Tough economic times are forcing businesses to compete harder than ever for consumer dollars. People are buying less, spending less, and curtailing extravagant vacations.
So if you're a corrupt, bloated, scandal-ridden bureaucracy that caters to violent left-wing nations and socialist agendas, you've got to dig even deeper to ensure that those billions of dollars of mismanageable funds keep rolling in.
And what better way to do that than capitalizing on the human tragedies of the world that you whine about other people (read, the United States) solving, but do absolutely nothing to solve?
Enter the new vacation spot for the rich and completely disconnected - the U.N.'s new Refugee Run!
That's right, if you're a wealthy European with a hankering to live like the unwashed (but only until you get a craving for escargots and Pernod...) this is the place for you.
Where else can you spend your day in the squalor of a refugee tent from Darfur, Afghanistan, or Iran, and your nights relaxing in the jacuzzi of your luxurious hotel in the Swiss mountains?
I'm waiting for the U.N. to take some other opportunities it's got out there. I mean, if you're going to cross a line, cross it, dammit! Think about the possibilities. How about:
The African Famine Cafe Where your lunch is hand-delivered to your table by a starving child. Remember, don't feed the natives!
The Tsunami Water Park Featuring a wave pool filled with real tsunami debris and replica bloated bodies
The Holocaust House of Horrors Wander through a terrifying journey filled with moving floors, rooms filled with mirrors, and twisted Nazi scientists as you try to avoid being one of 6 million Jews who may or may not have been murdered by a psychopathic dictator (depending on who you ask). Children under 12 get their own replica yellow star to take home...
Stalin Village Visit the guest center, where you can play "Raze the village." Challenge other families to see who can wipe out thousands of innocent people first. Are you paranoid enough to beat Stalin's score? And when you're done playing, you can take your picnic lunch out to the perfectly flat, barren wasteland to eat, and enjoy your lunch on what was once a vibrant, thriving village before Stalin ordered everyone killed and the village buried. Visit on his birthday for special discounts!
The 9/11 Fair What better way to commemorate the deaths of 3,000 innocent people at the hands of Islamic terrorists than a rousing game of Blame America! At the 9/11 Fair, you can learn how to divert aid funds to radical groups, and how to make bland statements denouncing terrorism, all the while condoning nations supporting terrorist groups. It's non-stop hypocritical fun for the entire family. The fair runs the month of September. Negotiations are underway to purchase the soon-to-be-closed Gitmo detention facility for terrorists, in order to allow the fair to be run year round!
...that it shall lose an election, and learn nothing?
The GOP is falling all over itself to pick up the pieces after Tuesday's election, and hasn't wasted any time in throwing Sarah Palin under the bus. Reportedly, she was denied the opportunity to speak the night of the election, and then denied the opportunity to even appear on stage! (McCain himself reportedly interceded on her behalf to ensure that she was on stage). And it's getting uglier by the day. Apparently, the defeat at the polls demands a sacrificial lamb, and the blame sure as hell isn't going to rest where it belongs - with the Republican party.
The party hasn't actually managed to learn anything, either - the same non-achievement they accomplished after the 2006 trouncing.
According to Karl Rove on FOX News yesterday, the GOP shouldn't do anything to address the issues in the party at present. Instead, they should wait to see what Barack Obama does as President, and then use that as a basis for repositioning the party. Lovely. Reminds me of John Kerry taking a break from campaigning in order to "reinvent" himself.
So the GOP managed to get the message somehow that a loss in the election means that they should, basically, figure out what it takes to get elected and say whatever that is. Where we're at now is that the GOP is turning into the Democrats, the Democrats are Socialists, and they're all a bunch of unprincipled stooges.
Sadly, the GOP has had the answer for thirty plus years, and has not used it. In 1975, the GOP had been defeated repeatedly, had 'repositioned' and 'repackaged' itself to no avail, and had abandoned its principles. It sought to take the reins of a deeply divided country trying to recover from the social turmoil of an unpopular war.
Addressing CPAC on March 1, 1975, California Governor Ronald Reagan clearly articulated the solution. The situation then was almost identical to the situation now, and the GOP was about to make the same mistake it's debating now. There was only one answer then, and there is only one now:
Let Them Go Their Way
Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.
Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.
Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.
Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.
But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.
The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.
And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will.
I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans—Republicans, Democrats and independents—classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?
These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”
In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business—including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!
In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues—to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state—that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself.
A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.
Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions—the leaders of the parties.
They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.
The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.
Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.
If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.
When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.
The “lab test” of my theory – California—was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.
California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.
We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.
We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.
After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.
It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.
That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today than then.
Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.”
For more than two decades governments—federal, state, local—have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.
We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.
We also turned over—for the first time in almost a quarter of a century—a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.
Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.
Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.
Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation—a recession, if you will.
We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.
In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.
What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?
Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”
This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.
Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?
Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.
We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!
Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.
We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.
I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged—in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners—to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.
Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.
We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”
Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.
I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.
Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.
And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.
Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.
Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.
Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.
And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”
We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
That's the answer. It always has been. The GOP needs to get back to its principles - starting NOW, not two or four years from now. Republican voters need to resoundingly reject any Republican who plays the political expediency game, who puts politics above principles. If that means another defeat, so be it. The GOP needs to stand for the right things, and they need to do it clearly, consistently, and resolutely. Any time they have chosen the prevailing winds, they have lost.
I've no doubt that the incoming administration will prove to be as bad, or worse, than Carter's. If we still have a country at the end of their term, the GOP will once again have an opportunity. They have one now - an opportunity to remove those who would shift as it suits them, and to lift those who choose principles over political expediency. It has an opportunity to get rid of the petty (like those rushing to toss Sarah under the bus), and recognize the capable.
What remains to be seen is whether the GOP even knows who it is anymore - and whether or not the voters will hold them accountable.
So here we are, less than a week from an election that could quite literally mean the end of the United States of America as we know her. Paranoia? Perhaps. I never would have believed that my nation could truly be on the verge of voting itself out of existence. But here we are.
The golden child of this presidential election has deep, obvious cracks in his hallowed facade. There are signs that few could miss if they actually look - signs that indicate severe issues. Besides his associations with radicals and terrorists, there are scores of trouble markers.
He appears not to care who supports him. His website does not utilize credit card matching for donations; a test using the names Osama bin Laden, John Galt, and Saddam Hussein to make donations with the same credit card revealed that all the donations went through. In fact, a lot of interesting people have been donating to Obama; and foreign credit are also being accepted. Donations have come from Palestine. Good Will, Loving, and Dela Ware have also made donations. Obama also accepts donations from largely untraceable pre-paid credit cards. His campaign’s response to questions was that “no campaign can fully insulate itself” from these types of issues. John McCain and Hillary Clinton used computer matching (ABS) and citizenship checks for their donations. Obama checks neither.
