Happy Father's Day to the Fathers of the world. :)
I've been blessed with a wonderful dad who happens to still live and torment me.
I say that in jest, although my poor mother probably felt that we tormented her on a regular basis. We were blessed to understand very little of each other, and yet be entirely too much alike. Which made for interesting vacations, road trips, and life in general.
We went through our spells of teenage angst together, though being a girl, it was harder on me then him - at least I think so.
The importance of a Father-figure and the glaring lack of one that has arisen over the last few decades troubles me. And I know it does him as well.
Men that act like men is a dying breed. Men are no longer the head of the household, or the authority figure in America.
Fathers are demeaned on television, and reduced to nothing more than a bumbling fool while the mother and children know best.
But- is that what God planned? No. His plan for the family was one of love and mutual respect. Not a dictatorship, but rather a partnership.
Children need discipline, they need an authority figure. Without one, they learn that they themselves are all the authority they need.
But, that is simply not true. - Law Enforcement, Bosses, CEOs, in any aspect of their life, they are going to have authority.
Without respect and honor for that position, they will not prosper in life.
Men and Women alike. You cannot believe yourself to be the only authority.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Hello again. :)
Greetings from the lovely United States.
I'm back home yet again, and loving every minute of it.
Although, I find my self completely baffled by the attitudes of the world around me. I guess I knew how bad it was, but being away from it for nearly 6 months has isolated me.
We are a selfish, corrupt, idiot nation. We blindly follow what we're told and do not think twice about it. We listen to men like Al Sharpton and women like Nancy Pelosi. For, they speak the truth, do they not? We live in a society where racism is alive and well.
We live in a world where we will demand justice because a white radio shock jock will call black females the same name black rappers do with completely different results.
The current Top 10 list of rappers includes a lovely bunch of prose from artist such as Cam'ron.
This is the same man that stated in an interview with Cooper Anderson that he "Would not turn in a serial killer even if he knew that he lived next door to him, because it would violate his code of ethics." What a guy, if he can be called that. A spineless, womanizing, druggie, would be more apt.
Number 3 includes a blurb from Rolling Stone about the album from Mob Deep dropping from number 28 to 44. quote, "I wonder if it had something do to with Prodigy dissing God on 'Pearly Gates?" end quote. I wonder indeed?
This list includes old favorite Chamillionare. Whose 'Ridin' not only flaunted his drug or prostitution habits, but dared anyone in LE to do anything about it.
So, remind me again why Imus was fired? Search any current rap song, and I almost guarantee that you will be given the option of edited version or explicit version. Why?
Why the discrimination? Why do we continue to pay for the sins that occurred decades ago?
We have become a nation with our hands tied.
When will we stand up for what is right? When will it stop? It won't unless we take a stand right now.
I'm back home yet again, and loving every minute of it.
Although, I find my self completely baffled by the attitudes of the world around me. I guess I knew how bad it was, but being away from it for nearly 6 months has isolated me.
We are a selfish, corrupt, idiot nation. We blindly follow what we're told and do not think twice about it. We listen to men like Al Sharpton and women like Nancy Pelosi. For, they speak the truth, do they not? We live in a society where racism is alive and well.
We live in a world where we will demand justice because a white radio shock jock will call black females the same name black rappers do with completely different results.
The current Top 10 list of rappers includes a lovely bunch of prose from artist such as Cam'ron.
This is the same man that stated in an interview with Cooper Anderson that he "Would not turn in a serial killer even if he knew that he lived next door to him, because it would violate his code of ethics." What a guy, if he can be called that. A spineless, womanizing, druggie, would be more apt.
Number 3 includes a blurb from Rolling Stone about the album from Mob Deep dropping from number 28 to 44. quote, "I wonder if it had something do to with Prodigy dissing God on 'Pearly Gates?" end quote. I wonder indeed?
This list includes old favorite Chamillionare. Whose 'Ridin' not only flaunted his drug or prostitution habits, but dared anyone in LE to do anything about it.
So, remind me again why Imus was fired? Search any current rap song, and I almost guarantee that you will be given the option of edited version or explicit version. Why?
Why the discrimination? Why do we continue to pay for the sins that occurred decades ago?
We have become a nation with our hands tied.
When will we stand up for what is right? When will it stop? It won't unless we take a stand right now.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
War Protest in Oregon, features a burning effigy of an American Soldier.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24853_Leftists_Supporting_the_Troops&only
Aye, aren't they just the epitome of American youth?
Actually, they sicken me.
Are we doomed to repeat our mistakes of the Vietnam Conflict?
Where American Soldiers were spit upon and denigrated? What do kids that barely remember the Cold War think they're doing?
Have we failed to eliminate the Communist influence in our country?
We have raised a spoiled, selfish, ignorant generation.
Our coddling, talking, and new age discipline have created a generation that has no respect. They have no inkling of sacrifice, of the value of the freedoms they have. They are blown with the wind, what ever suits their whim or fancy.
What are we giving our children? What do they kn0w about the value of freedom?
Do they not realize people die? Do they not realize what they are saying when they burn a flag, or an effigy?
What the hell is wrong with people? If you don't mind me asking?
Pictures were also posted on Facebook. Rachael Palinka. Look her up if you get the chance.
Aye, yes, Facebook. The very same school site that was the downfall of some University of Texas students back over MLK day.
So, where's the national outcry over this? Ah, but wait. This wasn't a minority group. It was a bunch of idiot college students who will one day be expected to be responsible adults.
Anyone else scared?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24853_Leftists_Supporting_the_Troops&only
Aye, aren't they just the epitome of American youth?
Actually, they sicken me.
Are we doomed to repeat our mistakes of the Vietnam Conflict?
Where American Soldiers were spit upon and denigrated? What do kids that barely remember the Cold War think they're doing?
Have we failed to eliminate the Communist influence in our country?
We have raised a spoiled, selfish, ignorant generation.
Our coddling, talking, and new age discipline have created a generation that has no respect. They have no inkling of sacrifice, of the value of the freedoms they have. They are blown with the wind, what ever suits their whim or fancy.
What are we giving our children? What do they kn0w about the value of freedom?
Do they not realize people die? Do they not realize what they are saying when they burn a flag, or an effigy?
What the hell is wrong with people? If you don't mind me asking?
Pictures were also posted on Facebook. Rachael Palinka. Look her up if you get the chance.
Aye, yes, Facebook. The very same school site that was the downfall of some University of Texas students back over MLK day.
So, where's the national outcry over this? Ah, but wait. This wasn't a minority group. It was a bunch of idiot college students who will one day be expected to be responsible adults.
Anyone else scared?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O06EU80&show_article=1
I have one thing to say about this.
It's about freaking time!
I have one thing to say about this.
It's about freaking time!
Saturday, March 17, 2007
W. Thomas Smith Jr.: We're being hamstrung in a war we must win.
Reprinted from NavySEALs.com
Beyond the DropZone
W. Thomas Smith Jr. Executive Editor
HERE ARE THE FACTS: There were indeed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq (Saddam used them on his own people). There were terrorists moving freely within the borders of Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. There were conversations taking place between international terrorists and Iraqi officials before 2003. President Bush did not instigate the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque in Samarra last year (thus triggering the new, increasingly sectarian-fighting phase of the war). Iraq is not a lost cause (unless the anti-Iraq War crowd is allowed to have a free hand in war policy). Iraq is not a meatgrinder (I'll get to what is in a moment). What happened at Abu Ghraib and, allegedly, Haditha are not the results of some dark policy initiated by some secret White House inner circle. Unlike the terrorists and guerrillas, targeting non-combatants is not the modus operandi of our soldiers. And anyone who says otherwise is simply fomenting propaganda for political purposes or repeat-mouthing misinterpretations of realities they basically know nothing about.
