others. With that in mind, I'd like to reorder the legal priorities of this country. I'd like to impose a moratorium on non-violent and non-theft cases (violent cases including threats, coercion, trafficking-in-persons, etc) until such time as the legal backlog in this country has been sufficiently dealt with.
I would also insist that illegal immigration be stopped at once. One of the most basic responsibilities of government is the protection of its people from foreign incursion, but the legal establishment in this country is too busy chasing small-time dope peddlers.

I. All Other Issues
Where at all possibly, the private individual should hold the majority of power in this country. I believe this is what men like Jefferson and Adams had in mind. I also believe that the present order of things is this country approaches that which might have been seen in England before people started breaking away from that particular oppressive regime in the 18th century. Therefore, I feel that any step toward a return to privatization of the economy, personal choice in matters that don't concern the government (or shouldn't, anyway) like abortion and marriage, and upholding of the Constitution, is a good thing.
All efforts by others, Democrat, Republican or otherwise, to move this country further toward a Socialist, big-government agenda, especially at the expense of the simpler, more basic and fundamental responsibilities of government, must be resisted through whatever legal, political means are available to us. Vote, write letters, that kind of thing. Get involved, and maybe we can still take our country back from special interests and heavy-handed government panderers.

Why I like Sarah Palin

2008-09-04T11:55:00.000-07:00

Yes, she does.

Yeah, it's about change, to an extent. And yeah, there's reason for hope. But when the rhetoric dies down, people - real, non-Washington, non-pop-star people, people like Sarah Palin - will get to work, following tried and true leaders with a known, demonstable record of real change and reform.

Obama - whether you're talking about the Reverend Messiah Lord Utmost Obama X (Barack Obama) or Q. Crackhead the Pop Star (the crapper...I mean, uh, rapper who has changed his name from P. Diddy to So-Rock Obama) - doesn't have the slightest plan for the future of this country, beyond pithy catch phrases and an elaborate website full of pie-in-the-sky promises that neither he, nor anyone else, can pay for.

I've never been McCain's biggest fan. I can promise you that I would NEVER, EVER, EVER support a candidate simply because of party affiliation, and I can assure readers (if there are any) that I am NOT a Republican. But the bottom line here is that all of our present problems are caused by Big Government - specifically the kind of cradle-to-grave Big Government involvement in our daily affairs that Obama and his ilk espouse. It is for this reason alone that I have until now supported McCain and his campaign.

Now, though, while I still don't like McCain that much, I do have someone to look up to in this campaign. Sarah Palin is the ONLY major-party candidate in this election who's more American Way than Washington Beltway. Perfect? Of course not. But given the choice between the two major-party tickets, I have to say, I think the choice is pretty clear. Only one of those tickets has a real, non-Washington, non-business-as-usual name on it.

Little Boy Likes Obama

2008-09-03T10:30:00.001-07:00

Aww, ain't that cute. Lookie what I found while researching Sarah Palin and Alaska politics.

The Reverend Messiah Lord Utmost Obama X has a brand-new campaign "headquarters" office, smack in the middle of downtown Anchorage: Obama campaign office

This guy's name is Jeff Giertz or Geirtz or something like that. I think I'll call him Jeffy. And, complete with his fresh-from-the-mailing-tube Obama posters, he's ready to take on the world!

It was just too cute not to post. Must...resist...Power Ranger...jokes...

Almost Can't Believe It

2008-09-03T09:22:00.000-07:00

This is so good, I almost can't believe it:

I wondered how this Sarah Palin thing would turn out. And so far, it's been better than I'd dared to hope. Ol' Reverend Messiah Lord Utmost Obama X is just beside himself. He just can't believe it. John McCain has stolen his thunder - and his claims of being the "reformer" who will bring "change" to Washington.

HA!!!!

I can't believe it either. I can't believe people like P. Diddy,

who shall henceforth be known here on LNDA as Q. Crackhead the Pop Star, has actually changed his name (again). This time he's calling himself So-Rock Obama. And this rapper-turned-Burger King shill has even released a statement, saying (in part):

(Q. Crackhead the Pop Star to Sen. McCain): "I had to check in with you to tell you, you are bugging the f*ck out...You got a running mate from Alaska. Alaska? Alaska. Alaska!" (sounds to me like he's trying to figure out if it's a real place)

(Q. Crackhead the Pop Star to Gov. Palin): "You are not ready to be no vice president. What is the reality in Alaska? There isn't even any crackheads in Alaska. There isn't any black people in Alaska, no crime. There isn't even any foreign policies in Alaska. You need to get versed on black policies. We are the future."

Now, I ask you: Is this the future of American politics? Is this who you want influencing your vote? How about your kids' votes, once they're of age? It's pretty pathetic, isn't it? People like this deserve to be ridiculed into oblivion, not lauded and applauded for their quasi-political nonsense. But Q. Crackhead the Pop Star has vowed, evidently, to rustle up a million "Yoofs voters" (I think he means youth voters) for Obama in November.

Somehow, I think things are taking a turn toward the surreal.

And now for a taste of the real Alaska:

Governor Sarah Palin has enjoyed the highest approval rating of any governor in the United States since the day of her inauguration in 2006. Presently she stands at 86%. She has been the governor of our richest, most diverse (not to mention largest, by land mass) state for one year and eight months.

Check out this article by Alaska news KTUU.com, channel 2 in Anchorage: Spotlight on Sarah Palin.

Actually:
Unlike the Reverend Messiah Lord Utmost Obama X, Governor Palin has actually brought real, visible, measurable political reform to a nationally-visible elected office. She has changed the politics of her state. She has actually done something about corruption, even within her own party. Her limited experience includes actually taking on the oil companies (in a state where the oil companies used to reign supreme); actually fighting crooked incumbents in both the Republican and Democratic parties (and other, lesser-known political entities in the state of Alaska), including seriously dug-in, long-time political machines; and actually finding room for compromise in the issue of same-sex union.

Obama has done none of that. Nothing even close to it. Not one time, ever. He's never balanced a state (or municipal, no matter how small) budget, never had to meet the actual expectation of serious political reform - and to assert that such reform is even possible within the old Chicago Political Machine is simple silliness.

See, for all his rhetoric about change, hope for a new future, and all that, Obama is a product of a very old, very firmly established political structure. He was recruited, vetted, groomed and led by the hand, by people who have been in power in the poorest parts of Chicago for decades. And in all that time, not the slightest hint of meaningful reform has ever been seen, either within the Machine or without.

If this country were a true meritocracy, Sarah Palin would have Barack Obama beat hands down, all by herself. She is an all-around better person, with more serious accomplishments, and more (and more important) experience. Sarah Palin doesn't use being of a particular color or from a (supposed) particular socioeconomic level, etc, as a smokescreen to hide having only 143 days on the job before running for another office. She doesn't pretend to be on banking committees, or claim undue influence in foreign affairs. She goes to work and actually makes things happen.

And I have yet to hear an effective argument against that.

Torture Chamber Found in Mosque

2008-08-19T12:20:00.000-07:00

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- "There are the bloodstains on the wall, and here it is dried on the floor," says Abu Muhanad as he walks through a torture chamber in a Baghdad mosque where more than two dozen bodies have been found.

The above is an excerpt from a CNN piece here. Evidently, the militant thugs known as the Mehdi Army, led by renegade thug-in-residence Muqtada al Sadr, terrorized Baghdad pretty severely during their stronger days, back before the surge.

But thuggery doesn't work, does it? Noooo. It doesn't. The world should have learned this by watching Nazi Germany crumble in the 1940s, Soviet Russia crumble in the 1990s, the Taliban fall apart in 2003 and 2004, and the outright collapse of totalitarian regimes all over the world.

Totalitarian oppression doesn't work.

What works is the rule of law, and the solid, consciencous application of self-rule. This is what the surge was all about: routing these lawless pieces of filth from their nasty little hidey-holes and sending them running, or killing them where they stand, or packing their sorry backsides - US Government-supplied Kor'an in hand - off to Gitmo Vacationland.

What works is ensuring that the people have a right to own the fruits of their labor. Ensuring that the people have the freedom to live peacably and prosperously.

The beginning of this prosperity, in the case of Iraq, is removing (destroying, when necessary) the forces that were so firmly in place in opposition to freedom. That means these people who were so clearly using this mosque as a place of torture and murder.

The surge put a stop to that, at least in this location. So what conclusions can we draw from all of this? Well, for one thing, there's the most obvious conclusion that those who opposed the surge were wrong. Because if Barack Obama and his ilk had had their way - if there had been no US troop surge in Iraq, the Mehdi Army would still be in control of this nBaghdad neighborhood, and this mosque would still be a factory of death.

You're Such a Racist

2008-08-19T11:58:00.000-07:00

Well folks, it has finally happened. I was officially called a racist this morning, because of my failure to support Barack Obama.

Because of course, as we all know, if you're not buying into this whole "Hope and Change" smokescreen, you're an outright racist.

We were discussing the possibility of Bobby Jindal being named as McCain's running mate, when a colleague of mine (a white woman) somehow found the strength to pull her head out of Obama the Messiah's fourth point of contact long enough to say, "Except that he's brown, and the Republicans don't want anyone who isn't white."

Fucking Democrats. Seriously. Not that I'm surprised. But it's so perfectly typical of a Democrat to assume that they somehow have the market cornered on minority matters, and that everyone else is an automatic racist. Somewhere along the line, they've annointed themselves the sole gatekeepers to American morality - If you ain't one of them, you ain't moral.

So there you have it, folks. Vote for Obama or go put on a white bedsheet and start lighting crosses. You damn racist.

I swear I'm going to laugh if McCain chooses someone who isn't white. Just as has been the case with virtually every policy statement I've heard yet from the Obama camp, they won't be able to tap dance fast enough. "Um, uh, um...I meant someone who doesn't have a white shirt..."

Republicans for Obama

2008-08-13T10:10:00.000-07:00

Is that anything like Jews for Hitler?

According to the Barack Obama campaign, John McCain's campaign is funded almost entirely by Washington lobbyists and other political insiders. According to Obama, McCain's goal is to stop "this movement for change".

Folks, this is why you get nonsense like this:

I ask you: How, exactly, does a Republican support Obama? What, Republicans for Forced Redistribution of Wealth? Look. It's not just a matter of liking McCain (I don't care all that much for him, either). There are severe ideological differences at work here.

I'm not a member of any political party. But I consider myself a staunch Conservative, with serious conservative values (on most issues). If you're a Republican who supports Barack Obama because you think John McCain is too old, then you're not a Republican. It's just that simple. Obama believes in forcing you to pay for the health insurance of people who don't work and don't contribute. He believes in imposing an artificial and arbitrary cap on a company's income, collecting the balance of that company's profits for the Government, and then redistributing said monies elsewhere.

If you would vote for that, regardless of the reason, then you should stop calling yourself Republican or Conservative, because that's not what we Conservatives believe in.

Do You See A Pattern Here?

2008-08-12T11:38:00.000-07:00

We all know about the Reverend Lord Utmost Obama X's recent trip to the Middle East and Europe. We all understand how he decided it was inappropriate to stop by our military hospitals (twice) to visit wounded troops after being told he wouldn't be allowed to take the camera crews. We know all about his motivations there. But he denied all that, prefering instead to attempt a redirect of your attention to the time three years ago when he visited Walter Reed (to see if there was a talking point there about the poor maintenance conditions).

Well, here's another example of that kind of (simply astonishing) arrogance. In a World Net Daily piece written by Aaron Klein, we see that Lord Utmost Obama X had no problem visiting Jerusalem's Western Wall, one of the holiest sites in Judaism.

Of course, I have no problem with anyone visiting Jewish holy sites. But I wondered at first...Why could he visit the Western Wall but not the hospitals?

Then I got my answer, and here it is: BECAUSE HE WAS ALLOWED TO ADVERTISE AT THE WALL!!!!!!

From the World Net Daily piece by Aaron Klein:

JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama's campaign plastered the entrance to the Western Wall – the holiest site in Judaism – with official campaign posters, WND has learned.
Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld confirmed to WND posters that adorned police barricades erected at the Western Wall plaza for Obama's visit were distributed by the presidential candidate's campaign.

"These posters were his campaign and not the doing of the police," said Rosenfeld, whose police department coordinated security and provided protection for Obama's visit today to the holy site.

Asked if it was traditional practice for politicians visiting the Western Wall to bring along posters or campaign materials, Rosenfeld replied, "No."

Obama campaign posters can be seen in media footage of the Illinois senator's early morning surprise visit to the Western Wall.

His visit reportedly was not on the official campaign schedule.

The posters display Obama's name in Hebrew. One poster erected on the main police barricade used by Obama to enter the holy site boasts the official red, white and blue campaign "O" symbol and advertises the candidate's campaign's website.

A second poster also displays Obama's name in Hebrew and contains an image of Israeli and American flags.

Reuters posted images of the Obama campaign posters showing a handful of people waiting behind the police barricades.

Reuters images had the following caption: "Supporters of U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) stand behind banners printed with his name in Hebrew as they wait for his arrival at the Western wall."

The caption implied supporters brought along the pro-Obama material. But an eyewitness speaking to WND tells a different story.

"The kids waiting for Obama may not even be Obama supporters. No one knew Obama was coming in advance. We saw the police barricades erected. We saw Obama's face on the posters, and some police said Obama was on his way. So a few people gathered by the barricades and waited for Obama," said the witness.

Obama's media relations department in the U.S. did not reply to a WND phone call request for comment.

Obama arrived at about 5 a.m. Jerusalem time. He wore a Jewish skullcap and placed a prayer in the wall he said he had written. He bowed his head while a rabbi read a psalm calling for peace in the holy city.

According to media accounts, one worshipper repeatedly heckled Obama, chanting: "Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale" and "Jerusalem is our land."

After his brief visit to the holy site, Obama headed for Berlin, where he met with German leaders, including Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. He also delivered a major policy speech in front of Tiergarten Park's Victory Column, a 19th century structure in Berlin capped by a gilded angel.

IT NEVER ENDS

2008-08-07T11:30:00.000-07:00

Here’s an interesting article that I picked up from another blog. At the end, in blue as usual, is my commentary.

Civilization's last chance; The planet is nearing a tipping point on climate change, and it gets much worse, fast.

By Bill McKibben, May 11, 2008

Even for Americans -- who are constitutionally convinced that there will always be a second act, and a third, and a do-over after that, and, if necessary, a little public repentance and forgiveness and a Brand New Start -- even for us, the world looks a little terminal right now.

It's not just the economy: We've gone through swoons before. It's that gas at $4 a gallon means we're running out, at least of the cheap stuff that built our sprawling society. It's that when we try to turn corn into gas, it helps send the price of a loaf of bread shooting upward and helps ignite food riots on three continents. It's that everything is so tied together. It's that, all of a sudden, those grim Club of Rome types who, way back in the 1970s, went on and on about the "limits to growth" suddenly seem ... how best to put it, right.

All of a sudden it isn't morning in America, it's dusk on planet Earth.

There's a number -- a new number -- that makes this point most powerfully. It may now be the most important number on Earth: 350. As in parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

A few weeks ago, NASA's chief climatologist, James Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several coauthors. The abstract attached to it argued -- and I have never read stronger language in a scientific paper -- that "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.

Hansen cites six irreversible tipping points -- massive sea level rise and huge changes in rainfall patterns, among them -- that we'll pass if we don't get back down to 350 soon; and the first of them, judging by last summer's insane melt of Arctic ice, may already be behind us.

So it's a tough diagnosis. It's like the doctor telling you that your cholesterol is way too high and, if you don't bring it down right away, you're going to have a stroke. So you take the pill, you swear off the cheese, and, if you're lucky, you get back into the safety zone before the coronary. It's like watching the tachometer edge into the red zone and knowing that you need to take your foot off the gas before you hear that clunk up front.

In this case, though, it's worse than that because we're not taking the pill and we are stomping on the gas -- hard. Instead of slowing down, we're pouring on the coal, quite literally. Two weeks ago came the news that atmospheric carbon dioxide had jumped 2.4 parts per million last year -- two decades ago, it was going up barely half that fast.

And suddenly the news arrives that the amount of methane, another potent greenhouse gas accumulating in the atmosphere, has unexpectedly begun to soar as well. It appears that we've managed to warm the far north enough to start melting huge patches of permafrost, and massive quantities of methane trapped beneath it have begun to bubble forth.

And don't forget: China is building more power plants; India is pioneering the $2,500 car; and Americans are buying TVs the size of windshields, which suck juice ever faster.

Here's the thing. Hansen didn't just say that if we didn't act, there was trouble coming. He didn't just say that if we didn't yet know what was best for us, we'd certainly be better off below 350 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

His phrase was: "if we wish to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed." A planet with billions of people living near those oh-so-floodable coastlines. A planet with ever-more vulnerable forests. (A beetle, encouraged by warmer temperatures, has already managed to kill 10 times more trees than in any previous infestation across the northern reaches of Canada this year. This means far more carbon heading for the atmosphere and apparently dooms Canada's efforts to comply with the Kyoto protocol, which was already in doubt because of its decision to start producing oil for the U.S. from Alberta's tar sands.)

We're the ones who kicked the warming off; now the planet is starting to take over the job. Melt all that Arctic ice, for instance, and suddenly the nice white shield that reflected 80% of incoming solar radiation back into space has turned to blue water that absorbs 80% of the sun's heat. Such feedbacks are beyond history, though not in the sense that Francis Fukuyama had in mind.
And we have, at best, a few years to short-circuit them -- to reverse course. Here's the Indian scientist and economist Rajendra Pachauri, who accepted the Nobel Prize on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year (and, by the way, got his job when the Bush administration, at the behest of Exxon Mobil, forced out his predecessor): "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

In the next two or three years, the nations of the world are supposed to be negotiating a successor treaty to the Kyoto accord (which, for the record, has never been approved by the United States -- the only industrial nation that has failed to do so). When December 2009 rolls around, heads of state are supposed to converge on Copenhagen to sign a treaty -- a treaty that would go into effect at the last plausible moment to heed the most basic and crucial of limits on atmospheric CO2.

If we did everything right, Hansen says, we could see carbon emissions start to fall fairly rapidly and the oceans begin to pull some of that CO2 out of the atmosphere. Before the century was out, we might even be on track back to 350. We might stop just short of some of those tipping points, like the Road Runner screeching to a halt at the very edge of the cliff.

More likely, though, we're the coyote -- because "doing everything right" means that political systems around the world would have to take enormous and painful steps right away. It means no more new coal-fired power plants anywhere, and plans to quickly close the ones already in operation. (Coal-fired power plants operating the way they're supposed to are, in global warming terms, as dangerous as nuclear plants melting down.) It means making car factories turn out efficient hybrids next year, just the way U.S. automakers made them turn out tanks in six months at the start of World War II. It means making trains an absolute priority and planes a taboo.

It means making every decision wisely because we have so little time and so little money, at least relative to the task at hand. And hardest of all, it means the rich countries of the world sharing resources and technology freely with the poorest ones so that they can develop dignified lives without burning their cheap coal.

It's possible. The United States launched a Marshall Plan once, and could do it again, this time in relation to carbon. But at a time when the president has, once more, urged drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it seems unlikely. At a time when the alluring phrase "gas tax holiday" -- which would actually encourage more driving and more energy consumption -- has danced into our vocabulary, it's hard to see. And if it's hard to imagine sacrifice here, imagine China, where people produce a quarter as much carbon apiece as Americans do.

Still, as long as it's not impossible, we've got a duty to try to push those post-Kyoto negotiations in the direction of reality. In fact, it's about the most obvious duty humans have ever faced.
After all, those talks are our last chance; you just can't do this one lightbulb at a time.

