http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6173
One of the most important articles you may ever read. Exposes the short-sightedness of Liberal, pluralistic thinking.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
William Willberforce Remembered
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/02/01/remembering_a_hero
The new movie, Amazing Grace (which is incredibly good), chronicles the life of the hero Dr. Olasky remembers with this fascinating piece. Enjoy!
The new movie, Amazing Grace (which is incredibly good), chronicles the life of the hero Dr. Olasky remembers with this fascinating piece. Enjoy!
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Islam Rising
Last month in Australia, a radical Muslim cleric, Ashraf Doureihi, delivered a well-received speech on the need for Islamic Sharia Law to be the governing force in every nation on earth. Bypassing diplomacy and the mincing of words, Doureihi urged followers of Muhammad to demand of their elected officials that Muslim tradition and law be implemented, even if it meant violent protests and the staging of a military coup.
Last week the London Telegraph ran a front-page story that revealed a poll of Muslim youths (18-24) living in Great Britain that showed over 40% of them would rather live under Sharia Law (an Islamic theocracy) than British law. In a country that freely and generously hands out Welfare and Food Stamps to its ever-increasing Muslim immigrant population, and offers personal freedoms and economic opportunity only dreamed of in the same countries those immigrants are coming from, there is little respect for the law that protects, and economy that provides.
Recently in Canada, there has been an attempt by radical Muslim Clerics to force the government to allow the barbaric practice of “stoning” adulterers among the Muslim population. They are demanding the legal permission under the guise of “religious tolerance and freedom”. This isn’t happening in some Third World nation or Middle Eastern Islamic regime. This is Canada: our neighbor to the north.
There are secondary issues, and there are primary issues. Terrorism and the growth of radical Islam is an issue that should be second to none. This War on Terror is no farce, concocted in the bowels of the CIA in Virginia or the Mossad (the Israeli’s CIA) in Jerusalem. The threat is real, the stakes are extremely high, and too few of us care to know what is really going on around the world.
The scope and size of the terror movement has been growing for many decades. It has become much more than car bombings and Molotov Cocktails; we are being attacked from within our own Western cultures. Thanks to declining birth rates in America and Europe, rising birth rates among Third World Muslims, and liberal immigration policies, we are on the edge of an ethnic chasm that will exist between true Democratic populations and those loyal to the Koran.
Radical Islam has taken root in nearly every country on the planet. With an estimated 1.1 billion followers to the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings, even claims from Muslim apologists groups such as CAIR (Council of American-Islamic Relations) that less than 10% of those 1.1 billion are engaged in the militant brand of their faith, would still put the number of people we need to worry about in the 100-200 million range.
Imagine two-thirds of Americans actively pursuing the destruction of any and all who did not convert to the strictest interpretation of Christianity (like that practiced by the David Koresh-led cult in Waco, TX in 1993)?
That’s the problem. We can’t imagine that. For all the criticism and accusations from the World Community that we, in the United States, are arrogant and the real cause of terror (ask the Christians and Hindus martyred in India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Darfur what America or Israel had to do with their deaths), somehow we are still apathetic towards obvious enemies we legitimately have a “beef” with. If Americans really understood the danger they were in from Muslim terrorists, there might actually be legitimate claims of discrimination to deal with.
It is the gift and curse of freedom. Western (free) societies afford Muslim immigrants the freedoms their own natural homelands do not, and many appreciate and thrive under it. This point is so important to remember when you hear Liberals and Terrorism deniers (i.e. Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, and any Palestinian spokesman) claim that America has no right to tell dangerous nations such as Syria and Iran they are wrong.
We allow citizens to freely associate and speak. We allow, sometimes encourage, dissent and harsh critiques of our own policies. This is a necessary element of freedom that is easily abused.
But, real freedom is that from those who seek to end it.
The type of anti-American/Israeli rhetoric found in many mosques around the globe would make your blood boil. But, suggesting the closing of every Islamic place of worship is not only foolish, it is hateful in the same way radical Muslims are. Then again, we (the Free World) are not taking even the most verbal and recognizable threats seriously. Radical Muslims are spitting in our faces because they’ve seen we are too indifferent and “tolerant” to stop them. What killer would be afraid of a nation who lost its will to fight in Vietnam, Somalia, and now appear on the brink of surrender in a difficult, but completely winnable, battle in Iraq against rag-tag militias?
To prove just how “peaceful” Islam is, hundreds of innocents were murdered in response to a Danish cartoon that depicted the Prophet in a less-than-flattering manner. In response to the Pope’s quoting of a Roman emperor from centuries ago that said that Muhammad had brought nothing new to religion but warfare and death, “benevolent” Muslims in the Sudan executed an Italian nun. What would it look like if Christians rioted each time the Lord’s name was taken in vain on NBC Primetime television? Should Billy Graham call for violent protests and car-bombings in Los Angeles because two of the films that were up for “Best Documentary” depict Evangelicals as bizarre and confused?
There is a growing threat around us, and we are missing the warning signs.
When will it be too late? Should nothing be done or discussed until after we are attacked again? If this type of intimidation is being employed within the borders of modern, friendly, democratic nations such as England, Holland, and Australia, why do we think we will be able to avoid it in our own backyard? How scary is it that 40% of Muslim youths who have grown up in the relative wealth of Britain are ready to toss out thousands of years of European tradition and freedom for the teachings of the Koran (and the subjugation of the society and people that provided them a place to freely worship)?
Christians and Jews in America are accused of wanting a theocracy and for playing politics with God. All I can say to Rosie O’Donnell and Tim Robbins is, if you think the people in the pews at church on Sunday mornings are the real danger, you “ain’t seen nothing yet”. Ask the Australian cleric calling for Sharia Law in Australia what he thinks of homosexuality, co-habitation/sex outside of marriage, and drug abuse? I just wiped out 90% of Hollywood in that last sentence.
The Crusades were a thousand years ago. I did not live then, and I do not deserve to die because of them. We need the vocal support of peace-loving Muslims (who should number at least 600 million) willing to denounce the violence and insanity we see. They are the voices that other Muslims will listen too. They are the ones who can save their religion, and the world. Otherwise, the path their more radical brethren are on will lead to WWIII and, if it comes to that, their destruction, and not our own (hopefully).
For far too long the Western, democratized world has been browbeaten into submission by the overhanging feelings of guilt for racism, sexism, and nationalism. Our mistakes do not outweigh the need for a response to the evil seen on a day like 9/11. If Muslim radicals like Osama really want to compare, tragedy-for-tragedy, the shortcomings of the West and those of Islamic regimes, I’m more than willing to do that.
Every terrible thing the Islamic world has done is somehow justified in light of American, European, or Israeli “oppression”. Misguided liberals in our own country have attached their own qualms (and political aspirations) with America’s past indiscretions to the supposedly unfair attempt by President Bush’s administration to confront the intentions of deadly killers who praise Allah each time they end the lives of innocent women and children.
We need leaders unwilling to compromise political gains for the safety of Americans. We need American citizens competent and aware enough to recognize a threat, and patient enough to endure a far-reaching war that has no clear end in sight. We need laws passed that protect our borders and require immigrants to learn our language, our history, and embrace our culture. Millions came from other countries in the last two hundred years and found a way to assimilate into American culture without losing their identity. That is the beauty of our nation, and the reason no one is immigrating to Saudi Arabia.
Too many in our midst have been asking, “How can we win?” before they ever answered, “Do we really want to win?” The war is between a culture of death and a culture of life. Every citizen of America, and the world, must pick a side; but, do not complain for being held accountable when you do.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894524953&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Last week the London Telegraph ran a front-page story that revealed a poll of Muslim youths (18-24) living in Great Britain that showed over 40% of them would rather live under Sharia Law (an Islamic theocracy) than British law. In a country that freely and generously hands out Welfare and Food Stamps to its ever-increasing Muslim immigrant population, and offers personal freedoms and economic opportunity only dreamed of in the same countries those immigrants are coming from, there is little respect for the law that protects, and economy that provides.
Recently in Canada, there has been an attempt by radical Muslim Clerics to force the government to allow the barbaric practice of “stoning” adulterers among the Muslim population. They are demanding the legal permission under the guise of “religious tolerance and freedom”. This isn’t happening in some Third World nation or Middle Eastern Islamic regime. This is Canada: our neighbor to the north.
There are secondary issues, and there are primary issues. Terrorism and the growth of radical Islam is an issue that should be second to none. This War on Terror is no farce, concocted in the bowels of the CIA in Virginia or the Mossad (the Israeli’s CIA) in Jerusalem. The threat is real, the stakes are extremely high, and too few of us care to know what is really going on around the world.
The scope and size of the terror movement has been growing for many decades. It has become much more than car bombings and Molotov Cocktails; we are being attacked from within our own Western cultures. Thanks to declining birth rates in America and Europe, rising birth rates among Third World Muslims, and liberal immigration policies, we are on the edge of an ethnic chasm that will exist between true Democratic populations and those loyal to the Koran.
Radical Islam has taken root in nearly every country on the planet. With an estimated 1.1 billion followers to the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings, even claims from Muslim apologists groups such as CAIR (Council of American-Islamic Relations) that less than 10% of those 1.1 billion are engaged in the militant brand of their faith, would still put the number of people we need to worry about in the 100-200 million range.
Imagine two-thirds of Americans actively pursuing the destruction of any and all who did not convert to the strictest interpretation of Christianity (like that practiced by the David Koresh-led cult in Waco, TX in 1993)?
That’s the problem. We can’t imagine that. For all the criticism and accusations from the World Community that we, in the United States, are arrogant and the real cause of terror (ask the Christians and Hindus martyred in India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Darfur what America or Israel had to do with their deaths), somehow we are still apathetic towards obvious enemies we legitimately have a “beef” with. If Americans really understood the danger they were in from Muslim terrorists, there might actually be legitimate claims of discrimination to deal with.
It is the gift and curse of freedom. Western (free) societies afford Muslim immigrants the freedoms their own natural homelands do not, and many appreciate and thrive under it. This point is so important to remember when you hear Liberals and Terrorism deniers (i.e. Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, and any Palestinian spokesman) claim that America has no right to tell dangerous nations such as Syria and Iran they are wrong.
We allow citizens to freely associate and speak. We allow, sometimes encourage, dissent and harsh critiques of our own policies. This is a necessary element of freedom that is easily abused.
But, real freedom is that from those who seek to end it.
The type of anti-American/Israeli rhetoric found in many mosques around the globe would make your blood boil. But, suggesting the closing of every Islamic place of worship is not only foolish, it is hateful in the same way radical Muslims are. Then again, we (the Free World) are not taking even the most verbal and recognizable threats seriously. Radical Muslims are spitting in our faces because they’ve seen we are too indifferent and “tolerant” to stop them. What killer would be afraid of a nation who lost its will to fight in Vietnam, Somalia, and now appear on the brink of surrender in a difficult, but completely winnable, battle in Iraq against rag-tag militias?