But they’re doing it, and they’re getting away with it.
Worse, if you disagree with them, you’re considered a crackpot who loves war, “hates all living things,” and has bought into some grand conspiratorial lie.
Recently, I had a conversation with one such person – a friend in fact – and tried to explain to her that I believed the war in Iraq is far more complex than her black-white, right-wrong perception of it.
I was trying to be diplomatic by explaining, without condemning her own opinions, that the war in Iraq – including the counterterrorism and insurgency components; geostrategic issues and regional balances of power; divided political ideologies (there in Iraq and here at home); evolving mission plans; policies; manipulative, self-serving U.S. politicians both Democrat and Republican; historic hatreds in Iraq; twisted interpretations of religious faith; lack of trust; fear; money; oil; alliances; and lives (soldiers and civilians) – is a difficult conflict with multiple shades of gray: Thus, extremely difficult to prosecute, but vital that we do so successfully.
“No,” she snapped back. “It’s about right and wrong.” Period.
Of course, her side is right, and mine is wrong. According to Dinesh D’Souza (The lie that Bush lied, March 12, 2007), the reason the Iraq debate became so “acrimonious,” was because “mainstream Democrats went from accusing Bush of bungling the Iraq war to accusing him of lying to get America into that war. His crime, at this point, became not merely one of error but one of deliberate deception. The basic liberal reasoning is that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, therefore Bush has been misleading the American people all along.”
D’Souza’s assertion is correct. And if anyone were to even hint in 2007 that the reason no WMDs were found was because Saddam had moved them out of the country – perhaps across the border into Syria or even Iran, where he moved the bulk of his air force in 1991 – they would be considered by the Left to be completely misguided or worse.
Yet Middle Eastern terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares, author of Future Jihad, contends that obvious factors should be our lead.“First, the evidence regarding past possession and use is abundant,” Phares, told me earlier this week. “Second, we have no information as to what happened to these weapons.”
Phares, whose grasp of the dynamics of global terrorism has earned him the respect and audiences of everyone from the U.S. Congress and State Department to CNN, MSNBC, and the FOX News Channel, even the Oprah Winfrey Show, argues that Syria would have been an easy sanctuary.
“Syria’s regime – which opposed the invasion – opened its borders to Jihadists who crossed into Iraq after the fall of Baghdad,” he says. “A large number of Baathists took refuge in Syria; and there are various reports from the Syrian opposition that many trucks crossed the border between the two countries weeks before the invasion began, and days before Baghdad fell. So, are Iraq’s WMDs – or some of them – in Syria? That is a very real possibility.”
Unfortunately, that very real possibility is almost never discussed by anyone – on either side – anymore. It’s so much easier and politically expedient for those on Capitol Hill to give more credence to people who paint their faces and march down streets holding signs proclaiming, “Bush lied. People died.”
Then there are the additional elements of propaganda, like downplaying Iraqi elections (damning the elections with faint praise and practically ignoring the enormous percentage of Iraqis who risked their very lives to vote) and playing up the U.S. casualty figures (without lending any perspective to those figures by looking at the astronomical losses suffered by the U.S. in previous wars) – all for the sake of political hay.
Regarding the latter, so many on the Left without any fair measure of military history, loosely refer to Iraq as a “meatgrinder,” claiming that the losses are numerically enormous and proof of “Bush’s failure.” This is wrongful manipulation.
First of all, every loss is grievous to the nation, particularly to the families of those killed and seriously wounded. But let’s look at the actual numbers for perspective: Nearly 3,200 American servicemen and women have been killed (and more than 23,400 wounded) in Iraq since the invasion, four years ago.
Compare that with 19,000 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 62,000 wounded in just six weeks of fighting in the Battle of the Bulge (late-1944, early 1945). Some 500,000 American G.I.s were involved in that battle. And though the U.S. Defense Department does not break down the actual number of Iraq veterans from Afghanistan veterans, the number is nearly 1.5 million with the majority having served in Iraq.
Hardly numbers representing a failure or a meatgrinder. But those who hate the current administration, for whatever reason, seem to repeat-mouth what they hear.
Then there is the trend toward blaming the previous year’s surge in sectarian violence on the Bush administration, as if the president had anything to do with the blowing up of the Al-Askari (Golden Dome) Mosque in Samarra (February 22, 2006).
The bombing, which served as a catalyst for the new sectarian fighting, was an al Qaeda operation aimed at destabilizing a tenuous union between Iraqi factions in hopes of bringing down the new Iraqi government. It was a major setback for our efforts in Iraq, though all wars have setbacks. It temporarily strengthened the position of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), giving AQI an opportunity to claim a temporary victory after being on the ropes (and AQI continues to be on the ropes). It also gave AQI some breathing space by forcing the U.S. to shift some of its intelligence and operational resources from counterterrorism to counterguerrilla operations. It also spawned a wave of factional killings, revenge killings, and more revenge killings which U.S. forces are now struggling to quash: And doing so while trying to develop the country’s economy, standup the military and police forces, secure the government, and continue to press the attack on al Qaeda.
But the anti-Iraq War crowd doesn’t seem to want anyone to wrap their arms around these facts. They want to blame Bush, concede defeat in Iraq, prevent reinforcements from deploying to Iraq (the Left – most of whom don’t understand the particulars of military operations – prefers to refer to reinforcements as an “escalation” of the war), and keep the propagandists mouthing distortions of the facts here at home, manipulating American voters and emboldening terrorists worldwide. And if you disagree with them, you are simply wrong without exception.
Such an atmosphere makes it almost impossible for our country to have any serious, reasonable debate on the critical issues of Iraq and the broader war on terror. And hardest of all truths within these issues is that a failure in Iraq would be a catastrophic blow to our efforts against terrorism around the globe.
The U.S. has no choice but to win in Iraq, and the self-serving political propagandizing of the war must stop if we hope to win in Iraq. “The region will not be stable until Iraq is stabilized,” said veteran newsman Ted Koppel this past week on Meet the Press. “It’s the one thing nobody talks about. Everyone is concerned about the United States being in the middle of a civil war inside Iraq, but they forget about the fact that, if U.S. troops were to pull out of Iraq, that civil war could become a regional war between the Sunnis and Shia.”
Koppel adds, “the idea of pulling out of there and letting the national civil war expand into a regional civil war, [is] something the United States cannot allow to happen.”
That fact should never be up for debate.
— W. Thomas Smith Jr. is executive editor of World Defense Review and a contributing editor at NavySEALs.com.A former U.S. Marine infantry leader, parachutist, and shipboard counterterrorism instructor, Smith writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans and on the West Bank. He is an award-winning author of four books, the co-author of two, and his articles have appeared in USA Today, George, U.S. News & World Report, BusinessWeek, National Review Online, CBS News, The Washington Times, and many others.W. Thomas Smith Jr. can be reached at editor@worlddefensereview.com.© 2006 W. Thomas Smith Jr.
Beyond the DropZone
W. Thomas Smith Jr. Executive Editor
HERE ARE THE FACTS: There were indeed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq (Saddam used them on his own people). There were terrorists moving freely within the borders of Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. There were conversations taking place between international terrorists and Iraqi officials before 2003. President Bush did not instigate the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque in Samarra last year (thus triggering the new, increasingly sectarian-fighting phase of the war). Iraq is not a lost cause (unless the anti-Iraq War crowd is allowed to have a free hand in war policy). Iraq is not a meatgrinder (I'll get to what is in a moment). What happened at Abu Ghraib and, allegedly, Haditha are not the results of some dark policy initiated by some secret White House inner circle. Unlike the terrorists and guerrillas, targeting non-combatants is not the modus operandi of our soldiers. And anyone who says otherwise is simply fomenting propaganda for political purposes or repeat-mouthing misinterpretations of realities they basically know nothing about.
