I travel when I work. When I stay in hotels, while I'm getting ready in the morning, I like to turn on the TV to just kind of have some noise in the room, and to try to catch up on what happened overnight, or at least what happened since I last plugged in. This morning on ABC, Diane Sawyer was fretting about two incidents that happened over the weekend where persons of middle eastern looks caused security incidents, based upon other people around them thinking they 'looked suspicious'. "Is profiling a valid security tool?" she asked, leading into a video of some idiot reporter whining about how we shouldn't profile, and then some supposed expert saying that profiling is just a bad idea.
Now, I'm no criminal justice expert, but it seems that if all the bad guys wore black, it'd be pretty easy. Arrest the people who wear black, game over.
But it's not that easy. Or is it? Let's play a game and see if you can answer the following questions:
Who was responsible for the bombing of the American embassy in Beiruit, killing over 300 Marines in the 80s?
Who was responsible for the bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland?
Who was responsible for the killing of Israeli athletes at the 72 Munich Olympic games?
Who was responsible for the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship and the brutal murder of a jewish passenger who was such a threat that he had to keep himself in a wheelchair?
Who was responsible for the bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania?
Who was responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center?
Who was responsible for the second attack on the WTC, on 9/11?
Who was responsible for the Madrid bombings?
Who was responsible for the London bombings?
Answer? All islamic men, of middle eastern descent, between the ages of 18 and 35, many of which were travelling under false papers, expired documents, or some other red-flag that if they were questioned, would have told authorities that these persons could be dangerous.
But apparently, profiling won't work, so let's not try it.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Monday, July 25, 2005
Catherine Baker Knoll- Opportunist
Despite the apologies that she's acted so sincere in her offering, if she's not thrown out of office the next election, the people of Pennsylvania are dumber the posts that line the PA turnpike.
If you can't see that she showed up for the TV cameras and not for the family, your sight is just about as good as Ray Charles.
How about the cojones on this bitch, to show up to a funeral for a Marine, LATE, and hand out business cards saying that 'our government is against this war'? Someone needs to provide her with a ticket to the clue-bus. Preferably the voters of PA, but I'd take a smack upside her head by the parents/family of the Marine.
As most of you know, I'm a Marine, finished my service in 1994(once a Marine, always a Marine). I am personally offended by her treatment of the final honor of a Marine as a photo-op.
Ms. Knoll, please resign for the honor of the Marine Corps, the honor of Staff Sgt Joseph Goodrich, and the honor of our freedom-loving country.
If you can't see that she showed up for the TV cameras and not for the family, your sight is just about as good as Ray Charles.
How about the cojones on this bitch, to show up to a funeral for a Marine, LATE, and hand out business cards saying that 'our government is against this war'? Someone needs to provide her with a ticket to the clue-bus. Preferably the voters of PA, but I'd take a smack upside her head by the parents/family of the Marine.
As most of you know, I'm a Marine, finished my service in 1994(once a Marine, always a Marine). I am personally offended by her treatment of the final honor of a Marine as a photo-op.
Ms. Knoll, please resign for the honor of the Marine Corps, the honor of Staff Sgt Joseph Goodrich, and the honor of our freedom-loving country.
Shooting of Brazilian citizen in London
Ok, the liberals are going to whine about this guy in London who was mistakenly shot by police after they mistook him for one of the muslim terrorists responsible for the bombings in the subway there. Apparently, they chased him down (he RAN from them, without good reason), and shot him during the pursuit. British police officials have apologized for the actions and have said they'd investigate the shooting, but between the heavily padded coat he was wearing and the fact that he ran from police, I'd say it was a mistake, but a legitimate mistake.
But the libs will whine "This is what happens when you profile". I, of course, will offer an alternate opinion: This is what happens when you wear a heavily padded coat and run from the police in London, where a bunch of pissed off bobbies would like nothing more than to put a .45 round into the skull full of mush that thought up the attack on their beloved homeland, and any other asshole who would follow suit. They're pissed and they don't care who knows it. Think about our mentality four years ago. Think about how hostile the police were to anyone who even looked crosseyed at them in NYC.
Don't apologize, just next time make sure you shoot one of the people responsible for the attack. Or at least someone that hates freedom as much as the rest of us love it.