To prove just how “peaceful” Islam is, hundreds of innocents were murdered in response to a Danish cartoon that depicted the Prophet in a less-than-flattering manner. In response to the Pope’s quoting of a Roman emperor from centuries ago that said that Muhammad had brought nothing new to religion but warfare and death, “benevolent” Muslims in the Sudan executed an Italian nun. What would it look like if Christians rioted each time the Lord’s name was taken in vain on NBC Primetime television? Should Billy Graham call for violent protests and car-bombings in Los Angeles because two of the films that were up for “Best Documentary” depict Evangelicals as bizarre and confused?
There is a growing threat around us, and we are missing the warning signs.
When will it be too late? Should nothing be done or discussed until after we are attacked again? If this type of intimidation is being employed within the borders of modern, friendly, democratic nations such as England, Holland, and Australia, why do we think we will be able to avoid it in our own backyard? How scary is it that 40% of Muslim youths who have grown up in the relative wealth of Britain are ready to toss out thousands of years of European tradition and freedom for the teachings of the Koran (and the subjugation of the society and people that provided them a place to freely worship)?
Christians and Jews in America are accused of wanting a theocracy and for playing politics with God. All I can say to Rosie O’Donnell and Tim Robbins is, if you think the people in the pews at church on Sunday mornings are the real danger, you “ain’t seen nothing yet”. Ask the Australian cleric calling for Sharia Law in Australia what he thinks of homosexuality, co-habitation/sex outside of marriage, and drug abuse? I just wiped out 90% of Hollywood in that last sentence.
The Crusades were a thousand years ago. I did not live then, and I do not deserve to die because of them. We need the vocal support of peace-loving Muslims (who should number at least 600 million) willing to denounce the violence and insanity we see. They are the voices that other Muslims will listen too. They are the ones who can save their religion, and the world. Otherwise, the path their more radical brethren are on will lead to WWIII and, if it comes to that, their destruction, and not our own (hopefully).
For far too long the Western, democratized world has been browbeaten into submission by the overhanging feelings of guilt for racism, sexism, and nationalism. Our mistakes do not outweigh the need for a response to the evil seen on a day like 9/11. If Muslim radicals like Osama really want to compare, tragedy-for-tragedy, the shortcomings of the West and those of Islamic regimes, I’m more than willing to do that.
Every terrible thing the Islamic world has done is somehow justified in light of American, European, or Israeli “oppression”. Misguided liberals in our own country have attached their own qualms (and political aspirations) with America’s past indiscretions to the supposedly unfair attempt by President Bush’s administration to confront the intentions of deadly killers who praise Allah each time they end the lives of innocent women and children.
We need leaders unwilling to compromise political gains for the safety of Americans. We need American citizens competent and aware enough to recognize a threat, and patient enough to endure a far-reaching war that has no clear end in sight. We need laws passed that protect our borders and require immigrants to learn our language, our history, and embrace our culture. Millions came from other countries in the last two hundred years and found a way to assimilate into American culture without losing their identity. That is the beauty of our nation, and the reason no one is immigrating to Saudi Arabia.
Too many in our midst have been asking, “How can we win?” before they ever answered, “Do we really want to win?” The war is between a culture of death and a culture of life. Every citizen of America, and the world, must pick a side; but, do not complain for being held accountable when you do.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894524953&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Monday, February 26, 2007
American ingenuity?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/270658,CST-EDT-STEYN25.article
The best political/social commentator out there right now...Mark Steyn, as always, hits one out of the park with his latest column in the Chicago Sun-Times. He's English, from Canada, and lives in Vermont. The liberal deck and odds were stacked against him you might say.
The best political/social commentator out there right now...Mark Steyn, as always, hits one out of the park with his latest column in the Chicago Sun-Times. He's English, from Canada, and lives in Vermont. The liberal deck and odds were stacked against him you might say.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Important thought on why "they" Fight
The Greatest Love
by:Chuck Colson
It was February of 1945—three months before the end of World War II in Europe. Eighteen-year-old Sergeant Joseph George of Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, was stationed in Lorient, France. It was evening, and George was preparing to go on patrol. The Americans were hoping to locate landmines buried by the Germans.
Sergeant George had been on patrol duty the night before. As he told his friend Private James Caudill, he was tired—tired and scared. Private Caudill offered to take the patrol on his behalf. He pointed out that, at age 36, he was nearly two decades older than George. He told George—who had already been blown off a torpedoed ship in the English Channel—“You’re young. Go home. Get married. Live a rich, full life.” And then Private Caudill went out on patrol. A few hours later, he was killed by a German sniper.
The actions of Private Caudill echo the values and valor of generations of military men and women we remember today. And they are an example of the sort of behavior we almost take for granted when it comes to our men and women in uniform who fight just wars.
What is a just war? One that is defined as providing a proportionate response to evil, to protect non-combatants, among other considerations. Today, our military men and women around the world are fighting to resist evil. Ridding the world of Islamo-fascism—by just means—is a good and loving act.
This willingness to sacrifice on behalf of our neighbors is why military service is considered such a high calling for Christians—and part of what makes just wars just. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica puts his discussion of just war in his chapter on charity—the love of God and neighbor. John Calvin agreed; he called soldiering justly a “God-like act,” because “it imitates God’s restraining evil out of love for His creatures.”
A world in which free nations refuse to fight just wars would be a world where evil is unchecked and where the strong would be free to prey on the weak—as we are now seeing in Darfur.
Our soldiers’ willingness to defend the defenseless around the world makes me proud to be an American. Their willingness to lay down their lives is a reflection of how the Christian worldview has influenced our society, which is why American soldiers, by the way, are welcomed all over the world, as historian Stephen Ambrose wrote, while soldiers from other cultures are feared.
So what of Sgt. Joseph George? He returned safely home. He married, fathered five sons. One of them—Princeton Professor Robert George—is a good friend of mine. He’s devoted much of his life to fighting the moral evils of our time: abortion, embryo-destructive research, and efforts to redefine marriage in a way that would destroy it.
In John 15:13, Jesus said, “Greater love has no man than this, that [he] lay down his life for his friends.” The story of Private Caudill and Sergeant George makes one realize more deeply what a tremendous gift this is. It’s why the George family has remembered Private Caudill in prayers for sixty-one years.
Today, Memorial Day, we ought to remember the sacrifices of all the Private Caudills in all the wars Americans have fought—and we should pray for those who are still in the field—laying down their lives for each other, for us, and for the freedom of strangers. That’s a very Christian thing to do.
Learn how you can adopt a military person for prayer.
Peter Wehner, “Revisionist History,” Wall Street Journal, 23 May 2006, A16.
Robert D. Kaplan, Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground (Random House, 2005).
Robert D. Kaplan, “Imperial Grunts,” Atlantic Monthly, October 2005.
Kristin Henderson, “‘In the Hands of God’,” Washington Post Magazine, 30 April 2006, W08.
Jane Kettendorf, “Letter: What Happened to ‘Memorial’ in Memorial Day?” Wellesley Townsman, 25 May 2006.
“A Hero to Iraqi Kids,” The Oregonian, 25 May 2006.
Kathryn Jean Lopez, “Justice in War: Just-War Theory,” National Review Online, 15 October 2001.
BreakPoint Commentary No. 050530, “Soldiering Justly: Fighting Freedom’s Battles.”
BreakPoint Commentary No. 040531, “A Soldier’s Valor: Helping and Healing in Iraq.”
BreakPoint Commentary No. 030527, “A ‘Special Grace’: Supporting the ROTC.”
BreakPoint Commentary No. 030526, “Willie and Joe: Quintessential American Soldiers.”
BreakPoint Commentary No. 020306, “Loving Your Neighbor: Just War and Charity.”
Joseph Loconte, The End of Illusions: Religious Leaders Confront Hitler’s Gathering Storm (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004).
by:Chuck Colson
It was February of 1945—three months before the end of World War II in Europe. Eighteen-year-old Sergeant Joseph George of Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, was stationed in Lorient, France. It was evening, and George was preparing to go on patrol. The Americans were hoping to locate landmines buried by the Germans.
Sergeant George had been on patrol duty the night before. As he told his friend Private James Caudill, he was tired—tired and scared. Private Caudill offered to take the patrol on his behalf. He pointed out that, at age 36, he was nearly two decades older than George. He told George—who had already been blown off a torpedoed ship in the English Channel—“You’re young. Go home. Get married. Live a rich, full life.” And then Private Caudill went out on patrol. A few hours later, he was killed by a German sniper.
The actions of Private Caudill echo the values and valor of generations of military men and women we remember today. And they are an example of the sort of behavior we almost take for granted when it comes to our men and women in uniform who fight just wars.
What is a just war? One that is defined as providing a proportionate response to evil, to protect non-combatants, among other considerations. Today, our military men and women around the world are fighting to resist evil. Ridding the world of Islamo-fascism—by just means—is a good and loving act.
This willingness to sacrifice on behalf of our neighbors is why military service is considered such a high calling for Christians—and part of what makes just wars just. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica puts his discussion of just war in his chapter on charity—the love of God and neighbor. John Calvin agreed; he called soldiering justly a “God-like act,” because “it imitates God’s restraining evil out of love for His creatures.”
A world in which free nations refuse to fight just wars would be a world where evil is unchecked and where the strong would be free to prey on the weak—as we are now seeing in Darfur.
Our soldiers’ willingness to defend the defenseless around the world makes me proud to be an American. Their willingness to lay down their lives is a reflection of how the Christian worldview has influenced our society, which is why American soldiers, by the way, are welcomed all over the world, as historian Stephen Ambrose wrote, while soldiers from other cultures are feared.
So what of Sgt. Joseph George? He returned safely home. He married, fathered five sons. One of them—Princeton Professor Robert George—is a good friend of mine. He’s devoted much of his life to fighting the moral evils of our time: abortion, embryo-destructive research, and efforts to redefine marriage in a way that would destroy it.
In John 15:13, Jesus said, “Greater love has no man than this, that [he] lay down his life for his friends.” The story of Private Caudill and Sergeant George makes one realize more deeply what a tremendous gift this is. It’s why the George family has remembered Private Caudill in prayers for sixty-one years.
Today, Memorial Day, we ought to remember the sacrifices of all the Private Caudills in all the wars Americans have fought—and we should pray for those who are still in the field—laying down their lives for each other, for us, and for the freedom of strangers. That’s a very Christian thing to do.
Learn how you can adopt a military person for prayer.
Peter Wehner, “Revisionist History,” Wall Street Journal, 23 May 2006, A16.
Robert D. Kaplan, Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground (Random House, 2005).
Robert D. Kaplan, “Imperial Grunts,” Atlantic Monthly, October 2005.