We do have one thing going for us -- the Web -- which at least allows you to imagine something like a grass-roots global effort. If the Internet was built for anything, it was built for sharing this number, for making people understand that "350" stands for a kind of safety, a kind of possibility, a kind of future.

Hansen's words were well-chosen: "a planet similar to that on which civilization developed." People will doubtless survive on a non-350 planet, but those who do will be so preoccupied, coping with the endless unintended consequences of an overheated planet, that civilization may not.

Civilization is what grows up in the margins of leisure and security provided by a workable relationship with the natural world. That margin won't exist, at least not for long, as long as we remain on the wrong side of 350. That's the limit we face.

___________________________________

I love these people who devote themselves to “making people understand” their point of view. All of this reminds me of the time in 1992, when Al Gore said that if we didn't get rid of SUVs within ten years, there would be no world for our children to grow up in.

Now that those ten years – and then some – have come and gone, and there are more SUVs on the road than ever, and our children are still growing up in this world, nothing has changed. Al Gore is still seen as the hero champion of the environment (an Oscar? Are you fucking kidding me?), and we’re still predicting dire consequences if the stupid masses aren’t properly indoctrinated.

Made to understand.

It doesn’t matter how many times this nonsense is proven wrong. Now we’re all supposed to be terrified about the end of our civilization within a “few short years” if we're not "made to understand" that flying somewhere in a plane is "taboo," while taking the train (whi the hell takes a train anywhere in this country?) is an "absolute priority".

Is this what you think is going to happen? The collapse of civilization? Are you fucking serious?

Do you people actually believe that a big-screen TV "sucks juice" faster than a regular TV? And if so, that it contributes to the thawing of the permafrost?

Or that Al Gore has ever used public transportation in his life?

I'm all for reducing the amount of waste (garbage) each of us generates, and I recognize the need for reducing our dependency on petroleum. But I'm so sick of people acting as if my car is the reason for global climate change.

Get a grip, people. The reason people are against the "combating climate change" bill is because it would enable the government to levy what amounts to an additional tax on businesses of all sizes, payable to a new world court headquartered in Europe. That's a pretty crazy idea, in my opinion - especially since it wouldn't do anything to actually combat global climate change.

Here’s the real problem. Americans (and some others) have become so incredibly narcissistic that we just can’t stand to believe that there could be changes going on within our own world that have absolutely nothing to do with us; changes that were not caused by us, and will not be “solved” by us.

Not by the “350 Project”, and not by you or me. The bottom line is that the “global climate” has been changing since the creation of the planet – every second, every minute, every hour, since the very beginning of the Earth. It was not caused by SUVs or by big-screen TVs, and going back to the Stone Age isn’t going to reverse it.

Hats Off to Texas

2008-08-06T09:20:00.000-07:00

Now, I want you to imagine this, if you will. You're a fourteen-year-old girl, walking home from the library with your best friend, who's only two years older than you. You walk through the park, as you've probably done many times before - only this time something's different.

This time, you stumble upon a gang initiaiton. Enraged by the intrusion, six teenaged gangbangers descend upon you, leaving you to wonder if you'll ever see your family again.

This actually happened, right here in Texas, in 1993. And the two girls didn't live to see their families again. They were raped and beaten by all five of the boys, and then murdered.

Their bodies were left to rot in a bayou.

Here's a much better explanation of what's going on here than I can write:

http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2008/03/25/refried-beans-supreme-court-overrules-bush-oks-mexican-illegal-aliens-execution/

The killers are arrested, convicted of capital murder, and sentenced to die in the state's death chamber. Off to Death Row with them. But what happens next is even more bizarre.

As (at least) one of them was born in Mexico and is here in the US illegally, Mexican lawyers accuse the United States of a number of breaches of international law, sparking a flurry of appeals and hearings that continues for more than a decade.

At issue is a treaty agreement from the 1960s that allows foreign travelers the right to seek legal assistance from their home country. One of the indivduals (read: murdering, raping, butchering animals) who committed this crime declared after his own conviction that he is a Mexican national and should therefore have been allowed by the terms of this treaty agreement to seek legal assistance from Mexico - which he didn't do.

Mexican officials, I presume, got the International Court of Justice involved, and the International Court of Justice ruled that the United States must stop the State of Texas from carrying out its sentence of death until the case can be further reviewed.

President Bush issued a statement requesting that the State of Texas stay the animal's exocution, pending further review. In his statement, the President also said that he disagrees with the ICJ's decision, but would abide by it.

The State of Texas paused for about two hours, and then exocuted the animal.

So, I have a few questions here:

First, what kind of jurisdiction should an "international court" hold over matters of justice within the United States?

Second, should the President have sided with that international court, in a case wherein a foreign national raped and murdered two children in the President's own home state? Is it appropriate for an elected official to turn his back on the intentions of his own people like that? Just who, exactly, is the President elected to represent on an international stage? As a side question, what do you figure Ronald Reagan would have told that International Court of Justice to do with its decision?

Third - and this is the BIG one - What do you think that International Court told the families of those two young girls? Those two beautiful, bright, vibrant teenagers who just happened to be there by accident on that night, and died in the most horrific way imaginable - How much consideration do you figure this International Court has given to them?

And here's a bonus question: How long does it take for such a case to be reviewed? This animal has been on Death Row for years. Again, he committed the crime - he and his friends killed these little girls - in 1993, fifteen years ago. But he didn't claim to be a Mexican national then - that only happened after Mexican lawyers got ahold of the case.

Got another one for ya: In the wording of the original treaty, according to CNN (I have not read the treaty myself, thank you very much), the agreement covers foreign travelers. Not foreign rapists and murderers. Not illegal aliens who've lived in the US longer than they lived in whatever shithole they escaped from. Not gangbangers who rape and murder little girls for fun.

Yes, the State of Texas, against what must have been virtually overwhelming pressure from international courts, Mexican lawyers and the leader of the free world, stood up for their principles and carried out their laws. They did the right thing. I don't like the death penalty - in fact I hate it. But do recognize its necessity. And what's more, I recognize the right of the State of Texas (or any other state) to carry out its own laws, no matter who says what.

So hats off to Texas, and may she continue to take no shit from anyone.

Silly me...

2008-08-04T05:44:00.000-07:00

Now here I was, thinking there was an FAA requirement to display the US flag on all aircraft registered in the United States. If not, then at least I figured it was the right thing to do.

And then I saw this. I guess I was wrong, huh?

What, the flag isn't patriotic? Is that it?

Now, I know two supporters of the Lord Utmost Obama X. One of them, upon seeing this post, will giggle. "Oh, you're just being radical," she'll say. The other will bring up the next pic, which shows McCain's campaign plane, sans flags on the tail:

But here's the difference: Any pop star can refuse to wear a flag until cornered by the press, and any malcontent can refuse to include his country's flag on his plane. But here's another picture of McCain's plane, which I found only moments ago:

This is said to be John McCain's A4 Skyhawk, shot down by the North Vietnamese in 1967. I don't know if it really is his plane or not, but that's the claim. Now, I'd like to see any supporter of Lord Utmost Obama X draw comparisons with that.

Because I'm pretty sure "McCain's plane" had the appropriate US insignia on it.

Barack's "New" Plane

2008-07-22T10:19:00.000-07:00

So here's the question:
How many planes has Barack Obama had on this campaign?

I've seen a number of stories about his different planes, but generally candidates fly on chartered birds, I believe. And I think this is the first one with its own Lord Utmost Obama X logo on the tail.

So what have I been able to find in ten minutes of seaching the inter-web thingy?

In January, the Chicago Tribune reported the campaign's acquisition of a new 737-800. But in July, when his plane was diverted due to mechanical trouble, he was on a chartered MD-80 according to the New York Times.

The biggest story here, I think, is the relevancy. Political blogs are abuzz with people (supporters, mostly) who wonder what's so gosh-darn important about Obama having a new plane that it has to be reported by three mainstream reporters. But the way I see it, it goes to the character issue.

Like Al "Alpha-Male" Gore before him, the Lord Utmost Obama X has announced his intention for the federal government to require sweeping changes in the way virtually every American business operates, in order to appease the hardcore environmentalist lobby. Forced carbon emission reduction, Cap-and-Trade, and other expensive and unproven programs like Carbon Sequestration, will allow both the US federal government and foreign-run "environmental courts" to tax, fine, limit and alter fundamental business practices, based on still-unproven environmental theory. It's impossible to add up the moneys spent in the various environmental programs on his website, but the first number is $150 BILLION.

So I think it's only fair to ask about the carbon emissions from this latest 757 - evidently his (at least) third upgrade in seven months.

Also, in the beginning days of this campaign, I remember hearing a lot from the mainstream media about health care. At the core of the issue was the notion that so many Americans couldn't afford to have adequate health care insurance. Lord Utmost Obama X's solution was to increase taxes on private companies, limit some companies' profits, and spend billions of dollars establishing at least six different federal agencies to oversee the forced allowance of the uninsurable into government-administered (but still privately funded?!) insurance policies.

So I think it's only fair to ask how many Americans could have paid for their own health care insurance with the $300,000 that his new plane's paint job is reported to have cost.

And this is the part that really kills me - Our Friend Barry has made a political career out of convincing grassroots supporters, poor people who really can't afford health care, don't have jobs, can't pay their rent, etc, that he understands them. He feels them. He's po' like they is. After all, he's only a community organizer at heart, right? Somehow, people are turning out in droves to ignore the hundred-million-dollar incomes, the fancy millionaire mansions, the limousines and private Gulfstreams that surround the Holy Freshman and his entourage. But when this multi-million-dollar Boeing 757 arrives in Jordan with Obama's personal, focus-group-approved logo plastered on the tail, this bold new statement in the politics of American elitism won't go unnoticed.

He was right about one thing: He's not pursuing politics as usual. What he's doing is far, far worse.

Talking Down to Black Folks

2008-07-18T08:04:00.000-07:00

Evidently, according to Reverend Jesse, talking down to Black folks is a sin punishable by the removal of one's nuts. Don't get mad at me, folks, I didn't say it.

And of course, we all know that Reverend Jesse is the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion of talking down to Black folks.

Well, of course he is! To listen to Reverend Al, Reverend Jesse and the Messiah Lord Utmost Barack Hussein Obama X, you'd think it's a prerequisite! Or, more accurately, it's a competition between the three of them. They want to establish who can be the biggest poverty pimp, and the Messiah Lord Utmost Barack Hussein Obama X is winning.

And just like me, Reverend Jesse apparently doesn't like it.

Why I Miss the Cold War

2008-06-03T12:24:00.000-07:00

I’ve heard quite a bit about “Why don’t they like us?”…Ron Paul (I think he’s a senator or congressman) says it’s our fault that the rest of the world doesn’t like us. He says, “They don’t hate in a vacuum. It’s our policy.”

Something someone said to me the other day kinda stuck with me. I was describing an initiative that my company took in Iraq to ensure acceptable living conditions for the workers of a company that had been contracted by the US for some sanitation work on a military base.

Let me clarify that. My company (at the time), the dreaded Halliburton, whom everyone seems to hate these days, sent me to another company’s labor camp, to ensure that this other company’s bosses were taking good care of their people. They weren’t, so we “greedy” Halliburton folks grouped together and worked toward the improvement of their living conditions. Our actions eventually got that other company (who was a subcontractor of ours) to clean up their act.

“And somehow, we’re the bad guys,” he said.

Yeah. We’re the bad guys. Even within our own country.

Well, it seems to me like, if you want to know why they hate us, you have to know which “they” you’re talking about. So, toward that end, here’s a short list:

The Mexicans don’t like us because we invaded Iraq. They showed us that by roundly booing Miss USA – in fact, they chanted, “Osama! Osama!” while she was on stage. They also evidently don’t like us because we provide work for more than 20 million of their countrymen, without requiring anything from them – not even taxes.

The French never did like us. If you doubt that, spend a weekend in Orly and then you tell me. But they really don’t like us right now because we put a stop to their corrupt Oil-for-Food program.

The Canadians think we’re stupid. Check in with David Suzuki on that one (evidently, Canadians are smart because they have his television show about environmentalism, and we’re not, because we don’t).

The Nigerians really, really don’t like us. The most popular bumper sticker in Nigeria is the likeness of Osama Bin Laden, “because he stands up to the Americans.” But they sure don't mind coming here and working in our factories and shops.

The Somalis don’t like us, because we went into Somalia. Also because we pulled out of Somalia.

The Sudanese don’t like us, because we both went into and pulled out of Somalia. They also don’t like us because some people are talking about taking action against the Sudan – and also because we’re not taking action in the Sudan.

The Rwandans don’t like us because we didn’t go into Rwanda and Burundi. I wonder if they'd like us if we had?

The Angolans don’t like us because we didn’t go into Angola. They also don’t like us because we’re in Angola.

The Serbs don’t like us because we went into Kosovo.

The Kosovars don’t like us because we struck a deal with the Serbs. The Kosovars also don’t like us because we struck a deal with the Kosovars – which is also why the Serbs don‘t like us.

The Iraqis hated us for invading Iraq in 1991, then hated us for pulling out of Iraq in 1991, then loved us for invading Iraq in 2003, but now they hate us for invading Iraq in 2003.

The Iranians didn’t like us because of our support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and they don’t like us now because of our military action against Iraq.

The Kuwaitis loved us for invading Iraq in 1991, but don’t like us for invading Iraq in 2003. They loved us for staying in Kuwait after the Gulf War, but don’t like us staying in Kuwait now.

The Saudis don’t like us because – well, because we’re not Saudis. Also, they don’t like us for stationing troops on their land, except when they’re being invaded by neighboring powers. And because we “allow” the women in our country to be seen in public.

The Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Saudis, Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Omanis, Yemenis, Qataris, Libyans, Algerians, Tunisians, Somalis, Sudanese, Eritreans, Djiboutians, Iranians, Afghans and Pakistanis don’t like us because we support Israel.

The Israelis don’t like us because we support the Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Saudis, Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Omanis, Yemenis, Qataris, Libyans, Algerians, Tunisians, Somalis, Sudanese, Eritreans, Djiboutians, Iranians, Afghans and Pakistanis.

The Afghans loved us for invading Afghanistan and deposing the Taliban in 2001, but now they don’t like us for invading Afghanistan and deposing the Taliban in 2001.

The Nicaraguans don’t like us because we opposed the Sandinistas in the 1980s, while supporting Honduran-based Contra insurgents.

The Hondurans don’t like us because we secured their border with Nicaragua and stifled the illicit drug trade during that crisis. They also don’t like us because we removed most of our troops from that region, and allowed the illicit drug trade to flourish again.

The Panamanians don’t like us because we invaded Panama to depose Noriega. They also don’t like us because it took so long to invade Panama and depose Noriega.

The Chinese don’t like us because we support Taiwan, condemning our military might while we park our warships in Taiwanese harbors to protect the Taiwanese from the Chinese.

The Taiwanese don’t like us because of our economic ties to the Chinese, and because we invaded Iraq.

The North Koreans don’t like us because we’re worried that they’ll nuke South Korea.

The South Koreans don’t like us because we’re worried North Korea will nuke them. They also don't like that we invaded Iraq. Nor do they like that we keep reminding them that they also invaded Iraq.

The Japanese don’t like us because we’re worried North Korea will nuke South Korea. And because we invaded Iraq. They also don’t like us because we keep reminding them that they’re also worried North Korea will nuke South Korea, and that they also invaded Iraq.

The Spanish don’t like us because we invaded Iraq. They feel we’re too zealous in our fight against terrorism. They also don’t like us because we remind them that they also invaded Iraq, and that the difference is that we didn’t cut and run when the war became difficult.

The Germans don’t like us because we invaded Iraq. And no one knows about invading other countries like the Germans.

The Russians don’t like us because we want to build a missile defense system, which would make their #1 export, old Soviet-era ICBMs, obsolete. And because we invaded Iraq, which showed the world that their #2 export, crappy old Soviet-era tanks, are also obsolete.

Let’s see…did I miss anyone? Obviously the Columbians don’t like us because their cocaine cartels suffer when our cops seize shipments, but I don’t know if that counts for much any more.

NOW…YOU TELL ME…Is there anyone on this list who has not, in the past fifty years, who hasn’t directly benefited from US foreign aid of some kind? And how many of those countries have returned that favor? One? Two? The Nigerians, for example, who proudly sport pictures of Osama on their cars, can’t get enough of our oil money.

It’s enough to make a fella miss the good old days of the Cold War, isn't it?

A REAL Message of Hope

2008-05-15T05:45:00.000-07:00

A message of hope...

After all is said and done, what does Obama have to do with his preacher's comments? Everything.

See, there are those who will curse their own country when they see things happening with which they disagree. These are people who specialize in building division wherever convenient (racial division, economic division, etc etc).

By contrast, see the next post down. Ronald Reagan taught me that my future prosperity (the prosperity I enjoy today) was related directly to the exercise of my own freedom. And I used that freedom from that day to this, in order to ensure my own prosperity. Rather than damn my country (or sit in a pew and say "Yes Lawd" when someone else does), I get up at four in the morning and drag my fat butt to work. Reverend Jeremiah Wright has made far more money than I probably ever will, standing in front of a congregation of ingrates and cursing my country. But all is not lost. I have message of hope for you. And here it is:

Your prosperity is not linked to the government. Your well-being isn't tied up in gas prices. Regardless of what the CEO of Exxon does, or how much he makes, or really who the president or vice-president is, your livelihood - your prosperity - is up to you. It's your responsibility. No amount of cursing America is going to change that. So there's your hope. It's not in Barack Obama's "progressive" social programs, or in Hillary's war stories, or even in McCain's policy problems. It's nestled neatly in your own freedom.

Reagan Quotes

2008-04-17T13:24:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Dan Souza http://www.dansouza.org/Articles/Reagan/Early%20Life/early_life_of_ronald_reagan.htm for these quotes from Ronald Reagan.

We could sure use Mr. Reagan right about now.

To sit back hoping that some day, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last. But eat you he will.

Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence. (Jan. 7, 1970)

We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success - only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive and free. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period, contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development. (Sept. 29, 1981)

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell and anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. (Sept. 25, 1987)

Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if we only had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector. (Oct. 27, 1964)

The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing. (Oct. 27, 1964)

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right. But I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream - the maximum of individual freedom, consistent with order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." (Oct. 27, 1964)

The Couric Conspiracy

2008-04-15T08:31:00.000-07:00

Why won't they take me seriously?!!!!!

Recently, CBS announced that Katie Couric will step down as their anchor person. Or, their anchor. They also released a statement blaming America's not being "ready for a woman anchor" or some such nonsense.

So here's a news flash for CBS News. No one cares that she's a woman. Your ratings have fallen lately because of media bias. And your statement is a beautiful example.

I don't watch a lot of news on television. Years ago, I'm told, newscasters and their stations actively supported American troops in the field. I've seen old Life Magazine issues and have seen old newsreels slapped together by CBS and other companies, highlighting the bravery of American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen. I have yet to see a single story, put together by CBS or any other major network (other than Fox), on any television broadcast, website or any other media, highlighting the bravery, fighting character and love of country of the American fighting soldier that I saw with my own two eyes in Iraq. I've seen a lot of why-we-shouldn't-be-there stories, though. Lots of those. And lots and lots (and LOTS) of coverage of bombs going off, casualties and blown-apart American military vehicles.

I've even seen the Evening News run footage that was put together by al-Qaeda as anti-American propaganda. Footage featuring my friends' dead bodies, thank you very much.

Is it a liberal-vs-conservative issue? I think so, and here's why.