Barack Obama reflects the far Left in this country - a political sect that wants to cut the military 25% during a time of war. He advocates negotiating with dictators who vow to see Israel and the United States eradicated. He goes to a country where we are fighting a war, and urges them to delay a deal on withdrawal of American troops - so that he can be sure to get the credit for that withdrawal.
If you do, like "Joe the Plumber," you may find your DMV and other government files illegally accessed, and your life open to investigation. You may, like Sarah Palin, find your private email hacked and published. You may, like reporter Barbara West, be denied any further access to the campaign. Don’t cross the line, or you will see the consequences. And the Left doesn’t just want to restrict certain speech - it wants to go much further. The Left seeks to mandate speech (the Fairness Doctrine). The Left seeks to ensure that you hear what it wants you to hear - and only what it wants you to hear. If the Fairness Doctrine passes, blogs like mine may be required to publish “both sides” of the story. Even if “both sides” means the truth, and the lie from the Left. I have already decided that I will not comply. If I maintained a bigger blog, with a larger audience and a voice that might make a difference, I might openly defy the order. Realistically, though, I’m not that big. I will simply cease to blog. Much bigger voices may be silenced - the prime target of the Fairness Doctrine is talk radio. Barack Obama may not be a leading voice for the Fairness Doctrine, but if the Left has the House, the Senate, and the White House, do you really think that it won’t get passed? Can you see him using a presidential veto to prevent it?
Barack Obama wants you to stay away from examining his wife’s anti-American statements, associations, or political leanings. He says that family is off limits. Unless, of course, you’re talking about his opponent’s family. How has this campaign been to Sarah Palin’s family? To John McCain’s wife? The press is almost universally in the tank for Obama. CNN distorts quotes to portray Sarah Palin as negatively as possible. Other outlets refuse to cover stories that are negative to Obama - even to the point of refusing to release a tape where his own words might harm his campaign. Those who expose him are detained by countries where he has ties. How do you think people who oppose him will be treated once he is in power?
Barack Obama promises that the poor downtrodden masses will be lifted up, and that the evil rich will be taken off their pedestals. So did Lenin. Barack Obama promises that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. But only about half of those he’s promising tax cuts to actually pay taxes. Barack Obama will take your money and decide that someone else who has less deserves it - though you’re the one who worked for it. From each according to his ability; to each according to his need - not his worth, but his need.
Barack Obama promises to restore our standing in the world. We will be liked by a world filled with terrorists, socialists, communists, sellouts, and radicals. What will we have to sell to earn their praise? What is the value of our soul?
Well, it’ll only be four years, you might say. Eight, at most. And then the Left will have screwed things up so badly that they’ll be out of power for a long time. Maybe. But maybe not. During beloved Bill Clinton’s presidency, there was a movement to lift presidential term limits. It died then, but now there’s precedent. In New York, a lifting of term limits is allowing Bloomberg to run again (despite two referendums enforcing a two-term limit). After four years of nothing but positive press, nothing but the pap of propaganda, who will there be to oppose lifting presidential term limits?
If elected, Barack Obama has the potential to make us long for the good old days of Jimmy Carter. A Barack Obama presidency will be far, far worse. For the first time, we will have a socialist president, presiding over a legislature where the Democrats - a party with a significant number of like-minded socialists - rule.
The Republicans, with few exceptions, don’t have the guts to stand up to him. Even if they did, it would likely not do much good - they will not even be able to count on the filibuster. We are headed for a period of time where the checks and balances that form the basis of this government may mean nothing. Elect him, and we will likely have a Socialist president, a rubber-stamping Socialist legislature, and eventually, a rubber-stamping Socialist Supreme Court. We also have a fawning, socialist media - the type that refuses to air a tape in which Barack Obama praises PLO-linked Rashid Khalidi as having views that “the whole world“ should hear (for example, that Israel should be obliterated).
How much damage do you think all of that can do in four years? Eight years? Longer?
Recently, a growing chorus of voices are priming the pump. How bad is socialism, really? Would it be so bad to be liked by other nations? Would it be so bad to have those less fortunate lifted up? Would it be so bad if we tried something different? But the beautiful picture they paint of socialism is, and has always been, a lie. And make no mistake - Barack Obama is a liar. He is, like many charismatic leaders before him, one person on the surface, and another when you look any further. Barack Obama is a socialist. He is a radical. He is dangerous. And if he is elected, it could very well mark the beginning of the end for this country as she was meant to be. He says that his opposition is trying to scare you. It doesn’t take that much effort. He’s a pretty scary person.
Some elements of the Left will tell you that to not vote for him means that you’re a racist. But just because they say something, it doesn’t make it true - the Truth and the Left aren’t close friends anyway. I am not voting for him because I am an anti-socialist. I view redistribution of wealth as an evil. I view unbridled altruism as evil. I view restriction of free speech as a violation of the principles on which this country was founded - principles which formed the basis of the greatest form of government to ever exist on Earth. I define social justice as ensuring that everyone gets a fair shake - that they rise or fail based solely on their own merits - and not because someone propped them up or ensured that they would have what someone else earned. I am not voting for him because I believe him to be a radical, diametrically opposed to what this country stands for - or used to, anyway. I view him as someone who will sell our country out to whomever he sees fit. I am not voting for him because anyone who would enter into a dialogue with Iran deserves contempt, not a seat in the highest office in the land. I am not voting for him because he lacks the character and qualifications to be president.
Maybe the country that I believe in is already gone. Maybe political correctness, socialism, and self-loathing are the values of the new America. I hope not. I hope that this country takes a long look at Barack Obama before next Tuesday, and realizes the threat that he poses to its survival.
We will know shortly. We have already started down the slope, but our fingers are still desperately clinging on the edge. Take a moment to fix in your mind the country you have on Monday. You may never see it again.
Sucking Up to the 'Religion of Peace' - and Standing on the Precipice
Becoming the latest entity to bend over backwards to avoid offending Islam, Sony has halted the issue of its new video game - because music in it might accidentally offend Muslims. From Fox News:
One of the fall's most anticipated video games for the PlayStation 3, Sony's "LittleBigPlanet," had to be yanked from shelves at the last minute Monday because it might accidentally offend Muslims.