Kristin Henderson, “‘In the Hands of God’,” Washington Post Magazine, 30 April 2006, W08.
Jane Kettendorf, “Letter: What Happened to ‘Memorial’ in Memorial Day?” Wellesley Townsman, 25 May 2006.
“A Hero to Iraqi Kids,” The Oregonian, 25 May 2006.
Kathryn Jean Lopez, “Justice in War: Just-War Theory,” National Review Online, 15 October 2001.
BreakPoint Commentary No. 050530, “Soldiering Justly: Fighting Freedom’s Battles.”
BreakPoint Commentary No. 040531, “A Soldier’s Valor: Helping and Healing in Iraq.”
BreakPoint Commentary No. 030527, “A ‘Special Grace’: Supporting the ROTC.”
BreakPoint Commentary No. 030526, “Willie and Joe: Quintessential American Soldiers.”
BreakPoint Commentary No. 020306, “Loving Your Neighbor: Just War and Charity.”
Joseph Loconte, The End of Illusions: Religious Leaders Confront Hitler’s Gathering Storm (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004).
Please, please, please READ THIS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201453.html?sub=AR
As important and definitive an article that's been written on the Iraq War
As important and definitive an article that's been written on the Iraq War
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Anti-Ameican feelings continue to grow in Muslim World
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1415550.ece
“We find that Muslim radicals have more in common with their moderate brethren than is often assumed"
Sobering statistics of just how hated America is.
“We find that Muslim radicals have more in common with their moderate brethren than is often assumed"
Sobering statistics of just how hated America is.
You Can Always Trust a Liberal
…to be a Liberal
Liberals cannot stand the sight or sound of Conservatives, Republicans, and Moderates of any kind. If you are not taking ground for the Left in the culture war, you are in the way and thus expendable. Joe Lieberman had been a trusted, respected Liberal Democrat leader for decades. The Senator from Connecticut supports gay-marriage, abortion, welfare, gun control, civil liberties (whatever that purposely ambiguous term means today), and high taxes. In essence, he is the epitome of American liberalism today. The guy was the Democrats Vice Presidential nominee in 2000 alongside Al Gore.
His sin? Supporting George Bush and the Republicans in the War on Terror. Simply because this honorable public servant happens to find the need to protect America against the all-too-real threat of radical Islam of more importance than higher taxes for extra money in the budget for the Department of Agriculture (which is something he actually does support), he is been abandoned by the Democratic Party.
The same Party that gave us FDR, JFK, and LBJ (all war-time Presidents) is now so ready to cut-and-run surrender that they’ll steamroll their most sensible leader in the Senate to prove a point. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are the party for moderates has been fooling himself or herself since the day Bill Clinton took office. Liberals fund them; Liberals lead them.
Republicans are seen as fools and greedy jerks who are only capable of being elected when they steal elections. Howard Dean, the head of the Democratic National Committee, recently said at a fund-raising dinner, “The Republicans are a party of rich, white, Christians who wouldn’t be in the same room with a black man unless he was serving their dinner at the country club.” If that wasn’t offensive enough, Barrack Obama told a campaign rally in New Hampshire that, “The same people who wouldn’t vote for me because I’m black are the kind of people who wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics.” Yeah, it’s a good thing Republicans are the ones keeping the races divided in America.
Unfortunately for the Left, black home-ownership, black small business ownership are at all-time highs; Bush increased the amount of Blacks who voted for him in 2004 by 10% from 2000; and, Bush has had more Blacks in and on his Cabinet than any other President in History. Recently released studies by the USA Today and University of Chicago show that the three biggest indicators of charitable people are: if they go to church, if both parents (of the opposite sex) are still together, and if they are Conservatives (85% of which voted for George Bush in 2000 and 2004). Being a Liberal or Democrat wasn’t even in the top five.
The Left hates few people more than George W. Bush. The disrespectful, and often embarrassing, manner in which they ridicule, belittle, undermine and libel the Commander-in-Chief (in a time of war) is completely legitimate in their eyes because his Presidency is completely illegitimate. It is an easy way to build up one’s deflated ego when you can chime in the chorus that our President is a “dummy”. It helps those who lack confidence in their own abilities to believe the lie that our President is dumb and incapable.
But, when Clinton was in charge, all we heard about was his charisma and intelligence. Never mind he took a booming economy and left a recession for Bush in 2000. Who cares that he ignored painfully obvious warning signs that terrorism and Osama were on their way to America’s shores (and had already attacked those in the 1993 WTC bombing)? Put aside the silly notion that lying under oath while President does anything to weaken the moral standing that a country looks too and once celebrated.
The guy was a charmer and “ladies man”. Style always tops substance for Liberals. (Think: Obama.) Liberals prize cagey politicians; Conservatives value brave leadership. Which one do you want running your Fortune 500 corporation, let alone, your country?
Bush has brought us never-seen-before miniscule levels of unemployment. In the past year the NYSE has set no less than six different all-time record highs. There’s been not one single attack on our soil since that alarmingly forgotten September morning. Iraq’s held three major elections that saw higher percentages in voters than we have in America (where if a gust of wind picks up as we head out on Election Day we turn around and search the web to see if you can just “text” your vote in like that cutie Ryan Seacrest always lets you do).
Afghanistan, while still seeing pockets of Taliban resistance, has a democratically elected President and government. North Korea recently gave-in to the sanctions and embargos the United States called for, and promises to disarm their nuclear program.
But, well, Bush is a fool. I mean, look, there are still people actually, you know, dying in a war. Isn’t that proof of…well, something…right? I barely could sit through Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan and those battles only lasted a couple hours; and then I went to Chili’s. I’m sick of this one.
Once it became clear that Bush indeed had fairly, and legally, defeated Gore in 2000, the drum beats of “stolen election” began to sound. The same Supreme Court the Left demands be unquestioned for decisions regarding the murder of 50 million babies since 1973 was said, by Democrats and liberal media pundits, to have been “bought” by a dumb frat-boy from Texas and his former Presidential daddy.
Ever since, we’ve had to endure insufferable and endless references to Bush’s theft of an American election. Thanks to the liberal public school education most of us receive, that is more interested in teaching kids how to put condoms on cucumbers (actually happening in California…with 1st graders), not many understand how the Electoral College voting works. Rolling Stone must not have covered the inner-workings of that constitutionally-appointed system in their “Why Gore Should’ve Won” issue.
So, armed with ignorance and a lot of “heart”, loudmouth liberals feel they’ve won any argument when they decide it is time to drop the always popular, “Bush shouldn’t even be President because he and his brother/dad stole it.” This asinine thinking supposedly trumps logic, reason, and factual evidence. The Left feel they have a “Bush stole the election” fail-safe key to turn anytime the weight of a Conservative’s logic comes crushing down on them. Anything Bush does, any election he and his Party wins, is viewed through the slanted prism of disdain for a man who should have never even been there to begin with.
The Democrats won last November’s election, and suddenly the cries of Conservative “voter fraud” and “Republican intimidation of voters” went silently into the night (like our chances of winning a war with Democrats in charge). The Dem’s and the press told us that a mandate had been handed down by the people that finally Bush and his “neo-con’s” were to stop being such bullies to those friendly terrorists in the Middle East and falsely accused enemy combatants at Guantanomo Bay. When Bush and his Party took the White House and gained seats in Congress in each of the three prior elections (the first time a party had done so since Abraham Lincoln was in charge), the press and Dem’s mistakenly demanded that no such mandate (to stay strong in the War on Terror) existed.
So let the Liberals continue to believe they have come to the rescue of America just in the nick of time. They have an ongoing, irresistible and insatiable desire to flatter themselves. What we need is heady, strong, consistent leadership that governs by principle and core convictions, not what opinion polls tell them. Where do you see that on the Left?
Liberals cannot stand the sight or sound of Conservatives, Republicans, and Moderates of any kind. If you are not taking ground for the Left in the culture war, you are in the way and thus expendable. Joe Lieberman had been a trusted, respected Liberal Democrat leader for decades. The Senator from Connecticut supports gay-marriage, abortion, welfare, gun control, civil liberties (whatever that purposely ambiguous term means today), and high taxes. In essence, he is the epitome of American liberalism today. The guy was the Democrats Vice Presidential nominee in 2000 alongside Al Gore.
His sin? Supporting George Bush and the Republicans in the War on Terror. Simply because this honorable public servant happens to find the need to protect America against the all-too-real threat of radical Islam of more importance than higher taxes for extra money in the budget for the Department of Agriculture (which is something he actually does support), he is been abandoned by the Democratic Party.
The same Party that gave us FDR, JFK, and LBJ (all war-time Presidents) is now so ready to cut-and-run surrender that they’ll steamroll their most sensible leader in the Senate to prove a point. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are the party for moderates has been fooling himself or herself since the day Bill Clinton took office. Liberals fund them; Liberals lead them.
Republicans are seen as fools and greedy jerks who are only capable of being elected when they steal elections. Howard Dean, the head of the Democratic National Committee, recently said at a fund-raising dinner, “The Republicans are a party of rich, white, Christians who wouldn’t be in the same room with a black man unless he was serving their dinner at the country club.” If that wasn’t offensive enough, Barrack Obama told a campaign rally in New Hampshire that, “The same people who wouldn’t vote for me because I’m black are the kind of people who wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics.” Yeah, it’s a good thing Republicans are the ones keeping the races divided in America.
Unfortunately for the Left, black home-ownership, black small business ownership are at all-time highs; Bush increased the amount of Blacks who voted for him in 2004 by 10% from 2000; and, Bush has had more Blacks in and on his Cabinet than any other President in History. Recently released studies by the USA Today and University of Chicago show that the three biggest indicators of charitable people are: if they go to church, if both parents (of the opposite sex) are still together, and if they are Conservatives (85% of which voted for George Bush in 2000 and 2004). Being a Liberal or Democrat wasn’t even in the top five.
The Left hates few people more than George W. Bush. The disrespectful, and often embarrassing, manner in which they ridicule, belittle, undermine and libel the Commander-in-Chief (in a time of war) is completely legitimate in their eyes because his Presidency is completely illegitimate. It is an easy way to build up one’s deflated ego when you can chime in the chorus that our President is a “dummy”. It helps those who lack confidence in their own abilities to believe the lie that our President is dumb and incapable.
But, when Clinton was in charge, all we heard about was his charisma and intelligence. Never mind he took a booming economy and left a recession for Bush in 2000. Who cares that he ignored painfully obvious warning signs that terrorism and Osama were on their way to America’s shores (and had already attacked those in the 1993 WTC bombing)? Put aside the silly notion that lying under oath while President does anything to weaken the moral standing that a country looks too and once celebrated.