Politically speaking, I came of age during the Clinton years. I specifically remember how damaging Bill Clinton's lies were to the American fighting man, as I was in the military at the time. In fact, before Clinton I wanted to make the Army my career, and by the end of his second term I was out of the Army with no intention of ever going back. My beloved Army had become a pawn in his perverted political game, from the Loathing Letter to the whole Don't Ask Don't Tell circus - and it had a serious effect of the morale of the American soldier.

I remember also while Bill Clinton was running for President, Bryant Gumble interviewing George H. W. Bush, the sitting President of the United States, and arguing with his answers like some kind of protestor. It was so painfully obvious who the reporter supported for the office, and that he was going to say whatever he had to say to discredit the most powerful man in the world. I felt like trying to call the President personally and assure him that most Americans did not feel as Gumble did. This was on the Today Show, I think. And the whole event opened my eyes to just how far out there a bunch of liberal reporters can be - and just how much they can get away with.

Just how disrespectful they can be.

I came away from that wondering just who these people thought they were. In his grandest dreams, Bryant Gumble could never do half as much for this country as George H. W. Bush (that's the elder George Bush, for those of you who don't know) has done. But he was never, so far as I could see, called on the carpet for his actions, and nor were any of the show's producers, directors, or writers. No one, nothing. Never. So I started wondering, just how far gone are these people?

Of course, these days, I have my answer. For example, not a day goes by in which I don't hear (read, etc) someone in the media saying "It's now five years since President Bush gave his famous 'Mission Accomplished' speech". Never mind that President Bush never said the words "Mission Accomplished." They were printed on a banner that had been raised by US Navy personnel on board the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. Also, never mind that those words referred specifically to the military routing of the Iraqi army, the capture of Baghdad, and the removal of Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime of Hitleresque henchmen. It was never intended to refer to subsequent counter-insurgency operations in Iraq.

But that's just one example. I've referred to the whole media-bias phenomenon as the Couric Conspiracy, because Katie Couric came from the same source of bias that we saw with the Gumble incident, which cemented my opinion of the newsmedia back in the early 90s. Same band of conceited, we-know-better-than-you, puffed-up reporters who will stop at nothing to put their own political views at the forefront of every story - even if it means criticizing a banner put up by sailors to celebrate a military victory.

And it falls right in line with the typical media big-headedness that they're now saying it's because she's a woman. Or, more accurately, that the rest of us rubes aren't ready to get our news from a woman. According to them, we're all just that shallow. We're too stupid to see through their bias, and we're too oafish to watch a female news anchor.

It's not only typical media conceit, it's typical liberal conceit, in a typically right-of-center country. It couldn't be more obvious - evidently, that is, to everyone but the media.

Jon Stewart is an Ass

2008-04-15T05:34:00.001-07:00

Look at me!!! It's all about what I think!!!

OK, here's the deal. I was gonna leave this guy alone, but I've finally had enough. I would rather pull out my own eyes than watch his show, but the other night I couldn't avoid seeing him. I saw a clip on one of the news programs that featured Jon Stewart being his usual smart-ass self, saying something to the effect of, "... a prominent politican [meaning Obama] spoke to the American people about race as if they were adults."

Jon Stewart is an ass. And I'm being polite here.

Barack Obama's race-baiting speech most certainly did not speak to people like they're adults. It spoke to people like they need their hand held. It spoke to people as if they don't already know that racism exists, or that there is animosity between some members of some minority groups and the mainstream American society.

But that's the problem. Mainstream American society doesn't give a crap about you, Jon. And there's no reason they should (they don't give a crap about me either, and likewise, they shouldn't).

They also don't give a crap about racial division. You know why? Because gulping down the Kool-Aid about the politics of race isn't going to put food on my table, Jon. I'm 37 years old. All my life, I've been told by well-meaning liberals all about how unfair this country is. All about how a Black man can't get a fair shake here. Minorities are systematically kept down by the man.

So here's me. And here's you, Jon. White guy, not old, not especially young, decent education (poor education, in my case). You're pretty successful. I understand you've picked up a few awards, etc. I'm comfortable, myself, in a down-to-earth way. I'm not rich by any means, but I can go out to eat when I want. My bills get paid on time (mostly), and I own a small house. My Jeep is paid for.

So I guess that, according to the liberal, Jon Stewart definition, all this is ill-gotten gains, simply given to me by The Man, because I'm white. Is that it, Jon? Because that's the impression I get from Senator Obama: If you ain't Black, you don't know what it means to struggle.
.
I'm sick to death of all the "racial divide" bullshit in this country. All people living in this country, whether they're of this race or that, speak this language or that, or are from this country or that, have exactly the same opportunity. The only thing that sets people apart is the work ethic they bring to the table.

I'm willing to bet that Jon Stewart's success is due to years of Jon Stewart working his ass off. It has nothing to do with his race, nothing to do with his religion, and nothing to do with Barack Obama's proposed government programs to "give" more economic opportunity to Black people.

Because those same Black people, when they were infants, lying in a bassinet at some hospital somewhere, were at exactly the same starting line as Jon Stewart was, as I was, and as you were. We all started at the same place.

It's only when we grow up that we can become asses like Jon Stewart.

Today's Cartoon

2008-04-07T09:02:00.001-07:00

Ha ha - A new campaign slogan for the Surrender Society...

Beautiful Words...

2008-04-07T06:05:00.000-07:00

...from a beautiful person. Michelle Malkin, my fellow lefty (left-handed person, that is), is a prolific columnist and blogger for our GLORIOUS CONSERVATIVE CAUSE. She has visited Iraq and actually reported the TRUTH about what's going on there, not the every-day self-loathing drivel that we're so accustomed to hearing from the Couric Conspiracy.

Here's what she had to say about Michelle Obama's not proud of America rant:

2 MICHELLES, 2 AMERICAS & SHAME vs. PRIDE

by Michelle Malkin

Like Michelle Obama, I am a "woman of color." Like Michelle Obama, I am a working mother of two young children. Like Michelle Obama, I am a member of the 13th generation of Americans born since the founding of our great nation.

Unlike Michelle Obama, I can't keep track of the number of times I've been proud - really proud - of my country since I was born and privileged to live in it. At a recent speech in Milwaukee on behalf of her husband's Democratic presidential campaign, Mrs. Obama remarked, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

Mrs. Obama's statement was met with warm applause from other Barack supporters who have also apparently been devoid of pride in their country during their adult lifetimes. Or maybe it was just a Pavlovian response to the word "change." What a sad, empty, narcissistic, ungrateful, unthinking lot.

I'm just seven years younger than Mrs. Obama. We've grown up and lived in the same era. And yet, her self-absorbed attitude is completely foreign to me. What planet is she living on? Since when was now the only time the American people have ever been "hungry for change"?

Michelle, ma belle, Barack is not the center of the universe. Newsflash: The Obamas did not invent "change" any more than Hillary invented "leadership" or John McCain invented "straight talk." We were both adults when the Berlin Wall fell, Michelle. That was earth-shattering change. We've lived through two decades' worth of peaceful, if contentious, election cycles under the rule of law, which have brought about "change" and upheaval, both good and bad. We were adults through several launches of the space shuttle, in case you were snoozing. And as adults, we've witnessed and benefited from dizzyingly rapid advances in technology, communications, science, and medicine pioneered by American entrepreneurs who yearned to change the world and succeeded. You want "change"? Go ask the patients whose lives have been improved and extended by American pharmaceutical companies that have flourished under the best economic system in the world.

If American ingenuity, a robust constitutional republic, and the fall of communism don't do it for you, hon, then how about American heroism and sacrifice? How about every Memorial Day? Every Veterans Day? Every Independence Day? Every Medal of Honor ceremony? Has she never attended a welcome-home ceremony for the troops? For me, there's the thrill of the Blue Angels roaring over cloudless skies. And the somber awe felt amid the hallowed waters that surround the sunken U.S.S. Arizona at the Pearl Harbor memorial.

Every naturalization ceremony I've attended, where hundred s of new Americans raised their hands to swear an oath of allegiance to this land of liberty, has been a moment of pride for me. So have the awesome displays of American compassion at home and around the world. When millions of Americans rallied to help victims of the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia - including members of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group that sped from Hong Kong to assist survivors - my heart filled with pride. It did again when the citizens of Houston opened their arms to Hurricane Katrina victims and folks across the country rushed to their churches and offices of the Salvation Army and Red Cross to volunteer.

How about American resilience? Does that not make you proud? Only a heart of stone could be unmoved by the strength, valor, and determination displayed in New York , Washington , D.C., and Shanksville, Pa. , on September 11, 2001.

I believe it was Michael Kinsley who quipped that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. In this case, it's what happens when an elite Democratic politician's wife says what a significant portion of the party's base really believes to be the truth: America is more a source of shame than pride.

Michelle Obama has achieved enormous professional success, poli tical influence, and personal acclaim in America . Ivy League educated, she's been lauded by Essence magazine as one of the 25 World's Most Inspiring Women; by Vanity Fair as one of the ten World's Best-Dressed Women; and named one of "The Harvard 100" most influential alumni. She has had an amazingly blessed life. But you wouldn't know it from her campaign rhetoric and her griping about her and her husband's student loans.

For years, we've heard liberals get offended at any challenge to their patriotism. And so they are again aggrieved and rising to explain away Mrs. Obama's remarks.

Lady Michelle and her defenders protest too much.

A Gentle Reminder

2008-04-03T10:33:00.001-07:00

Jane Fonda, showing her North Vietnamese Communist friends how much she admires them.

Ms. Fonda is supporting Barack Obama in this election. Of course, this makes sense. After all, once you've travelled to the enemy's capital and revelled in their successes against our servicemen, while sitting in their aint-aircraft positions, it would be out of character for you to vote for one of our boys who got shot down, now wouldn't it?

I'm not advocating voting for John McCain just because he was a POW. The history of the United States is replete with admirable and heroic public servants who shouldn't be president. I'm not bashing Hanoi Jane for choosing a political side to favor.

I am, however, bashing Hanoi Jane for being Hanoi Jane. For glorifying the enemy during a war. For taking sides against this country - the country that made her rich, the country that gave her everything she's ever wanted. For (sorry about the mixed metaphor) biting the hand that feeds her, thus stabbing the whole country in the back.

Just so no one gets the idea that American veterans (yes, that's me) have forgotten, or will ever forget - or will ever forgive her for this, the single most flagrant act of treasonous betrayal in my consciousness.

While I'm not the biggest McCain fan in the world, I can certainly see how Obama and Hanoi Jane are a perfect match, politically. Both are what some conservatives call punitive liberals - that is, the Blame-America-First crowd. These are cynical, jaded people who believe that their freedoms and their rights extend from some magical entity who hands out such blessings only to them. Never mind the idea of military service - that's only for the stupid. Really, that's how these people think. So it's no big deal to be not only anti-war, but anti-military. But only anti-OUR-military, evidently, as it's cool to support the enemy's military. I wonder how many times Hanoi Jane has sat in an American anti-aircraft installation and shown this kind of fawning hero-worship.

These people just make me sick. More to come later today.

Misstatements You Can Believe In

2008-04-02T08:43:00.000-07:00

Seems to be the buzz word right now, doesn't it? Even Barack Obama, whom the press once called "Mister Articulate," seems to be misspeaking every other word.

But let's not just sit back and allow these people to get away with labelling their own lies as misstatements, while pointing accusing fingers at the lies of their opponents.

For those of you (both of you, I guess) who can't tell the difference between a Republican and a conservative Independent, here's a crash course in the difference between the truth, a misstatement and a lie.

First, the truth:

Senator Clinton's campaign publishes a flyer in California that accuses Senator Obama of wanting to raise taxes by billions (or it is trillions) of dollars. Never mind that her own husband (you remember, Monica's ex-boyfriend and cigar aficionado) passed the sinlge largest tax hike in history - Obama wants to make it look like chump change.
That, folks, is the TRUTH.

Next, a misstatement:

Senator Obama replied to Senator Clinton's charge that he wants to raise taxes. While talking about the flyer, he consistently accused her of accusing him of wanting a tax cut. He meant to say tax increase, but he said tax cut. He knew what he meant, and those few people in his audience who weren't simply drooling but were actually paying attention knew what he meant. He even caught his own misstatement and explained himself.

That's a misstatement - an occasion in which someone misspoke.

Now, a lie:

When you tell people that you weren't in Wright's congregation when he made offensive, desparaging statements, and then it turns out that you were, that's a lie. When you make up stories about ducking sniper fire and running across the tarmac to get to your vehicle, when in fact no such thing happened (but someone related a story about sniper fire that happened a month earlier), that's a lie. When you make up familiy connections to the Selma, Alabama civil rights protests in the 1960s in order to pander to the minority vote in that state, when in fact no such connection exists except in your imagination, that's a lie.

When you contend again and again that you never knew about your friends' membership in groups like the Weather Underground, or about their attempts at mass murder decades ago, and then people begine finding out the truth, that's not a misstatement. It's a lie.

Lies aren't born in a vacuum, folks. They come from somewhere. In the case of both of our Democrat hopefuls, I believe they're born of arrogance. I mean, let's face it. You have to pretty arrogant to believe that you can get away with such made-up stories, even though it's pretty plain that people will figure them out. When Obama said that ten thousand people had died in a Kansas tornado, when the real death toll was twelve, there was a reason for that. It wasn't a misstatement, folks. It was a purposeful exaggeration, delivered with the well-rehearsed intent of making things in this country look worse than they really are. His speech was about how the National Guard has been rendered completely incapable of performing its job (which I doubt) by the war in Iraq - and it's a much more dramatic statement if tornadoes, which everyone knows are George Bush's fault anyway, have been killing tens of thousands of people at a time.

Barack Obama doesn't care if you believe it. He doesn't care if it's realistic. What he cares about is that you heard him say it. He and Hillary Clinton and their robots (Richardson and Carville, for instance) are staying on message through all of these misstatements.

Too bad the misstatements themselves are the message, isn't it?

Today's Cartoon

2008-04-01T11:40:00.001-07:00

Today's Cartoon

2008-03-31T08:05:00.000-07:00

I know it's an old issue by now, but it's a sad day when the worst president in my lifetime berates the sitting president, in order to gain favor with the international community. There used to be a tradition among former presidents, wherein such derision was reserved for smoky back rooms and then only after said president left office.

But somehow, somewhere along the line, something really ugly happened. The liberal left devolved into the blame-America-first crowd, choosing to side with proven enemies of this country rather than accept (and work with) conservative leadership.

I tend to lump all of these people into one category. To my way of thinking, Code Pink and their lapdogs in Berkeley are the same as a Democrat senator who wants to make a law that I can only make so much money before my profits are capped. Same thing. Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, and Jimmy Carter. Poverty pimps, playing to the fears of the uneducated masses (and the educated and quasi-educated like Cindy Sheehan). These are all examples of what's wrong with America today.

The American way of life includes private enterprise. It also includes Marine Corps recuiters. Further, it includes people like me, supporting our president during a time of war, and has no room for the likes of Pelosi (purposely curtailing our ability to fight the war against terrorists by allowing the surveillance act to expire) and Carter (speaking out irrationally and irresponsibly against a sitting president in a time of war). Why don't we hear these people criticizing Ahmadinijad, or Muqtada al-Sadr? Why don't we see them doing something to actively support our war effort?

Why do we have to fight this war abroad AND fight these miscreants at home?

Great cartoon.

Obama's Anger

2008-03-31T04:31:00.000-07:00

March 20, 2008
Obama's AngerBy Ed Kaitz

"The anger is real. It is powerful, and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races." - Barack Obama
.
Back in the late 1980s I was on a plane flying out of New Orleans and sitting next to me was a rather interesting and, according to Barack Obama, unusual black man. Friendly, gregarious, and wise beyond his years, we immediately hit it off. I had been working on Vietnamese commercial fishing boats for a few years based in southern Louisiana. The boats were owned by the recent wave of Vietnamese refugees who flooded into the familiar tropical environment after the war. Floating in calm seas out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, I would hear tearful songs and tales from ex-paratroopers about losing brothers, sisters, parents, children, lovers, and beautiful Vietnam itself to the communists.
.
In Bayou country I lived on boats and in doublewide trailers, and like the rest of the Vietnamese refugees, I shopped at Wal-Mart and ate a lot of rice. When they arrived in Louisiana the refugees had no money (the money that they had was used to bribe their way out of Vietnam and into refugee camps in Thailand), few friends, and a mostly unfriendly and suspicious local population. They did however have strong families, a strong work ethic, and the "Audacity of Hope." Within a generation, with little or no knowledge of English, the Vietnamese had achieved dominance in the fishing industry there and their children were already achieving the top SAT scores in the state.

While I had been fishing my new black friend had been working as a prison psychologist in Missouri, and he was pursuing a higher degree in psychology. He was interested in my story, and after about an hour getting to know each other I asked him point blank why these Vietnamese refugees, with no money, friends, or knowledge of the language could be, within a generation, so successful. I also asked him why it was so difficult to convince young black men to abandon the streets and take advantage of the same kinds of opportunities that the Vietnamese had recently embraced. His answer, only a few words, not only floored me but became sort of a razor that has allowed me ever since to slice through all of the rhetoric regarding race relations that Democrats shovel our way during election season:
.
"We're owed and they aren't."
.
In short, he concluded, "they're hungry and we think we're owed. It's crushing us, and as long as we think we're owed we're going nowhere."A good test case for this theory is Katrina. Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and assorted white apologists continue to express anger and outrage over the federal response to the Katrina disaster. But where were the Vietnamese "leaders" expressing their "anger?" The Vietnamese comprise a substantial part of the New Orleans population, and yet are absent was any report claiming that the Vietnamese were "owed" anything. This is not to say that the federal response was an adequate one, but we need to take this as a sign that maybe the problem has very little to do with racism and a lot to with a mindset.
.
The mindset that one is "owed" something in life has not only affected black mobility in business but black mobility in education as well. Remember Ward Churchill? About fifteen years ago he was my boss. After leaving the fishing boats, I attended graduate school at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I managed to get a job on campus teaching expository writing to minority students who had been accepted provisionally into the university on an affirmative action program. And although I never met him, Ward Churchill, in addition to teaching in the ethnic studies department, helped to develop and organize the minority writing program.
The job paid most of my bills, but what I witnessed there was absolutely horrifying. The students were encouraged to write essays attacking the white establishment from every conceivable angle and in addition to defend affirmative action and other government programs. Of the hundreds of papers that I read, there was not one original contribution to the problem of black mobility that strayed from the party line.
.
The irony of it all however is that the "white establishment" managed to get them into the college and pay their entire tuition. Instead of being encouraged to study international affairs, classical or modern languages, philosophy or art, most of these students became ethnic studies or sociology majors because it allowed them to remain in disciplines whose orientation justified their existence at the university. In short, it became a vicious cycle.
.
There was a student there I'll never forget. He was plucked out of the projects in Denver and given a free ride to the university. One day in my office he told me that his mother had said the following to him: "M.J., they owe you this. White people at that university owe you this." M.J.'s experience at the university was a glorious fulfillment of his mother's angst.
.
There were black student organizations and other clubs that "facilitated" the minority student's experience on the majority white and "racist" campus, in addition to a plethora of faculty members, both white and black, who encouraged the same animus toward the white establishment. While adding to their own bona fides as part of the trendy Left, these "facilitators" supplied M.J. with everything he needed to quench his and his mother's anger, but nothing in the way of advice about how to succeed in college. No one, in short, had told M.J. that he needed to study. But since he was "owed" everything, why put out any effort on his own?
.
In a fit of despair after failing most of his classes, M.J. wandered into my office one Friday afternoon in the middle of the semester and asked if I could help him out. I asked M.J. about his plans that evening, and he told me that he usually attended parties on Friday and Saturday nights. I told him that if he agreed to meet me in front of the university library at 6:00pm I would buy him dinner. At 6pm M.J. showed up, and for the next twenty minutes we wandered silently through the stacks, lounges, and study areas of the library. When we arrived back at the entrance I asked M.J. if he noticed anything interesting. As we headed up the hill to a popular burger joint, M.J. turned to me and said:
.
"They were all Asian. Everyone in there was Asian, and it was Friday night."
.
Nothing I could do, say, or show him, however, could match the fire power of his support system favoring anger. I was sad to hear of M.J. dropping out of school the following semester.During my time teaching in the writing program, I watched Asians get transformed via leftist doublespeak from "minorities" to "model minorities" to "they're not minorities" in precise rhythm to their fortunes in business and education. Asians were "minorities" when they were struggling in this country, but they became "model minorities" when they achieved success. Keep in mind "model minority" did not mean what most of us think it means, i.e., something to emulate. "Model minority" meant that Asians had certain cultural advantages, such as a strong family tradition and a culture of scholarship that the black community lacked. To suggest that intact families and a philosophy of self-reliance could be the ticket to success would have undermined the entire angst establishment. Because of this it was improper to use Asian success as a model. The contortions the left exercised in order to defend this ridiculous thesis helped to pave the way for the elimination of Asians altogether from the status of "minority."
.
This whole process took only a few years.
.
Eric Hoffer said:
"...you do not win the weak by sharing your wealth with them; it will but infect them with greed and resentment. You can win the weak only by sharing your pride, hope or hatred with them."
.
We now know that Barack Obama really has no interest in the "audacity of hope." With his race speech, Obama became a peddler of angst, resentment and despair. Too bad he doesn't direct that angst at the liberal establishment that has sold black people a bill of goods since the 1960s. What Obama seems angry about is America itself and what it stands for; the same America that has provided fabulous opportunities for what my black friend called "hungry" minorities. Strong families, self-reliance, and a spirit of entrepreneurship should be held up as ideals for all races to emulate.
.
In the end, we should be very suspicious about Obama's anger and the recent frothings of his close friend Reverend Wright. Says Eric Hoffer:
.
The fact seems to be that we are least open to precise knowledge concerning the things we are most vehement about. Vehemence is the expression of a blind effort to support and uphold something that can never stand on its own.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_anger.html at March 31, 2008 - 07:31:41 AM EDT

Folks, this is the kind of thing I've been talking about all along. People like Obama, the Punitive Liberals, are the kind of people who swear and curse at the United States and its citizenry, even though that includes them, because of some percieved injustice - and are often so busy decrying that percieved injustice that they fail to see their own opportunities.