"One of the background music tracks that was licensed from a record label for use in the game contains two expressions that can be found in the Quran," Sony said in a statement Monday. "We have taken immediate action to rectify this and we sincerely apologize for any offense this may have caused."
Guaranteed that if it contained music offensive to Christians, there's no way that sucker would be yanked. And in that case, the ACLU would probably be championing the singer, and Sony, in their right to offend. Look at Bill Maher's recent film. Offensive to some? No doubt. But should it be immediately ripped out of theaters because of that? No. And at least Maher ripped religion in general - not just one religion. Can't stand the guy, and don't find him funny at all, but he does deserve credit for that. Look at games like Grand Theft Auto, which drew heavy fire for its violent and antisocial themes, offensive to a number of people. Was it pulled? Of course not. But offend Muslims - or the Left - and the picture changes.
While I personally find things like Family Guy's little McCain-Palin-Nazi bit offensive, along with a million other things I've seen in my life, I don't advocate banning, removing, or censuring something just because someone's offended. Nazi / Skinhead groups drive me up a tree. Should they be banned from assembly? No. Rarely can I pass an anti-war protester without comment. Should those protesters be banned? Much as I'd love to pass the local green on the weekends without their moronic presence, they are guaranteed the right to their opinion, and the freedom to express it.
Start with one word, or thought, and you threaten all thought. With all the freedoms this country grants, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution were we given a right to never be offended. At the very least, that which we find offensive serves to reset our moral compasses. If you don't know what you despise, how can you appreciate what you value? If you don't experience that which you disagree with, how can you be committed to what you support?
What's scary is that the political Left, supposed champion of free thought and free speech, fails entirely to support free speech that it disagrees with. And the Fairness Doctrine, rearing its ugly head as the election looms ever closer, just may be the start of a headlong plunge down that slippery slope. Every time a cartoonist, a filmmaker, an editorialist, or a video game maker caves to political correctness, freedom of speech is threatened.
By all logic, Obama should be so far behind in the polls as to be non-existent. Redistribution of wealth, relativism in the face of evil, altruism to the point of self-sacrifice, and restriction or outright removal of one's right to self-defense should be ideas that the cradle of freedom should reject outright. And yet, inexplicably, he is a political rockstar. So filled is this country with a bizarre combination of hubris, self-loathing, and a desire to achieve what one does not earn, that we may willingly give away what no nation could have taken by force - our very identity.
Each story that hits the press about voter fraud, publicly funded socialist agendas, nationalization in the guise of "bailouts," or political correctness should make American blood run cold. After November, we may be looking at an entirely different country. And in a precious few years, we may, as Ronald Reagan once warned, "spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
On this, the evening when the individual who quite possibly will be our next President is going to make his oh-so-anticipated speech on an oh-so-ostentatious stage, we are also looking back on a day when a great man made another famous speech about having his children judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
It is that very element - the content of one's character - that is in question with certain presidential candidates this year. Well, it is for some of us, anyway. One candidate has been tested beyond the comprehension of most of us, in a place far away, under conditions most of us, fortunately, will never be forced to endure. Another has a sparse political record, and in my opinion, a history of questionable associations and judgment.
No matter your political affililiation, or your view of the man now sitting in the White House, I offer you the item below. It is offered as a lesson in service, but it is also a portrait of character. This is the level of character that I expect in a man (or woman) who would be President. One candidate this year has made much of not having "more of the same" in the White House. If we are to get "more of the same" compared to this level of character, I submit to you that there are certainly worse things.
Commentary by Lt. Col. Mark Murphy 354th Maintenance Group deputy commander
8/15/2008 - EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska -- I learned a big lesson on service Aug. 4, 2008, when Eielson had the rare honor of hosting President Bush on a refueling stop as he traveled to Asia.
It was an event Eielson will never forget -- a hangar full of Airmen and Soldiers getting to see the Commander in Chief up close, and perhaps even shaking his hand. An incredible amount of effort goes into presidential travel because of all of the logistics, security, protocol, etc ... so it was remarkable to see Air Force One land at Eielson on time at precisely 4:30 p.m.--however, when he left less than two hours later, the President was 15 minutes behind schedule.
That's a big slip for something so tightly choreographed, but very few people know why it happened. Here's why.
On Dec. 10, 2006, our son, Shawn, was a paratrooper deployed on the outskirts of Baghdad. He was supposed to spend the night in camp, but when a fellow soldier became ill Shawn volunteered to take his place on a nighttime patrol--in the convoy's most exposed position as turret gunner in the lead Humvee. He was killed instantly with two other soldiers when an IED ripped through their vehicle.
I was thinking about that as my family and I sat in the audience listening to the President's speech, looking at the turret on the up-armored Humvee the explosive ordnance disposal flight had put at the edge of the stage as a static display.
When the speech was over and the President was working the crowd line, I felt a tap on my shoulder and turned to see a White House staff member. She asked me and my wife to come with her, because the President wanted to meet us.
Stunned, we grabbed our two sons that were with us and followed her back into a conference room. It was a shock to go from a crowded, noisy hangar, past all of those security people, to find ourselves suddenly alone in a quiet room.
The only thing we could hear was a cell phone vibrating, and noticed that it was coming from the jacket Senator Stevens left on a chair. We didn't answer.
A short time later, the Secret Service opened the door and President Bush walked in. I thought we might get to shake his hand as he went through. But instead, he walked up to my wife with his arms wide, pulled her in for a hug and a kiss, and said, "I wish I could heal the hole in your heart." He then grabbed me for a hug, as well as each of our sons. Then he turned and said, "Everybody out."
A few seconds later, the four of us were completely alone behind closed doors with the President of the United States and not a Secret Service agent in sight.
He said, "Come on, let's sit down and talk." He pulled up a chair at the side of the room, and we sat down next to him. He looked a little tired from his trip, and he noticed that his shoes were scuffed up from leaning over concrete barriers to shake hands and pose for photos. He slumped down the chair, completely relaxed, smiled, and suddenly was no longer the President - he was just a guy with a job, sitting around talking with us like a family member at a barbeque.
For the next 15 or 20 minutes, he talked with us about our son, Iraq, his family, faith, convictions, and shared his feelings about nearing the end of his presidency. He asked each of our teenaged sons what they wanted to do in life and counseled them to set goals, stick to their convictions, and not worry about being the "cool" guy.
He said that he'd taken a lot of heat during his tenure and was under a lot of pressure to do what's politically expedient, but was proud to say that he never sold his soul. Sometimes he laughed, and at others he teared up. He said that what he'll miss most after leaving office will be his role as Commander in Chief.