The guy was a charmer and “ladies man”. Style always tops substance for Liberals. (Think: Obama.) Liberals prize cagey politicians; Conservatives value brave leadership. Which one do you want running your Fortune 500 corporation, let alone, your country?
Bush has brought us never-seen-before miniscule levels of unemployment. In the past year the NYSE has set no less than six different all-time record highs. There’s been not one single attack on our soil since that alarmingly forgotten September morning. Iraq’s held three major elections that saw higher percentages in voters than we have in America (where if a gust of wind picks up as we head out on Election Day we turn around and search the web to see if you can just “text” your vote in like that cutie Ryan Seacrest always lets you do).
Afghanistan, while still seeing pockets of Taliban resistance, has a democratically elected President and government. North Korea recently gave-in to the sanctions and embargos the United States called for, and promises to disarm their nuclear program.
But, well, Bush is a fool. I mean, look, there are still people actually, you know, dying in a war. Isn’t that proof of…well, something…right? I barely could sit through Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan and those battles only lasted a couple hours; and then I went to Chili’s. I’m sick of this one.
Once it became clear that Bush indeed had fairly, and legally, defeated Gore in 2000, the drum beats of “stolen election” began to sound. The same Supreme Court the Left demands be unquestioned for decisions regarding the murder of 50 million babies since 1973 was said, by Democrats and liberal media pundits, to have been “bought” by a dumb frat-boy from Texas and his former Presidential daddy.
Ever since, we’ve had to endure insufferable and endless references to Bush’s theft of an American election. Thanks to the liberal public school education most of us receive, that is more interested in teaching kids how to put condoms on cucumbers (actually happening in California…with 1st graders), not many understand how the Electoral College voting works. Rolling Stone must not have covered the inner-workings of that constitutionally-appointed system in their “Why Gore Should’ve Won” issue.
So, armed with ignorance and a lot of “heart”, loudmouth liberals feel they’ve won any argument when they decide it is time to drop the always popular, “Bush shouldn’t even be President because he and his brother/dad stole it.” This asinine thinking supposedly trumps logic, reason, and factual evidence. The Left feel they have a “Bush stole the election” fail-safe key to turn anytime the weight of a Conservative’s logic comes crushing down on them. Anything Bush does, any election he and his Party wins, is viewed through the slanted prism of disdain for a man who should have never even been there to begin with.
The Democrats won last November’s election, and suddenly the cries of Conservative “voter fraud” and “Republican intimidation of voters” went silently into the night (like our chances of winning a war with Democrats in charge). The Dem’s and the press told us that a mandate had been handed down by the people that finally Bush and his “neo-con’s” were to stop being such bullies to those friendly terrorists in the Middle East and falsely accused enemy combatants at Guantanomo Bay. When Bush and his Party took the White House and gained seats in Congress in each of the three prior elections (the first time a party had done so since Abraham Lincoln was in charge), the press and Dem’s mistakenly demanded that no such mandate (to stay strong in the War on Terror) existed.
So let the Liberals continue to believe they have come to the rescue of America just in the nick of time. They have an ongoing, irresistible and insatiable desire to flatter themselves. What we need is heady, strong, consistent leadership that governs by principle and core convictions, not what opinion polls tell them. Where do you see that on the Left?
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Remember when America wanted to win wars?
"Men, this stuff we hear about America wanting to stay out of the war, not wanting to fight, is a lot of bull---. Americans love to fight - traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble player; the fastest runner; the big league ball players; the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win - all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost, nor ever will lose a war, for the very thought of losing is hateful to an American."
-General George Patton, 1944
(For the rest of his speech, click the link below)
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jjmeyers/patton.html
-General George Patton, 1944
(For the rest of his speech, click the link below)
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jjmeyers/patton.html
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Ahmadinejad Is Nuts
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252907,00.html
The President of Iran is demanding the West gives up nuclear power if he is required to give up his own. I say we trust him because he's consistently had a firm grip of reality.
The President of Iran is demanding the West gives up nuclear power if he is required to give up his own. I say we trust him because he's consistently had a firm grip of reality.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Holocaust-Deniers Club
Why does Iran care so much about Israel?
In December 2006, Iran held a state-sponsored “Holocaust-denial” Conference that featured speakers such as former KKK leader, David Duke. Topics covered included: “How the Jews made money in concentration camps”, “The Holocaust—A Murder Weapon used by Jews”, and “The Zionist-created Fairy Tale”. It was a veritable “who’s who” of who’s crazy.
The scary part is not just that the hundreds of attendees (and millions around the world) actually deny that Hitler exterminated six million Jews, but it is the intent behind such a radically alternative view of reality that keeps me up at night. There are differences in opinions, and then there are differences in reality and competency.
The purpose for President Ahmadinejad’s Jew-hating circus is transparent and dangerous. At the heart of Anti-Semitism and Holocaust-denial is a core belief that Israel (Jews) are the cause of all trouble in the world, and if they are eliminated, things will be much better for other groups of people. This degree of anti-Semitism is common in the Middle East, and even rears its ugly head in Western democracies such as our own (don’t get Jimmy Carter started). This type of hate-speech might be found in local watering holes, or Klan meetings, but generally is avoided by UN-recognized nation-states other than Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been singing the same genocidal tune since the day he took office in 2005. His mentor, the late Ayatollah Khomeini (the man who is credited with the legitimizing of state-sponsored terrorism when his military coup took control of Iran in 1979, leading to the 444 day American hostage standoff with the United States) came to power riding the wave of rabid anti-Israeli rhetoric that grew in popularity in the preceding two decades as Israel proved time and again that it was able to ward off Muslim attacks.
Reminiscent of Hitler’s Germany in the 1930’s, Khomeini and his minions preached that the real cause of trouble and strife in the world (specifically the Middle East) was the Jew and their Zionist control over business, industry, and the media. Paranoid doesn’t even begin to describe this kind of “crazy”.
The reason this recent Holocaust-denial Conference matters is that Ahmadinejad intends to use it as a springboard to perpetrate another killing spree. He, as well as the former President of Iran, Hashemi Rafsanjani, is constantly warning of the coming war with Israel and America that will bring about the end of the world and the return of the mythical 12th Imam (the Islamic Messiah). Both men have speculated that it would probably only take, “one large nuclear weapon to destroy most of Israel.”
Much more alarming than that prospect is the response both Iranian leaders have given when asked the obvious follow up question to such an incendiary statement: What about the assured nuclear attack the Israelis would send? Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani each have proclaimed that the sacrifice of even a million of their own people is more than worth the destruction of the Jewish state. Shouldn’t we check with the people of Iran and Syria how they feel about this little plan, guys?
Ayatollah Khomeini put Iran’s intentions towards Israel and America in even clearer and certain terms when he said, "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
This is what I’ve been trying to tell you: we’re dealing with madmen! This is not a melodramatic, satirical exaggeration; it is a profile and description of our enemy. The militant brand of Islam we are dealing with is more committed, more devout, and more ready to die than we are.
The reason Israel is important to both the radical Muslims and the West is comparable to why canaries were used in coalmines to monitor the toxicity of the air to let miners know if they could proceed working or not. Israel has become the guinea pig for both sides. If a democratic, freedom-loving nation can survive in this volatile region, then the West has hope in its fight against terrorism (of which Iran is the leading sponsor). If Iran defeats and annihilates Israel, they can, and most likely, will, be able to defeat Western civilization and our way of life is in jeopardy.
Just as the Moors in the 1200’s, and Umayyad in 732, attempted to convert or kill (by the sword) the continent of Christian Europe, Ahmadinejad and his allies (i.e. Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc) firmly believe that they are called to kill and destroy “infidels” regardless the cost in human life to their own people. Hence, the moniker: “Culture of Death”. Our country is frustrated (rightly so) over the death of 3,000 of our volunteer fighting forces and we’re dealing with men willing to offer up the lives of a million innocent civilians to rid the world of Israel and America.
The question is: can we find our own Charles “The Hammer” Martel before it is too late? (He was the man who warded off the Muslim advances in the 8th Century and preserved the Christian world of Europe, as we know it. In other words, he’s the reason we don’t speak Farsi or Arabic.)
For those of you who don’t believe and/or realize that America is in Iran’s crosshairs, the words of their President himself might shed some desperately needed light on the matter. In his 2006 letter to George W. Bush, the Iranian president issued this warning: "Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems."
Al Qaida and Hezbollah are the tips of an Iranian iceberg, and we’re sitting pretty on the deck of the Titanic, foolishly without a care in the world. Our Congress is more interested in making Bush look dumb; who, despite subsequent mistakes, was the one world leader willing to confront this growing evil (longer than the three months after 9/11 it was politically popular on the network’s nightly newscasts and Oprah).
Ahmadinejad’s (Iran’s) track record is one of duplicitous foreign policy and disingenuous public statements. This man denies the Holocaust ever took place in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary (like six million people missing). He denies Iran’s link to Hezbollah, and its unprovoked attacks on Israel this past summer, despite the fact that his government has taken credit for training, supplying, and encouraging the terrorist group since 1979. He denies the obvious intention of his country’s renegade nuclear weapon’s program but will not allow UN Inspectors into Iran and defiantly declares that even if they were building nukes, “It is none of the world’s business anyway.”
His actions, words, and defined beliefs clearly indicate an unstable, dangerous man who is willing to kill millions in the name of his religion. The denial of the murder of six million Jews is nothing more than a prelude to the main act: a recreation of the atrocity that helped send the world into a global war once before. Mahmoud is trying to show that Israel does not have a right to exist. This will rally the Islamic base in the Middle East.
Incidentally, he is willing to admit the Holocaust did happen so long as Europe will offer to take the Jews back and form a “homeland” there. He’s openly contradicting his own statements on a daily basis, but knows he can do this in the part of the world where sectarian differences are put aside when the topic of killing Jews and Christians is mentioned.
Optimism is a traditional American characteristic and is in rare supply these days. I commend you if you are the “glass half full” type of individual. But, indifference and optimism are often mistaken for each other. These are real and dire problems in the Middle East, and too many are unaware, by choice, of the growing threat.
Think about a few things for me if you will. 1) Would you feel safe living next door to someone who denied the Holocaust happened, let alone giving him or her control of a nuclear weapon aimed at Israel? 2) Is it possible that President Bush’s plan to surround Iran with democracy, and thus apply pressure to the Iranian people who (according to all reports from inside Iran) desperately want freedom, might work and be worth the sacrifices of our money and troops? 3) Would the world be safer, or less safe, with Iran and Syria armed with nuclear weapons? 4) Would the world be safer, or less safe with Israel’s destruction and the complete Middle Eastern dominance by Iran and Islam?