I know people who came to this country with absolutely nothing, not even an understanding of the English language - and are now successful business people, just like the folks in Mr. Kaitz's article. Nevermind their race. They started with nothing, and they built successful lives - because they don't care about race. They don't care about minority status. They care about working hard, keeping their faith, and caring for their families.

The same opportunities exist for everyone in this country. Period. All you have to do is go out there and find them. But until you forget about race and learn to just live your life, none of this will ever happen for you.

How 'Bout This One...

2008-03-28T04:47:00.001-07:00

Today's Cartoon

2008-03-27T06:22:00.001-07:00

Now if that don't bother ya, nothin will...

Today's Cartoon

2008-03-26T04:51:00.001-07:00

I have no idea who did this cartoon. If you know, please let me know so I can credit him or her on this site.

Why Not? Well, I'll Tell You...

2008-03-25T05:49:00.000-07:00

Adoring Obama-bots suck up every word - I think I found Waldo! Evidently he's attending a liberal arts college in the Midwest.
.

Although there haven’t been many comments on this site (no arguments?), I’ve been criticized elsewhere for my hard stance on Barack Obama. So, lest anyone think me a racist, I’m going to lay out once and for all the reasons why I dislike him as a candidate for president.

A) HIS RACIALLY-CHARGED RANTS, AND HIS UNDYING SUPPORT OF CLEARLY ANTI-AMERICAN AND RACIST FACTIONS: Rest assured that my opinion of Obama has nothing at all to do with his skin color, although I do strongly disagree with his views on race relations, and also with his poor handling of the comments of others, wherein he has repeatedly raised the issue of race, in order to show himself as the victim of racially-motivated unfairness. And he’s shown that he will immediately and publicly call for the sacking of anyone who suggests that he has taken advantage of his race (ala Geraldine Ferraro). I think that’s wrong because if you’re going to claim to be racially fair, then I think you shouldn’t criticize the stance of your opponents toward race. You can’t have it both ways.
.
Further, bringing up race in the first place is a deeply divisive thing to do. You may think that Senator Obama was only responding to the racial comments of his pastor when he brought race into the campaign, but that’s not accurate. It’s not accurate because Jeremiah Wright’s comments weren’t only anti-white, but they were also anti-American (“God damn America” is about as anti-American as a person can get, in my view).
.
While it is true that Obama shouldn’t be held accountable for the statements of his pastor (this is a common defense of his recent position), I feel that he should be held accountable for his support of that particular individual. The man who says “God damn America” and calls this country the “US of KKK America” isn’t just Obama’s pastor. Obama has called him “the man who is more responsible for shaping my political vision than anyone else”. That means that he agrees with the ‘reverend’, in a political way as opposed to merely in a religious way. I feel that it is imperative to hold him accountable for what are quite obviously wrong views, if that’s the case.
.
Senator Obama’s racially charged statements about his own grandmother, calling her “a typical white woman” because she was “afraid” of black people, is also an offensive statement. It is, at the very least, a further divisive and racially-charged comment. I would go so far as to use the word racist, even. Either way, I think this is hardly acceptable behavior from a man who routinely calls his political opponents “the forces of division in America.” You can't point your finger at me and cry 'Divisive!' when you're playing the race card, because playing the race card is probably the most divisive thing in America right now.
.
B) HIS INCREDIBLE SPENDING SPREE POLICIES: Senator Barack Obama is the very definition of a liberal Democrat. By this I mean that he is ideologically my opposite. While I do not consider myself a conservative Republican (conservative, yes; Republican, no), I believe that my business is my business, and my responsibilities are my responsibilities. I don’t turn to the government to secure for me my job, my income, my home, my insurance, or anything else. The exceptions to this are those few Jeffersonian duties of the federal government that cannot be delegated to the states, or to the family (or the individual, as in my case). Liberal Democrats believe that the government should provide as many of these things (job, income, home, insurance, etc) as possible. And to do that, the government must grow. In order to grow, it must increase taxes. In order to increase taxes, it must first convince you, the taxpayer, that enough is wrong with the country that you need more government.
.
Lest anyone suspect me of making all this up, I invite you have a look at the records of the Carter and Clinton administrations. Also, a quick read of the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama websites might be in order. Tally up the cost of the new government programs proposed by either of those liberal Democrat candidates.
I’ve taken the liberty of reading through them, and I have to admit that I like Hillary better. At least, hers would be the less expensive of the two programs. Her husband Bill (you know, Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend) enacted the single largest tax increase in American (in world, actually) history, increasing the US Federally-collected tax by $260 billion over five years. Senator Obama’s tax increase would beat that by at least $40 billion in the first year – and would top $3 trillion by the end of his first term. This means that the annual federal income tax for an income of $62,000 would increase by $5,300. That’s not $5,300 in taxes next year – that’s an increase of $5,300 next year over what you paid this year. All to pay for more unnecessary government bloat.

All that additional tax money would go toward funding exorbitant federal programs to provide health care insurance for people who don't work, "economic opportunities" for minorities only, and massive federal agencies designed to ensure that the unemployed have insurance they can't pay for (but you can) while your company's profits are closely regulated (you can only make so much).
.
C) DANGEROUSLY UNREALISTIC IDEAS ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY, FOREIGN POLICY, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND OTHER TOPICS: Senator Obama has put forward his plan for fixing what’s wrong with the world. Trouble is, as we might have expected, it’s one of the most deeply flawed, unrealistic and illogical policy plans ever put to paper (at least, the worst I’ve ever read; I’m sure Joseph Stalin’s was more drastic).
.
The Obama campaign has intentionally avoided policy questions from the beginning, preferring to run television ads espousing its principles – but light on substance. We’re left to glean what we can from the Obama campaign’s website, http://www.barackobama.com/.
.
Millions of people in this country are infatuated with the idea of change and hope. I am too, for that matter. It’s time for this country to take a real, substantial turn toward victory in the war, further economic prosperity, and personal freedom. Unfortunately, Senator Obama offers none of these things, in any real sense – but that doesn’t matter to his supporters. With that in mind, I’ve taken the liberty of debunking a few of his talking points, taken directly from his website on March 19th, 2008. Comments in blue are mine.
.
I’ve tried to be objective in my approach, and I must admit I’m wondering why the media haven’t picked up on any of these issues yet.
.
Iraq: End the war in Iraq, removing our troops at a pace of 1 to 2 combat brigades per month, with all combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months;
....1. One is left to wonder how the United States can expect to combat al-Qaeda in Iraq without combat troops on the ground. Does Senator Obama intend to withdraw “combat brigades” from Iraq while leaving support troops there? Does he intend to combat al-Qaeda with support troops only? Or, is it his intention to simply allow al-Qaeda to thrive in Iraq, without combating them at all? He has already made both vows: to withdraw ALL combat troops from Iraq, and to fight al-Qaeda if they're in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq, whether we like it or not - whether Senator Obama wants to accept it or not. And I for one believe that it is imperative for this nation that we fight them wherever they may be, as opposed to simply leaving Iraq for them to take over through their usual campaign of terror.
.....2. Further, America’s efforts in Iraq are finally paying off. Sectarian violence is down, and the people in cities like Baghdad are once again returning to their lives. The stranglehold that insurgent groups like al-Qaeda once imposed on the civilian populace, through intimidation and terror, is greatly diminished. The best time to pull our troops out of Iraq would be after this battle is finally won – not just when it starts to show promise. President Bush said when we first went into Iraq that this was going to be a long and difficult ordeal, and he asked the American people to be patient while things happen in Iraq.

.....3. Anyone can see how setting such a timeline as “within 16 months” emboldens our enemy. In World War Two, if, just when the Allied forces were beginning to make progress against the Germans in Europe, the US government said, “We’re going to pull out of Europe within 16 months, leaving only support troops there to defend the locals who don’t have an effective military in place yet,” all the Germans would have done is to wait it out. Then, once we were gone…well, we know what would have happened. This is a very good way to define the term “foreign policy failure”. The United States needs to remain in place in Iraq, at least until such time as the Iraqi military is ready to stand on its own and to defeat terrorists and extremists within Iraq. Period. It’s not pretty, but it is the only serious, realistic option at this time.
.
Afghanistan: Finally finish the fight against the Taliban, root out al Qaeda and invest in the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, while making aid to the Pakistani government conditional;
I think “finally finish[ing] the fight against the Taliban” is going to prove much more difficult than the Senator understands at this time. He makes it sound as if he’s the only candidate in this race who wants to defeat the Taliban once and for all, but he’s not showing us that he has the ability to do it, any more than anyone else would.
What does “invest in” mean? The United States has troops on the ground in Afghanistan, as well as thousands of civilian support workers, aid workers and government contractors. We’ve spent BILLIONS in an ongoing effort to improve the lives of the Afghan people through education, medical aid, disaster relief, poverty relief, vocational training, and security. If that’s not investing, then I don’t understand the meaning of the word.
The Pakistani government is in turmoil right now, with the recent murder of Bhutto and the difficulties faced by Musharaf’s party. I agree that tough diplomacy is needed. But making aid conditional is hardly the answer. It may be time to step up our military intervention in the country, in an effort to break the links between the Pakistani military and the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists who are being protected by the military in the five federally-administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border, to the immediate southwest of Peshawar, including North and South Waziristan.
.
Nuclear Proliferation: Act aggressively to stop nuclear proliferation and to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world;
This may simply be the voice of inexperience talking. How exactly does Obama intend to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world? Especially since he has expressed already that he would rule out the use of military action against Iran… You can’t fight nuclear proliferation without addressing the issue of the rogue states that already possess, or are actively trying to develop, nuclear weapons.
I agree that it’s too early to seriously consider military action against Iran. There are still more avenues to explore before things get truly nasty there. But diplomacy for the sake of diplomacy doesn’t always work. The Iranian government has already announced that there will be no talks with the United States, period – no matter who is president. If forcing talks is the goal, then the party who is most willing to walk away from those talks will hold all the cards. And that puts the United States at a marked disadvantage, before those talks even begin. Talking to our enemies just for the sake of showing the world that we’re willing to talk to our enemies – such policy is the mark of a painfully inexperienced politician, and would be a complete foreign relations fiasco within Obama's first hundred days in office.
.
Foreign Aid: Double our foreign assistance (to $50 billion) to cut extreme poverty in half;
Traditional liberal dogma holds that the answer to the problem – whatever that problem may be – is to raise taxes, thus increasing the size and power of the government; then the government can put some social program in place that will fix the problem, frequently accompanied by a new government agency to oversee that program, which in turn requires more funding, thus further increasing taxes. The reason it doesn’t work is that the government is a collection of bloated beaurocracies already, and is thus naturally the least efficient source of prosperity in the country.
The reason it’s still tried again and again is that the liberal mindset causes people to believe that the reason it didn’t work last time is that the right people haven’t tried it yet. This time it’ll work. No, well, this time...
When this bloated, inefficient and illogical approach is applied to foreign policy, the first concept it produces is that increasing foreign aid will decrease foreign poverty. That’s simply not how it works. If a man has no money and you give him a hundred dollars, he can simply spend the hundred dollars and still have no money. And the analogy is especially stunning when you realize that the "you" in question had to steal the hundred dollars in the first place.

But the reality on the ground is seldom a good enough reason for the bloated federal government not to do something stupid.
.

If none of this is getting through, then ask yourself this: If the United States were to double our foreign ad, who would pay for that additional $25 billion? Do you think the government has that kind of money lying around, waiting for Senator Obama to earmark it for foreign assistance? Or do you understand that this is tax money, and that it will come directly out of your pocket?
Keep reading. This is only one of about a dozen government excesses proposed in this plan. I can only outline a few of them, though (there are only so many hours in the day).
.
Foreign Aid: Increase non-military aid to Afghanistan by $1 billion
Another billion to add to that $25 billion? Same issue. The United States is already spending billions of dollars in non-military aid in places like Afghanistan. I’m not opposed to it, but if you’re going to vote for more, you need to know where that money is coming from. And any time a Democrat administration proposes more spending, that money comes from increased taxes, according to their tax-and-spend ideology.
.
Foreign Aid: 100% debt cancellation for indebted poor countries
In general, I’m not opposed to debt forgiveness – especially in regard to developing nations. I supported the Bush Administration’s complete forgiveness of all outstanding debts to Liberia, for example (it should be noted here that the Bush administration has cancelled far more foreign debt than did its predecessor). However, even using blanket statements such as “100% debt cancellation” are yet another mark of either inexperience and naïveté, or of the kind of hubris that assumes that you and I will never know the difference. Such policies as debt forgiveness and the release of loan guarantees should be addressed on an individual basis.
.
Energy Policy: Invest in a clean energy future to wean the U.S. off of foreign oil and to lead the world against the threat of global climate change;
How? By pursuing economically destructive policies like the Kyoto Accord? Why is this talking point left so vague?
Because vagarities like this are all that’s needed when you’re preaching about the New Liberal Religion, global warming. Show me something substantial on this subject, and I’ll show you an international scientific community that’s been told to shut up in the face of increasing (and unfounded) concern over the non-existent and nonsensical global warming scare.
.
National Defense: Rebuild our military capability by increasing the number of soldiers, Marines, and special forces troops, and insist on adequate training and time off between deployments;
Again, simply promising to increase the military shows a lack of understanding of how the military works. And we’re left to wonder what Senator Obama means by “insist” on adequate time off, etc…
.
National Defense: Obama will rebuild trust with those who serve by ensuring that soldiers and Marines have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle.
This makes it sound like the military under the Bush Administration is sending troops “into battle” without the proper training. But the reality is this: The military has certain standards that must be met by all members. These include a period of basic training (called “boot camp” by the Marines and Navy, and “basic training” by the Army and Air Force). After basic, personnel must attend (and pass, of course) a school for their assigned specialty. NO ONE in today’s United States military is “sent into battle” without the proper training. No one. Period. And to suggest otherwise is again divisive and offensive to the military, in the finest tradition of Bill Clinton.
.
Foreign Policy: Renew American diplomacy by talking to our adversaries as well as our friends; increasing the size of the Foreign Service and the Peace Corps; and creating an America's Voice Corps.
Diplomacy for the sake of diplomacy – talking to our enemies just to talk to our enemies – doesn’t necessarily work, and is sometimes a terrible idea. Increasing the size of the Foreign Service (that’s the embassy staff, for example) and Peace Corps is a great idea, if you want to pay for it – and I wonder who’s going to pay for it. But “increasing the size of the Peace Corps” is another way of saying “increasing foreign aid”, so we’re again left to wonder whether this increase is included in the original $25 billion, or if it’s additional to that.
Creating an America’s Voice Corps – which is strangely left vague on the senator’s website – means creating yet another government agency, the purpose of which is left to the voter’s imagination - as is its cost.
.
Climate Change: Provide more assistance to developing countries to help them fuel their growth with greener energy
Without more details, we’re left to wonder exactly how much of what kind of assistance the senator is proposing. Also, what exactly is meant by “fuel their growth with greener energy”? Is there some measure by which the United States can tell if these efforts are successful in the future, or are we simply pouring money into these countries in the hope that they’ll eventually adopt more efficient energy solutions? What countries are we talking about, and what exactly is meant by "greener energy"? Are we going to regulate what kind of light bulbs can be used in - -oh, say, Laos?
.
Climate Change: Creation of a new Global Energy Forum…will call on the Global Energy Forum to launch the GEE (Global Energy and Environment Initiative)
This is where we see the New Liberal Religion – global warming – take on a political life of its own. Senator Obama is proposing not one but two new government projects here: the Global Energy Forum (a new social program that would force “our” crazy global warming politics on our neighbors), and the GEE (a brand-new government agency to oversee it).
Again, I have to ask: Who’s going to pay for all this? How much, do you think, your taxes are going to rise to cover all of this?
.
Climate Change: Will also create an Emerging Market Energy Fund to expand the developing world’s renewable energy portfolio
The amount this senator is willing to tax and spend is incredible. No one – not even Carter – could accomplish all of this economic destruction in one or even two terms. This talking point introduces yet another brand-new government agency to watchdog how the developing world handles its energy issues.
.
National Defense: Increase the size of the Army by 65,000 troops and the Marines by 27,000 troops.
The only way I can see to increase the size of the military by 92,000 people would be to institute a draft. And isn’t that what so many Americans were so afraid Bush was going to do?
.
D) COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE NATIONAL DEFENSE STRUCTURE WORKS, AND A CLINTONESQUE DISTAIN FOR THE MILITARY: Given the statements made in Senator Obama’s recent campaign speeches and on his website, I’ve come to the conclusion that he has no idea how the US military works – nor does he wish to find out. In true liberal Democrat fashion, Obama wants to use the military as a campaign tool instead of as a tool for securing our continued freedom for tyranny and oppression. Below is an excerpt from his talking points. Again, my comments are in blue:
.
“Rebuild the military for 21st century tasks: As we rebuild our armed forces, we must meet the full-spectrum needs of the new century, not simply recreate the military of the Cold War era. The US Military must: build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, engineers, foreign area officers, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a specialized military advisors corps, which will enable us to better build up local allies’ capacities to take on mutual threats.”
See folks, this is where I have to just stop and take a breath. This is so obviously written by people who just plain don’t understand the military and don’t get the real challenges that are facing this country right now, out here in the real word. Let’s break it down:
.
"As we rebuild our armed forces, we must meet the full-spectrum needs of the new century, not simply recreate the military of the Cold War era." Sounds good, right? But the reality is that US military is doing a great deal more than just re-creating the Cold-War era military, and to suggest otherwise is simply divisive and offensive to our military.
.
"The US Military must: build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, engineers, foreign area officers, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply"; Simply promising to increase these capabilities and bolster Special Operations units isn’t going to prepare this nation for the military challenges ahead. And promising is all you can do, until you can somehow promise to increase recruiting. And NO Democratic candidate would ever promise that, because military recruiting flies in the face of some of their staunchest supporters (see Code Pink’s website: http://www.codepink4peace.org/).
.
"invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets"; Once again, we’re making the assumption that these things aren’t already being done. I wonder if the Senator is aware that the United States Army currently operates the single finest foreign language training school in the world (Defense Language Institute - website: http://www.dliflc.edu/). The ability of the Unites States Military to adapt and operate in a foreign environment is well-documented. Almost immediately after al-Qaeda’s attack on the US in September 2001, American Special Forces and other military and civilian personnel used their “foreign language training, cultural awareness and human intelligence” to organize, equip, train and lead the forces of the Northern Alliance into battle against the forces of the Taliban throughout Afghanistan. Let’s not pretend that the American military is just waiting for Barack Obama to come and provide them with these things.
.