But they’re doing it, and they’re getting away with it.
Worse, if you disagree with them, you’re considered a crackpot who loves war, “hates all living things,” and has bought into some grand conspiratorial lie.
Recently, I had a conversation with one such person – a friend in fact – and tried to explain to her that I believed the war in Iraq is far more complex than her black-white, right-wrong perception of it.
I was trying to be diplomatic by explaining, without condemning her own opinions, that the war in Iraq – including the counterterrorism and insurgency components; geostrategic issues and regional balances of power; divided political ideologies (there in Iraq and here at home); evolving mission plans; policies; manipulative, self-serving U.S. politicians both Democrat and Republican; historic hatreds in Iraq; twisted interpretations of religious faith; lack of trust; fear; money; oil; alliances; and lives (soldiers and civilians) – is a difficult conflict with multiple shades of gray: Thus, extremely difficult to prosecute, but vital that we do so successfully.
“No,” she snapped back. “It’s about right and wrong.” Period.
Of course, her side is right, and mine is wrong. According to Dinesh D’Souza (The lie that Bush lied, March 12, 2007), the reason the Iraq debate became so “acrimonious,” was because “mainstream Democrats went from accusing Bush of bungling the Iraq war to accusing him of lying to get America into that war. His crime, at this point, became not merely one of error but one of deliberate deception. The basic liberal reasoning is that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, therefore Bush has been misleading the American people all along.”
D’Souza’s assertion is correct. And if anyone were to even hint in 2007 that the reason no WMDs were found was because Saddam had moved them out of the country – perhaps across the border into Syria or even Iran, where he moved the bulk of his air force in 1991 – they would be considered by the Left to be completely misguided or worse.
Yet Middle Eastern terrorism expert Dr. Walid Phares, author of Future Jihad, contends that obvious factors should be our lead.“First, the evidence regarding past possession and use is abundant,” Phares, told me earlier this week. “Second, we have no information as to what happened to these weapons.”
Phares, whose grasp of the dynamics of global terrorism has earned him the respect and audiences of everyone from the U.S. Congress and State Department to CNN, MSNBC, and the FOX News Channel, even the Oprah Winfrey Show, argues that Syria would have been an easy sanctuary.
“Syria’s regime – which opposed the invasion – opened its borders to Jihadists who crossed into Iraq after the fall of Baghdad,” he says. “A large number of Baathists took refuge in Syria; and there are various reports from the Syrian opposition that many trucks crossed the border between the two countries weeks before the invasion began, and days before Baghdad fell. So, are Iraq’s WMDs – or some of them – in Syria? That is a very real possibility.”
Unfortunately, that very real possibility is almost never discussed by anyone – on either side – anymore. It’s so much easier and politically expedient for those on Capitol Hill to give more credence to people who paint their faces and march down streets holding signs proclaiming, “Bush lied. People died.”
Then there are the additional elements of propaganda, like downplaying Iraqi elections (damning the elections with faint praise and practically ignoring the enormous percentage of Iraqis who risked their very lives to vote) and playing up the U.S. casualty figures (without lending any perspective to those figures by looking at the astronomical losses suffered by the U.S. in previous wars) – all for the sake of political hay.
Regarding the latter, so many on the Left without any fair measure of military history, loosely refer to Iraq as a “meatgrinder,” claiming that the losses are numerically enormous and proof of “Bush’s failure.” This is wrongful manipulation.
First of all, every loss is grievous to the nation, particularly to the families of those killed and seriously wounded. But let’s look at the actual numbers for perspective: Nearly 3,200 American servicemen and women have been killed (and more than 23,400 wounded) in Iraq since the invasion, four years ago.
Compare that with 19,000 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 62,000 wounded in just six weeks of fighting in the Battle of the Bulge (late-1944, early 1945). Some 500,000 American G.I.s were involved in that battle. And though the U.S. Defense Department does not break down the actual number of Iraq veterans from Afghanistan veterans, the number is nearly 1.5 million with the majority having served in Iraq.
Hardly numbers representing a failure or a meatgrinder. But those who hate the current administration, for whatever reason, seem to repeat-mouth what they hear.
Then there is the trend toward blaming the previous year’s surge in sectarian violence on the Bush administration, as if the president had anything to do with the blowing up of the Al-Askari (Golden Dome) Mosque in Samarra (February 22, 2006).
The bombing, which served as a catalyst for the new sectarian fighting, was an al Qaeda operation aimed at destabilizing a tenuous union between Iraqi factions in hopes of bringing down the new Iraqi government. It was a major setback for our efforts in Iraq, though all wars have setbacks. It temporarily strengthened the position of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), giving AQI an opportunity to claim a temporary victory after being on the ropes (and AQI continues to be on the ropes). It also gave AQI some breathing space by forcing the U.S. to shift some of its intelligence and operational resources from counterterrorism to counterguerrilla operations. It also spawned a wave of factional killings, revenge killings, and more revenge killings which U.S. forces are now struggling to quash: And doing so while trying to develop the country’s economy, standup the military and police forces, secure the government, and continue to press the attack on al Qaeda.
But the anti-Iraq War crowd doesn’t seem to want anyone to wrap their arms around these facts. They want to blame Bush, concede defeat in Iraq, prevent reinforcements from deploying to Iraq (the Left – most of whom don’t understand the particulars of military operations – prefers to refer to reinforcements as an “escalation” of the war), and keep the propagandists mouthing distortions of the facts here at home, manipulating American voters and emboldening terrorists worldwide. And if you disagree with them, you are simply wrong without exception.
Such an atmosphere makes it almost impossible for our country to have any serious, reasonable debate on the critical issues of Iraq and the broader war on terror. And hardest of all truths within these issues is that a failure in Iraq would be a catastrophic blow to our efforts against terrorism around the globe.
The U.S. has no choice but to win in Iraq, and the self-serving political propagandizing of the war must stop if we hope to win in Iraq. “The region will not be stable until Iraq is stabilized,” said veteran newsman Ted Koppel this past week on Meet the Press. “It’s the one thing nobody talks about. Everyone is concerned about the United States being in the middle of a civil war inside Iraq, but they forget about the fact that, if U.S. troops were to pull out of Iraq, that civil war could become a regional war between the Sunnis and Shia.”
Koppel adds, “the idea of pulling out of there and letting the national civil war expand into a regional civil war, [is] something the United States cannot allow to happen.”
That fact should never be up for debate.
— W. Thomas Smith Jr. is executive editor of World Defense Review and a contributing editor at NavySEALs.com.A former U.S. Marine infantry leader, parachutist, and shipboard counterterrorism instructor, Smith writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans and on the West Bank. He is an award-winning author of four books, the co-author of two, and his articles have appeared in USA Today, George, U.S. News & World Report, BusinessWeek, National Review Online, CBS News, The Washington Times, and many others.W. Thomas Smith Jr. can be reached at editor@worlddefensereview.com.© 2006 W. Thomas Smith Jr.
Friday, March 16, 2007
/Me rant.
Normally, you find a topic, a link to a webpage and a current event posted here.
Today, you find none of the above. What you will find is a rant against everything I don't think is right. As you may have gathered from previous writings, I'm fairly opinionated and tend to be verbal in my disagreements with popular ideas.
We'll start with my current favorite; racism.
*Disclaimer*
I hold to my 1st Ammendment Right to Freedom of Speech.
I have never called myself a bigot, a racist, or a white power promoter. I have a varied ethnic background that does not include (that I'm aware of) a member of the African-American race.