Military options are a last resort, and are avoided by vigilant, sober promoters of peace who are willing to take a hard-line early in order to sidestep a disaster late.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad's_letter_to_George_W._Bush_(8_May_2006)
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/271uktmd.asp?pg=2
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed020706a.cfm
http://washtimes.com/national/20070214-031507-2337r.htm
In December 2006, Iran held a state-sponsored “Holocaust-denial” Conference that featured speakers such as former KKK leader, David Duke. Topics covered included: “How the Jews made money in concentration camps”, “The Holocaust—A Murder Weapon used by Jews”, and “The Zionist-created Fairy Tale”. It was a veritable “who’s who” of who’s crazy.
The scary part is not just that the hundreds of attendees (and millions around the world) actually deny that Hitler exterminated six million Jews, but it is the intent behind such a radically alternative view of reality that keeps me up at night. There are differences in opinions, and then there are differences in reality and competency.
The purpose for President Ahmadinejad’s Jew-hating circus is transparent and dangerous. At the heart of Anti-Semitism and Holocaust-denial is a core belief that Israel (Jews) are the cause of all trouble in the world, and if they are eliminated, things will be much better for other groups of people. This degree of anti-Semitism is common in the Middle East, and even rears its ugly head in Western democracies such as our own (don’t get Jimmy Carter started). This type of hate-speech might be found in local watering holes, or Klan meetings, but generally is avoided by UN-recognized nation-states other than Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been singing the same genocidal tune since the day he took office in 2005. His mentor, the late Ayatollah Khomeini (the man who is credited with the legitimizing of state-sponsored terrorism when his military coup took control of Iran in 1979, leading to the 444 day American hostage standoff with the United States) came to power riding the wave of rabid anti-Israeli rhetoric that grew in popularity in the preceding two decades as Israel proved time and again that it was able to ward off Muslim attacks.
Reminiscent of Hitler’s Germany in the 1930’s, Khomeini and his minions preached that the real cause of trouble and strife in the world (specifically the Middle East) was the Jew and their Zionist control over business, industry, and the media. Paranoid doesn’t even begin to describe this kind of “crazy”.
The reason this recent Holocaust-denial Conference matters is that Ahmadinejad intends to use it as a springboard to perpetrate another killing spree. He, as well as the former President of Iran, Hashemi Rafsanjani, is constantly warning of the coming war with Israel and America that will bring about the end of the world and the return of the mythical 12th Imam (the Islamic Messiah). Both men have speculated that it would probably only take, “one large nuclear weapon to destroy most of Israel.”
Much more alarming than that prospect is the response both Iranian leaders have given when asked the obvious follow up question to such an incendiary statement: What about the assured nuclear attack the Israelis would send? Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani each have proclaimed that the sacrifice of even a million of their own people is more than worth the destruction of the Jewish state. Shouldn’t we check with the people of Iran and Syria how they feel about this little plan, guys?
Ayatollah Khomeini put Iran’s intentions towards Israel and America in even clearer and certain terms when he said, "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
This is what I’ve been trying to tell you: we’re dealing with madmen! This is not a melodramatic, satirical exaggeration; it is a profile and description of our enemy. The militant brand of Islam we are dealing with is more committed, more devout, and more ready to die than we are.
The reason Israel is important to both the radical Muslims and the West is comparable to why canaries were used in coalmines to monitor the toxicity of the air to let miners know if they could proceed working or not. Israel has become the guinea pig for both sides. If a democratic, freedom-loving nation can survive in this volatile region, then the West has hope in its fight against terrorism (of which Iran is the leading sponsor). If Iran defeats and annihilates Israel, they can, and most likely, will, be able to defeat Western civilization and our way of life is in jeopardy.
Just as the Moors in the 1200’s, and Umayyad in 732, attempted to convert or kill (by the sword) the continent of Christian Europe, Ahmadinejad and his allies (i.e. Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc) firmly believe that they are called to kill and destroy “infidels” regardless the cost in human life to their own people. Hence, the moniker: “Culture of Death”. Our country is frustrated (rightly so) over the death of 3,000 of our volunteer fighting forces and we’re dealing with men willing to offer up the lives of a million innocent civilians to rid the world of Israel and America.
The question is: can we find our own Charles “The Hammer” Martel before it is too late? (He was the man who warded off the Muslim advances in the 8th Century and preserved the Christian world of Europe, as we know it. In other words, he’s the reason we don’t speak Farsi or Arabic.)
For those of you who don’t believe and/or realize that America is in Iran’s crosshairs, the words of their President himself might shed some desperately needed light on the matter. In his 2006 letter to George W. Bush, the Iranian president issued this warning: "Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems."
Al Qaida and Hezbollah are the tips of an Iranian iceberg, and we’re sitting pretty on the deck of the Titanic, foolishly without a care in the world. Our Congress is more interested in making Bush look dumb; who, despite subsequent mistakes, was the one world leader willing to confront this growing evil (longer than the three months after 9/11 it was politically popular on the network’s nightly newscasts and Oprah).
Ahmadinejad’s (Iran’s) track record is one of duplicitous foreign policy and disingenuous public statements. This man denies the Holocaust ever took place in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary (like six million people missing). He denies Iran’s link to Hezbollah, and its unprovoked attacks on Israel this past summer, despite the fact that his government has taken credit for training, supplying, and encouraging the terrorist group since 1979. He denies the obvious intention of his country’s renegade nuclear weapon’s program but will not allow UN Inspectors into Iran and defiantly declares that even if they were building nukes, “It is none of the world’s business anyway.”
His actions, words, and defined beliefs clearly indicate an unstable, dangerous man who is willing to kill millions in the name of his religion. The denial of the murder of six million Jews is nothing more than a prelude to the main act: a recreation of the atrocity that helped send the world into a global war once before. Mahmoud is trying to show that Israel does not have a right to exist. This will rally the Islamic base in the Middle East.
Incidentally, he is willing to admit the Holocaust did happen so long as Europe will offer to take the Jews back and form a “homeland” there. He’s openly contradicting his own statements on a daily basis, but knows he can do this in the part of the world where sectarian differences are put aside when the topic of killing Jews and Christians is mentioned.
Optimism is a traditional American characteristic and is in rare supply these days. I commend you if you are the “glass half full” type of individual. But, indifference and optimism are often mistaken for each other. These are real and dire problems in the Middle East, and too many are unaware, by choice, of the growing threat.
Think about a few things for me if you will. 1) Would you feel safe living next door to someone who denied the Holocaust happened, let alone giving him or her control of a nuclear weapon aimed at Israel? 2) Is it possible that President Bush’s plan to surround Iran with democracy, and thus apply pressure to the Iranian people who (according to all reports from inside Iran) desperately want freedom, might work and be worth the sacrifices of our money and troops? 3) Would the world be safer, or less safe, with Iran and Syria armed with nuclear weapons? 4) Would the world be safer, or less safe with Israel’s destruction and the complete Middle Eastern dominance by Iran and Islam?
Military options are a last resort, and are avoided by vigilant, sober promoters of peace who are willing to take a hard-line early in order to sidestep a disaster late.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad's_letter_to_George_W._Bush_(8_May_2006)
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/271uktmd.asp?pg=2
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed020706a.cfm
http://washtimes.com/national/20070214-031507-2337r.htm
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Valentine's Day Reflections
I read an article in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301371.html) yesterday that broke my heart. It was about the state of American female attitudes towards men, relationships, careers, and marriage. The column primarily chronicled the “modern” women’s take on the futility and foolishness of love. Words and phrases used to describe the once valued emotional state of mind included, “annoying”, “waste of time”, and “too much effort”.
One of those interviewed was an un-named female college senior who offered her own perspective on the opposite sex. She recounted a recent story where, after waking up in the bed of a guy she had been “seeing” for a couple months, she had an experience that she described as “painful”: she was starting to have real feelings for her boyfriend. While I do not condone the nocturnal habits of this young woman, her reaction of despair to the realization that she actually cared for the person she was in a relationship with (and had intense, personal contact with) is telling.
The Feminist movement had it perks, and I understand the need there was to “level the playing field”, but the underlying, entrenched position that has been taught to the last two generations of women is that they don’t need men (i.e. love). Men have been led to think that they are no longer allowed to be the ones that pursue, lest they be pinned as a “chauvinist” or suspected of being a “creep”. It’s gotten so bad that I now get dirty looks from women when I hold the door open for them at the grocery store.
Now ladies, I know there are many of you out there that have avoided becoming victims to the feminist mentality that all men are dumb, lazy, and unnecessary (in light of the fact that too many men have failed their roles for too long). Deep down, even the rest of you, want to find a man that will treat you the way you deserve to be treated. And here’s a little secret: they’re out there. They’re out there, and they’re just as desperate to find a woman who will let him treat you the way you deserve to be treated. Potential matches are passing each other every day, and then asking their friends, “Am I ever gonna find the ‘one’?” as they log on to E-harmony.
Our society disdains healthy relationships for their supposed “bondage” of commitment. After all, if our lives really come down to nothing more than our own fragile needs of “choice”, emotion, and success, the truth is, real relationships are just too risky.
What if I get hurt? My ego and psyche couldn’t take that. What if I “fall” for that person and end up wanting to get married instead of living the free-wheeling lifestyle of a swinger? Really what we (unmarried and single people) should be asking ourselves is, “What if I end up alone in a house full of cats?”
We are unique individuals, and unique genders. Why are we teaching and encouraging our young woman to turn a blind eye and dear ear to the sights and sounds of true, committed, love or suffer being called “weepy”? Why are we teaching our young men that nothing short of being a partner at Goldman Sachs with no emotional entanglements will do?
The Sexual Revolution and Women’s Liberation movement were supposed to “free” society from its constraints found in roles typically played by each gender.
(Insert stoned, hippie voice here) you know, women should be allowed to engage in just as much promiscuity as men are allegedly allowed too. Women should be just as much a pursuer in a relationship as men use to be. Women should work just as much out of the home as Men traditionally have.
That girl in the Washington Post article said she couldn’t be bothered with thinking about a “we” when all her time was focused on “me”. She’s a brilliant, talented, athletically gifted, twenty-two year old who is dreading the fact that she might have to follow through on the emotional connection she’s made with a dude. She says her friends warned her that getting too involved will be detrimental to her development. They told her she’d become one of those “weepy, dopey, girls”.
The message that is sent from Hollywood, liberal feminists, and to some extent (perhaps unknowingly) friends and parents, is that men, and relationships with them, are about as important as a fish is to a bicycle. Women need to keep their eyes and ears open and be willing to take a chance. Men need to be actively, and appropriately, searching for their mate. Guys have generally dropped the ball, but when they pick it up again, they need someone to “pass” it too.
It was Valentine’s Day this week, and I think it is an important day. Just because some of us (myself included) do not have a sweetheart to share the holiday with (as much as I enjoyed a lovely dinner with my little sister Mackenzie), that does not mean we should not support and encourage those who do and/or those who continue their search for healthy, appropriate, selfless, love. I babysat so my parents could go out together because their love is what holds my family together, and that’s more important than anything else I could have been doing instead.