But the libs will whine "This is what happens when you profile". I, of course, will offer an alternate opinion: This is what happens when you wear a heavily padded coat and run from the police in London, where a bunch of pissed off bobbies would like nothing more than to put a .45 round into the skull full of mush that thought up the attack on their beloved homeland, and any other asshole who would follow suit. They're pissed and they don't care who knows it. Think about our mentality four years ago. Think about how hostile the police were to anyone who even looked crosseyed at them in NYC.
Don't apologize, just next time make sure you shoot one of the people responsible for the attack. Or at least someone that hates freedom as much as the rest of us love it.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Yet another London attack
When are we going to take this stuff seriously? I mean, when the politically correct among us scream and rant about how we don't want to offend anyone, but they keep offending US, I think it's time to start popping off rounds and asking questions later.
Tom Tancredo (R-CO) had the right approach back a week or so ago when he announced that if terrorists struck the US with a nuclear weapon, our response should be to bomb their holy sites.
All kinds of people got all worked up because they said that we'd risk offending all muslims if that happened, and how insensitive he was and blah blah blah.
What these brainless morons don't get is that, for the most part, muslims don't seem to be interested in defending freedom or defending justice. I HAVE muslim friends. I get along great with them. And when this subject comes up, they get pissed at the radicals for making them look bad. However, I certainly don't see them withholding their weekly donations to their mosque out of protest. I don't see these supposed peaceful muslims around the world stepping up and smacking down these goatloving asspirates that make their entire religion look like a bunch of animals.
Truly, these 13th century turds need to be taken out. And if it takes racial profiling to do it, I could give a rats ass. Granted, I'm a white male, so I'd probably not be harassed by this. But I guarantee when Eric Rudolf (abortion clinic bomber, Olympic bomber etc) was on the run in North Carolina, they were looking at all the white males in the area, and NONE of them were bitching that they were being profiled.
Kill these bastards. Put out a message to them on national TV that says:
Update:
There's an incredibly well thought out article on Atlas Shrugs that delineates how we should address the influx of Islamofacism.
Also a good one on the Anti-idiotarian Rottweiler
Tom Tancredo (R-CO) had the right approach back a week or so ago when he announced that if terrorists struck the US with a nuclear weapon, our response should be to bomb their holy sites.
All kinds of people got all worked up because they said that we'd risk offending all muslims if that happened, and how insensitive he was and blah blah blah.
What these brainless morons don't get is that, for the most part, muslims don't seem to be interested in defending freedom or defending justice. I HAVE muslim friends. I get along great with them. And when this subject comes up, they get pissed at the radicals for making them look bad. However, I certainly don't see them withholding their weekly donations to their mosque out of protest. I don't see these supposed peaceful muslims around the world stepping up and smacking down these goatloving asspirates that make their entire religion look like a bunch of animals.
Truly, these 13th century turds need to be taken out. And if it takes racial profiling to do it, I could give a rats ass. Granted, I'm a white male, so I'd probably not be harassed by this. But I guarantee when Eric Rudolf (abortion clinic bomber, Olympic bomber etc) was on the run in North Carolina, they were looking at all the white males in the area, and NONE of them were bitching that they were being profiled.
Kill these bastards. Put out a message to them on national TV that says:
I figure that'll do one of two things. 1. Get rid of some of the idiots out there who just want to push the limits or 2. Make them think twice before deciding to blow themselves up on a street corner.We're putting snipers on top of buildings, we're putting cameras up in public areas, and we're watching you. And if you look the least bit suspicious, like you're sweating, or like you just shaved your beard that you'd been growing since you were 12, or you raise your hands and yell 'allah akbar' in an inappropriate place, we're going to put a hollow point through your gourd
at 500 meters or more. Don't like it? Go home to your camels, sand fleas, and goats.
Update:
There's an incredibly well thought out article on Atlas Shrugs that delineates how we should address the influx of Islamofacism.
Also a good one on the Anti-idiotarian Rottweiler
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
'Kelo et al v. City of New London'
The property seizure case that isn't going to go away. Cities are now free to seize private property from their rightful owners for no reason other than the desire to widen the tax base, and then hand it off to another private party for development. The most interesting thing about the majority opinion was that the justices said that they expected this to be a rare occurrence.
Apparently common sense isn't in high supply at the store where they buy those cool black robes.
Duh, cities are going to do whatever they can to promote their own tax base and make sure they don't have to make hard spending decisions. It's not tough, when some schmuck on a city council sees an opportunity to get the credit for bringing in a shopping mall or factory, of course they're going to do it, despite the fact that they've snagged people's private homes to do so. They don't care. It makes life simpler for them because they don't have to worry about the local paper writing about how they cut police or fire budgets.