I have experienced racism myself, from members of the black community, I do not hold it against them, for ignorance must be ignored and will not allow myself to stoop to that level.
I have friends that are Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Palestinian, and many other Nationalities.
But, why can a black person perform some type of predjudiced act against someone of any other race and be justified, while a white person is labeled a bigot?
From what I understand, a White person can be barred from gaining entry to a "Black Professional Originzation", but one could not keep a black person from any other sort of "Professional Originazation."
They have the NAACP, the ACLU, and the Rev. Al Sharpton, Jackson, and the like.
Other races are not afforded this opportunity, and it is considered "racist" for them to want something of this nature.
President Lincoln once said, "Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
Hillary Clinton. John Kerry. Nancy Pelosi. Ted Kennedy. Harry Reid. John Murtha.
Where is the support of our military personnel? Why do they insist on wreaking havoc among the nation? They have ripped the morale of this country apart, they have promised to do all they can to sabotoge the very means of victory. They have no idea what it's like to live in a tent in the desert. They have no meaning of the word sacrifice. To them, it means choosing the slightly less expensive entree' or riding in a gas-guzzling SUV as opposed to flying to their next press meeting or campaign party. They 'want to do what's right for the country'. Tearing it apart is not the answer. The people of the United States are too impatient, we're the reason we have politicians shredding our dignity. We are a generation of people unused to waiting for anything. We wanted a quick fix in Iraq, just as happened in Afghanistan.
But people fail to remember what precipitated Afghanistan. We had just been attacked. We had just been forced to watch as hundred of our fellow Americans jumped to their deaths from the World Trade Center. We watched in Horror as American flight 11 and United flight 175 crashed into the Twin Towers. We learned later that United 93 had been crashed into a Pennsylvania field and American 77 had crashed into the Pentagon.
We lost 2,973 men, women and children in this attack. We demanded Justice.
In a sense, Iraq was the same; a call for justice, although not our own. Justice for the Iraqi Nation, for it's men, women and children so that they might enjoy the same Freedom we do.
Next up on the agenda; Media.
I cannot say enough about the blatent flouting of justice that has been exhibited by the American Press. They thumb their collective noses at classified information acts, at demands for secrecy and openly display what they know to the world.
The amount of classified information that has passed through the presses, boggles the mind.
I have no respect for anyone that would betray their country for personal gain. I'm not talking about selling secrets to Russia. I'm talking about selling secrets to the New York Times.
Must we tell everything we know? Do we not realize that they read our magazines and newspapers too? We are our own worst enemy. The Freedom of Information means nothing is sacred. When will we understand that some secrets are meant to be kept? That our enemies are real? Did we not learn anything from 9/11?
I'll end up this very long rant with this,
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence and energy of her citizens cannot cure. -Dwight Eisenhower
Today, you find none of the above. What you will find is a rant against everything I don't think is right. As you may have gathered from previous writings, I'm fairly opinionated and tend to be verbal in my disagreements with popular ideas.
We'll start with my current favorite; racism.
*Disclaimer*
I hold to my 1st Ammendment Right to Freedom of Speech.
I have never called myself a bigot, a racist, or a white power promoter. I have a varied ethnic background that does not include (that I'm aware of) a member of the African-American race.
I have experienced racism myself, from members of the black community, I do not hold it against them, for ignorance must be ignored and will not allow myself to stoop to that level.
I have friends that are Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Palestinian, and many other Nationalities.
But, why can a black person perform some type of predjudiced act against someone of any other race and be justified, while a white person is labeled a bigot?
From what I understand, a White person can be barred from gaining entry to a "Black Professional Originzation", but one could not keep a black person from any other sort of "Professional Originazation."
They have the NAACP, the ACLU, and the Rev. Al Sharpton, Jackson, and the like.
Other races are not afforded this opportunity, and it is considered "racist" for them to want something of this nature.
President Lincoln once said, "Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
Hillary Clinton. John Kerry. Nancy Pelosi. Ted Kennedy. Harry Reid. John Murtha.
Where is the support of our military personnel? Why do they insist on wreaking havoc among the nation? They have ripped the morale of this country apart, they have promised to do all they can to sabotoge the very means of victory. They have no idea what it's like to live in a tent in the desert. They have no meaning of the word sacrifice. To them, it means choosing the slightly less expensive entree' or riding in a gas-guzzling SUV as opposed to flying to their next press meeting or campaign party. They 'want to do what's right for the country'. Tearing it apart is not the answer. The people of the United States are too impatient, we're the reason we have politicians shredding our dignity. We are a generation of people unused to waiting for anything. We wanted a quick fix in Iraq, just as happened in Afghanistan.
But people fail to remember what precipitated Afghanistan. We had just been attacked. We had just been forced to watch as hundred of our fellow Americans jumped to their deaths from the World Trade Center. We watched in Horror as American flight 11 and United flight 175 crashed into the Twin Towers. We learned later that United 93 had been crashed into a Pennsylvania field and American 77 had crashed into the Pentagon.
We lost 2,973 men, women and children in this attack. We demanded Justice.
In a sense, Iraq was the same; a call for justice, although not our own. Justice for the Iraqi Nation, for it's men, women and children so that they might enjoy the same Freedom we do.
Next up on the agenda; Media.
I cannot say enough about the blatent flouting of justice that has been exhibited by the American Press. They thumb their collective noses at classified information acts, at demands for secrecy and openly display what they know to the world.
The amount of classified information that has passed through the presses, boggles the mind.
I have no respect for anyone that would betray their country for personal gain. I'm not talking about selling secrets to Russia. I'm talking about selling secrets to the New York Times.
Must we tell everything we know? Do we not realize that they read our magazines and newspapers too? We are our own worst enemy. The Freedom of Information means nothing is sacred. When will we understand that some secrets are meant to be kept? That our enemies are real? Did we not learn anything from 9/11?
I'll end up this very long rant with this,
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence and energy of her citizens cannot cure. -Dwight Eisenhower
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
This in from Fox news. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258425,00.html
Democrats upset over firings throughout the nation, are calling for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General.
Gonzales has admitted that mistakes were made in the process. But his biggest mistake? Admitting he made a mistake. The Democrats, emboldened by the increasing silence from the GOP and the White House, have raised yet another outrage.
Upset, that the eight attorneys were fired due to GOP pressure in connection with Democratic Voter Fraud, they have set the world afire with their indignation.
Hm, key words here, "Democratic Voter Fraud." Anyone else see the connotation here?
Howard Dean has said Gonzales "ought to be shown the door — he ought not to be in this administration. We have got to end corruption in our government. It is not OK to be corrupt."
I rest my case. God knows if a Democrat can't stand corruption, then the world is coming to an end.
Have we all forgotten when the Clintons took office, that all of the Attorney Generals were kicked out? There was no hew and outcry over that little scheme. And what about the travel firings? There was no one up in arms over that fiasco.
But, the heat is on, the Democrats are calling for blood. But, to his credit, Gonzales has refused to step down.
Quote,"I've overcome a lot of obstacles in my life to become attorney general. I am here not because I give up, I am here because I learn from my mistakes, because I accept responsibility and because I am committed to doing my job and that is what I intend to do here on behalf of the American people," end quote.
Good for him, but let's see some support from all around.
Democrats upset over firings throughout the nation, are calling for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General.
Gonzales has admitted that mistakes were made in the process. But his biggest mistake? Admitting he made a mistake. The Democrats, emboldened by the increasing silence from the GOP and the White House, have raised yet another outrage.
Upset, that the eight attorneys were fired due to GOP pressure in connection with Democratic Voter Fraud, they have set the world afire with their indignation.