"And create a specialized military advisors corps, which will enable us to better build up local allies’ capacities to take on mutual threats." We have this also. It’s called the Special Forces. See for yourself: http://www.goarmy.com/special_forces/index.jsp?iom=9448-ITBP-ACSF-01012008-29-07021-TEXTAD. It has been the mission of the US Army Special Forces to advise foreign militaries, especially those of our local allies, since its inception in the 1950s. Again, written by people who have not the foggiest idea how the military works – perhaps a little experience would have prevented this error.
.
.
Folks, this information is readily available on Barack Obama’s own campaign website. No one can accuse me of making it up, or of embellishing it in any way. It’s a simple, step-by-step analysis of what the man is saying when he speaks beyond focus-group-tested buzz words like “hope” and “change”. And there’s a lot more out there. In this message, I haven’t even touched on the impossibilities hidden in his healthcare plan, or his proposal to limit – by federal law, mind you – the amount of profit a corporation can make.
Supporters of Obama will not engage you in discussions about his policies – I’ve tried to draw them out, and they won’t even talk about it. The few that I’ve met so far don’t even know about his policies anyway. Their argument is that we need a change and he’s it. Period.
But folks, we need more than a change. We need the right change. We need change that will benefit us, not hurt us. Change that won’t reduce our paychecks to pocket change.

Barack Obama has let me down in a huge way. I like the idea of someone running this country who's not another old, rich, white man. But the things he's proposing are so outlandish as to be laughable - except that he's dead serious. When politicians start talking about taking things away from you for the common good, they're espousing ideologies that fly in the face of American enterprise and stand counter to the natural will of all people to exercise their own freedom according to the desires of their heart. The things Obama says he wants - economic opportunity, racial unity, hope and change - are born of freedom itself, not handed out through government programs at the cost of the unwilling. And while he's trying to win votes by calling his own grandmother a "typical white woman," the rest of us are going about our business. We're getting up in the morning and going to jobs that wouldn't give us enough time off to run for president, so that we can afford our own health insurance, without government assistance. That, my friends, is how Americans do it.

And that's why not Obama. Any questions?

My Response to Obama's Race-Baiting Speech

2008-03-18T10:29:00.000-07:00

Senator Obama has graced us with yet another racially-charged, finger-pointing speech this morning. He says that race has only just now become an issue in his campaign, because of the recent media attention given to Reverend Wright.
Well I have to raise the BS flag. Obama has made race an issue throughout his campaign, from the earliest speeches until now - and I'm sure he will continue to do so.

Portions in black are from Obama's speech this morning in Philadelphia. The parts in blue are my reaction.

.
.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. This man pretends that this is the first time he’s mentioned his racially mixed background, when in fact his entire campaign is built on it.
.
I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners -- an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. Huh? The blood of slaves and slaveowners?
.
I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible. The first positive thing I’ve heard a liberal say about the United States in a long time – maybe years. But wait - he'll refute it. Because his "story" is one of dengrating this country and everything it stands for. Keep reading.
.
Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African-Americans and white Americans. I think this shows us that either Senator Obama doesn’t know much about South Carolina, or is intentionally using the imagery of the Confederate Battle Flag to incite racial division. Because while the flag may still fly over the state, the population of South Carolina is overwhelmingly black. Either he knows this and is misleading people, or he should know this.
.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn. Actually, his earliest speeches were all about race. The first speech I heard him deliver on this campaign was all about how amazing it was that a black man, with a black name, could get this far in tlife, in such a racist country. It's also funny he should use the word divisive here. When he said, “We have CEOs who make more in ten minutes than the average worker makes in a year,” he was drawing racial lines. Because he pointed an accusing finger at corporate CEOs, who are predominately white, but he never mentioned professional athletes – who also make more in ten minutes than the average worker makes in a year – but are predominately black.

Very few people noticed this. No one in the Obama camp noticed it. They don’t want to hear it – all they want to show you is their own blind allegiance to the “movement.”.
.
On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation -- that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Actually, I think we’re beyond questions. Twenty years beyond questions, in fact. You don’t stay with a church or with any other organization for twenty years unless you agree implicitly with its message, PERIOD. And you don’t, now that you’ve been caught, suddenly denounce those horrible statements in front of the cameras. Either you believe it, or you don’t – and if you stick with it for twenty years, you believe it. Don’t insult my intelligence now.
.
And let's stop pretending that Wright is his former pastor. He is still an active religous and spiritual mentor to the Obama family.
.
Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. Yeah. I’ve heard my pastor (and a priest and a rabbi) scream “God damn America!” over and over again, while the folks in the church shout “Yes Lawd!” Yup, that’s happened lots of times.

In all seriousness, I did hear a pastor use the N word a long time ago. This was in South Carolina, when I was about sixteen years old. I never went back to that church, and I advised everyone I could not to go there, either. See, here’s the difference: I denounced that crap back then, as opposed to sticking with the church for twenty years and only just now – now that the pressure is on – denouncing the bad parts of the message.
.
Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. Of course. He’s never said anything negative about anyone. He’s a wonderful man. He’s a pillar of the community. Oh, and, uh, GOD DAMN AMERICA.
.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. So, even Obama’s own grandmother was a racist, even though he can’t point to her without pointing out her race (she’s not “my grandmother,” she’s “my white grandmother.”
.
We can dismiss Rev. Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias. He’s comparing Wright’s statements (“God damn America”) to Ferraro’s statements (that Obama wouldn’t be where he is today if he were white)? Uh huh, those are the same. Yup.
.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through -- a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. Typical liberal issue-clouding. The comments that have been made and the issues that have been raised in recent weeks reflect Barack Obama’s ongoing relationship with known racists and anti-semites. Not the “complexities of race in this country.”
.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we never miss an opportunity to bring it up, do we?
.
But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination -- where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments -- meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations.
That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families -- a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.
And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods -- parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement -- all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
Typical punitive liberal race-baiting. More and more and more – any excuse to remind us of what’s wrong with (and what’s always been wrong with) the United States. No wonder his wife isn’t proud of the USA. But I remember that all of the schools I attended were integrated.
.
And it means taking full responsibility for own lives -- by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny. Yup, taking full responsibility – as long as the government pays for our health care. Right? And since when does ‘”taking full responsibility” mean demanding (the government demanding, that is) more from other people? The government telling us what (or how) to teach our children?
.
We also see the use here of one of Senator Obama’s favorite words: DESPAIR. See, these people would have you believe that this country is in a state of despair, and that only HE has the moral fortitude to offer hope in the face of that despair.
.
We as a nation – as a PEOPLE, regardless of race, regardless of the color of our grandmother, and regardless of our own individual economic standing, MUST REJECT this pessimistic world view. We must realize that this is the GREATEST nation on the face of the earth. Far from being something to be ashamed of, far from being something that needs to be FIXED at its foundations, this country has given each of us far more than each of us has given her.
.
We as a nation need to realize, once and for all, that in this country all people are given the same opportunities. If this is not true, then I challenge anyone out there to show me definitively where a BLACK MAN doesn’t have the exact same opportunities that I (as a white man) have.
.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. So everything that’s wrong with this country is all about the black community? What about what’s wrong elsewhere? What about what’s not wrong with the black community? Is it up to the rest of us to fix your poverty? Once again, we see the punitive liberal world view at work. These are people who believe that it’s not my place to ensure that I have a job – it’s the government’s place to ensure that. It’s not my place to see to it that I have insurance, if I need it – it’s the government’s. And it’s not my sole responsibility to put food on my table – it’s the government’s responsibility.
.
Every time you walk into a Subway or a Quizno’s or any other retail establishment, you check the prices of the goods offered. If they’re too high, then you have too choices. You can either walk out, or pay the too-high prices. The liberal world view holds that these prices are too high because of some intentional, evil plot to segregate society into the haves (the whites) and the have-nots (everyone else, with a few enlightened whites thrown in to tell the rest of us how wrong we are). Invariably, those who cling to this world view fall into the have-nots. It’s a way of justifying failure.
.
What would happen if those same have-nots suddenly came to the painful realization that their own failure is just that? What if they suddenly woke up and saw that they have the exact same opportunities in this country as I have, but that, by buying into this whole us-versus-them mentality, they’ve let those opportunities pass them by?
.
It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper. If you want to raise my taxes (according to one estimate I’ve seen in the past two weeks, by something like $800 BILLION) in order to pay for the health insurance of millions of people who won’t go out and get jobs to feed their own families, then you shouldn’t talk about one person’s dreams coming at the expense of someone else.
.
Folks, this is the most egregious example of race-baiting, of racially-biased pandering to the lowest common denominator I’ve ever seen. It’s exactly this kind of divisive, wedge-driving, hate-inducing speech that turned me away from the Democratic Party in high school.
What we need in this country is NOT more race crap. We do NOT need to be told YET AGAIN how bad white people are and how downtrodden black people are. What we need is more individual responsibility. We need stronger families. We need the government to get the hell out of our lives and out of our pockets.
.
We need to act like a country again, and not like a bunch of whining babies, crying about how the big kids took our toys. You have all the same opportunities I have. Can a black man not vote, same as me? Can a black man not get hired, same as me (qualifications assumed)? Take responsibility for your own goddamn life, and quit blaming Whitey. Because I don’t give a shit about your race; I don’t give a shit if you’re white or black, yellow, brown, green, whatever. I don’t care if you’re gay, straight or other, and I don’t care where you came from. It’s not my fault if you don’t have whatever you want or need in life. It’s yours.

Anti-American Sheehan Raises Her Ugly Head Again

2008-03-17T09:53:00.000-07:00

Chickens of Our Own Making
Sat, 2008-03-15
By Cindy Sheehan

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” Reverend Jeremiah Wright; Sept. 16th 2001

White America refuses to study, reflect, and learn a lesson from history…
Malcom X in “Chickens Coming Home to Roost”

Malcolm X’s story is familiar to many people here in America. Denzel Washington played him brilliantly in the eponymous movie. Malcolm X never backed down from a challenge or from the truth. In his speech after the horrible assassination of Pres. John Kennedy, he rightly said that, “White America refuses to study, reflect and learn lessons from history.” Apparently, some people in black America aren’t so good at learning from the past, either.

Senator Barack Obama is being credited by many with being the candidate of “change and hope.” For the life of me, I would love to believe this. I would love to believe that anyone who is still involved in the race for the White House (that is rarely won by the most honest, sharpest, or best candidate) will bring hope and healing to our broken nation that desperately needs it. After almost eight years of ruinous BushCo, and really since April 30, 1789 when George Washington took his first oath of office, our country has been ruled by white men who have been several cuts above our third president named George, but who more often than not have been disastrous, also.

Barack Obama has denounced the above remarks of his mentor and pastor, Rev. Wright saying: “I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies.” Let’s parse the Rev’s statement.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”

Yes, on December 7th, 1941 (another day that will live in infamy), a US Naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was attacked by Japan. On that day, 2338 American service personnel were tragically killed, but there was little of what our Pentagon calls “collateral damage,” civilians killed. As a matter of fact, during WWII, Japan killed very few American civilians. However, the US military command in the Pacific killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in aerial bombings and with the use of the new WMD; H-bombs. General Curtis LeMay informed future Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara (who was under LeMay during WWII), that if the US had lost they would have been tried as “war criminals.” The loss of innocent life in Japan was numbered in the hundred of thousands and I don’t hear Senator Obama denouncing those acts of cowardice.

We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans,

I think there is little dispute that Israel (which I assume is what Obama refers to when he says “allies”) receives approximately three billion dollars in aid from the U.S. each year and have brutally oppressed and occupied Palestinian lands for decades. In a one week’s period this month, Israel killed over 300 Palestinians and was “shocked” when 8 Jewish seminary students were killed in return. I hate and reject all loss of innocent life no matter what is the color, religion or nation of origin. I think Senator Obama may buy into the neocon lie that somehow Israeli or American lives are more precious than Arab lives or black lives. Not only has the US supported state-sanctioned terrorism in such places as Palestine and South Africa, but we are committing some more of our own in Iraq and Afghanistan.

…and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

Yes, with arrogant American exceptionalism, we were indignant when almost 3000 of our brothers and sisters were killed on 9-11. We were indignant and we were stunned, shocked and sorrowed. But instead of searching our collective souls and reflecting about why they “hate us” so much, our insane president (backed by a bloodthirsty gang of racist opportunists) set off on a mission to send more chickens out into the world that will be a helluva bitch when they come home to roost.

Senator Obama also denounced any remarks that “disparaged our great country.” Hmm…does he denounce remarks that his own wife made about being proud to be an American for the first time in her “adult life?” I wish I could be proud of a nation that tortures people and imprisons them without basic legal rights. I wish I could be proud of a nation that has a sitting president that has been responsible for killing almost a million innocent Iraqi people in a misadventure that was based on lies and is for profit. I wish I could be proud of a nation that rapes its poor people to feed the already rich in a demented reverse Robin Hood affect. I wish I could be proud of a country where over a million children are homeless and hungry every night. I wish I could be proud of a nation that left our black brothers and sisters hanging off of their roofs after Katrina. The list can go on and on. Senator Obama needs to denounce me, because the policies of our government do not make me proud and oftentimes endlessly disgust me.

As a nation, we need to pull together and denounce the policies of our government, which were the cause of 9/11. We need to apologize for the gory excesses of BushCo and we must learn how to conserve and cut-back on our own consumeristic orgies to give the rest of the world some creature comforts that are basic human rights. We need to call our “chickens” back home to peacefully roost before they roost again in violence.

I sit here behind my computer screen in solidarity with Rev. Wright. Not only do I not denounce him, but I support him in telling the truth. I wish Senator Obama would recall how he once stood for truth. A desk in the oval office that has been corrupted by years of calumny is not worth selling ones soul for.

We need to “study, reflect and learn” from our history that has been violent, but where elected officials mostly fed the carnage for imperial conquest and corporate profit. The next step is “change.” True change; not more of nationalistic “same old, same old.” with a different name.

Thanks to sweetness&light for bringing this one into the light of day. It's a beautiful example of just how anti-American these people are - these punitive liberals, who quite simply hate the United States, although they gladly accept all the suburban benefits that this country has to offer.

The United States deployed the atomic bomb (not an H-bomb, Cindy) on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end a horrific war between the United States and Japan. Japan had already killed thousands of American civilians, whether you choose to believe that or not. The United States could have chosen Tokyo, Japan's capital and her most heavily-populated city, as the target, but chose instead the less heavily-populated centers of her industrial and military production, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was done in order to force a Japanese surrender and avoid what would have been the costliest and deadliest amphibious invasion in history.

You can easily see, dear reader, how these people distort history for their own advantage. They twist the truth in order to make baseless accusations against their own country. It's fascinating to me that after bashing this country in whatever forum will listen to them, they still get all upset if you call them anti-American. This little tirade by Sheehan, this little, poorly-written, rambling whimper by a used-up nobody who should be sitting on her front porch right now, knitting a gag for herself, was written in defense of a so-called pastor like Jeremiah Wright...

So, here we have it. Distorting history in order to blame World War Two on the country that ended it - in an attempt to defend a hate-mongering preacher who says things like "God damn America"...Folks, ya can't get much more anti-American than that.

Who Cares Who Pays For It, Right?

2008-03-13T09:38:00.000-07:00

A twenty-minute wandering through Barack Obama's website this morning got me to wondering who's going to pay for all these grand schemes he's promising.

Look what he's offering you, the American taxpayer. Mind you, this is just from one or two issues on his "On The Issues" page. There are about thirty issues listed. Comments in blue are mine.

reverse the politicization that has occurred in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice. What the heck does that mean? Does the senator wish to inform the American people at this time that "politicization" doesn't occur within the Democratic Party?

put an end to the ideological litmus tests used to fill positions within the Civil Rights Division So, Obama is saying that he won't fill appointee positions by ideology? What will he use, eeny-meeny-miny-moe?

overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination I guess I'm out of touch - but I didn't know the President could overturn Supreme Court rulings. Did you?

pass the Fair Pay Act Here's where we get into the nitty-gritty of the liveral Democrat playbook. Watch how many of these points are designed to (a) first, convince you that there's something inherently wrong with this country, with the world, and witht he way everything is sooo skewed against you that you need our (the government's) help, in order to live; (b) convince you that the unfair nature of the world is due to race, gender, and whatever other class you can identify people with; and then (c) sell you a bloated, big-government "solution" designed to keep those who are oppressing you in their place. In this case, look how unfair pay is. Look how you don't stand a chance without our (the government's) help. Good thing we're ready with a solution, huh?

strengthen federal hate crimes legislation See? Not, "strengthen all criminal justice related legislation", as the majority of crimes are committed by minorities - but specifically legislation concerned with hate crimes, meaning crimes committed against minorities. This is not only pandering, but it's part of a typically liberal platform that seeks to play on the minority mindset that everything wrong is life is the fault of those not in the minority.

sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud It's not exactly legal right now, is it?

ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement Again with race. How about banning race-baiting by federal politicians?

provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders I wonder if it wouldn't be more fruitful to offer it to those who deserve it, rather than to criminals? Just a thought...

create a prison-to-work incentive program I could've sworn that such a program existed already. But who cares, as long as we can promise yet another federal program. And is there a new federal beaurocracy to go along with it?

give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior. Nevermind the punishment. Send 'em to Club Med. What the heck - the taxpayer'll pick up the tab!

Fully funding the Individuals with Disabilites Education Act "Funding" seems to be this guy's favorite word. Mine's "freedom." What's yours?

Early Intervention for Children with Disabilities He also likes the word "intervention" a lot, doesn't he? How about you leave our children alone, and let them live their lives? Too difficult a concept for ya?

Universal Screening Never heard of individual choice, I guess. Screening of all kinds is universally available now. You don't have to be Dick Cheney to recieve medical care, including all manner of screening. HOWEVER, it's still up to the individual to actually take advantage of it. That little truth would never get an arch-liberal elected, would it?