One of the somber moments was when he thanked us for the opportunity to meet, because he feels a heavy responsibility knowing that our son died because of a decision he made. He was incredibly humble, full of warmth, and completely without pretense. We were seeing the man his family sees.
We couldn't believe how long he was talking to us, but he seemed to be in no hurry whatsoever. In the end, he thanked us again for the visit and for the opportunity to get off his feet for a few minutes. He then said, "Let's get some pictures." The doors flew open, Secret Service and the White House photographer came in, and suddenly he was the President again. We posed for individual pictures as he gave each of us one of his coins, and then he posed for family pictures. A few more thank yous, a few more hugs, and he was gone.
The remarkable thing about the whole event was that he didn't have to see us at all. If he wanted to do more, he could've just given a quick handshake and said, "Thanks for your sacrifice." But he didn't - he put everything and everyone in his life on hold to meet privately with the family of a Private First Class who gave his life in the service of his country.
What an incredible lesson on service. If the President of the United States is willing to drop everything on his plate to visit with a family, surely the rest of us can do it. No one is above serving another person, and no one is so lofty that he or she can't treat others with dignity and respect.
We often think of service in terms of sacrificing ourselves for someone in a position above us, but how often do we remember that serving someone below us can be much more important? If you're in a leadership capacity, take a good look at how you're treating your people, and remember that your role involves serving the people you rely on every day.
Not even a fortnight after fate (with help from the Israelis) dispensed a sorely-needed taste of justice by neatly eliminating scumbag extraordinaire ImadMughniyeh, the news now comes that another prime example of the worst of humanity has apparently been set completely free:
SAN`A, Yemen — A Yemeni-American, one of the FBI's 26 "most wanted" for terrorism, appeared at a session of his trial in a Yemeni court Saturday with bodyguards and then walked free, apparently not subject to any form of incarceration, eyewitnesses said.
The 41-year-old JaberElbaneh attended a session of the trial for him and 22 other Al Qaeda members charged for a series attacks on oil facilities, an eyewitness said speaking on condition of anonymity because of security concerns.
Footage of the suspect entering and leaving the court unimpeded also appeared on the Dubai-based pan-Arab satellite channel, al-Arabiya. - AP, via Fox News
Granted, good ol' Jaber isn't quite as high a prize as dear Muggie was. Sure, he did get sentenced to 10 years for masterminding two terrorist attacks in 2006. Oh, yes, and he and 22 of his insane friends broke out of jail in February, digging a little rat hole to a nearby mosque, but he certainly isn't Muggie. Now Muggie - there was a pretty reprehensible guy. And Muggie's death came as a special reason for celebration as far as I am concerned. Watching the story run repeatedly on the news, I frequently saw a familiar image:
Remember that one? That was probably Muggie's most famous handiwork - the hijacking of TWA flight 847. Aside from 9/11, it's the most vivid illustration of terrorism that resides in my memory. But it isn't that particular image I see. I see this one:
SW-2 Robert Dean Stethem. On June 14th, 1985, Muggie and his friends beat the young Navy hero, shot him in the back of the head, and dumped his body out on the tarmac like so much garbage. He was 23. That is what I see when I hear Muggie's name. And that is why I couldn't be happier that the S.O.B. is dead. Blowing him up was probably way too good for him, but I'll take it.
You'd think Yemen would know better. I seem to recall a little incident taking place there. You know, a ship, big whole blown in the side of it, seventeen brave U.S. military personnel killed...
Then again, you'd think we'd know better than to let it go. I thought we meant what we said when we said we'd hunt terrorists down wherever they were. We also said that if countries harbored terrorists, they were no better than terrorists. Apparently, I was mistaken.
One of the biggest difficulties that we have had in this war on terror is that we're finding few true allies. Either because of fear of reprisal, or because their government is already held hostage to political correctness, most other countries are refusing to fully confront the threat posed by Islamic extremism. Many are denying there is a threat - at least, to anyone other than the U.S.
At the same time, our politicians are allowing valuable terrorist surveillance venues to disappear, and continuing to advocate the nauseating irony of bestowing citizens' rights on people who would just as soon kill us as look at us.
So why, exactly, would any country want to stand with us against the terrorists? The terrorists prove on a daily basis that they will do what they say they will. We're not so clear on that point.
We are steadily returning to an era of hiding under the covers, hoping that the bogeyman will just go away. But he won't. We are looking more like we're doomed to repeat, rather than learn from, the bloody lessons we've learned from terrorism.
This week, Serbian protesters attacked the U.S. embassy, setting it on fire.
And the U.S. response amounted to "Heyyyyyy...."
Not too long ago, there was another embassy that got attacked by rowdy students. More than a year later, their hostages were released.
The U.S. spent a year going, "Heyyyyyy....."
That time period had been marked by plane hijackings, bombings, and all sorts of mayhem at the hands of Islamic terrorists. Things eased up significantly when we taught them that ticking us off really just wasn't a great idea. We went from the worst president in American history, who let us be walked on, to arguably one of the best - largely because America was tired of being kicked around. We started acting like a country that believed in freedom, and was not willing to compromise its principles for the false illusion of security.
In recent years, we've gone from a president who seemed pretty darned good at handling the terrorist threat to one who doesn't seem to be very good at actually doing anything. From one who spoke of clear resolve and hunting terrorists wherever we found them to one who doesn't treat unsecured borders as a threat. Inexplicably, it's the same president.
But it could be worse - it very well may be far worse - in less than a year.
We continue to hear about the 'travesty' of maintaining Gitmo. We don't hear about the conduct of the cockroaches being held there.
Our government is failing entirely to control the borders, despite numerous warnings about the threat posed to us from terrorists who can easily cross over. Yes, the 'virtual fence' is almost ready to go. But the 'virtual fence' isn't going to cut it. For one, it doesn't cover all of the southern border - not even close. And in case anyone's forgotten (as our government apparently has), there's a border to the north, too. Now, I'm not living in fear of hordes of Canadians coming down to wreak havoc. But Canada is a VERY large place, with a lot of remote areas. It's a great venue for sneaking into this country.
I hope it brings a measure of comfort to Robert Dean Stethem's family that one of his murderers is now facing his fate (I'm thinking that's taking place somewhere REALLY warm). It's a giant step forward. One more dead terrorist.