Hm, key words here, "Democratic Voter Fraud." Anyone else see the connotation here?
Howard Dean has said Gonzales "ought to be shown the door — he ought not to be in this administration. We have got to end corruption in our government. It is not OK to be corrupt."
I rest my case. God knows if a Democrat can't stand corruption, then the world is coming to an end.
Have we all forgotten when the Clintons took office, that all of the Attorney Generals were kicked out? There was no hew and outcry over that little scheme. And what about the travel firings? There was no one up in arms over that fiasco.
But, the heat is on, the Democrats are calling for blood. But, to his credit, Gonzales has refused to step down.
Quote,"I've overcome a lot of obstacles in my life to become attorney general. I am here not because I give up, I am here because I learn from my mistakes, because I accept responsibility and because I am committed to doing my job and that is what I intend to do here on behalf of the American people," end quote.
Good for him, but let's see some support from all around.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Please... give me a break.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/08/D8N5MJO00.html
Nancy Pelosi is frankly, a big baby.
After being denied her request for a C-32, which is the Military equivalent of the Boeing 757-200. She stated that she preferred to fly commercial if that's what it would take.
She claims this is the only plane that can satisify her security needs, due to the fact that it can fly coast to coast without having to refuel.
Tell me, what have you done that would require you eliminate any fueling stops throughout the US?
It was deemed an extravagance that the taxpayers would find hard to swallow.
You bet they would. Why would I want to pay for her to fly across the country in a jet she doesn't even need, when a smaller plane would work just as well?
Former House Speaker, Dennis Hastert flew on an Air Force commuter-size plane and had no problems at all. Wonder what the difference is? Did I mention he's a Republican?
In an interview with Fox, she claimed the denial was due to her criticism of the war and of Donald Rumsfield. She said, quote, "There are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department, and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard."
Give me a break and act your age, for pity's sake.
Nancy Pelosi is frankly, a big baby.
After being denied her request for a C-32, which is the Military equivalent of the Boeing 757-200. She stated that she preferred to fly commercial if that's what it would take.
She claims this is the only plane that can satisify her security needs, due to the fact that it can fly coast to coast without having to refuel.
Tell me, what have you done that would require you eliminate any fueling stops throughout the US?
It was deemed an extravagance that the taxpayers would find hard to swallow.
You bet they would. Why would I want to pay for her to fly across the country in a jet she doesn't even need, when a smaller plane would work just as well?
Former House Speaker, Dennis Hastert flew on an Air Force commuter-size plane and had no problems at all. Wonder what the difference is? Did I mention he's a Republican?
In an interview with Fox, she claimed the denial was due to her criticism of the war and of Donald Rumsfield. She said, quote, "There are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department, and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard."
Give me a break and act your age, for pity's sake.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Security Crackdown in Baghdad.
What has long been needed hopefully is beginning.
Within the last 5 hours, US, Iraqi and Coalition forces have begun a crackdown that will hopefully pave the way for even greater assertion of power.
It's been too long since we've given the insurgents any retribution of substance.
It's been too long since we've given any indication of having any sort of backbone.
We are the most powerful nation on the planet, why have we been made impotent by politicians? Why do people such as Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and Hilary Clinton feel they have to make our country weak?
We are NOT a weak country, we've have survived since 1620 when the first Englishman stepped off the Mayflower.
We never gave up, even through Valley Forge where George Washington never gave up faith and courage.
In 1776, 56 men put their lives, their comforts, and their fortunes on the line. They signed a document known as the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."
Words that changed the face of the world, and brought forth the greatest nation on earth.
We survived the slaughter of 500,000 American men for the sake of unity in the civil war.
We lost nearly5 million men in the wars this country has fought.
They were not fighting simply to win honor or glory. They were not fighting be recognized as one of the greatest fighting machines on earth.
They fought for one purpose; to defend their country, their freedoms, and their families.
They fought to protect what is right, the rights to live freely, to speak freely.
They fought so that you can burn a flag. So that you can ridicule them, call them names, spit on them. So that you can throw your freedom in their faces.
Do not give into the Liberal way of thinking.
This country was birthed through war and opposition. Did we turn tail and run?
If everytime something came against us that we didn't like, we would not even exist as a country.
Within the last 5 hours, US, Iraqi and Coalition forces have begun a crackdown that will hopefully pave the way for even greater assertion of power.
It's been too long since we've given the insurgents any retribution of substance.
It's been too long since we've given any indication of having any sort of backbone.
We are the most powerful nation on the planet, why have we been made impotent by politicians? Why do people such as Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and Hilary Clinton feel they have to make our country weak?
We are NOT a weak country, we've have survived since 1620 when the first Englishman stepped off the Mayflower.
We never gave up, even through Valley Forge where George Washington never gave up faith and courage.
In 1776, 56 men put their lives, their comforts, and their fortunes on the line. They signed a document known as the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."
Words that changed the face of the world, and brought forth the greatest nation on earth.
We survived the slaughter of 500,000 American men for the sake of unity in the civil war.
We lost nearly5 million men in the wars this country has fought.
They were not fighting simply to win honor or glory. They were not fighting be recognized as one of the greatest fighting machines on earth.
They fought for one purpose; to defend their country, their freedoms, and their families.
They fought to protect what is right, the rights to live freely, to speak freely.
They fought so that you can burn a flag. So that you can ridicule them, call them names, spit on them. So that you can throw your freedom in their faces.
Do not give into the Liberal way of thinking.
This country was birthed through war and opposition. Did we turn tail and run?
If everytime something came against us that we didn't like, we would not even exist as a country.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Homosexual's turning the way of the Communist?
http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html
A petition calling for heterosexual couples to prove they can concieve and bear children in order to receive their marriage licsence is being pushing in Olympia, WA.
It calls for couples who do not have children within three years of marriage to have the union annulled and all benefits erased.
Their reasoning? They say that anti-gay activist reasoning for banning gay marriage is linked to the point that homosexual couples cannot have children.
So, they say if we're going to say that they aren't a 'real' marriage because of the lack of procreation, then all other marriages that do not produce children should be null and void as well.
It has nothing to do with whether they can have children or not, it comes down to a point of freedom. Who are they to come into our lives and tell us that we are wrong and that we have to accept them?
Our lives are not to scorn or spite them, our lives are the norm. Don't attack us for being something you cannot be. We excercise our 1st Ammendment right just like you.
Just because you feel like you're a victim doesn't mean you are one.
A petition calling for heterosexual couples to prove they can concieve and bear children in order to receive their marriage licsence is being pushing in Olympia, WA.
It calls for couples who do not have children within three years of marriage to have the union annulled and all benefits erased.
Their reasoning? They say that anti-gay activist reasoning for banning gay marriage is linked to the point that homosexual couples cannot have children.
So, they say if we're going to say that they aren't a 'real' marriage because of the lack of procreation, then all other marriages that do not produce children should be null and void as well.
It has nothing to do with whether they can have children or not, it comes down to a point of freedom. Who are they to come into our lives and tell us that we are wrong and that we have to accept them?
Our lives are not to scorn or spite them, our lives are the norm. Don't attack us for being something you cannot be. We excercise our 1st Ammendment right just like you.
Just because you feel like you're a victim doesn't mean you are one.
Is the world full of (oxy)morons?
A simple definition of oxymoron is two words forming a compound word that have completely opposite meanings. i.e. Civil War, smart blonde, and etc.
It seems to me that perhaps the biggest oxymoron of all is "bipartisan media".
The names I. Lewis Libby, Judith Miller, Valerie Plame and Dick Cheney have saturated the media over the course of the last few months.
People are finding it hard to believe that a White House aide would know the name of a CIA officer. Why do we not find it hard to believe that a New York Times reporter knows the name of a CIA officer? Would one not think that perhaps something is wrong?