Found a good site regarding the Supreme Court nomination process and how one group is addressing it in relation to the Kelo decision.
Apparently common sense isn't in high supply at the store where they buy those cool black robes.
Duh, cities are going to do whatever they can to promote their own tax base and make sure they don't have to make hard spending decisions. It's not tough, when some schmuck on a city council sees an opportunity to get the credit for bringing in a shopping mall or factory, of course they're going to do it, despite the fact that they've snagged people's private homes to do so. They don't care. It makes life simpler for them because they don't have to worry about the local paper writing about how they cut police or fire budgets.
Found a good site regarding the Supreme Court nomination process and how one group is addressing it in relation to the Kelo decision.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
John Roberts- Supreme Court Justice
The more I read about him, the more I'm a fan of the pick. He's not controversial enough for DemoncRats to bitch too much about him (although as the party of obstruction, you know they will find something), and has enough conservative decisions behind him to make me feel like he'll do a better job than O'Connor did to defend the constitution from activist decisions.
More later
More later
Monday, July 18, 2005
War on Terror
A friend forwarded this to me. I liked it so instead of forwarding it to everyone I know, which irritates the bejesus out of me when one of my friends does it to me, I though I'd post it here. Not sure of the author, but will give appropriate credit if someone advises me of the author:
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII! ).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-ahtm).
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is: that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question: What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly for terrorists to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see that we are impotent, and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.
If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily, or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.
We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type of prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago these same type of prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.
And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, showing the beheading of American prisoners that they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.
Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.
Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in, and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into all non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!
We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone (let alone everyone), equal status or any status for women---or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII! ).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
- Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
- Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
- Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
- Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
- Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Kh! obar Towers Military complex 1996;
- Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 19 98;
- Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
- Pentagon 2001
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-ahtm).
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is: that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question: What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly for terrorists to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see that we are impotent, and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.
If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily, or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.
We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type of prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago these same type of prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.
And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, showing the beheading of American prisoners that they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.
Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.
Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in, and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into all non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!
We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone (let alone everyone), equal status or any status for women---or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
Doh...vacation
Forgot to post that I was going on vacation for a week, and also to get a 'sub-blogger'. Oh well, I'll re-pay you with a bit of humor. Thanks to Kellie for this one. Difference between Republicans and Democrats regarding their position on women in politics(if you can't appreciate the pics because it's too small, just click on it):
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Wake up and smell the friggin coffee
For those of you who have whined about understanding the motivation of the terrorists of 9/11 and complained that attacking them will only breed more terrorists, you probably see a vindication in the death and destruction in London today. You probably see this as an opportunity to gloat that you were right.
Wrong.
The attacks in London were motivated by fear. Fear that we're winning. Fear that the free people of the world were realizing that islamofacism exists and exactly what it is. Fear that we'll see them for the murdering cowards that they are, attack them, kill them, and remove their movement from earth. I don't think 'crusade' is too strong a word here. These scumbags need to be removed from the gene pool before they reproduce. Luckily a lot of them are doing that themselves, and for that, we thank them.
I'm not advocating that we hold a holy war against all muslims. Far from it. I'm saying that as a civilized people, ALL civilized people, muslims, buddhists, catholics, jews, protestants, atheists, all need to band together against this sort of 3rd century ignorance and remove it from our world.
Wrong.
The attacks in London were motivated by fear. Fear that we're winning. Fear that the free people of the world were realizing that islamofacism exists and exactly what it is. Fear that we'll see them for the murdering cowards that they are, attack them, kill them, and remove their movement from earth. I don't think 'crusade' is too strong a word here. These scumbags need to be removed from the gene pool before they reproduce. Luckily a lot of them are doing that themselves, and for that, we thank them.
I'm not advocating that we hold a holy war against all muslims. Far from it. I'm saying that as a civilized people, ALL civilized people, muslims, buddhists, catholics, jews, protestants, atheists, all need to band together against this sort of 3rd century ignorance and remove it from our world.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Ted Kennedy's worst nightmare
Thanks to RightWingNews for this one:
For those of you who don't recognize the picture, the front row, second from right is an extremely competent lawyer, and a better author, Ann Coulter.
For those of you who don't recognize the picture, the front row, second from right is an extremely competent lawyer, and a better author, Ann Coulter.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Happy 4th of July
Perhaps it's time for another one of these:
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Trackbacks
Finally, I have a trackback function. Guess I never even thought of adding it, but got enough hatemail to decide to add it.
Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.
Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.
Emilio Garza for Justice
The more I read about him the more I like him. In the Agora has a good writeup on Judge Emilio Garza.
Read this from AP, a somewhat decent analysis of the various candidates for the opening on the SCOTUS. Emilio Garza is my choice. Here's his bio:
Garza, Emilio M.
-Born 1947 in San Antonio, TX
-Federal Judicial Service: U. S. District Court, Western District of TexasNominated by Ronald Reagan on February 2, 1988, to a seat vacated by William S. Sessions; Confirmed by the Senate on April 19, 1988, and received commission on April 20, 1988. Service terminated on June 7, 1991, due to appointment to another judicial position.
-U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitNominated by George H.W. Bush on April 11, 1991, to a seat vacated by Thomas Morrow Reavley; Confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 1991, and received commission on May 30, 1991.
Education: University of Notre Dame, B.A., 1969University of Notre Dame, M.A., 1970University of Texas School of Law, J.D., 1976
Professional Career:U.S. Marine Corps Captain, 1970-1973
Private practice, San Antonio, Texas, 1976-1987
Judge, 225th District Court, Bexar County, Texas, 1987-1988
Race or Ethnicity: Hispanic
Gender: Male
Conservative, Marine, Constitutionalist. Only drawback is that he's a Domer, but we'll forgive him that. What else do we need?
Read this from AP, a somewhat decent analysis of the various candidates for the opening on the SCOTUS. Emilio Garza is my choice. Here's his bio:
And from http://air.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj you'll find this:A former Marine (oorah) and Texas state judge, Garza, 58, sits on the New
Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and was considered for a Supreme
Court seat by the first President Bush.
Appointed a federal judge by
President Reagan and elevated to the 5th Circuit in 1991, he has become best
known for his views that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that abortion
regulation should be decided by state legislatures.
In 1992, for example, he
voted to strike down a Louisiana law criminalizing abortion in deference to
Supreme Court precedent. But in his opinion, Garza made clear his disdain for
Roe v. Wade.
"Two essential facts seem apparent: The Constitution says
absolutely nothing about abortion and ... the long-standing traditions of
American society have permitted abortion to be legally proscribed," he wrote.
"Because the decision to permit or proscribe abortion is a political choice, I
would allow the people of the state of Louisiana to decide this issue for
themselves."
In 1997, Garza voted with the majority to strike down a
Louisiana law allowing judges to deny abortion to a minor and notify her
parents. He criticized Roe's legal reasoning in a concurrence.
His opinions
in those two cases have drawn the ire of women's and abortion rights groups, who
fear that if elevated to the high court Garza would be a reliable vote to
overturn Roe v. Wade.
An avid questioner in oral arguments, Garza's written
opinions tend to be clear and scholarly.
Garza, Emilio M.
-Born 1947 in San Antonio, TX
-Federal Judicial Service: U. S. District Court, Western District of TexasNominated by Ronald Reagan on February 2, 1988, to a seat vacated by William S. Sessions; Confirmed by the Senate on April 19, 1988, and received commission on April 20, 1988. Service terminated on June 7, 1991, due to appointment to another judicial position.
-U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitNominated by George H.W. Bush on April 11, 1991, to a seat vacated by Thomas Morrow Reavley; Confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 1991, and received commission on May 30, 1991.
Education: University of Notre Dame, B.A., 1969University of Notre Dame, M.A., 1970University of Texas School of Law, J.D., 1976
Professional Career:U.S. Marine Corps Captain, 1970-1973
Private practice, San Antonio, Texas, 1976-1987
Judge, 225th District Court, Bexar County, Texas, 1987-1988
Race or Ethnicity: Hispanic
Gender: Male
Conservative, Marine, Constitutionalist. Only drawback is that he's a Domer, but we'll forgive him that. What else do we need?
It has begun
And with the announcement of Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement from the Supreme Court, the countdown to how quickly John McCain and the gang of 14 are going to screw over the President (or try anyway) and how quickly the various rumored nominees will be personally attacked starts.
I'm sure the commercials criticizing Alberto Gonzalez are already in the can, just waiting for the nomination...along with those criticizing the rest of the people who are 'out of the mainstream' (translated: Not liberal).
I'm sure the commercials criticizing Alberto Gonzalez are already in the can, just waiting for the nomination...along with those criticizing the rest of the people who are 'out of the mainstream' (translated: Not liberal).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)