Then there's Elbaneh. The fact that a country who supposedly is working with us to arrest terrorists just let JaberElbaneh go represents a significant step back. An even larger backward step is the fact that a political candidate has a real chance of winning the U.S. presidency despite saying that would 'personally negotiate' with a country sworn to the destruction of Israel and the west. One step forward, two steps back.
Too many more steps back and we may find we've just stepped off a cliff. The landing is likely to be brutal.
If we don't start taking REAL steps to deal with the entire threat posed by radical Islam and their demented minions, there are going to be a whole lot more Robert Dean Stethems out there, and a whole lot more steps back into a part of history I don't think we want to repeat.
My Two Cents: I've Said It Before; I'll Say It Again.
Life is finally starting to get back to some semblance of normal for me after my husband's injury this past August (no, not in combat - we're civilians. Although my puppy did attack him once he fell, so maybe that counts as some sort of combat...). Or at least, to the new normal.
I haven't been inspired - and haven't had the energy - to really rant in a while. Wouldn't you know it would be the scum of the earth - one step above the terrorists - that prompted me to do so again?
I've been criticized in the past for saying that the anti-war crowd almost invariably turns anti-troop. They'll tell you they're not.
Still, they'll tell you they're not anti-troop. And as it was forty years ago, and sixty years ago, and in every conflict where they've decided to slither in, it's a lie.
I had warned in one of my rants that if we weren't careful, the openly anti-troop crowd would take advantage of the war's waning popularity, and the weakening of American resolve, to do the things they never would have dared do in those first few months after 9/11.
We are at a critical, and very dangerous time in this war - and in this country. If we do not as a country stand up - right now - and say that our heroes are NOT to be maligned, or thrown out of town, or told that their exercises will scare people, or asked not to attend things in uniform, we are going to be right back where we were.
If you want a parallel to Viet Nam, this is it - the idiots. The wretched creatures who dare crawl out from under their slime-coated rocks to dare and attack those who give them the right to spill their worthless drivel.
It. Is. Not. Acceptable. Ever.
Not in Berkeley, not in D.C., and not in a tiny town in CT where they darken a town green every Sunday. Well, at least unless the weather is less than sunny. Lord knows they don't want to be out there if it's inconvenient.
Not in this war, not in any other war. Not at a school, not in some wildly Left-wing town. No, it shouldn't be illegal to be an idiot; I'm not saying the government should stop them. But we do not have to accept unacceptable behavior. WE should stop them. And it's easy. Simply stop accepting the behavior. Confront it - walk up and tell them they should be ashamed of themselves. Stand on the opposite corner with a sign that thanks the troops. Rev motorcycle engines so loud you drown out the idiots. I'm not saying you get violent. They do enough of that. I'm just saying do something. Don't just shake your head as you go by. Our troops are willing to be sent anywhere, to do anything they are asked - to die to protect our freedom. And dammit, we owe them better than letting these idiots operate without consequence.
There are two types of comments I remove from this blog. One is spam. The other is a comment that trashes our troops. You can argue against the war. You can argue against my viewpoint. Not a problem. But trash the troops, and I'm likely to either use your comment as an example of profound stupidity (in which case you and your insipid little friends will send me stupid emails and spam trackbacks), or I'm going to delete your lame little comment.
'Cause it's my blog, and I can. And I will.
I promised a long time ago that I would not allow it in my little corner of the world. And every moonbat that decides to mouth off about the Army flag in my window, or the POW flag on my garage door, or a post on this blog gets a full-on dose of one pissed off Soldiers' Angel.
And anyone who doesn't stand up and say that it's not acceptable to trash our troops is worse than the anti-war scum. They're idiots. But at least they care about their idiocy. If you can't muster up the energy to even give a crap, that's worse.
There is NO EXCUSE for another generation of Heroes to think they have to be ashamed of their service. There is NO EXCUSE for allowing these people to have free rein. They're cowards. They're hypocrites (their 'peace' rallies often turning violent). And they are wrong.
For me, two words come to mind when I think of our troops. Thank You.
I've got two words for the anti-troop bottom feeders too. The second one is also "You."
The first one, I'll let you figure out for yourself. It sure as heck ain't "Thank."
At the Soldiers' Angels conference this morning, Chuck asked for a bulldozer and directions to Berkeley.
Ron Winter takes a look at Iran's Kook extraordinaire and his recent stunts, and nails it in this post:
Ahmadinejad to Bush - SUCKER! There is a basic concept in street fighting that if a potential adversary is bigger and more powerful than you, the first order of business is to get that adversary off guard, then smack him in a vital spot so you can bring him down to size.
The best way to do this is to appear non-threatening, even friendly if necessary, and get close enough to land a sucker punch. An even better technique is to take a two-by-four and hit the big guy across the shins, which inevitably bends him over in extreme pain, which gives the smaller combatant a clear opportunity to hit again, harder.
If you just want to get your adversary's attention, you hit him with the flat edge of the board, which hurts, but spreads out the pain over a wide area. However, if you really intend to inflict some damage, you try to land a blow with the sharp edge of the board, which means a far more concentrated, and far more incapacitating encounter...
Finally - A Global Warming Solution I Can Support!!
Kyoto's a complete travesty - basically robbery couched as environmentalism. Other methods are similarly flawed. But finally, we have a solution that I can get behind. Bet you didn't know that the U.S. military has been working to solve Global Warming - and other environmental issues - for several years now...
This past Earth Day, an advocacy group was very vocal about what they considered to be "the paramount environmental issue" - human population growth. And then there's the guy who says that humanity is a virus. Population control as a method of "saving" the Earth has been bandied about for quite a while.
Think about it - Chinese cooking fires are a major source of greenhouse gasses, and we all know how Americans are destroying the planet simply by driving SUVs. I mean, even Al Gore takes it seriously - he's put in a few of those energy-efficient light bulbs, for crying out loud! Sure, the President's got a house that heats itself geothermically, but Gore's changed his lightbulbs. If that doesn't tell you how serious this is....
And yet, in all of this global warming hullaballoo, all the flailing about for a solution, we have failed to acknowledge the significant effort our military has been putting forth...
I mean, how many terrorists and insurgents have we offed in Iraq? How many terrorists in Afghanistan?
Not only is the GWOT (or whatever political correctness will have it called) good for a free society - it's sound environmentalism!!
I am working on the t-shirts now....
Your U.S. military: Saving the planet, one dead terrorist at a time.
In summary, the DoD has now begun blocking access to sites like MySpace and YouTube. They claim that the reason is the security risk posed by those sites, and an interest in reducing drag on DoD networks:
"This recreational traffic impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability, while posing a significant operational security challenge."