I do not presume to give advice to married couples, or even those in committed dating relationships, and especially not to women as a whole. What I will say is that we need to collectively reaffirm the beauty and necessity of healthy, normal, beneficial connections between men and women. It’s okay to love again. The reason we have a slanted view of love is because we’ve slanted what it means to love (and what it actually looks like). We need to reread what the Good Book says on the topic and watch, re-watch, and learn from couples that have “figured it out”.
Maybe love is right around the corner from you at your office? Maybe love is opening the door for you at the Gap? Sacrifice, not independence, is what love, and life, is really all about. It’s true with friends, and I can see that it will be even truer with my life-mate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301371.html
One of those interviewed was an un-named female college senior who offered her own perspective on the opposite sex. She recounted a recent story where, after waking up in the bed of a guy she had been “seeing” for a couple months, she had an experience that she described as “painful”: she was starting to have real feelings for her boyfriend. While I do not condone the nocturnal habits of this young woman, her reaction of despair to the realization that she actually cared for the person she was in a relationship with (and had intense, personal contact with) is telling.
The Feminist movement had it perks, and I understand the need there was to “level the playing field”, but the underlying, entrenched position that has been taught to the last two generations of women is that they don’t need men (i.e. love). Men have been led to think that they are no longer allowed to be the ones that pursue, lest they be pinned as a “chauvinist” or suspected of being a “creep”. It’s gotten so bad that I now get dirty looks from women when I hold the door open for them at the grocery store.
Now ladies, I know there are many of you out there that have avoided becoming victims to the feminist mentality that all men are dumb, lazy, and unnecessary (in light of the fact that too many men have failed their roles for too long). Deep down, even the rest of you, want to find a man that will treat you the way you deserve to be treated. And here’s a little secret: they’re out there. They’re out there, and they’re just as desperate to find a woman who will let him treat you the way you deserve to be treated. Potential matches are passing each other every day, and then asking their friends, “Am I ever gonna find the ‘one’?” as they log on to E-harmony.
Our society disdains healthy relationships for their supposed “bondage” of commitment. After all, if our lives really come down to nothing more than our own fragile needs of “choice”, emotion, and success, the truth is, real relationships are just too risky.
What if I get hurt? My ego and psyche couldn’t take that. What if I “fall” for that person and end up wanting to get married instead of living the free-wheeling lifestyle of a swinger? Really what we (unmarried and single people) should be asking ourselves is, “What if I end up alone in a house full of cats?”
We are unique individuals, and unique genders. Why are we teaching and encouraging our young woman to turn a blind eye and dear ear to the sights and sounds of true, committed, love or suffer being called “weepy”? Why are we teaching our young men that nothing short of being a partner at Goldman Sachs with no emotional entanglements will do?
The Sexual Revolution and Women’s Liberation movement were supposed to “free” society from its constraints found in roles typically played by each gender.
(Insert stoned, hippie voice here) you know, women should be allowed to engage in just as much promiscuity as men are allegedly allowed too. Women should be just as much a pursuer in a relationship as men use to be. Women should work just as much out of the home as Men traditionally have.
That girl in the Washington Post article said she couldn’t be bothered with thinking about a “we” when all her time was focused on “me”. She’s a brilliant, talented, athletically gifted, twenty-two year old who is dreading the fact that she might have to follow through on the emotional connection she’s made with a dude. She says her friends warned her that getting too involved will be detrimental to her development. They told her she’d become one of those “weepy, dopey, girls”.
The message that is sent from Hollywood, liberal feminists, and to some extent (perhaps unknowingly) friends and parents, is that men, and relationships with them, are about as important as a fish is to a bicycle. Women need to keep their eyes and ears open and be willing to take a chance. Men need to be actively, and appropriately, searching for their mate. Guys have generally dropped the ball, but when they pick it up again, they need someone to “pass” it too.
It was Valentine’s Day this week, and I think it is an important day. Just because some of us (myself included) do not have a sweetheart to share the holiday with (as much as I enjoyed a lovely dinner with my little sister Mackenzie), that does not mean we should not support and encourage those who do and/or those who continue their search for healthy, appropriate, selfless, love. I babysat so my parents could go out together because their love is what holds my family together, and that’s more important than anything else I could have been doing instead.
I do not presume to give advice to married couples, or even those in committed dating relationships, and especially not to women as a whole. What I will say is that we need to collectively reaffirm the beauty and necessity of healthy, normal, beneficial connections between men and women. It’s okay to love again. The reason we have a slanted view of love is because we’ve slanted what it means to love (and what it actually looks like). We need to reread what the Good Book says on the topic and watch, re-watch, and learn from couples that have “figured it out”.
Maybe love is right around the corner from you at your office? Maybe love is opening the door for you at the Gap? Sacrifice, not independence, is what love, and life, is really all about. It’s true with friends, and I can see that it will be even truer with my life-mate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301371.html
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Cosby Sounds off at NAACP Conference
Can't Blame White People
by Bill Cosby
NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian. This is why!!
They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: Why you ain't, Where you is, What he drive, Where he stay, Where he work, Who you be... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. Everybody knows it's important to speak English... except these knuckleheads. Mushmouth is what they speak!
You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. In fact you will never get any kind of job making a decent living. People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an education, and now we've got these knuckleheads throwing that all away. The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids. $500 sneakers for what? And they won't spend $200 for Hooked on Phonics. I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was 2? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18?
And, how come you didn't know that he had a pistol? And where is the father? Or who is his father?
People putting their clothes on backward: Isn't that a sign of something gone wrong? People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn't that a sign of something? They're walking around with their nasty underwear showing, and holding onto their pants to keep them from falling to the ground! Or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up? Isn't it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up to her panty line, and got all types of needle piercings going through her body?
What part of Africa did this come from? We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don't know a thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap, and all of them are in jail. Brown or black versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem. We have got to take the neighborhood back.
People used to be ashamed. Today a woman has eight children with eight different 'husbands' -- or men or whatever you call them now. We have millionaire football players who cannot read. We have million-dollar basketball players who can't write two paragraphs. We as black folks have to do a better job. Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids saying... you are hurting us. We have to start holding each other to a higher standard. We cannot blame the white people any longer. It is not for media or anyone of this time anymore to say whether I'm right or wrong.
It is time, ladies and gentlemen, to look at the numbers. Fifty percent of our children are dropping out of high school. Sixty percent of the incarcerated males happen to be illiterate. There's a correlation. Tell the media to stop asking me what I think about people who don't believe what I'm saying or feel that I'm too harsh or feel that I'm just running my mouth because I'm old. Seventy percent of the teenagers pregnant happen to be African American girls.
Don't ask me to soften my message.
~ Bill Cosby
(Just to clarify...Bill Cosby, not I, wrote this)
by Bill Cosby
NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian. This is why!!
They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: Why you ain't, Where you is, What he drive, Where he stay, Where he work, Who you be... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. Everybody knows it's important to speak English... except these knuckleheads. Mushmouth is what they speak!
You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. In fact you will never get any kind of job making a decent living. People marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an education, and now we've got these knuckleheads throwing that all away. The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids. $500 sneakers for what? And they won't spend $200 for Hooked on Phonics. I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was 2? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18?
And, how come you didn't know that he had a pistol? And where is the father? Or who is his father?
People putting their clothes on backward: Isn't that a sign of something gone wrong? People with their hats on backward, pants down around the crack, isn't that a sign of something? They're walking around with their nasty underwear showing, and holding onto their pants to keep them from falling to the ground! Or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up? Isn't it a sign of something when she has her dress all the way up to her panty line, and got all types of needle piercings going through her body?
What part of Africa did this come from? We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don't know a thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap, and all of them are in jail. Brown or black versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem. We have got to take the neighborhood back.
People used to be ashamed. Today a woman has eight children with eight different 'husbands' -- or men or whatever you call them now. We have millionaire football players who cannot read. We have million-dollar basketball players who can't write two paragraphs. We as black folks have to do a better job. Someone working at Wal-Mart with seven kids saying... you are hurting us. We have to start holding each other to a higher standard. We cannot blame the white people any longer. It is not for media or anyone of this time anymore to say whether I'm right or wrong.
It is time, ladies and gentlemen, to look at the numbers. Fifty percent of our children are dropping out of high school. Sixty percent of the incarcerated males happen to be illiterate. There's a correlation. Tell the media to stop asking me what I think about people who don't believe what I'm saying or feel that I'm too harsh or feel that I'm just running my mouth because I'm old. Seventy percent of the teenagers pregnant happen to be African American girls.
Don't ask me to soften my message.
~ Bill Cosby
(Just to clarify...Bill Cosby, not I, wrote this)
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
A voice in a REAL wilderness (Iraq)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/02/13/a_letter_from_mosul
Thoughts from a soldier in Iraq on what is going on in Congress with their resolution to undermine the President and, subsequently, the troops.
Thoughts from a soldier in Iraq on what is going on in Congress with their resolution to undermine the President and, subsequently, the troops.
Monday, February 12, 2007
The U.N.'s a Joke
But Who's Laughing?
The United Nations is the most corrupt, incompetent, ineffective organization this side of the Chicago Blackhawks. Like the bumbling hockey team from the Windy City, the United Nation’s “glory days” are long in the past. What started as a noble and seemingly necessary governing world body has ended up churning out more tales of profiteering and outright theft than Martin Scorcesse and Francis Ford Coppola combined.
The latest scandal from the Manhattan-based “America Hater’s” headquarters involves the country President Bush once labeled a charter member of the Axis of Evil. North Korea, and her vertically challenged crackpot dictator, Kim Jong Il, has fallen on what some may label as hard times. Over one million people have been systematically starved to death as the pot-bellied Supreme Leader lives like a Supreme Leader in his Ivory Towers. This isn’t a humanitarian crisis; it is genocide of the first order.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that since 1998 upwards of $100 million dollars (well over $10 million coming from the United States) has been sent in hard currency “aid” to North Korea meant to stimulate economic growth and purchase supplies for the people of North Korea.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is the ham-fisted division of the utterly inept organization (the U.N.) responsible for squandering as much money as possible, while appeasing as many dictators and sadistic leaders as they can at the same time. Not since the Liberals failed “Great Society” social program initiatives of the 60’s have we seen such a waste of time and money.
But hey, Moeller, what’s the problem with sending money to these starving people who are in obvious need? You would have to be a heartless jerk to find fault with such a program, right?
No, not really. The problem with this money being sent is that it never gets to those who need it and they keep starving to death while dictators get rich. Kim Jong Il is a dictator. He proved this past fall that he has nukes and they are on-line. I realize many think that “people” like Mr. Il and Saddam Hussein would not be so mean as to try and take advantage of a program intended to feed and clothe the very people those men were taking advantage of, but I choose to live in a world where logic and reason still exist.