How does a woman with no security clearance, no working connection with the State Dept learn the name of a top secret organization's employee?
Yet, a man who has worked in the White House and is an aide to President Bush is being ostracized and put on trial.
Judith Miller refused to give the name of her source, despite Grand Juries and subpoenas, why is she not on trial for obstruction of justice and perjury?
How does a man like Tim Russert get away with asking Libby about Plame on national television? Shouldn't that raise a red flag? Sure, Libby may not have the clearance needed to know Plame's name, but Judith Miller and Tim Russert certainly do not.
Wait, did I mention that Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson is an open critic of the Bush administration? Ah, now we get to the heart of things. Of course it's a cover-up, you know what the liberals are thinking.
They (the White House) has a vendetta against all who disagree with them. Let's turn the tables on them, let's get even with them for being upset about our Op/Ed letters and articles.
Why don't we leak classified information to a reporter, ensure that she does not have to reveal her source, and make Dick Cheney look like a traitor. Oh, and while we're at it, let's take down I. Lewis Libby.
In other news, a former Border Patrol Agent was beaten in prison, according to family and a congress man. Ignacio Ramos was sentenced to prison for shooting an Illegal immigrant and known drug runner while he fled back across the border into Mexico, and then lying about it.
What a world, eh folks?
It seems to me that perhaps the biggest oxymoron of all is "bipartisan media".
The names I. Lewis Libby, Judith Miller, Valerie Plame and Dick Cheney have saturated the media over the course of the last few months.
People are finding it hard to believe that a White House aide would know the name of a CIA officer. Why do we not find it hard to believe that a New York Times reporter knows the name of a CIA officer? Would one not think that perhaps something is wrong?
How does a woman with no security clearance, no working connection with the State Dept learn the name of a top secret organization's employee?
Yet, a man who has worked in the White House and is an aide to President Bush is being ostracized and put on trial.
Judith Miller refused to give the name of her source, despite Grand Juries and subpoenas, why is she not on trial for obstruction of justice and perjury?
How does a man like Tim Russert get away with asking Libby about Plame on national television? Shouldn't that raise a red flag? Sure, Libby may not have the clearance needed to know Plame's name, but Judith Miller and Tim Russert certainly do not.
Wait, did I mention that Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson is an open critic of the Bush administration? Ah, now we get to the heart of things. Of course it's a cover-up, you know what the liberals are thinking.
They (the White House) has a vendetta against all who disagree with them. Let's turn the tables on them, let's get even with them for being upset about our Op/Ed letters and articles.
Why don't we leak classified information to a reporter, ensure that she does not have to reveal her source, and make Dick Cheney look like a traitor. Oh, and while we're at it, let's take down I. Lewis Libby.
In other news, a former Border Patrol Agent was beaten in prison, according to family and a congress man. Ignacio Ramos was sentenced to prison for shooting an Illegal immigrant and known drug runner while he fled back across the border into Mexico, and then lying about it.
What a world, eh folks?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Ahmadinejad and Liz Cheney speak out.
Ahmadinejad: Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives
Yaakov Lappin
Published:
01.23.07, 22:24
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
"Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added, according to the report.
The Iranian president also directly tied events in Lebanon to a wider plan aimed at Israel's destruction. He called on "regional countries" to "support the Islamic resistance of the Lebanese people and strive to enhance solidarity and unity among the different Palestinian groups in a bid to pave the ground for the undermining of the Zionist regime whose demise is, of course, imminent."
Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilation several times in recent months, and has recently added the US and Britain to the list of countries he says will be destroyed.
Syria's Foreign Minister, Wailed Mualem, accused the US of attempting to carry out a "massacre of Muslims" and of sowing "discord among Islamic faiths in the region."
Mualem called on "regional states to pave the ground for the establishment of peace and tranquillity… while preventing further genocide of the Muslims," the IRIB website said.
Ah, he's at it again. The esteemed President of Iran is fortelling the destruction of America and Israel- still.
Has he qualified for Mullah status yet?
In other news, sweeps in LA netted over 750 illegal aliens. Of the 761, over 400 have already been deported. Can you say progress?
Liz Cheney is speaking out about Hilary Clinton and the war in general. Let me tell you, my jaw dropped when I read this.
Retreat Isn't an Option
By Liz CheneyTuesday, January 23, 2007; A17
Sen. Hillary Clinton declared this weekend, " I'm in to win." Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war.
In fairness, Clinton, with her proposal for arbitrary caps on troop levels and hemming and hawing about her vote for the war resolution, has company on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Joseph Lieberman is the only national Democrat showing any courage on this issue. We Republicans -- with help from senators such as Chuck Hagel -- seem ready to race the Democrats to the bottom.
I'd like to ask the politicians in both parties who are heading for the hills to stop and reflect on these basic facts:
· We are at war. America faces an existential threat. This is not, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed, a "situation to be solved." It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Sen. Barack Obama suggested at a Jan. 11 hearing, "Enough is enough." Wishing doesn't make it so. We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later.
· Quitting helps the terrorists. Few politicians want to be known as spokesmen for retreat. Instead we hear such words as "redeployment," "drawdown" or "troop cap." Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Don't take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East. The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of proving them right.
· Beware the polls. In November the American people expressed serious concerns about Iraq (and about Republican corruption and scandals). They did not say that they want us to lose this war. They did not say that they want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would rather we fight the terrorists here at home. Until you see a poll that asks those questions, don't use election results as an excuse to retreat.
· Retreat from Iraq hurts us in the broader war. We are fighting the war on terrorism with allies across the globe, leaders such as Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Brave activists are also standing with us, fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the empowerment of women. They risk their lives every day to defeat the forces of terrorism. They can't win without us, and many of them won't continue to fight if they believe we're abandoning them. Politicians urging America to quit in Iraq should explain how we win the war on terrorism once we've scared all of our allies away.
What about Iran? There is no doubt that an American retreat from Iraq will embolden Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, making it even less likely that the Iranian president will bend to the will of the international community and halt his nuclear weapons program.
A member of Lebanon's parliament recently told me that Lebanese Sunnis, Shiites and Christians are lining up with Iran and Syria to fight against Sunnis, Shiites and Christians who want to stand with America. When I asked him why people were lining up with Iran and Syria, he said, "Because they know Iran and Syria aren't going anyplace. We're not so sure about America."
· Our soldiers will win if we let them. Read their blogs. Talk to them. They know that free people must fight to defend their freedom. No force on Earth -- especially not an army of terrorists and insurgents -- can defeat our soldiers militarily. American troops will win if we show even one-tenth the courage here at home that they show every day on the battlefield. And by the way, you cannot wish failure on our soldiers' mission and claim, at the same time, to be supporting the troops. It just doesn't compute.
I suppose Hillary Clinton's announcement was a sign of progress. In 2007, a woman can run for president and show the same level of courage and conviction about this war many of her male colleagues have. Steel in the spine? Not so much.
America deserves better. It's time for everyone -- Republicans and Democrats -- to stop trying to find ways for America to quit. Victory is the only option. We must have the fortitude and the courage to do what it takes. In the words of Winston Churchill, we must deserve victory.
We must be in it to win.
Hear, hear, Ms. Cheney, I don't think I could have said it better myself!
Yaakov Lappin
Published:
01.23.07, 22:24
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
"Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added, according to the report.
The Iranian president also directly tied events in Lebanon to a wider plan aimed at Israel's destruction. He called on "regional countries" to "support the Islamic resistance of the Lebanese people and strive to enhance solidarity and unity among the different Palestinian groups in a bid to pave the ground for the undermining of the Zionist regime whose demise is, of course, imminent."
Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilation several times in recent months, and has recently added the US and Britain to the list of countries he says will be destroyed.
Syria's Foreign Minister, Wailed Mualem, accused the US of attempting to carry out a "massacre of Muslims" and of sowing "discord among Islamic faiths in the region."
Mualem called on "regional states to pave the ground for the establishment of peace and tranquillity… while preventing further genocide of the Muslims," the IRIB website said.
Ah, he's at it again. The esteemed President of Iran is fortelling the destruction of America and Israel- still.
Has he qualified for Mullah status yet?
In other news, sweeps in LA netted over 750 illegal aliens. Of the 761, over 400 have already been deported. Can you say progress?
Liz Cheney is speaking out about Hilary Clinton and the war in general. Let me tell you, my jaw dropped when I read this.
Retreat Isn't an Option
By Liz CheneyTuesday, January 23, 2007; A17
Sen. Hillary Clinton declared this weekend, " I'm in to win." Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war.
In fairness, Clinton, with her proposal for arbitrary caps on troop levels and hemming and hawing about her vote for the war resolution, has company on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Joseph Lieberman is the only national Democrat showing any courage on this issue. We Republicans -- with help from senators such as Chuck Hagel -- seem ready to race the Democrats to the bottom.
I'd like to ask the politicians in both parties who are heading for the hills to stop and reflect on these basic facts:
· We are at war. America faces an existential threat. This is not, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed, a "situation to be solved." It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Sen. Barack Obama suggested at a Jan. 11 hearing, "Enough is enough." Wishing doesn't make it so. We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later.
· Quitting helps the terrorists. Few politicians want to be known as spokesmen for retreat. Instead we hear such words as "redeployment," "drawdown" or "troop cap." Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Don't take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East. The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We're in danger of proving them right.
· Beware the polls. In November the American people expressed serious concerns about Iraq (and about Republican corruption and scandals). They did not say that they want us to lose this war. They did not say that they want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would rather we fight the terrorists here at home. Until you see a poll that asks those questions, don't use election results as an excuse to retreat.
· Retreat from Iraq hurts us in the broader war. We are fighting the war on terrorism with allies across the globe, leaders such as Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Brave activists are also standing with us, fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the empowerment of women. They risk their lives every day to defeat the forces of terrorism. They can't win without us, and many of them won't continue to fight if they believe we're abandoning them. Politicians urging America to quit in Iraq should explain how we win the war on terrorism once we've scared all of our allies away.
What about Iran? There is no doubt that an American retreat from Iraq will embolden Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, making it even less likely that the Iranian president will bend to the will of the international community and halt his nuclear weapons program.
A member of Lebanon's parliament recently told me that Lebanese Sunnis, Shiites and Christians are lining up with Iran and Syria to fight against Sunnis, Shiites and Christians who want to stand with America. When I asked him why people were lining up with Iran and Syria, he said, "Because they know Iran and Syria aren't going anyplace. We're not so sure about America."
· Our soldiers will win if we let them. Read their blogs. Talk to them. They know that free people must fight to defend their freedom. No force on Earth -- especially not an army of terrorists and insurgents -- can defeat our soldiers militarily. American troops will win if we show even one-tenth the courage here at home that they show every day on the battlefield. And by the way, you cannot wish failure on our soldiers' mission and claim, at the same time, to be supporting the troops. It just doesn't compute.
I suppose Hillary Clinton's announcement was a sign of progress. In 2007, a woman can run for president and show the same level of courage and conviction about this war many of her male colleagues have. Steel in the spine? Not so much.
America deserves better. It's time for everyone -- Republicans and Democrats -- to stop trying to find ways for America to quit. Victory is the only option. We must have the fortitude and the courage to do what it takes. In the words of Winston Churchill, we must deserve victory.
We must be in it to win.
Hear, hear, Ms. Cheney, I don't think I could have said it better myself!
Saturday, January 20, 2007
The ACLU's Plan to save the guilty.
With the announcement for plans to collect the DNA of illegal aliens, terrorism detainees and those charged but not convicted of federal crimes, the ACLU and EPIC moves to action.
Their cause? Defend the guilty from being databased. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Sen. Jon Kyl are the major proponents of the bill.
Currently, the FBI's CODIS (Combined DNA Indexing System) is the only DNA database available. The ACLU has jumped on the bill, which is still in it's rough stage, decrying it as invasive. Their main objection? If you happen to be singled out for an airport inspection, you might be added to the database. If you're chosen at a border checkpoint, you might be added to the database. This is too much of a risk to take. We can't take massive steps to protect our borders without possibly stepping on the toes of our spoiled and guilty minded public.
Out of 100 illegal aliens arrested, 70% will be rearrested. The rise of diseases such as leprosey, smallpox, scarlet fever and malaria are on the rise. We're being bled dry by the illegals that come to America and have their babies. Babies which become citizens, thus entitled to the benefits of welfare and tax payer support.
Terrorism has proven over and over that it has no other agenda but to destroy America.
Why on earth would a group called the American Civil Liberties Union want to defend the 'rights' of people that are on the verge of killing everything we stand for and love?
Why not just elimiate AFIS and NCIC as well? Are we wrong to take steps to label criminals and terrorists?
Their cause? Defend the guilty from being databased. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Sen. Jon Kyl are the major proponents of the bill.
Currently, the FBI's CODIS (Combined DNA Indexing System) is the only DNA database available. The ACLU has jumped on the bill, which is still in it's rough stage, decrying it as invasive. Their main objection? If you happen to be singled out for an airport inspection, you might be added to the database. If you're chosen at a border checkpoint, you might be added to the database. This is too much of a risk to take. We can't take massive steps to protect our borders without possibly stepping on the toes of our spoiled and guilty minded public.
Out of 100 illegal aliens arrested, 70% will be rearrested. The rise of diseases such as leprosey, smallpox, scarlet fever and malaria are on the rise. We're being bled dry by the illegals that come to America and have their babies. Babies which become citizens, thus entitled to the benefits of welfare and tax payer support.
Terrorism has proven over and over that it has no other agenda but to destroy America.
Why on earth would a group called the American Civil Liberties Union want to defend the 'rights' of people that are on the verge of killing everything we stand for and love?
Why not just elimiate AFIS and NCIC as well? Are we wrong to take steps to label criminals and terrorists?
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Eh, missing me yet? I realized yesterday that I haven't addressed the new Iraq strategy that President Bush outlined last week.. perhaps it was two weeks ago, the days tend to run together.
He's sending 20, 000 more troops over there. I do agree with this plan, my only qualm is that there is no increase in the bombing raids. This is due to, of course, the large presence of American and Coalition forces in country.
I believe that was one of our large errors in the onset of the war. During the first Gulf War, bombing runs were conducted around the clock. Giving the Republican Guard and the Iraqi Army little chance to regroup.
This time around, there wasn't (in my opinion) nearly enough strafing runs to break up the pockets of resistance. Fallujah, Tikrit, Baghdad, Mosul, all of these towns should have been bombed regularly for a week.
Drive the resistance underground, or better yet, destroy it and you have less opposition when the ground troops go in.
Yes, I know about collateral damage, I know that innocents die, and frankly, I wish it would never happen.
But unfortunately, it does. People do die. It happens to be a fact of life, you live, then you die.
Anyway, back to my original topic. 20,000 more troops, Good. More funding, very good.
His only opposition there is going to be his Congress and House. Good luck with Pelosi, Mr President.
What I found ironic is while he took the blame for all of the mistakes that happened. He didn't take the credit for all the good things that have happened.
Let's see, the Iraqi's are no longer oppressed by a dictator, have held democratic elections, have a President, a Constitution, and a myriad of other things.