Troops can still access those sites with their own computers - which doesn't help our deployed troops with access only to DoD networks.
All issues with those sites aside, they have represented a link for our troops to their loved ones at home - a place to share videos, pictures, and updates with family and friends back home - and a place where people can find out what's going on from sources other than mainstream media.
In the wake of extensions and a crack-down on bloggers, this could further damage morale. In addition, keep stifling the word coming out of the field, and you look like you have something to hide - even if you don't.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but if operational security and the function of DoD computer systems is severely compromised by a Soldier posting a video on YouTube, or viewing one, then I'm REALLY concerned.
Senator Mitch McConnell, the ranking Republican in the Senate, earned himself an armchair general award over the weekend....speaking with CNN (aptly enough), he was harshly critical of Iraq's progress to date:
"So far, they've not been able do anything they promised on the political side," the Kentucky Republican said, citing the Iraqis' failure to pass a new oil revenue bill, hold local elections and dismantle the former Baath Party of Saddam Hussein. "It's a growing frustration."
"Republicans overwhelmingly feel disappointed about the Iraqi government," he added.
If it wasn't so irritating, it would be hilarious.
How's that Iraq war funding bill going, Congress? Oh, and where is that border security plan? And not to be picky or anything, but any progress on Social Security or Medicare? No?
Hmmm...let's change these statements around just a bit...just for fits and giggles. Let's see, what if we try it this way:
"The American government is a huge disappointment." Yeah, some days I'm right on board with that one.
"So far, they've not been able to do anything they promised with regard to illegal immigration / social security reform / border security." Oooh, that works too!
"It's a growing frustration." If it grows anymore, it's going to need it's own room in my house.
"Voters feel overwhelmingly disappointed with the American government." Wow, it's uncanny!
I can understand being somewhat frustrated with Iraq's leaders. But let's keep this in perspective.
From the beginning of the American Revolution to the end of the war, it took 7 years, an estimated 25,000 American dead and another 25,000 wounded, $150 million in American money and 1.3 billion French livres. By today's standards, that's nearly $2 billion American and nearly $111 million spent by the French.
From the beginning of the American Revolution to the signing of a U.S. Constitution (without Amendments) took 9 years.
Add the amendments, and you end up with it having taken 216 years to get to the form it's in now.
Abolishing slavery took 89 years.
Giving women the right to vote took 144 years - Iraq's actually way ahead of us on that one.
Freedom of religion? Jury trial? Prohibition against illegal search and seizure? 15 years.
Figuring out how to elect a President and Vice-President? 28 years.
Ironing out the Presidential term limits and succession rules? 157 years.
Figuring out how to appropriately fund Social Security? Figuring out how to secure the border? How to iron out campaign finance guidelines? still counting
After years of dictatorship, it's no wonder that Iraq isn't on solid ground yet. How's Russia? Let's see, that's been about 16 years now, right?
Yes, we should be keeping the pressure on Iraq to get things moving. Absolutely, they should be told that our commitment isn't open-ended. Yes, there should be milestones.
But to say that they're a huge disappointment because they haven't solved everything in the two years the current government has been in place is just a wee bit of hypocrisy.
And let's couple that with Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat, who is criticizing Admiral William J. Fallon's idea of diplomacy:
"I think your message is very much weakened, and it's troubling to me because you meet with the leaders of Iraq," Levin said, adding that Fallon had "let them off the hook." But I thought that the Democrats' central criticism was that we too quickly leapt to war, and hadn't tried diplomacy? Now diplomacy is the problem? I'm confused.
Then again, maybe I'm not so confused. I'm beginning to form the belief that our politicians - on both sides of the aisle - are a bunch of fickle, media-loving mush-heads, far more interested in their own political careers and point-scoring in front of the cameras than in fighting and winning a war, or protecting the American people. The fact is, if this whole war can't be wrapped up in a convenient package they can sell come election time, they're not interested.
Today's News post - and the Hero of the Month post, are coming later. There are some things I need to say, lest my head explode. I apologize if this is somewhat stream-of-consciousness, but I'm just not all that worried these days about phrasing things the right way. Basically, at this point, it's either rant, or snap like a dried twig...
Sometimes, I hate being right.
When the "Fort Dix Six" plot first came to light, I knew what else was coming - the apologists. The excuses. The placing of blame on the person who exposed the plot. The placing of blame on the FBI. The finger-pointing - everywhere except at the people who planned to MURDER OUR TROOPS.
I hoped I was wrong. I hoped we would wake from the collective intellectual coma we seem to be in.
I really, really wanted to be wrong. But I wasn't.
It is now being said that the Circuit City emnployee who prevented the deaths of an unknown number of troops at Fort Dix might be sued. Sued - for saving the lives of American troops.
There is a movement to get rid of language referring to a fight against Terrorism.
Our Congress is calling the war in Iraq lost. They are legislating defeat. They are using the war for political gain.
The American media is flat-out lying about what is going on in Iraq. They're ignoring Afghanistan - until one of our troops dies, that is.
Six Imams acting suspiciously won a lawsuit in our court system that may prevent others from saying anything. Apparently, it's more important to be politically correct than it is to prevent another terrorist attack.
And where is the outcry? Nowhere.
It makes me nauseous.
One of my first rants here was one in which I listed just a fraction of terrorist attacks over the years. It's here. There's more here. Why is it that no one can see the absolute necessity of dealing with these people?
Wait - I think I made a critical mistake there. Let me rephrase - Why is it that no one can see the absolute necessity of hunting the terrorists down and KILLING THEM?!? 'Cause that's what I mean. I'm tired of political correctness and euphemistic niceties. They are killing this country - literally.
I can't understand why we have forgotten. Granted, the Left is doing everything it can to make that happen, but still...!
First, we took 9/11 footage off the air. Why? It upset people. Well, it damn sure SHOULD upset people - it should enrage every fiber of their being!
Then, we made every possible effort to use terms that indicated that the religion of the attackers was not an issue. That Islam is a peaceful religion, and we certainly don't want to offend.
Well, you know what? Five and a half years after Muslim extremist lunatics murdered nearly 3,000 people, I'm not buying the "Religion of Peace" thing. At best, it's a religion of apathy. How many Muslims are actively working to keep the terrorists from taking over? How many are openly condemning the work of terrorists? How many Muslim countries are taking all possible steps to root out Al Qaeda in their midst? There are varying estimates - CAIR puts the number at 1.2 billion; a little over 20% of the world's population.