The U.N. has sent well over a $100 million dollars to a country ruled by a man who came to power, in part, by suppressing the economy and confiscating any and all money within his borders. It gets even worse though. The UNDP not only sent the hard currency (something more easily manipulated and embezzled than tangible aid like food and clothes), they agreed to Kim Jong Il’s demand that his own governmental officials oversaw the divvying up of the millions sent.
The bitter frosting on this bitter cake is that when the United States found out about the scam being run on the United Nations, and asked for internal audits/investigations to be done and for the program to be put on hold, they were surprised to learn that the United Nations denied the request at the wishes of Jong Il himself. When Tony Soprano blows the candles out on his cake, this type of arrangement is what he wishes for.
The North Korean debacle is eerily familiar to Oil-for-Food Scandal that shocked the World Community (except employees of the United Nations) in 2004. That involved billions in aid that was sent primarily from Germany, Russia, China, and France (via the U.N.) to Saddam-controlled Iraq during the 1990’s when, you guessed it, the United Nations, had supposedly imposed sanctions and embargos on the Middle Eastern nation. In the name “Humanitarian Relief”, Saddam was given medical supplies, food, and clothing (later found unused in Iraqi government warehouses and to be mostly surplus, defective goods from those countries) and in return the Butcher of Baghdad sold cheap oil to Germany, Russia, China, and France.
Surprisingly enough, it was Germany, Russia, China, and France who were most adamant that we not go into Iraq (after voting unanimously to authorize action against their trading buddy, Saddam). The fox was not only in the Hen House, he’d convinced the chickens to invite him in for supper.
The reason the Oil-for-Food and North Korean scandals matter and you, the American voting public, need to be aware is two-fold: First, our tax money is footing the bill (nearly 40% of the UN’s budget is our money) for an organization that undermines our safety, squanders our cash, and hates the ground we walk on (except the “hallowed” one they occupy in lower Manhattan). Second, we are indirectly encouraging dictators and warlords to treat their subjects even worse because they’ve seen how much money they can get from suckers (us) whose guilt for being wealthy overrides their ability to think, reason, and identify bad guys (them).
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the United Nations has proven totally ineffective and unwilling to act when it comes to suppressing genocide or resolving simmering tensions among third world nations. (You know, the reason they were created.)
The world does not belong to the United States. We need to be active participants in the global concern for peace, poverty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, the United Nations allows anyone and everyone to join. They welcome the very nations (Iran, Libya, Syria) that are in direct contradiction with the U.N.’s own success.
The U.N. has become a coffer of slush funds and money laundering for strongmen and maniacal tyrants. When real help is needed in places like Rwanda and Iraq, either they fail to act, or criticize those who do (then demand to have a say in what happens after all the dirty work is done and American soldiers have bled).
The American people, and more importantly, government, must insist that unless more is done to crack down on actual humanitarian needs (i.e. Darfur) we will take our substantial financial contributions and walk.
The United Nations cannot have it both ways. If you do not care for the American brand of freedom and/or unwilling to support us (or at least not actively undermine every action we take) then come up with the money deemed fit-to-waste on your own dime.
How they vote in the United Nations:
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States…and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States…Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States…Receives $143,699,000 annually.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/hl991.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1318.cfm
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009559
The United Nations is the most corrupt, incompetent, ineffective organization this side of the Chicago Blackhawks. Like the bumbling hockey team from the Windy City, the United Nation’s “glory days” are long in the past. What started as a noble and seemingly necessary governing world body has ended up churning out more tales of profiteering and outright theft than Martin Scorcesse and Francis Ford Coppola combined.
The latest scandal from the Manhattan-based “America Hater’s” headquarters involves the country President Bush once labeled a charter member of the Axis of Evil. North Korea, and her vertically challenged crackpot dictator, Kim Jong Il, has fallen on what some may label as hard times. Over one million people have been systematically starved to death as the pot-bellied Supreme Leader lives like a Supreme Leader in his Ivory Towers. This isn’t a humanitarian crisis; it is genocide of the first order.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that since 1998 upwards of $100 million dollars (well over $10 million coming from the United States) has been sent in hard currency “aid” to North Korea meant to stimulate economic growth and purchase supplies for the people of North Korea.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is the ham-fisted division of the utterly inept organization (the U.N.) responsible for squandering as much money as possible, while appeasing as many dictators and sadistic leaders as they can at the same time. Not since the Liberals failed “Great Society” social program initiatives of the 60’s have we seen such a waste of time and money.
But hey, Moeller, what’s the problem with sending money to these starving people who are in obvious need? You would have to be a heartless jerk to find fault with such a program, right?
No, not really. The problem with this money being sent is that it never gets to those who need it and they keep starving to death while dictators get rich. Kim Jong Il is a dictator. He proved this past fall that he has nukes and they are on-line. I realize many think that “people” like Mr. Il and Saddam Hussein would not be so mean as to try and take advantage of a program intended to feed and clothe the very people those men were taking advantage of, but I choose to live in a world where logic and reason still exist.
The U.N. has sent well over a $100 million dollars to a country ruled by a man who came to power, in part, by suppressing the economy and confiscating any and all money within his borders. It gets even worse though. The UNDP not only sent the hard currency (something more easily manipulated and embezzled than tangible aid like food and clothes), they agreed to Kim Jong Il’s demand that his own governmental officials oversaw the divvying up of the millions sent.
The bitter frosting on this bitter cake is that when the United States found out about the scam being run on the United Nations, and asked for internal audits/investigations to be done and for the program to be put on hold, they were surprised to learn that the United Nations denied the request at the wishes of Jong Il himself. When Tony Soprano blows the candles out on his cake, this type of arrangement is what he wishes for.
The North Korean debacle is eerily familiar to Oil-for-Food Scandal that shocked the World Community (except employees of the United Nations) in 2004. That involved billions in aid that was sent primarily from Germany, Russia, China, and France (via the U.N.) to Saddam-controlled Iraq during the 1990’s when, you guessed it, the United Nations, had supposedly imposed sanctions and embargos on the Middle Eastern nation. In the name “Humanitarian Relief”, Saddam was given medical supplies, food, and clothing (later found unused in Iraqi government warehouses and to be mostly surplus, defective goods from those countries) and in return the Butcher of Baghdad sold cheap oil to Germany, Russia, China, and France.
Surprisingly enough, it was Germany, Russia, China, and France who were most adamant that we not go into Iraq (after voting unanimously to authorize action against their trading buddy, Saddam). The fox was not only in the Hen House, he’d convinced the chickens to invite him in for supper.
The reason the Oil-for-Food and North Korean scandals matter and you, the American voting public, need to be aware is two-fold: First, our tax money is footing the bill (nearly 40% of the UN’s budget is our money) for an organization that undermines our safety, squanders our cash, and hates the ground we walk on (except the “hallowed” one they occupy in lower Manhattan). Second, we are indirectly encouraging dictators and warlords to treat their subjects even worse because they’ve seen how much money they can get from suckers (us) whose guilt for being wealthy overrides their ability to think, reason, and identify bad guys (them).
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the United Nations has proven totally ineffective and unwilling to act when it comes to suppressing genocide or resolving simmering tensions among third world nations. (You know, the reason they were created.)
The world does not belong to the United States. We need to be active participants in the global concern for peace, poverty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, the United Nations allows anyone and everyone to join. They welcome the very nations (Iran, Libya, Syria) that are in direct contradiction with the U.N.’s own success.
The U.N. has become a coffer of slush funds and money laundering for strongmen and maniacal tyrants. When real help is needed in places like Rwanda and Iraq, either they fail to act, or criticize those who do (then demand to have a say in what happens after all the dirty work is done and American soldiers have bled).
The American people, and more importantly, government, must insist that unless more is done to crack down on actual humanitarian needs (i.e. Darfur) we will take our substantial financial contributions and walk.
The United Nations cannot have it both ways. If you do not care for the American brand of freedom and/or unwilling to support us (or at least not actively undermine every action we take) then come up with the money deemed fit-to-waste on your own dime.
How they vote in the United Nations:
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States…and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States…Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States…Receives $143,699,000 annually.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/hl991.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1318.cfm
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009559
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Politicians, Not Just Liberal Ones, Love Themselves Too Much
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006884
Wonderful piece on the ego-mania that Washington D.C.'s embraced(on both sides of the political aisle).
Wonderful piece on the ego-mania that Washington D.C.'s embraced(on both sides of the political aisle).
Saturday, February 10, 2007
A Let Down For Scooter Libby-obsessed Liberals
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BothSidesAllSides/story?id=2831959&page=1
For those of you who either don't know who Scooter Libby is (and why he's been on the news lately) or think that the story of his trial in any way reflects poorly on the Bush administration...PLEASE read this article. Truth and clarity are tough to find these days (especially on MSNBC who've been running coverage on the Scooter Libby Trial like it means anything to anyone other than the dope on Hardball), but Michael Medved shines some comforting light on the matter. Enjoy.
For those of you who either don't know who Scooter Libby is (and why he's been on the news lately) or think that the story of his trial in any way reflects poorly on the Bush administration...PLEASE read this article. Truth and clarity are tough to find these days (especially on MSNBC who've been running coverage on the Scooter Libby Trial like it means anything to anyone other than the dope on Hardball), but Michael Medved shines some comforting light on the matter. Enjoy.
What Made Osama Think He Could Beat Us?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/02/05/911_and_the_clinton_abdication
A thought-provoking, and eye-opening column on why the radical Muslims abandoned their wars against their own countries and took aim at America.
A thought-provoking, and eye-opening column on why the radical Muslims abandoned their wars against their own countries and took aim at America.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The Fairness Doctrine
The Not-so-free Market of Ideas
My aim with these columns and blog-posts is to more clearly draw out the distinct differences between Left and Right in this country (and world). This is not meant to instigate further unnecessary conflicts, or to stoke the flames of animosity that burn bright on both sides of the political aisle. Clarification of what each side believes will ease your decision on whom to support.
Liberals often remind us that open debate and free speech are integral to the worth of a democratic nation such as the United States. I happen to believe that as well. I also happen to believe that, as the true beliefs and intentions of the Democratic Party are more honestly exposed and explored, more Americans will rush back into the waiting and liberating arms of a traditionalist viewpoint.
In short, it is important to unpack any ideology, and it just so happens that the Democrats have been overtaken by the dangerously irresponsible ideology of Liberalism. For better or worse, a vote for Hillary in 2008 will be a vote for the Liberal agenda.
One of the planks in that (failed) Liberal platform is an increase in control, by the government, over the daily lives and interactions of everyone living in this country (legal or otherwise). Whether you know it or not, this is an accurate description of Liberalism, and the logical conclusion of liberal thinking is Socialism and eventually, Communism.