Wonder who is responsible for all of that?
One person made the decision for that to become possible.
This man has been ridiculed, reviled, insulted, mocked, called names, been "disapproved of" and disrespected by millions. Yet, he is a hero in this day and age.
George W. Bush.
He's sending 20, 000 more troops over there. I do agree with this plan, my only qualm is that there is no increase in the bombing raids. This is due to, of course, the large presence of American and Coalition forces in country.
I believe that was one of our large errors in the onset of the war. During the first Gulf War, bombing runs were conducted around the clock. Giving the Republican Guard and the Iraqi Army little chance to regroup.
This time around, there wasn't (in my opinion) nearly enough strafing runs to break up the pockets of resistance. Fallujah, Tikrit, Baghdad, Mosul, all of these towns should have been bombed regularly for a week.
Drive the resistance underground, or better yet, destroy it and you have less opposition when the ground troops go in.
Yes, I know about collateral damage, I know that innocents die, and frankly, I wish it would never happen.
But unfortunately, it does. People do die. It happens to be a fact of life, you live, then you die.
Anyway, back to my original topic. 20,000 more troops, Good. More funding, very good.
His only opposition there is going to be his Congress and House. Good luck with Pelosi, Mr President.
What I found ironic is while he took the blame for all of the mistakes that happened. He didn't take the credit for all the good things that have happened.
Let's see, the Iraqi's are no longer oppressed by a dictator, have held democratic elections, have a President, a Constitution, and a myriad of other things.
Wonder who is responsible for all of that?
One person made the decision for that to become possible.
This man has been ridiculed, reviled, insulted, mocked, called names, been "disapproved of" and disrespected by millions. Yet, he is a hero in this day and age.
George W. Bush.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Pat Robertson?
Nutjob or prophet of God?
As a religious person, I'm actually inclined to believe the former. Surprise, surprise.
As for an attack, if we continue on the way we're going, it very well could happen.
We've suspended legitimate, feasible ways of keeping our country safe, we allow national news media to continue to print Classified material, and we just put Nancy Pelosi in as Speaker of the House.
Sure, why not? It's an open invitation to any terrorist group to waltz in and work destruction.
We want to talk and negotiate with them, but what we do not realize is that there is no negotiating with radicals.
We talk, they laugh. Why waste your breath?
Although, for all of his inane rambling, Robertson has given one statement that I agree with..
Assassinate Hugo Chavez.
As a religious person, I'm actually inclined to believe the former. Surprise, surprise.
As for an attack, if we continue on the way we're going, it very well could happen.
We've suspended legitimate, feasible ways of keeping our country safe, we allow national news media to continue to print Classified material, and we just put Nancy Pelosi in as Speaker of the House.
Sure, why not? It's an open invitation to any terrorist group to waltz in and work destruction.
We want to talk and negotiate with them, but what we do not realize is that there is no negotiating with radicals.
We talk, they laugh. Why waste your breath?
Although, for all of his inane rambling, Robertson has given one statement that I agree with..
Assassinate Hugo Chavez.
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Superficiality
I hope I'm spelling it correctly..lol.
Listening to my Ipod last night, I came across a song named "Gallery".
Lyrics following this diatribe.
I can't tell if he's jealous the other guy has the girl, or if he's truly upset that this guy uses girls then lets them go when he's finished.
Why does the girl stay with him for the money? If she's having thoughts about knowing she needs better, why is she there in the first place? Did she have second thoughts?
I guess my question this morning is, why do we place so much emphasis on money, looks, and everything superficial? It won't last. Money will run out, looks will grow old, and superficialness will fade. Things like Honor, love, sacrifice, devotion, and loyalty are things that do not fade.
Don't fall in love with someone just because they happen to be attractive or wealthy or dress well. Fall in love with the person that's on the inside.
God broke the mold,
When he made this one I know
She's breathtaking but so much more
She walks in the room, your lungs closed
Making you never want to breathe again
Her boyfriend has got so much dough
So much ice his neck and wrist froze Is he faithful to her? Hell no
But she chose to be with him, shorty
Tell me is the money worth your soul
Tell me what's the reason that you hold on
When you know that dude has a whole wall of 'em just like you
And girl you're just way too fine
Gotta be treated as one of a kindGirl use your mind
Don't be just another dime
Because I can't take
Seeing you with him'
Cuz I know exactly what you'll be,
In his gallery
It's just not fair
And it's tearing me apart
You're just another priceless work of art
In his gallery
She's so confused
She knows she deserves more
Someone who will love and adore
But his money's hard to ignore
She really doesn't know what to do
Girl it's just a matter of time
Before he finds another more fine
After he's done dulling your shine
You're out the door and he's through with you
Tell me is the money worth your soul
Tell me what's the reason that you hold on,
When you know that dude has a whole wall of 'em just like you
And girl you're just way too fine
Gotta be treated as one of a kind
Girl use your mind
Don't be just another dime
I can't take
Seeing you with him'
Cuz I know exactly what you'll be
In his gallery
It's just not fair
And it's tearing me apart
You're just another priceless work of art
In his gallery
You're a masterpiece
I know that he
Can't appreciate your beauty
Don't let him cheapen you
He don't see you like i do
Beautiful not just for show
Time that someone let you know
I can't take
Seeing you with him'
Cuz I know exactly what you'll be
In his gallery
It's just not fair
And it's tearing me apart
You're just another priceless work of art
Listening to my Ipod last night, I came across a song named "Gallery".
Lyrics following this diatribe.
I can't tell if he's jealous the other guy has the girl, or if he's truly upset that this guy uses girls then lets them go when he's finished.
Why does the girl stay with him for the money? If she's having thoughts about knowing she needs better, why is she there in the first place? Did she have second thoughts?
I guess my question this morning is, why do we place so much emphasis on money, looks, and everything superficial? It won't last. Money will run out, looks will grow old, and superficialness will fade. Things like Honor, love, sacrifice, devotion, and loyalty are things that do not fade.
Don't fall in love with someone just because they happen to be attractive or wealthy or dress well. Fall in love with the person that's on the inside.
God broke the mold,
When he made this one I know
She's breathtaking but so much more
She walks in the room, your lungs closed
Making you never want to breathe again
Her boyfriend has got so much dough
So much ice his neck and wrist froze Is he faithful to her? Hell no
But she chose to be with him, shorty
Tell me is the money worth your soul
Tell me what's the reason that you hold on
When you know that dude has a whole wall of 'em just like you
And girl you're just way too fine
Gotta be treated as one of a kindGirl use your mind
Don't be just another dime
Because I can't take
Seeing you with him'
Cuz I know exactly what you'll be,
In his gallery
It's just not fair
And it's tearing me apart
You're just another priceless work of art
In his gallery
She's so confused
She knows she deserves more
Someone who will love and adore
But his money's hard to ignore
She really doesn't know what to do
Girl it's just a matter of time
Before he finds another more fine
After he's done dulling your shine
You're out the door and he's through with you
Tell me is the money worth your soul
Tell me what's the reason that you hold on,
When you know that dude has a whole wall of 'em just like you
And girl you're just way too fine
Gotta be treated as one of a kind
Girl use your mind
Don't be just another dime
I can't take
Seeing you with him'
Cuz I know exactly what you'll be
In his gallery
It's just not fair
And it's tearing me apart
You're just another priceless work of art
In his gallery
You're a masterpiece
I know that he
Can't appreciate your beauty
Don't let him cheapen you
He don't see you like i do
Beautiful not just for show
Time that someone let you know
I can't take
Seeing you with him'
Cuz I know exactly what you'll be
In his gallery
It's just not fair
And it's tearing me apart
You're just another priceless work of art
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