Vocational Rehabilitation Programs You mean a government version of the vocat5ional rehabilitation programs that are available now? So, the difference is what? (other than who pays for it - because I don't wanna pay for your vocational rehabilitation, and I don't see any reason why I should have to)

American Opportunity Tax Credit: universal credit ensures that the first $4,000 of college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds of the cost of tuition REALLY? You mean every American goes through at least a week of college on the taxpayers' dime? WOW! What a friggin GENIUS! I can't believe anyone wants to elect this guy president

Community College Partnership Program: providing grants to (a) conduct more thorough analysis of the types of skills and technical education that are in high demand from students and local industry; (b) implement new associate of arts degree programs that cater to emerging industry and technical career demands; and (c) reward those institutions that graduate more students and also increase their number of transfer students to four-year institutions. Okay, you see a pattern developing here? YOU PAY MORE so that the GOVERNMENT can FORCE more UNNECESSARY CRAP on PEOPLE who DON'T NEED more UNNECESSARY CRAP.

Authorize a comprehensive study of students with disabilities and transition to work and higher education WHAT?! I don't even understand that one.

Increasing funding for EEOC Of course. I'm surprised he's not proposing a whole new version of the EEOC. Maybe call it the NEE&EOCFAATD (the New Equal Employment & Economic Opportunity Comission for African American Taxi Drivers), complete with a ten-year, twenty-billion-dollar international study commissioned by the United Nations and overseen by the newly-created Office of the State of Race Relations in America, to study the migratory patterns of the African American Democratic Super-Delegate. Add another 2% to your taxes, folks.

I think you see where this is going. Look, folks. Happiness doesn't flow from the hand of some all-powerful, over-taxing government. It flows from your own hard work and a personal determination to find your happiness. As long as you depend on some cradle-to-grave handout system, you'll never achieve anything worth arguing about. It's an ideological struggle, and it's one that we can't simply let go. You have to work for everything you have, because finding your own happiness is your job.
Not the president's. And you shouldn't listen to a politician when he (or she) promises to find it and issue it to you in the form of another federally-funded (meaning tax-funded) program.

Nevermind 9/11: Someone Called Hillary a Monster!!!!

2008-03-12T04:38:00.000-07:00

So, an Obama campaign staffer calls Hillary Rodham Clinton a monster and has to resign from the campaign. A conservative radio talk-show host calls Obama a hack (and - egad - mentions Obama's middle name) and gets rebuked by McCain himself. "Senator McCain did the right thing," says Obama.

What the hell are these people going to do when they get into the Oval Office (and one of them is going to get there, unfortunately) and some petty dictator like Ahmadenejad calls him or her a mean name? What then? Demand Ahmadenejad's resignation?

For crying out loud, doesn't anybody else feel like we need a little less sensitivity in this country, and a lot more backbone?

Well, I'll go out on a limb here, and say what needs to be said. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a monster. She's the worst kind of monster, and I still can't believe anyone actually wants her in the the White House. Barack Hussein Obama is a hack, has always been a hack, and always will be a hack. It is my estimation that anyone who wants Obama in the White House isn't paying attention to reality.

It is also my sincere hope that, as this country moves closer to the general election in November, more and more people will begin to realize what's at stake. This country is at war. Period. I don't care if George Bush was right in invading Iraq (of course he was, but that's not my point). I don't care in "Al Qaeda in Iraq" existed prior to the invasion. And I don't care what anyone else thinks about it. This country is at war. What you do when you're at war is: YOU WIN IT. And we can win it. Don't let the pundits and talking heads convince you that this, the most powerful country in the history of the world, can't defeat a ragtag band of fifteenth-century terrorists like Al Qaeda. Don't let Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy tell you that the war in Iraq is a "quagmire" (we got out of the Kennedy quagmire in 1975, thank you very much).

In 2008, we need to elect a president who will win the war and get our troops home. Period.

Hillary is busy calling for the resignations of people who insult her, probably as a distraction from the fact that she doesn't have ten percent of the foreign policy experience she's claiming. Obama is busy calling for apologies from people who use his full name, probably to distract potential voters from his complete lack of a realistic world view (let alone a realistic plan for this country's future).

This kind of nonsense is exactly why the United States Congress is too busy investigating baseball players to allocate the necessary funds to properly execute the Global War on Terror. It's exactly this attitude that effectively destroyed the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program (thank you very much, Nancy Pelosi, for further endangering this country for your own political advantage).

Never mind what's good for America - you insulted me, and that's what's important here. You called me an unflattering name. You referred to me by my middle name. You bad person, you.

Maybe a liberal Democrat president will demand apologies from our enemies around the world. Maybe he or she will demand the immediate resignations of those who oppose us. How dare you kill our troops - Now say you're sorry!

But a conservative Republican president will actually fight this war. And John McCain is as close to a conservative Republican as we've got.

The Audacity of Nothing At All

2008-03-06T09:27:00.000-08:00

Since allegations have been made by some Obama campaign staffers that certain media outlets have intentionally darkened Senator Obama's image, I took a look at the cover of one of the good senator's books.

Now, is it just me, or is his skin tone lightened in that picture? OR, has every other image I've seen of the man been darkened?

Just wondering. I couldn't care less what the man's skin color is. But if his campaign of swooning sycophants and mumbling myrmidons is going to make skin color an issue, then I say this is a good opportunity to point out the dirty tricks in their own mirror.

I guess it was only a matter of time before his people started race-baiting. This is what you can expect of an Obama presidency, and here's why I say that:

1. The candidate himself isn't telling us anything substantial, but making grandiose speeches about restoring diplomacy with our enemies.

2. What he is promising is either so insane or so far outside of the president's sphere of influence that it's never going to happen. Laws aren't made by the executive branch, but by the legislative branch - which is where Obama has been for the last two or three (or is it four?) years.

3. His supporters, between swooning and fainting at his rallies, will not, under any circumstances, engage you in discussion about his policies. I have yet to meet an actual Obama supporter who has even the foggiest clue what he actually stands for, beyond political catch words like 'change' and 'hope'.

4. According to a Washington Post article by Michael Gerson, Obama's First 100 Days, an Obama administration would make a quick mess of what's left of American foreign policy, largely because there is no real foreign-policy understanding in place within the Obama camp. It's all buzz-words and PR spin, followed closely by regionalism and largely empty promises.

See, all too often in politics, what gets done isn't what would be best for the country or its people, but rather what produces the best PR, the most feel-good media buzz. When Rick Perry (current governor of Texas) promised to do something about illegal immigration, what he ended up doing was pledging $100 million to cities like Houston to take care of the problem. Looks good, sounds good - but accomplishes nothing. Cities like Houston and San Antonio are left to fend for themselves, in a political climate wherein Border Patrol agents are routinely prosecuted for defending the border and trying to stop illegal immigrants. $100 million is a lot of money, but without meaningful policy reform, it's completely pointless - and could have been better used elsewhere.

The same thing is happening with the Obama campaign. Millions are being spent on huge rallies and TV spots (leading up to the Texas primary, Obama campaign ads were running every eight minutes from 6PM until midnight on every goddamn channel) - but there's nothing substantial, not one single sensible word, being said.

The above-linked article is a great example. I forwarded it to a friend of mine who volunteers in the local Obama campaign headquarters, and asked for her opinion. She read the first two or three lines and misunderstood them, thinking the article was about Hillary Clinton. Once it was explained to her that the article is about Obama, she summarily declared it "crap" and closed the link. She wouldn't even read it.

Who needs an understanding of the real issues, when you have people fainting at your rallies? Right? Who needs the technicality of an actual ability to get things done, when you have millions of people all over the country who will defend bitterly your campaign, without even trying to understand what they're defending?

Much easier to debate whether or not Obama has purple lips, or whether or not this moonbat or that moonbat has the right ideas about Obama being good-looking enough to be president - you should hear some of the conversations that go on around here. But there's little conversation about his actual platform, because there's no actual platform to discuss.

So they make it about race. About exclusion. About class struggle. And they accuse others of making it about race, exclusion and class struggle.

Which brings us back to color. A foreign friend of mine asked me last week if this country is really ready to elect a Black man as president. I said yes - but that I don't think Obama is actually Black. I think he's see-through, invisible, like clear plastic. Because after all is said and done, it's not the color of your skin that defines you in this life - it's the color of your actions.

And Obama's actions, so far, have been nothing at all.

Hillary Hears a Who?

2008-03-05T04:55:00.000-08:00

Will it never end...

Hillary, perhaps better known as Lady MacBeth, has a television ad out right now, in which a wounded soldier limps along a (I presume) hospital corridor, looking all alone and forlorn, while a grave-sounding voice-over announces, "For every soldier who served so bravely over there, but was ignored over here, she hears you."

Well, well, well. Senator Clinton hears the soldiers. I hope the good senator will hear this veteran. I served over there, over here and elsewhere. I served while our day care facilites, libraries and shopping centers were being shut down to clear up money for more federal welfare programs. My children went hungry at times, while monies that had once been in the family support budget went bye-bye. Federal funding for the military was at an all-time low, after adjustment. They were shutting down our childrens' schools, releasing our civilian employees, and letting our facilities fall to rot. Much needed dollars were being taken away from men who jumped out of airplanes in the Arctic in order to secure our way of life, and given to welfare recipients who'd never sacrificed a thing for someone else in their lives.

The year was 1993, and Hillary's husband was President. This was the height of the "We are the President" era. Before it was over, one-third of the United States military was gone, including entire divisions like the 7th Infantry Division (Light) at Ft. Ord, California (the division was disbanded and the base was shut down) - and whole communities were decimated. What remained was a US military operating at one-half to two-thirds strength, depending on location, while the Clinton Administration sent us into harm's way numerous times, only to withdraw us whenever there were any casualties. Morale, like funding, was at an all-time low for the all-volunteer force.

I'm guilty of a lot of silliness on this blog. Generally speaking, that's because this is, at its core, an exercise in entertainment - my entertainment. I bash politicians with whom I disagree because it's fun. The fact that they suck is really a secondary thing for me.

Except in this case.

Because I was in the Army the first time Hillary Clinton lived in the White House, and it was an absolute, unmitigated disaster for the military. If she gets elected to the Presidency in 2008, AND if she goes back to the old Clinton anti-military 'loathing letter' attitude, we won't have to withdraw prematurely from Iraq. We will lose Iraq completely. And while we're at it, we'll lose a lot of our military as well.

FISA Fact Check: Setting the Record Straight on Speaker Pelosi

2008-03-04T10:22:00.001-08:00

From the White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/):

Despite Speaker Pelosi's Misleading Claims, FISA Is No Substitute ForThe Bipartisan Senate Bill; Speaker Pelosi's Continued Refusal ToPermit A Vote On The Senate Bill Is Weakening Our Ability To ProtectThe Country From Terrorist Attack

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that "under FISA, the Attorney General can approve surveillance in minutes. Surveillance can begin immediately and approval of the FISA Court can be obtained within three days." (Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On FISA Negotiations," 2/22/08)

Contrary to Speaker Pelosi's misleading statement, FISA's requirements, unlike those of the Protect America Act and the bipartisan Senate bill, impair our ability to collect information on foreign intelligence targets located overseas. In their letter to the House Permanent Select Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mike McConnell explained, "FISA was designed to govern foreign intelligence surveillance of persons in the United States and therefore requires a showing of 'probable cause' before such surveillance can begin. … The process of compiling the facts necessary for such a determination and preparing applications for emergency authorizations [approved by the Attorney General] takes time and results in delays." (Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director Of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Letter To Chairman Of The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, 2/22/08)

Attorney General Mukasey and DNI McConnell also explained that "our intelligence professionals need to be able to obtain foreign intelligence from foreign targets with speed and agility." "If we revert to a legal framework in which the Intelligence Community needs to make probable cause showings for foreign terrorists and other national security threats located overseas, we are certain to experience more intelligence gaps and miss collecting information."

Attorney General Mukasey and DNI McConnell further explained that "because of the hurdles under FISA's emergency authorization provisions and the requirement to go to the FISA Court within 72 hours, our resource constraints limit our use of emergency authorizations to certain high-priority circumstances and cannot simply be employed for every foreign intelligence target."

Speaker Pelosi also misleadingly states that "the FISA Court can approve surveillance orders quickly." (Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On FISA Negotiations," 2/22/08)

Attorney General Mukasey and DNI McConnell have made clear that the FISA Court requires a showing of probable cause before it will authorize surveillance and satisfying the probable cause requirement will result in unacceptable gaps and delays in monitoring communications of foreign terrorists overseas. "Imposing this requirement in the context of surveillance of foreign targets located overseas results in the loss of potentially vital intelligence by, for example, delaying intelligence collection and thereby losing some intelligence forever." (Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director Of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Letter To Chairman Of The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, 2/22/08)

Attorney General Mukasey and DNI McConnell also stated that "it makes no sense to require a showing of probable cause for surveillance of overseas foreign targets who are not entitled to the Fourth Amendment protections guaranteed by our Constitution." "[Probable cause] makes sense in the context of targeting persons in the United States for surveillance, where the Fourth Amendment itself often requires probable cause and where the civil liberties of Americans are most implicated."

Speaker Pelosi misleadingly asserts that "there is no backlog of cases to slow down getting surveillance approvals from the FISA court." (Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On FISA Negotiations," 2/22/08)

Attorney General Mukasey and DNI Mike McConnell reported, "we have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act." (Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director Of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Letter To Chairman Of The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, 2/22/08)

The Intelligence Community and Department of Justice have worked over the past week with our private partners – whose assistance is essential to our intelligence collection efforts – to mitigate this problem caused by Congress' failure to act, but we have nonetheless missed intelligence information that we could have been collecting to protect the country. "We appreciate the willingness of our private partners to cooperate despite the uncertainty [caused by Congress' failure to pass long-term FISA modernization]. Unfortunately, the delay resulting from [efforts to gain the cooperation of the private sector after Congress failed to act] impaired our ability to cover foreign intelligence targets, which resulted in missed intelligence information." (Department of Justice and Office of The Director Of National Intelligence, Statement Regarding Cooperation With Private Partners, 2/23/08)

Speaker Pelosi also misleadingly claims "under FISA, telecommunications companies can be compelled by the FISA court to help with surveillance and have legal protection for compliance." (Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On FISA Negotiations," 2/22/08)

The Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence explained that, "[e]ven prior to the expiration of the Protect America Act, we experienced significant difficulties in working with the private sector because of the continued failure to provide liability protection for such companies." "These difficulties have only grown since expiration of the Act without passage of the bipartisan Senate bill, which would provide fair and just liability protection. Exposing the private sector to the continued risk of billion-dollar class action suits for assisting in efforts to defend the country understandably makes the private sector much more reluctant to cooperate. Without their cooperation, our efforts to protect the country cannot succeed." (Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director Of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Letter To Chairman Of The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, 2/22/08)

According to a statement from the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: "[A]lthough our private partners are cooperating for the time being, they have expressed understandable misgivings about doing so in light of the on-going uncertainty and have indicated that they may well discontinue cooperation if the uncertainty persists." "Even with the cooperation of these private partners under existing directives, our ability to gather information concerning the intentions and planning of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets will continue to degrade because we have lost tools provided by the Protect America Act that enable us to adjust to changing circumstances." (Department of Justice and Office of The Director Of National Intelligence, Statement Regarding Cooperation With Private Partners, 2/23/08)

As our Nation's intelligence professionals have explained, "other intelligence tools [like FISA] simply cannot replace these Protect America Act authorities. The bipartisan Senate bill contains these authorities, as well as liability protection for those companies who answered their country’s call in the aftermath of September 11." (Department of Justice and Office of the Director Of National Intelligence, Statement Regarding Cooperation With Private Partners, 2/23/08)

What's In A Name?

2008-03-04T07:16:00.001-08:00

A beautiful picture of Hillary Rodham-Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama trying to out-arrogant each other.

And while I'm using middle names, I have to wonder: Why does John McCain have to apologize for Bill Cunningham's (or is it Bob Cunningham? I don't even know who that guy is) use of Obama's middle name? Why does Michelle Obama refer to the mere mention of her husband's middle name as "the fear bomb"?

What the heck kind of sense does that make? Would you call your husband's middle name a fear bomb?

If someone uses your middle name, it might be a little bit on the rude side, especially if you don't usually use it. I, for example, almost never use my middle name - so for someone to call me by my middle name might come across as a little rude, or else as some kind of joke. But a fear bomb?

Maybe she's referring to the way Mom used to call us by our full names when we'd done something wrong. Now THAT was a fear bomb. But I don't think that's what she's talking about. I think she's using inflammatory rhetoric to elicit an emotional-level response in those who attend her asinine rants (um, her speeches). I think she's also trying to deflect attention from her husband's connections with a Black militant church that actively supports people like Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam thugs.

But I digress.

What the hell is a fear bomb, anyway? What happens when one goes off? What is the maximum effective range of a fear bomb? What is its expected kill raduis?

Is it something we can use in Baghdad?

Further, is your middle name a cause for fear? I have a degree in Arabic from the finest language school in the world, and I couldn't place the meaning of the name Hussein. So I asked a Saudi co-worker what it means. He said it doesn't have a specific meaning, it's just a name. And, it's not really an Arabic name anyway. It is a respectable Muslim name, though. There's nothing wrong with using it.

Evidently, the name "Barack" means "One who has done absolutely nothing, yet for whom women swoon". I make funny, yes? Actually, it means "blessed" or "a person who is blessed with good things". In this context, a handsome person, a smart person, etc might be called by this name.

Michelle Obama has no problem with people using this name to refer to her husband.

I guess if your wife is a high-powered Chicago attorney with a ghetto mouth, any name - even your own - that isn't perfectly flattering is going to be a bomb of some sort. I wonder if The Blessed One is going to drop the shut-your-wife-up bomb any time soon.

Karate and You-Know-Who

2008-02-29T04:58:00.000-08:00

Last night I decided to watch a little television - which is good, because a little television is exactly what I have.

I sat back on the couch and tuned into this mind-numbing animated sitcom about a morbidly obese man and depraved family. Okay...so far, so good.

I wanted to see this episode because I'm a martial artist, and the stupid fat guy's wife is supposedly doing the karate thing. So, here we go. About halfway through the show, I begin to realize that it's a morality play. Believe it or not, the people who write Family Guy are preaching to us about violence.

"Oh my gawd," the wife (whatever her name is) says. "I've brought violence into my house! I'm the worst mother ever!"

Ya know, I can't tell you how tired I am of the people around me (even if they're only 'around me' electronically) misunderstanding absolutely everything. The martial arts aren't necessarily about violence, and it's clear that the show wasn't written by martial artists or by anyone who'd ever embarked on any kind of serious MA study.

Okay. Enough of that. But I did also notice one other thing. The television had my attention for about forty minutes. During those forty minutes, I saw thirty-two commercials. And of those thirty-two commercials, fourteen were for Barack Obama.

The Power of Imagery vs Memory

2008-02-26T10:18:00.000-08:00

In the absence of war, the people forget its horrors. This is why the young are so frequently the first to cry for war. And since it's been a almost twenty years since the end of the Cold War, we as a nation aren't nearly as concerned with the global spread of Communism as we were when I was growing up. I guess this is why so many people in this country have forgotten a few very important things.
They've forgotten about the hundred million or so of their fellow human beings who believed in Marxist Socialism, and died as a direct result of its policies. They've forgotten about the brutal occupations, violent revolutions and wars of agression around the world that made Iraq look like a midsummer's training exercise.

It's the power of the Proletariat ideal - that utopean pipe dream of total equality, wherein all people recieve the same meager amount of food, the same low pay, and the same dismal apartment. They've forgotten what it really means, of course, but they see the imagery. They see the stark, high-contrast colors and the sharp, angled and idealized faces. They hear the rhetoric of those who forgot before they did: the We Will Provide crowd, promising to give them all they need, while evening out their incomes, whose speeches are gaining in popularity with young voters, even while those same voters complain about their already-too-high taxes.