This may seem like no big deal to you, but Democrats in Congress are considering the re-implementation of something called the Fairness Doctrine. At first glance this sounds benign. Who doesn’t like to be fair? And “doctrine” sounds like something your pastor or rabbi might say at church or synagogue. It seems far-fetched for someone to insinuate that Communism could result from such a nice-sounding word, right?
Well, the facts (those stubborn things) tell a different tale. Congressmen Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Presidential candidate, has decided that the Fairness Doctrine (which was taken off the books during Reagan’s Presidency) needs to be revisited in the name of “free speech”. Another great phrase that makes me feel like I’m apart of something important and noble. We’ve now become fair, church-going, lovers of the type of speech that does not cost us anything.
The reason the Fairness Doctrine was tossed out over twenty years ago is because it entailed the systematic, forced sharing of airtime between Conservative and Liberal voices. If a truckload of obvious problems with such a piece of legislation did not run you over just now, you probably should turn down Air America and take your Latte decaf next time.
In short, what the Presidential hopeful Kucinich proposes is a new arbitrary standard of enforcing “fair” coverage of both sides in Washington. Social and political issues discussed on the radio and television would only be allowed if all other dissenting views could be found. This of course would make more sense if it were not so painfully ignorant of the fact that…we already get differing views every day and night on radio and television!
The airwaves do belong to the people, and are prescribed (by law) to serve the interest of that public, but the process by which shows are selected is, and should be, left up to the “people”. There should be no cause for Congressmen Kucinich and his like-minded Socialists to lose sleep at night. We’ve got this fascinating little thing called a “Free Market” and in it, all are free to express their ideas or start their own business (radio network) or meet a need they see with a service they can provide. Economics 101…
The bad part is, and this is what Liberals especially hate, only talented people draw audiences on television and radio. No amount of affirmative action can make someone funny or interesting to watch or listen too. And no amount of unconstitutional government control can prevent Rush Limbaugh’s from drawing over 30 million weekly listeners on over 400 different radio stations nationwide. Or can it?
You see, the Fairness Doctrine will not only punish the successful talents on radio that the public has willingly endorsed by tuning in, it will reward those devoid of talent and ability to draw more than a warm bath meant to soak their bruised egos in. Anyone and everyone are free (in America) to either purchase, or invest in, a radio station. Anyone and everyone are free (not in China) to pursue a career in broadcast journalism in college. Anyone and everyone are free (for now) to choose whether the radio and/or television even go “on” in the first place.
Liberals specifically are targeting the mediums that Conservatives, despite their best efforts to silence them, have met success in. Talk Radio was a dead end street when the Fairness Doctrine was first ousted in the 1980’s. Conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity could not get work in traditional (Left-leaning) establishments due to their “Right-wing” label and lack of experience.
So, like any firm believer in the Free Market, Rush and Sean honed their crafts at small-market stations. They believed there was an unmet need for more opposing voices to be heard to help stem the tide of Democrat-friendly reporting by the mainstream media.
Rush now has 30 million in his audience. Hannity has 15 million and two shows on Fox News (a network that began simply to offer the folks an alternative viewpoint from CNN and MSNBC). Conservative authors’ books sales nearly double that of Liberals’ in the past decade. Conservative websites and blogs grow in number on a daily basis. The market has done the job for Democrats like Dennis Kucinich already. That, sadly, exposes the true intentions of self-proclaimed “well intentioned” Liberals.
There is no real desire on Kucinich’s part to somehow make things fair. He knows better than that. He knows that there is no better way to ensure all sides of political and social issues are heard than to let the market do its job. Who would he propose be the judge of what is “fair and balanced” under the Fairness Doctrine? Who would determine what is Conservative and what is Liberal? I promise you that my definition of those words is not the same as, say, Sean Penn.
Kucinich’s answer to this would be the same answer Liberal Democrats give every time they propose an idea that is meant “for the people” (i.e. tax increase or regulation of the salaries CEOs make): let the government decide and things will run more smoothly.
Well Congressmen Kucinich, for a man who embraces an ideology that claims to be all about the “people”, the “little guy”, you certainly seem all too excited at the prospect of taking away yet another one of their collective freedoms.
You know who else is “for the people”: The People’s Republic of China. That government also takes the burden from people of having to worry about little things like how many kids they are allowed to have and what job they will work for life. I bet if Yao Ming could speak on behalf of his people, he’d definitely say things are much better back in his Homeland where personal freedoms are doled out by an arbitrarily constructed panel of leaders who, in return, let you give back nearly all of your earned income and punish those who have dissenting views with the ones deemed “fair” by that same government.
Sound familiar? Maybe not yet, but we’re getting warmer.
My aim with these columns and blog-posts is to more clearly draw out the distinct differences between Left and Right in this country (and world). This is not meant to instigate further unnecessary conflicts, or to stoke the flames of animosity that burn bright on both sides of the political aisle. Clarification of what each side believes will ease your decision on whom to support.
Liberals often remind us that open debate and free speech are integral to the worth of a democratic nation such as the United States. I happen to believe that as well. I also happen to believe that, as the true beliefs and intentions of the Democratic Party are more honestly exposed and explored, more Americans will rush back into the waiting and liberating arms of a traditionalist viewpoint.
In short, it is important to unpack any ideology, and it just so happens that the Democrats have been overtaken by the dangerously irresponsible ideology of Liberalism. For better or worse, a vote for Hillary in 2008 will be a vote for the Liberal agenda.
One of the planks in that (failed) Liberal platform is an increase in control, by the government, over the daily lives and interactions of everyone living in this country (legal or otherwise). Whether you know it or not, this is an accurate description of Liberalism, and the logical conclusion of liberal thinking is Socialism and eventually, Communism.
This may seem like no big deal to you, but Democrats in Congress are considering the re-implementation of something called the Fairness Doctrine. At first glance this sounds benign. Who doesn’t like to be fair? And “doctrine” sounds like something your pastor or rabbi might say at church or synagogue. It seems far-fetched for someone to insinuate that Communism could result from such a nice-sounding word, right?
Well, the facts (those stubborn things) tell a different tale. Congressmen Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Presidential candidate, has decided that the Fairness Doctrine (which was taken off the books during Reagan’s Presidency) needs to be revisited in the name of “free speech”. Another great phrase that makes me feel like I’m apart of something important and noble. We’ve now become fair, church-going, lovers of the type of speech that does not cost us anything.
The reason the Fairness Doctrine was tossed out over twenty years ago is because it entailed the systematic, forced sharing of airtime between Conservative and Liberal voices. If a truckload of obvious problems with such a piece of legislation did not run you over just now, you probably should turn down Air America and take your Latte decaf next time.
In short, what the Presidential hopeful Kucinich proposes is a new arbitrary standard of enforcing “fair” coverage of both sides in Washington. Social and political issues discussed on the radio and television would only be allowed if all other dissenting views could be found. This of course would make more sense if it were not so painfully ignorant of the fact that…we already get differing views every day and night on radio and television!
The airwaves do belong to the people, and are prescribed (by law) to serve the interest of that public, but the process by which shows are selected is, and should be, left up to the “people”. There should be no cause for Congressmen Kucinich and his like-minded Socialists to lose sleep at night. We’ve got this fascinating little thing called a “Free Market” and in it, all are free to express their ideas or start their own business (radio network) or meet a need they see with a service they can provide. Economics 101…
The bad part is, and this is what Liberals especially hate, only talented people draw audiences on television and radio. No amount of affirmative action can make someone funny or interesting to watch or listen too. And no amount of unconstitutional government control can prevent Rush Limbaugh’s from drawing over 30 million weekly listeners on over 400 different radio stations nationwide. Or can it?
You see, the Fairness Doctrine will not only punish the successful talents on radio that the public has willingly endorsed by tuning in, it will reward those devoid of talent and ability to draw more than a warm bath meant to soak their bruised egos in. Anyone and everyone are free (in America) to either purchase, or invest in, a radio station. Anyone and everyone are free (not in China) to pursue a career in broadcast journalism in college. Anyone and everyone are free (for now) to choose whether the radio and/or television even go “on” in the first place.
Liberals specifically are targeting the mediums that Conservatives, despite their best efforts to silence them, have met success in. Talk Radio was a dead end street when the Fairness Doctrine was first ousted in the 1980’s. Conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity could not get work in traditional (Left-leaning) establishments due to their “Right-wing” label and lack of experience.
So, like any firm believer in the Free Market, Rush and Sean honed their crafts at small-market stations. They believed there was an unmet need for more opposing voices to be heard to help stem the tide of Democrat-friendly reporting by the mainstream media.
Rush now has 30 million in his audience. Hannity has 15 million and two shows on Fox News (a network that began simply to offer the folks an alternative viewpoint from CNN and MSNBC). Conservative authors’ books sales nearly double that of Liberals’ in the past decade. Conservative websites and blogs grow in number on a daily basis. The market has done the job for Democrats like Dennis Kucinich already. That, sadly, exposes the true intentions of self-proclaimed “well intentioned” Liberals.
There is no real desire on Kucinich’s part to somehow make things fair. He knows better than that. He knows that there is no better way to ensure all sides of political and social issues are heard than to let the market do its job. Who would he propose be the judge of what is “fair and balanced” under the Fairness Doctrine? Who would determine what is Conservative and what is Liberal? I promise you that my definition of those words is not the same as, say, Sean Penn.
Kucinich’s answer to this would be the same answer Liberal Democrats give every time they propose an idea that is meant “for the people” (i.e. tax increase or regulation of the salaries CEOs make): let the government decide and things will run more smoothly.
Well Congressmen Kucinich, for a man who embraces an ideology that claims to be all about the “people”, the “little guy”, you certainly seem all too excited at the prospect of taking away yet another one of their collective freedoms.
You know who else is “for the people”: The People’s Republic of China. That government also takes the burden from people of having to worry about little things like how many kids they are allowed to have and what job they will work for life. I bet if Yao Ming could speak on behalf of his people, he’d definitely say things are much better back in his Homeland where personal freedoms are doled out by an arbitrarily constructed panel of leaders who, in return, let you give back nearly all of your earned income and punish those who have dissenting views with the ones deemed “fair” by that same government.
Sound familiar? Maybe not yet, but we’re getting warmer.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
What's Not Right With the Left
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/02/06/liberals_dont_ask_what_happens_next
Here is an article that I deem a "must read". I'll let Mr. Prager explain himself, but please take the few short minutes to consider what he is saying about the absurdity of so many failed Liberal policies that politicians continue to advance simply because it sounds good or is popular among easily influenced Americans. Don't be one!
Here is an article that I deem a "must read". I'll let Mr. Prager explain himself, but please take the few short minutes to consider what he is saying about the absurdity of so many failed Liberal policies that politicians continue to advance simply because it sounds good or is popular among easily influenced Americans. Don't be one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