A note to moonbats here - I don't want a slew of emails telling me I'm a warmonger. I don't want emails telling me I'm a bigot. Save your energy. Yes, I know there are Muslims working with our troops to fight Al Qaeda. Yes, I know there are good people who are Muslims. But when you look at the fact that over 20% of the world's population is Muslim, you need to face reality - peaceful Muslims who are actively taking a stance on terrorism are the EXCEPTION, not the RULE. Deal with it.
And I don't want to hear that they're not standing up because they're scared. Our troops, deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other regions are scared, too. But they go into harm's way every single day. All these people need to do is not turn a blind eye to the lunatics derailing their religion.
At any rate, I don't buy it. A Muslim friend of a friend said once that although he's lived in America all of his life, although he loves this country, if a fatwah came down to kill Americans, he'd be obligated to do it.
Let's think about that for a second. If the Pope said, "OK, folks, time to kill all the Jews - it's the religious obligation of all Catholics to do so," the collective Catholic following would say, "Time for a new Pope," not "Where do we start?!"
At best, Islam is tolerant of the murderers in their midst. While certainly, active terrorists are the small minority, those who would stay silent about them make up a majority. If the religion abides terrorists - at times, even openly states that although terrorism is wrong, it's not all that wrong when it involves killing Americans - then it is NOT peaceful. Do Muslims have a right to exist - of course. Do they have a right to practice their faith in the U.S. - absolutely. But let's at least acknowledge that it is Islam as a whole that has failed to address the terrorists in their faith.
Another note to moonbats - yes, I know, there are Christian terrorists. Abortion bombers, for instance. Those people are NOT supported by the world's population of Christians. Those people end up in jail for murder. The Pope says, "Murder is WRONG," period - not "Murder is wrong unless you're killing x, y, or z."
While I expect excuses and the assigning of blame on America coming from Islam's terrorist lunatics, I have a different set of expectations when it comes to America as a whole.
Apparently, they're ill-founded.
The United States as a whole has only ONE thing they need to do. They don't need to fight the terrorists. They don't need to spend a year away from their families. They don't need to risk a damn thing. The only thing this country needs to do is support the people trying to ensure that 9/11 never happens again.
But it ain't happening.
Maybe it's because we've forgotten. Maybe it's because all of that political correctness and sanitizing of mass murder has removed the reality of what happened from our collective consciousness.
I can fix that.
Remember this?
Do you?
Do you remember what it is these people want? What they're about?
Do we even care anymore?
The country is "tired of the war." Yeah? Well there are thousands of people who are tired of not seeing their loved ones because they were murdered by terrorists.
What is it we're not getting? Do we not understand that we can NO LONGER AFFORD to wait? We can't appease, we can't negotiate, we can't hide. They want to kill us - they HAVE killed us. Be it Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or anywhere else, we cannot wait until they hit us first. We cannot afford to give the enemy the first shot - no matter what enemy that is.
What happened to the country that knew why we were going to war? What happened to the country that listened to the President say that this would be a long war, and just set its jaw in collective resolve?
Why have we allowed the cowards and traitors to take over? Why are we ignoring reality?
We now have a clear case of terrorists inside our borders (including some who were illegal aliens, but that's another discussion) trying to murder American troops, and already we're starting with the excuses. On the heels of that, the House of Representatives votes for defeat in Iraq!
I really, really want to believe that my country is smarter than that...
But the reality is that this country is rapidly swirling down the bowl. We don't have much time to make a change. We don't have much time to stop the Left from destroying this country. Our enemies - at home and abroad - are still lurking.
I'm just not sure that the American people even care about reality anymore.
But in the interest of taking a stand, and in the interest of not allowing the cowards and traitors to go unanswered, there are some things I need to say:
I believe that the United States of America is the best country in the world.
I believe that terrorist attacks are not our fault.
I believe that invasion of Iraq was necessary and right.
I believe that Saddam's regime supported and condoned terrorism, and that military action was necessary to enforce U.N. sanctions.
I believe the U.N. to be unwilling or unable to enforce its own sanctions. I believe it to be a useless, collectivist entity that deserves to have our funding pulled, and to be shown the door.
I believe that the United States of America does not need the permission of any other nation or entity to defend itself and neutralize threats.
I believe that our troops are Heroes and deserve all resources necessary to do their jobs.
I believe that politicians, celebrities, or anyone that actively works to harm the efforts of our troops, malign our troops, or aid our enemies, are traitors, and should be charged as such.
I believe that if you enable a terrorist, or turn a blind eye, you may as well be a terrorist yourself.
I believe that the only way to ensure that terrorists are not a threat is to kill them. I believe that terrorists are murdering thugs who deserve no mercy.
I believe that the Left is immersed in Communist / Socialist ethos, which is the enemy of a Capatalist Republic.
I believe that altruism, communism, and socialism represent real and present dangers to the American way of life.
I believe that Liberals inside this country are far more dangerous to America than any foreign terrorist could ever be. Terrorists can kill people. Liberals can destroy America. There are some fates worse than death.
I believe that the apathy, the silence of the American people, represents a betrayal to every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine who has fought to protect our liberties.
I believe that freedom of speech is sacred. I also believe that if you call our troops murderers, you deserve to be held accountable for that. You do not deserve to be arrested for disagreeing with the government, but you do deserve to be exposed for what you are when you are working against America and those who protect her.
I believe that illegal aliens, and foreign terrorists, are not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. I believe those protections to be guaranteed to U.S. Citizens.
I believe that spying on foreign terrorists - including phone conversations - is just ducky. I believe that you do not have a right as an American citizen to plot with terrorists without being taken to the mat.
I believe that the Constitution does NOT guarantee that you will never be offended. If you're maligning the troops or this country, or you're working against either, I really don't care if calling you out offends you. In fact, I hope it does.
You have the right to believe that killing Americans will guarantee you 72 black-eyed virgins in Paradise. We have the right to send you to meet them at the earliest possible opportunity.
I believe that war is not the only answer, but that sometimes, it is the only answer that will work. I believe that war is sometimes a necessary thing. I believe that peace at all costs is not peace - it is subservience. It is cowardice.
I believe that anyone who refuses to be a part of the solution - speaking out about terrorists, supporting our troops, speaking out about the dangers of the Left - is part of the problem.
I believe I've ranted enough for now....