Not everyone who uses this means of propagandizing his or her message is a Communist. In fact, I don't think people who use this kind of imagery today even know what it represents, for the most part. Obviously, the artists know where it came from, but the viewer generally couldn't care less.

Naturally, this is a case of art imitating life - because most Americans don't give a shit about much of anything, and obviously know even less.

But for those of us who grew up actively opposing the global spread of totalitarianism and the rise of a government strong enough to take things away from you for the common good, and for all of us old Cold Warriors, these images still hold a chilling message.

It's a message a lot of people in this country have clearly forgotten. Barack and his supporters, and Hillary and her supporters, aren't Communists, of course. But they've evidently forgotten about the threat posed by a government that's strong enough (big enough, in-your-business enough) to give you whatever it decides you need. Because that's also a government that's strong enough to take away everything you love, in an effort to impose an ideology of complete equality, wherein no one person has any more or less than any other.

Barack Obama is evidently opposed to one person being allowed to have more than another. In a television spot aired ad nauseum in Texas, he complains that, "We've got CEOs making more in ten minutes what the average worker makes in a year."

So what he's saying is, it's a bad thing that some else makes more than you. It's a bad thing that we're not all equal in income, equal in living conditions, and equal in lifestyle. Again, Barack's not really a Communist. But since it's been so long since we as a nation have had to really confront Communism, a lot of people in this country fail to recognize Socialist dogma when they see it. It's a siren song. It sounds good, but will lead you to your doom.

Just ask the hundred million people who've gone before you.

What Are You Unhappy About?

2008-02-25T05:53:00.000-08:00

This should have been in State of the Union Address. It's attributed to Jay Leno, but I haven't been able to verify that yet. Whoever wrote it, it's dead-on:

'The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just isn't happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What are we so unhappy about?''

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?

Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?

Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?

Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?

I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.

Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.

Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes , an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.

This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?

Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?

The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?

Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go.

They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about 'how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way'...Insane!

Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.

EDIT: Definitely not written by Jay Leno. Unfortunately, we may never know the identity of its true author. But whoever it was ought to be running for President, in my opinion.

Hey, Where's His Halo?!

2008-02-21T09:36:00.000-08:00

Obama supporters puzzle me. I have a co-worker (a normally rational adult) who is wearing blue every day from now through the Texas primary, in support of Barack. She wears at least one Obama campaign button on her blouse every day – yesterday she wore three.

So she’s walking around the office, showing off her willingness to wear the name of a man she doesn’t know and about whom she can’t hold an intelligent conversation – because she doesn’t understand any of his positions. She doesn't understand his positions because he doesn't stick to them, or answer questions with plain, straight talk about exactly what his positions are. She doesn’t realize that she’s wearing blue in support of a candidate who flat-out refuses to display the American flag, because he says it’s not patriotic. Or something like that.

So how does a person who won’t wear the flag on his lapel get thousands of people to wear his name on theirs? How does that happen in America?

Barack has become the poster child for that ubiquitous political catch-word, change. The problem is, “change” doesn’t have any real meaning. Words like that have to come with modifiers, with objects, or else they don’t hold any significance at all. Change your underwear. Change your mind. Change the amount of change in your pocket.

So what change is Barack offering? Well, for starters, he has a plan for universal health care. You have to go to his website to find it, thought - because he won't articulate it in person.

As I’ve shown with my point-by-point analysis a few posts down, his plan is straight Socialism – and it’s almost exactly the same as Hillary’s plan, only worded differently. But it is a plan. Of course, even Barack knows that it will never happen, because health insurance isn’t something that falls within the domain of presidential duties. That’s right, folks – the President of the United States has nothing to do with your health insurance. He (or she, I guess) isn’t an agent for your health care provider, and doesn’t set the rules on who gets insured or for how much. He can suggest sweeping reforms, he can demand sweeping reforms, but that's the limit of his (or her, I guess) power. In order for sweeping reforms to happen, laws have to be made – and that’s the job the Congress, not the President. And for as long as I’ve been following politics, the Congress has been locked in a dead heat on matters of reforming anything.

Barack, of course, spent two years (or was it three?) in the US Senate, which as we all know is one of the houses of Congress. He was in the legislative body that has the power to do it, but it didn't get done! So why hasn’t his plan for universal health care been passed? Well, now we’re back to the Socialist thing. For the reasons why it hasn't been passed in Congress, I'd refer you to my post about why it's Socialist.

Even before Barack’s meteoric assent to center stage – even before he became the apple of George ‘I’d follow him anywhere’ Clooney’s eye – the question on universal health care was long debated and roundly rejected. I’m sure that even Barack’s moonbattiest supporters aren’t toiling under the impression that any of this is a new idea.

But no Congress wants to be the one who took away so much of your money, on the basis of your ability to earn it, and gave it to others on the basis of their need for it. No Congress wants to be the one who crossed the line from charitable giving to forced redistribution of wealth.
And no Congress will do it now, either. Regardless of party, regardless of platform. And regardless of how “articulate” their poster boy is.

I'm Proud of America (if you vote for my husband)

2008-02-20T05:14:00.000-08:00

Michelle Obama (Barack's wife) in Milwaukee, either yesterday or the day before:

"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

Now, I have to bring this up. Mrs. Obama is 44 years old, so her "adult lifetime" began in 1982. Between 1982 and today, is she saying that NOTHING has transpired in this country that has made her proud? Are we really that crappy a country?

Or, is Mrs. Obama simply displaying that typical Liberal proclivity toward bashing America?

Forty years ago in the American South, riot police were releasing dogs and turning water hoses on people of color. Before that, people of color were often treated much worse than that, by an openly racist and xenophobic society. Today, people of color stand next to anyone, and can receive expensive ivy-league educations on their way to very lucrative careers (as big-time Chicago lawyers, for example). People of color are today running for President of the United States, with a real chance of winning. And evidently, those same people see nothing to be proud of their country about.

I bring up the civil rights movement because I'm proud of how far we've come in that area. There's still a ways to go, we all recognize that. But our progress thus far is something to be proud of this country for (I think, anyway).
Since 1982, the United States has liberated Grenada from Communist Cuban invaders, freed Panama from its drug-smuggling presidente Noriega, liberated Kuwait from ruthless Iraqi hordes, opposed lawless warlords in Somalia, and ousted murderous, Nazi-like totalitarian regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've championed peace between Israel and her neighbors, campaigned for human rights in places like China and North Korea, and Stood side-by-side with South Africans opposing Apartheid.

First Lady Nancy Reagan pays her respects to American casualties of the Grenada invasion, Oct. 1983

Nelson Mandela, imprisoned by the Apartheid regime in South Africa, 1990

How many Pulitzer Prize and Nobel Prize winners have come from the United States since 1982? And how many other countries can compete with that? How many Olympic athletes? World-class musicians? Artists?

Which country pioneered the artificial heart? Come to think of it, Mrs. Obama, being a lawyer for the medical industry, ought to know more about American medical advancements than I would. Still, though, nothing to be proud about there, right?

How many other countries could send the Space Shuttle into space more than a hundred times? That whole deal was pretty new, back when she was a young adult, wasn't it? Not proud of that? Well, let's see what else I can come up with.

How many minority and low-income students have attended American universities in the past 26 years, who would have simply gone hungry had they been born in other countries?

When this country came together after 9/11 in a way reminiscent of the homefronts of the Second World War, I guess Mrs. Obama felt nothing? Was there nothing at all to be proud of, when the Congress of the United States - both houses, both parties - stood on the steps of the Capitol and sang in defiance of tyranny and terror?

How many other countries experience routine, peaceable regime changes every four years, as a function of their constitutions? How many other countries guarantee their citizens the right to speak their minds, to write whatever they want, to worship however they feel is right (or not to, if that’s their choice), the right to refuse quarter to the military, the right to a trial by jury of their peers, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to keep and bear arms, just in case it all goes bad? And then, having guaranteed all that (and much more, of course) in the Constitution, how many other countries would continue to take it seriously, hundreds of years after all that was written?

Is none of this reason to be proud of this country?

Is it possible that someone, given all this, can feel zero pride in the United States, unless people vote for them (or their husbands)? Is it right for ones sense of national pride to be linked only to whether or not people support ones political ambitions?

And here’s the real question: Do we really want a first lady who honestly believes that the only good thing about this country is that her husband is running it? Haven't we seen that before?

I realize there are things we need desperately to fix. I get that. But even with all of this country's flaws, I have to wonder: Is that warm, fuzzy feeling Michelle Obama gets when people support her husband's campaign really the only worthwhile thing about America?

Responsibility vs. Liberalism

2008-02-19T08:19:00.000-08:00

Notice I didn't title the post "Conservatism vs. Liberalism". This is because I'm not sure what it means to be a Conservative any more. It looks to me like the Conservative movement in this country has been hijacked by pretty-much the same ideologies that so successfully hijacked the Liberal movement back in the 1970s, effectively killed it in the 1980s, and have maintained a stranglehold on its corpse to this day. But that's a different post.

Basically, I believe in the politics of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

I believe that your health insurance is your responsibility. Keeping your job, feeding your family, making your car payment, and paying for whatever kind of home you live in are all your responsibility, too. I believe that if you need more money, you should try to get a better paying job, or take a second job working nights (we've all been there), or whatever you have to do. Taking care of yourself is YOUR JOB.

Contrary to popular belief, the government is NOT your collective babysitter. It is NOT the responsibility of the government to raise the minimum wage so you can have more money. It is NOT the responsibility of the government to force your mortgage company to lower your payments, or to feed your children at school, or to install cheaper light bulbs in your apartment. And it is NOT the government's responsibility to provide you with health insurance.

It's really just that simple, folks. It's not mean or uncompassionate, either. I want you to succeed - but I want you to succeed on your own merits. When you've arrived, you'll be able to say that no one ever gave you anything, that you earned everything you have. And there's a certain kind of satisfaction in that - at least, that's how I see it.

People who see it my way also believe in a smaller government, and in less government interference in the lives of ordinary citizens. I don't believe it's a good thing to create six different new government agencies to oversee how my doctor is treating me, or to keep tabs on how my medical information is stored, or to make sure that my insurance company isn't making too much money.

And that's another thing. It isn't wrong to make a lot of money; at least it wasn't wrong when I was a kid. Lately it's become popular in the Left to bash the wealthy, and to blame this problem or that on them. But I remember this being America, the land of opportunity - not the land where the government won't let your company get too big, and won't let you make too much money. Work hard, work smart, make all the right business decisions - and then some arch-liberal Democrat gets elected and takes away your profits?! That's not the America I remember (of course, I grew up during the Reagan presidency, so maybe that's it).

When you allow the government so far into your life that they're paying for your child's meals, half of your rent and all of your health insurance, you forget that the government had to get that money from somewhere. And the source of all that money is ALWAYS higher taxes on others who have also worked hard for their income. What you're doing is forcing others to pay your way, and that's not how it's supposed to be in America.

It's your job to live your life. It's your responsibility to ensure that it's the kind of life you want it to be. When it becomes the government's job to give you everything you have, the government must, by its own very nature, take money from me, shift it around a little, and hand it to you - and vice-versa. This is the definition of Socialism. It's not a good thing.

Susan Shelley, in her excellent blog "America Wants to Know", calls it Collectivism. The idea is that those with more money are forced to share it with those who have less. Here's her fanstastic post about Barack's explanation of his own health care reform program (when he had to break it down for a five-year-old, what he said was straight out of the Communist Manifesto): http://www.extremeink.com/awtk/2007/11/barack-obama-explains-socialism.html.

Never mind YOUR years of training and hard work that went into those gains; they belong to the People now. It will never work in America, just like it didn't work in Russia, and has produced nothing but all manner of horrible poverty wherever it's been tried (Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Eastern Europe, Venezuela, Angola, etc etc).

Socialism doesn't work. Not here, not now.

Not ever.

NEXT UP: Michelle Obama tells you why she's never been proud of her country, until now.

Why Obama's Health Care Plan Won't Work

2008-02-18T09:38:00.000-08:00

I think it would be fair to say, after reading his website, that Senator Obama has some pretty kooky, moonbat ideas about healthcare.

So without further ado, here are some ideas that I gathered in a single, half-hour cruise through the doubletalk and politico-speak of his website. Text in black is my understanding of some of the points I found on his site, while the comments in blue are my smart-alecky opinion:

1. Under the Obama health care plan, private insurance companies would be forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions. I wonder how much that would cost for the insurance companies (meaning, how much it would cost the consumer)?

2. The Government would pay an income-related individual federal subsidy for all those who do not qualify for the various medical insurance handout programs. That's written for people who don't understand the First Noble Truth of government: The government pays for NOTHING. Taxpayers pay for everything the government does. They may not be telling you this, but additional agencies, programs and projects are ALWAYS paid for by additional taxes. Period. You folks who like the idea of "the government" paying your way through life have a rude awakening heading your way.

3. Insurance companies would be required by federal law to report your health information to the federal government. This would be "to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met." Is it just me, or would you also like to avoid seeing your private medical information being reported to some inept federal agency? Can you say PROLETARIAT, boys and girls? Good. I knew you could.

4. An Obama health care program would create, among other agencies, the National Health Insurance Exchange. It would be the job of this agency to create rules and standards for private insurance companies, in order to "ensure fairness". Liberals never tire of the old class warfare dogma. What they're doing here is mandating that the federal government create yet another agency whose job is to watchdog your life. Hope ya feel better, knowing the National Health Care Exchange is out there, making sure that the world is safe for HMOs. But the real problem here is the old question, WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT'S FAIR? Would that be the poor, the downtrodden, the exploited workers? Doesn't any of this sound familiar?

5. "The Exchange" would force private insurance companies to issue a policy to every applicant, regardless of ability to pay or pre-existing condition. So if you're the owner of a small insurance operation, get ready to be out of business. Beautiful, huh? Betcha didn't know you were the problem, didja?

6. Every employer would be required to either "Make a meaningful contribution to the cost of their employers' insurance, or "Contribute a percentage of their payroll toward the cost of the national plan". FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS MEANS, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED...Yay. Let's just forget all those who gave their lives to fight the spread of Communism in this world. Let's all be rabid Socialists. No prob.

7. The Obama plan would require that health care providers and hospitals "utilize proven disease management programs." Does this mean that the government gets to decide what treatment you receive? Sounds that way, doesn't it? It MANDATES that your PROVIDER utilize proven PROGRAMS, and not others that you may prefer. What about someting that's not so 'proven'? Do you want the government telling you which treatments you can use ? (you think the FDA is bad now...)

8. It would require all providers (doctors, hospitals, etc) publicly report "disparity" figures - how many of this certain race were treated this month, how many of that gender. What we need right now is less race-baiting, not more. This is the most disappointing point I found on his website.

9. This plan would reorganize how doctors and other health care professionals are paid. Barack wants doctors to be paid according to the 'quality' of their work, rather than on how well they persorm during whatever evaluations they do. I can sorta see this one. The idea is to avoid the waiting-room experience and keep the clinics and hospitals focused on their task. However, I must ask: What happened to the profit margin for these doctors? What ever happened to moving the line along? See, here's the problem: Without the simple volume incentive of profit, you get what they have in the UK, which is an inherent inability to see a doctor without a six-month wait. Honestly, is that what you want?

10. He would establish an "Independent Institute" to gather information and assist in the decision-making process, and to be a watchdog agency for the other agencies being created with this initiative. I just use the Internet, which as we all know was invented by Al Gore - but will soon be rendered obsolete by this new, useful federal govenment program and/or agency. I think we're up to what, three? Four? Five?

11. Barack Obama doesn't like that your medical records are often kept in paper files at your doctor's office. His plan would earmark TEN BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, for FIVE YEARS, to convert your medical records - whether you want this done or not - into electronic files, which can then be stored in some central database, for everyone in the world to see. I just don't know what to say about this. It genuinely sounds too ludicrous to be considered, but there it is, right on his website. PLUS: Who pays for this particular $50 BILLION new federal prgram? Well, I'll give you one guess...But the real problem here is that now your medical records will be accessible to every teenaged hacker in the world, as opposed to being safely tucked away in your doctor's office, as they are now. I dunno - you tell me: Has the fact that your medical records are kept in your doctor's office ever caused you a serious health problem? Me neither.

12. The plan would force the largest insurance companies to pay more in claims, in an effort designed specifically to limit their profits. This is typical Socialist class envy at work, folks. This is typical haves-versus-have-nots Marxism. The essence of the Communist class struggle lies in the idea that the government can tell everyone how much they need. It can tell the rich that they don't need as much, and then it can take from the rich and redistribute that wealth throughout the lower echelons of the economic structure. Obama's plan seeks to punish large insurance companies for their success by mandating larger claim payments sepcifically from them, in an attempt to appease those who feel the big companies make too much money.

13. This plan would also "allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe...". I would ask how the government would actually police that "safe" rule. The safety aspect is the reason for the existence of the FDA to begin with, but the FDA has no jurisdiction outside the US. So how does the US government regulate the 'safety' of drugs manufactured and purchased overseas? Smells like yet another government agency to me.

Now, I'm not just bashing Obama just to be bashing Obama. Honest. I can also point out some fallacies regarding Senator Obama and his campaign: He is NOT, for example, a Muslim - and he never was. He has a Muslim name, but that's because his father was from Kenya. Also, the Che Guevara flag in his Houston campaign office was NOT placed there by a member of his campaign, but by one of your typical moonbat Obama supporters. Is there a difference? I'll leave that for you to decide.

But beyond all that, I have some serious ideological differences with the senator, and they're the same differences I have with the Clintons, and with any other arch-liberal Mars-orbiters out there. So I'll explain all that a little more in the next post.

NEXT UP: The Politics of Personal Responsibility

So I Guess We're All Evil (Except You with the Signs)

2008-02-18T08:00:00.000-08:00

Here’s a beautiful example of some of the whack-job bloofy that makes this country great. I got a letter from a friend of a friend, one of those out-there writers who still think the war in Iraq is about stealing their oil.

I envision this odd worldview that ties everything together. See, Bush and his evil lackey Cheney (who are normally stupid but suddenly got really bright) duped the whole world (sans our really, really smart friends in France) into invading Iraq in order to steal their oil, to feed it to our SUVs in an effort to pollute the environment and quicken global warming, for the purpose of making the Earth uninhabitable for future generations. Because, of course, it will be Halliburton, staffed by illegal Mexicans (brought up by the secret North American Union via the Trans-Texas Corridor), who gets the multi-billion-dollar contract to build the first moon colony - which is the real reason for the Space Shuttle program - with parts built by children in China and shipped via Dubai Ports World.

Welcome to the New Religion. And, all you conservative heretics out there, you will convert! Jihad isn't just for terrorists any more!

Anyway, since the letter was apparently in response to something I wrote here, and since this friend of a friend wrote me the letter because he was (for whatever reason) unable to leave a comment here {remind me to look into that – come to think of it, there haven’t been any comments here for a very long time}, I thought I’d go ahead and include his letter – and my response – here.

Terrorists bomb Iraqi oil facilities in northern Iraq

Robert's Letter:

Jerry,

Spring 2001 Michael Klare, an international security expert and author of Resource Wars, reported the military had increasingly come to “define resource security as their primary mission.” An article in the Army War College's journal by Jeffrey Record, a former staff member of the Senate armed services committee, argued for “shooting in the Persian Gulf on behalf of lower gas prices” and “advocated the acceptability of presidential subterfuge in the promotion of a conflict” and “explicitly urged painting over the US's actual reasons for warfare with a nobly high-minded veneer, seeing such as a necessity for mobilizing public support for a conflict.”