****************************************
UPDATE: Correction / clarification - the "flying Imams" have filed a lawsuit, not won the lawsuit. Conflicting accounts exist on whether they sought an out-of-court settlement or not. The lawsuit also may include passengers as defendants, and the whole thing is being underwritten, at least in part, by none other than C.A.I.R. My central point in that paragraph is unchanged; the fact that this lawsuit was allowed to gain any ground whatsoever leads to the possibility that others will stay silent for fear of "looking prejudiced."
I apologize for the misleading statment - chalk it up to my seriously irked mood.
Michael Yon has written recently of the increased difficulty he's had when working with the Army brass in Iraq. He's noted repeatedly that they seem to be making things as difficult as possible for those who are trying to get the truth out - those who are bringing attention to all of the good work being done in Iraq, and the character and quality of our Heroes.
What the heck is going on? It didn't make a lick of sense to me...until I saw this:
"Tightens" is an understatement. While the old rules required a check when posting any information about operations, the new rules amount to a gag order. Soldiers must submit anything placed in a public forum to "an OPSEC review prior to publishing"- blog posts, emails, message board postings, letters....the possibilities are endless.
Failure to do so could result in actions including court-martial, "administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action."
And as if that wasn't enough, the new rules expand the personnel affected to include "all Soldiers, Department of the Army (DA) Civilians, Department of Defense (DOD) contractors, and family members."
Now seems a pretty good time to state that I am not, nor have I ever been, in any branch of the U.S. military. I am not the family member of any active duty military personnel. Pure civilian here. I can say what I like....for now.
The policy's author, Major Ray Ceralde, is quick to minimize the intrusiveness of the new policy: "It is not practical to check all communication, especially private communication..."
Maybe so, but that creates a new problem - inconsistency in enforcement. It's a point that the Major emphasizes with the following:
"Some units may require that soldiers register their blog with the unit for identification purposes with occasional spot checks after an initial review. Other units may require a review before every posting."
OK....but how do you decide what to check, how often to check, and what is a concern? With the consequences as serious as they are for violation, how do you, as an officer, manage the new policy while you're supposed to be fighting a war?
Isn't it easier, and more consistent, to just forbid your Soldiers to blog, or post in message boards, altogether?
David, at The Thunder Run, writes, This is it friends...the milblogs are dead and along with it, all public support for the good things being done every day by our troops on the ground, and we have only the brass to thank for it. What Al Qaida in Iraq couldn't do with VBIEDs they did with a word processor and a complete lack of understanding of the need to win the information war.
Matt of BlackFive says, "The soldiers who will attempt to fly under the radar and post negative items about the military, mission, and commanders will continue to do so under the new regs. The soldiers who've been playing ball the last few years, the vast, VAST, majority will be reduced. In my mind, this reg will accomplish the exact opposite of its intent. The good guys are restricted and the bad continue on..." His complete post, with updates and links to what others are saying, is here.
As a Soldier stateside, let alone in a war zone, would you want to deal with this? Sure, there might be a Soldier here or there that might post something that would be of concern, but don't we trust our troops enough to believe that they wouldn't want to put anything out there that would pose a risk to their military brothers and sisters? And how many of them self-edit what is sent to family and friends - not because of fear of reprisal, but simply to keep them from worrying?
Far more likely than a mountain of oversight is the path of least resistance - Soldiers will stop blogging on their own, or officers will forbid anything that requires oversight.
The one big similarity to Vietnam and Iraq has been the loss of ground in the Information War. And now the Army is not only conceding defeat - they're regulating it. Milblogs have been a prime source of positive information - a primary weapon against negative media and moonbat hype.
Take away guns from law-abiding citizens, and only criminals have guns.
Silence those who support the war, and the only voices heard will be those who malign the troops and seek to undermine the war. Regulated defeat in the Information War.
It is the ultimate insult - and a tragic irony - that those who would bleed or die to protect freedom of speech for others appear to have the least right to it themselves.
David notes, "This should be a major topic of discussion at the CENTCOM Discussion at the upcoming Milblog Conference this Saturday."
Indeed. I'll be there, and you can be sure that I'm looking forward to that discussion.
"I announce that the great people of Iran and the Islamic Republic, even having legal rights to try these military people, in honor of the prophet's birthday, will be freed as a gift to the people of the United Kingdom."-- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Don't get me wrong - I'm glad to see these Heroes released (but I won't really believe it until I hear that they're actually on British soil)...
...But OF COURSE he is releasing them - because the world gave him exactly what he wanted - center stage, and the ability to show the lunatic extremists how to intimidate a powerful Western nation.
Look at the display today - roses, shaking hands...you're talking about a nation who deals with people who speak out by filleting their tongues out of their mouths...or worse. A nation from which came a fatwah approving the use of nuclear weapons against his enemy. Think of the reaction if the Pope gave a blessing to those who nuked Muslims!! This was all a deranged, doomsday-loving megalomaniac's stunt...put on for a world that allowed him to do it.
If Britain hadn't entertained negotiations, if the world had condemned their actions as an act of war, if everyone had refused to entertain their ludicrous allegations of the Brits having crossed into Iranian waters, do you think these Heroes would be free? Although I am thrilled for these Heroes and their families, I fear that the success of this particular nation taking hostages to prove a point may have grave implications for the future.
UPDATE:Be sure to check out Mr. Bob's take on this - he's got a couple of questions about British Code of Conduct training...over at The Daily Blogster
Yep, Legos are evil. When kids play with Legos in school, they learn (be strong) the values of a capitalist society. When kids play with Legos in school, they do things like build bigger buildings than a less creative kid. They build different buildings. They argue over the cool pieces. For the love of all that's good and decent, five to nine-year-old kids are learning individualism!
Thank goodness a Seattle school learned this. Thank goodness they re-educated students by taking the Legos away until these kids learned social justice. Thank goodness they smothered evils like creativity and individual expression, and made sure that moving forward, all Lego creations will be a standard size. (Bravely, they've now returned the Legos - now that the "re-education" of these young rebels is complete).
Goodness knows we don't want a bunch of creative, intelligent kids out there.
I don't think I can quite get myself to be civil enough to comment on the House vote this week...not yet. Fortunately, David can. Over at the Thunder Run, he's posted an article, and his response to a surprise pair that jumped on the "how to lose a war" bandwagon...
218-212 House OKs Surrender And 2 Republican's crossed the aisle to join with them: Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and Walter Jones (R-NC).
WASHINGTON - A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.
Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.
"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."
The vote, echoing clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago, pushed the Democratic-led Congress a step closer to a constitutional collision with the wartime commander in chief. Bush has insisted that lawmakers allow more time for his strategy of sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to work....
(right click image, then "Save as")
Stumble It!