April 2001 Gen. Tommy Franks, C.O. of US forces in the Persian Gulf/South Asia area, testified to Congress that his command's key mission was “access to energy resources.” The next month US Central Command began plans for war with Afghanistan. (Sydney Morning Herald 12/26/02)

April 2001 “Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century,” a report commissioned by former Secretary of State James Baker and the Council on Foreign Relations stated that the US remained a prisoner of energy needs and needed “military intervention” to secure its oil supply. Saddam Hussein should be overthrown so the US could control Iraq’s oil. (Sunday Herald 10/5/02)

It looks like Alan Greenspan was right when he said our war on Iraq was for oil.
Robert Flynn
http://www.robert-flynn.net/

My Response:

Robert,

My purpose with war-like discussion on the blog was really more to point out the lunacy of far-fringe-left moonbats like Code Pinko and the mayor of Berserkeley than to rehash the old, tired (and frankly just plain silly) argument that the Iraq War was all about oil. But, since you're a friend of Mike's (and I'm proof that Mike has some strange friends), I'll go through it one more time.

Think about this. Since the US went into Iraq, what has happened to international crude prices? Where exactly is all that Iraqi oil?

No, my friend. You're way off. In fact, I'm afraid you're missing the whole point. The Gulf War (1991) was about oil - and was fought (and lost by Kuwait) before the Americans ever entered the theater. What followed (the American 'liberation' of Kuwait) was about 2 things: 1, establishing a military presence in the region and establishing precedent for US military intervention in defense of allies in the region, and 2, securing future US interests in the Kuwaiti petro market, because it was already known in the halls of American government that we'd soon be alienating the Iraqi petro market.

This current war is a whole different thing. The dynamic is all wrong. The US went into Iraq in 2003 because regime change in Iraq has been US policy for four presidents now. Even back in the day when Rummy was shaking hands with Uncle Saddam, folks like Ronaldus Maximus, Daddy Bush and Wild Bill were scheming to remove Uncle Saddam from office. It's really both as simple and as complex as that.

Couldn't be done during Reagan's time, because we were backing the Iraqis against the Iranians (because of our opposition to their caliphate-inspired 'revolution' and their penchant for taking American hostages - plus, it was only a few years after the Desert One fiasco). Simple enough. But then, even after the two sides wore each other down like children who fell asleep while fighting in the car, we didn't do it because we were in the midst of regime change here in Los Estados (out with Ronaldus Maximus, in with Daddy Bush).

Daddy Bush knew things about Saddam that Ronaldus never knew. One of the benefits of having a president who'd been the Director of the CIA, as opposed to a president who'd been a B-list actor (not that I'm anti-Reagan, mind you...but in that situation, Bush was more on-the-ball). By this point, Saddam was getting it from both sides. He had to deal with saber rattling from Washington on one hand, and petro theft from Kuwait on the other (millions of barrels of light sweet crude - some of the best oil in the world - from the Iraqi part of the Rumalia Oil Field). Add into the mix Saddam's complete inability to think rationally, and there you have it, folks. Bus loads of Iraqi troops roll into Kuwait City (that's how the Iraqis initially invaded Kuwait, by bus.).

Of course, this cemented the US anti-Saddam policy. But it also set it back about 10 years. The idea was to remove Saddam before, but then when he invaded Kuwait, we couldn't do it because it would appear to the rest of the world that US had overstepped its mandate from the UN (to lead a coalition to liberate Kuwait). Whether he knew it or not, Saddam had bought himself some years by invading Kuwait.

Fast-forward to 2002 or 2003. Bush Jr. (I think, anyway) is looking for reasons to hit Saddam. He has some personally-imposed guidelines, if this is the case. One, it can't be a personal reason, meaning that he can't hit Iraq because Iraq tried to kill his father. Another is that it can't be unverifiable. This means that, if he says there are weapons, by God there'd better be weapons. Let's not just go in there and never find them. For twelve years now, (as of 2003) mind you, everyone from Hillary Clintoris to individual Iraqi dissidents have been swearing to the presence of a weapons program. And not all of them were wrong.

It's pretty silly to assert, knowing what we know now, that the whole weapons thing was just a made-up excuse to go to war for oil. Although, I have no doubt that the reports about the weapons program played perfectly into Washington's plans, and their accuracy was an issue relegated to the back burner.

By the time the first US reporters (with some troops embedded in their units) rolled across the Iraqi border, there were no reasons. Curve Ball was already known to be full of crap, but it didn't matter. Regime change was on its way, and even Baghdad Bob couldn't stop it ("There are no American tanks...").

Listen. I've seen the Iraqi oil infrastructure with my own two eyes. There was never a threat of the US taking Iraq's oil. I wish I could say that we don't give a crap about their oil, but that would be taking it too far. But still, I can attest to the fact that, until the US (and many other coutntries, mind you) went in there and worked with the Iraqis on RIO (Restore Iraqi Oil), no one - not the Iraqis or anyone else - was getting Iraqi oil. This is why the Oil for Food program was such a sham, and why Saddam's peeps were starving while he depleted the nation's European bankrolls to build new palaces.

No, I'm afraid it wasn't to gain access to their oil. If the US military said it was, then either you're (or your source is) taking the quote out of context, or someone's talking through their ass. And I don't believe anything General Franks has to say about it (just like some don't believe General Petreus). General Franks, a registered Democrat, did the same Macciavellian (sp?) thing the Democrats in Congress did. They purposely failed in their duties to prosecute a full-out war, in order to saddle a sitting president with that failure. It's the only explanation I can see for Franks' shoddy performance in Iraq (it was only after Petreus took over that things in Iraq started to improve - and dont try to tell me they haven't improved, because I was there - and if you need to hear it from troops instead of fat civilians like me, ask Mike's daughter-in-law).

I wish the war was about oil. The reason I say this is that while we've been largely stymied, until recently, by terrorist insurgents (no, not Iraqis fighting for their homeland, as some peacenik wannabes would have you believe, but actual foreign Al Qaeda terrorists who only want to kill Americans - I know because I've met them and asked them), we won the war well enough to simply take their oil, if that was what we were after. And if we'd done that, then maybe I could pay less than $3 a gallon for my gas.

~Jerry

NEXT UP: The truth about Obama's health care plan (it ain't pretty)

More from Code Pinko

2008-02-15T04:45:00.000-08:00

Now, does that mean they're promising not to reproduce, at least until there are no more wars in the world? And another thing: I've seen dozens and dozens of pictures of Code Pinko women, and these two are the closest I've seen to attractive. I mean, if they're gonna use sex as a weapon (no I know, women never do that), they should at least be women someone would wanna fuck in the first place. I'm just sayin'...

Recruiters stalk our youth?! You mean like lionesses in the grassland stalk their prey? When my cat stalks something (which he does a lot), he crounches up behind it and wiggles his butt. You suppose that's what the recruiters are doing? 'Cause I'd protest that, myself. NO BUTT-WIGGLING IN OUR SCHOOLS!

And be sure, while you're at it, to teach your children to hate America. You know, the country that gave you more freedoms than any other country in the world. Yeah, hate that.

NEXT UP: Letter from a Friend

Is This Your Mayor, Berkeley?

2008-02-14T11:14:00.000-08:00

Tom Bates, Mayor of the City of Berkeley, California, protesting what he thinks is a Marine Corps recruiting office (it isn't). He's wearing a pink beret and standing proudly in front of a pink banner that reads "No Military Predators". If you live in Berkeley, is this your mayor? Is this what you call supporting the troops?

Okay, it's time to post the warning letter. With Code Pink and their little buddies getting as raucus as possible, it's only reasonable to expect such insanity here in Houston, where political campaign offices are bedecked with Che Guevara flags, but their staffers can't tell me the difference between a liberal candidate and a conservative one. Make Out, Not War. Pretty friggin' weak, folks.

So anyway, here's the letter.
_________________________________________

To the Houston offices of Code Pink:
I respect your initiative and your drive to speak your mind about President Bush and Operation Iraqi Freedom (which you call “Bush’s War”). While I disagree with much of your content, I do support your right to say it. Disagreement, in my opinion, is the cornerstone of truly free speech, and while we may stand on opposing sides of the aisle, we’re all Americans at the end of the day. In many ways, these differences are worth celebrating.
That said, I’ve been watching the debate that’s been raging in California lately, in which Code Pink and the Berkeley City Council have decided to wage a campaign against the United States Marine Corps. Even in this action, I must support the right of Code Pink and Berkeley to speak their mind, even if I disagree with the message.
While the City Council of Berkeley does indeed have the legal right to make any proclamations the Council deems appropriate, it should be recognized that even persons or organizations operating within their legal rights can overstep the bounds of decency and societal normalcy. Such is the case with some of the disgusting, hurtful and misleading statements the City of Berkeley has made recently about the United States Marine Corps, as an extension of Code Pink’s vitriolic anti-military campaign.
Beyond my insignificant opinion about what’s been said, there’s a more important issue at work here. The right to free speech stops at the willful hindrance of US military personnel in the performance of their assigned duties. The actions of some protestors in California have crossed that line many times over, and have given your organization a bad name in the eyes of many Americans who held nothing against you before.
This is the reason for my letter.
Houston has always been a great place to get the message out, regardless what that message is. We can often protest here with little threat of violence, and people are generally supportive of the exercise of free speech. I’ve even seen opposing demonstrators lay down their signs and have lunch together to discuss their differences. Don’t try this in California, folks.
Houston is also home to a number of Armed Forces recruiting offices, Reserve Component training facilities and armories, and military families. Members of the United States Armed Services recruit, train, consolidate, and in fact live here in the Houston area. It is their right and sworn duty as service members to conduct their business efficiently and effectively. Further, these activities of the United States Armed Forces are responsible, at least in part, for the freedom of speech that is enjoyed by all Americans, including Code Pink and other psycho-fringe protest groups.
Members and Veterans of the United States Armed Forces, their families and loved ones, and the vast majority of the People of the United States, are justifiably proud of their service. This includes the majority of Houstonians, who believe that the United States Armed Forces should be honored by all citizens, and not villainized by a handful of leftist anti-war hippie throwbacks, whose warped little word view holds these heroes responsible for their own personal failures.
You may see your comrades in California as heroes and their actions as heroic examples to be emulated here in Houston. But while you plan your typically anti-American, anti-military operations here in our town, remember that people here will not stand for the nonsense that your whacko fringe group is up to out there in Granola Land, and that we will defend our military establishments here. The kind of efforts to show vitriolic hatred for American military personnel that we've seen from Code Pinks and its supporters in California and elsewhere, to include protests and signs with hateful, divisive slogans, is a cause of further suffering in this world. Your actions have done more harm than good, because not a single person has refused to serve his country because of your tirades. Not a single terrorist, soldier or innocent civilian has been spared in this war or any other because of the actions of people like you. You're not alleiviating suffering, you're adding to it.
We, as private citizens of the United States, will consider it our duty as peace-loving Americans to thwart any and all attempts on your part to interfere with our Armed Forces in the conduct of their official duties. This includes, but is by no means limited to, recruiting and all recruiting-related activities.

Treason is not a protected right under the Constitution of the United States. Consider yourselves duly notified.

NEXT UP: Even more from Code Pinko

Boycott Berkeley

2008-02-13T04:01:00.000-08:00

Spelling, anyone? And here's where the protestors should feel really stupid: The word under the pink card is "Selection". See, this isn't even a recruiting office they're protesting. It's an officer selection office, which a completely different thing, and has nothing to do with high schools or children or quotas or "predators". But they don't care, do they? Show them the sign that proves they're wrong, and they cover it up with their own misspelled, misrepresented and misinformed assumptions.

This is probably a photoshop. The banner probably read something like "withdrawal" or "pullout" of the American troops. Maybe something more like "desertion" or "Imprisonment". But given that Code Pink gave $600,000 to terrorists in Fallujah WHILE THE US MARINES WERE LOCKED IN AN ALL-OUT, MONTH-LONG BATTLE against those exact terrorists, I'd say whoever did the photoshop job hit the nail squarely on its anti-American little head. Wouldn't you?

Tom Bates, the mayor of Berkeley, California, said this:
"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave."

The Marines don't belong? Are you fucking serious? Is that what the people of California think? Are the people of Berkeley really that far gone? This is the very definition of INGRATE, and in my view, it's tantamount to TREASON. Seriously, this whole Berkeley thing is turning my stomach. Even if you hate the Marines, for a City Council and their elected (I assume) mayor to act this way is the exact antithesis of what I want my children to learn. This is exactly the kind of behavior that made most people in this country turn against their hippie bullshit in the first place.

So here are some resources for supporting a nationwide ban on Berkeley. Fuck 'em. Before you do business with anyone, ask if they or any of their supporting businesses are operating in Berkeley - and if so, thanks but no thanks. This especially goes for tourism. Don't visit Berkeley, especially this coming summer. Tell your neighbors what the Berserkeleys are doing to the United States Marine Corps, and tell people like Code Pink that we support our Marines.

Big Dog: http://www.onebigdog.net/boycott-berkeley/
Center for the Advancement of Capitalism:
http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-boycotting-berkeley-is-important.htm
How Berkeley boycotts just about everyone else: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1997/08/berkeley.html
Free Republic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1969391/posts
Petition in Support of the USMC: http://www.capitalismcenter.org/Advocacy/Marine_Petition/default.htm
ConservaBabes: http://conservababes.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1699
Intellectual Activism: http://intellectualactivism.blogsavy.com/2008/02/03/activism-opportunity-boycott-berkley/
Yahoo Answers: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080201133552AAAZVxk
yeah, I know it's Fox, but somehow they're the only ones reporting it straight: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330527,00.html

Cao's Blog is VERY IMPORTANT for anyone who wants to learn about Code Pink's real agenda, and about how these so-called "peace activists" really operate. Warning: This will make you very, very mad: http://caosblog.com/6190

And here's a great piece from Front Page on just exactly who this Code Pink bunch really is, and who's really pulling the strings behind thsi whole anti-military thing: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={3C98A01F-6F98-45A0-86D6-ACA9DE62D1B8}

NEXT UP: An Open Letter of Warning to Code Pink and Like Groups in Houston
IN PROGRESS: Barack Obama's Unacceptably Leftist World View (and you people want this guy to be president?!)

A WARNING FOR CODE PINK

2008-02-11T05:38:00.000-08:00

Normally when I write a blog post, I try to include a pic or two for context. But in this case, I just couldn't stomach any of the pics I saw online of this Code Pink group.

Part 1 - Some Background

I went to their website, though (link intentionally withheld - you're welcome). What I found was the website of a group who, on the surface, is simply sticking up for its right to free speech.

They want the US to pull its troops out of Iraq (and, I presume, Afghanistan, although I'm not sure they know the difference between the two). That's fine. Free speech being what it is, anyone speaking his or her mind on any topic such as this has my wholehearted support in doing so. I may disagree, but whatever. Disagreement is the whole point to protected free speech.

But I also reserve the right of rebuttal. Because what I found when I drilled a little deeper on Code Pink's website, was a thoroughly disgusting, anti-American, anti-military sentiment that runs deep.

Deep enough to call American troops in the field, during a war, murderers.

Deep enough to launch a whole section of their site dedicated to explaining how to 'combat' military recruiting in your schools.

Deep enough to launch a campaign to get the US Marines kicked out of Berkeley, California.

Now, I know, it's only Berserkeley, but my question is this: How far does a group like Code Pinko have to go before its actions run into Treason? How many members of your organization have to chain themselves to the doors of recruiting offices before someone gets charged with hindering US military operations?

And maybe even more important - What ever happened to Americans being Americans? What ever happened to supporting our military, instead of condemning them?

Marines are not murderers. There have been isolated incidents, yes, but that can't speak to the morality of the whole Marine Corps.

Marines are also not unwelcome intruders. They are the brave and valliant defenders of our liberties, including our right to free speech. They are the selfless, self-sacrificing guardians of Code Pinko's legal right to call them killers.

These Code Pinko people are sickening. They have the right to their opinion, of course - but their opinion is disgusting. This is the lowest form of human life I can imagine: People who thrive, living high on the hog (as we used to say back home), in that affluent American suburban way, never once in their lives wanting for anything, never lacking anything more serious than a fresh coat of paint on their white picket fences, while not only criticizing but actively opposing the very people who secured that life for them.

They make me sick, and I hope they have the same effect on you. These are the kind of people who demonstrate at the funeral services of fallen servicemembers, holding signs that give the thumbs-up to Bin Laden and company. These are the kind of people who spit on returning American veterans who've been in harm's way overseas for a year or more.

I've always known there were people out there who were demonstrating against our efforts in this war. I understand that, to an extent. But the kind of anti-American monsters who throw rocks at passing military folks, hold sit-ins and public breast feedings (?!) on the doorstep of a military recruiting office, and put up websites calling our valliant troops mercenaries - these things are far beyond anything I would have imagined. I'm thoroughly and completely disgusted.

Part 2 - My Message to Code Pink (and like groups)

I understand nonviolence, folks. I'm a Buddhist, after all. And I'd like nothing better than for this war to be over and for our troops to be home - All of them. But if you're connected in any way with a group like Code Pink, I'm begging you to do whatever you have to do to sever those ties immediately, and repent. Beg your country's forgiveness now, before it's too late. You don't have to support the war. But don't let me catch you chaining yourself to the doors of a military recruiting office in my town. Don't let me catch you doing anything to demean or hinder the United States Armed Forces. After all they've done for us - for you - I don't think there's a court anywhere in this country (except in California and probably New York) who'd punish a veteran for defending them.

NEXT UP: Boycott Berkeley!

Clarifying

2008-02-06T04:43:00.000-08:00

After re-reading my inaugural post for this blog, I think I may have been a little misleading. This isn't going to be a strictly political, strictly stupidhead-bashing, or strictly anything else blog. My intent for this blog is to become a place for me to spout off about my own beliefs. Comments will be open to all, until that's abused and I have to moderate them. You can agree or disagree, call me an idiot, whatever.

Just a place to write about my positions, on a great many things. A few things, however, will not be covered here, because I have a few other blogs specifically for them.

Buddhism and topics of specific Buddhist interest will be covered on my Buddhist blog, Tengu House: http://www.tenguhouse.typepad.com/.

I write essays on the martial arts and related topics at Aiki-Kuzushi: http://aikikuzushi.blogspot.com/.

And you can follow the progress of my 1/35th scale military models projects at Panzers in the Pantry: http://panzerpantry.blogspot.com/.

Anything else will be covered here. I expect to post here roughly once a week, depending on what's going on. You might be surprised by what I have to say; Yes, I'm a Buddhist, but I'm also a conservative, and generally vote Republican (not always, though). Many of my stances tend to lean toward the liberal (I support gay marriage, for example). And sometimes I'm just neutral (stem cell research, among others). So read away, comment, and have fun. Or don't.

Inaugural Post

2008-02-04T13:58:00.000-08:00

I guess I'm just fed up with typical American ignorance. I'm seeing it everywhere now, even (sometimes especially) in people with much greater education that mine. I'm seeing it pop up in every walk of American life: People who can calculate the effects of some physics equation in great detail, but who still think the price of milk is set by the president.

Tomorrow I'll probably post a story about this group called "Code Pink," a radical feminist peace-activist gang out in California, whose purpose right now is to shut down military recruiting stations in places like Berkeley. First of all, I'm wondering how many people the Marines are getting in places like that, where such openly anti-American activites are actually supported by City Council - and second, I'm wondering how it is that we as a nation are allowing radical groups like this to interfere with military business. But I'll explore this issue further in coming installments here at NDA.