Political Pistachio

Blog Home of the Writer and AM and FM Radio Host, Douglas V. Gibbs.
- = - = - = - = - = - = -

Sunday, December 31, 2006

Happy New Year's Eve - What's with these resolutions?



I never understood New Year's Resolutions. We break them every year. So what's the point in making them?

Every year for years and years I resolved to quit smoking. The year I quit, I didn't make the resolution.

And some resolutions are downright ridiculous.

*Some folks promise to "give more to charities." How can you give "more" when you don't give in the first place? Besides, do you really have to make a resolution to make that decision? Hmmm, how about, "There's enough extra money in my bank account so I'm giving to a cause that is near and dear to my heart;" or "I'm so broke I'm surprised the charities haven't been giving me gift baskets!"

*I read one on a site I visited recently that stated: "My New Year Resolution is to stop stealing." What? How about getting caught, buddy. That'll make ya stop. Jeez, people have no self-discipline.

*Many people I know choose their resolution to be, "To meet my soulmate." Oh, yeah, that's something to plan. That's why the dang divorce rate is so high. Don't make it like a stupid gameshow, dummies. Do it like the old days. Meet someone nice, court them for YEARS rather than two weeks, don't have sex with them, and then get married because you and the other person didn't drive each other nuts during the courtship. Too old fashioned? It worked better than what is being tried nowadays. Folks, it's called going back to basics.

*One of my favorites is: "To Win the Lottery." I don't even want to justify the idiocy of that one with a comment, but I will. There's nothing wrong with playing the lottery. I play every once in a while. It's downright enjoyable to throw a few bucks into the trash every once in a while. But to think that winning is likely is idiotic. It's fun to play, but realize that those few bucks are essentially throwaway money. You have a better chance being hit by lightning twice while dancing naked in the Mohave Desert.

*"Lose Weight." Stop eating so much.

*"Make more money." Go to work in the first place.

*"Be nicer to people." That's funny. If someone has to make a resolution to convince themselves to be nicer to people, they have bigger problems than just being a jackass.

*"To stop drinking so much." The people who say this one on New Year's Eve are usually the same ones with the most empty bottles of booze lined up next to them on the table in the far corner of the lonliest room at the New Year's Eve Party, with their head facing forehead down into a pool of liquid that has made its way from their mouth to the tabletop. Okay, here's how I did it. I drank, I got drunk, I puked, got sick of it, don't drink so much anymore. Yes, if you set your mind to it, it's that easy. If it isn't that easy, no resolution will solve your problem. Call AA. Oh, and if that doesn't help, my biological father was an alcoholic and it killed him. Still want to drink so much? I hope not.

*"Forget my mistakes and move forward in life." This is good, sounds noble and fair. But think about it, numbskull; if you forget your mistakes, you'll commit them again. How about forgiving yourself of your mistakes, and turning away from the activities that led to those mistakes in the first place? That's right, my friend, you shouldn't be asking for amnesia, you should be asking for a change of heart.

*"To be more loving to my mate." Hey, when you're so drunk your mate looks like they did twenty years ago, don't you wind up kissing them on New Year's Eve anyway?

*"To be more tolerant." Hey, I try to be as fair as the next guy, but I refuse to tolerate prayers to Allah on the plane by people with turbans on their heads, planes flying into buildings, and whack-job dictators bent on my nation's destruction. Otherwise, I think we are all pretty tolerant already. I think the leftwing nuts who can't tolerate "Merry Christmas" being spoken, or a cross on a hill over the freeway needs to be making that resolution, to be honest.

*A friend of mine said to me the other day, "My New Year's Resolution is to be more honest." Well, there goes that one out the window already. Next?

Let's face it, my dear friends, Hell is paved with good intentions. Resolutions, I suppose, mean well, but they usually last as long as Saddam on a short rope. Rather than making a bunch of resolutions we don't plan of keeping, how about we use some common sense this year, be friendly to our neighbors even though the branches of their annoying tree are hanging over the fence and we have to trim them every week, let in a few folks on the roadway even though a dozen more cars will squeeze in behind them, and turn away from our bad habits even though they will haunt us until we give in.

Oh, and let's not forget, whatever we do, let's thank God that we make it through another year, and pray we make it through a few more.

Be careful, folks. Drink responsibly, moderately, and come back next year in one piece to continue reading the commentaries on Political Pistachio, would ya.

I worry about you guys, and I feel honored to call you all my friends.

See you next year!

Saturday, December 30, 2006

The Death of a Tyrant: Saddam is Dead


At six o'clock in the morning, Baghdad time, Saddam Hussein was hung by the neck until dead. A fitting end to a remorseless dictator that through his regime killed, tortured, raped and terrorized his own people, and his neighbors, for over two decades. The ruthless tyrant had about 40 of his own relatives murdered, and so far 300,000 shallow mass graves of murdered Iraqis have been found.

In the 1980's he orchestrated chemical attacks against Kurdish villages, as well as against Iranians and his own Iraqi people.

In 1990 the Iraqi Regime invaded Kuwait, killing 1,000 Kuwaitis.

In 1991 his suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands more, including the destruction of 2,000 Kurdish villages.

The end of the 69 year old leader has escalated the terror alert level.

Finally, Saddam Hussein gets to meet his seventy-two virgins, but I don't think they are exactly as he expected:



P.S. My operation was a success, but I am in a good deal of pain. Nonetheless, I just had to drag my carcass out of bed to write this post.

Justice has been served.

A cousin of mine told me when Zarqawi died that I shouldn't celebrate someone's death like that. How about Saddam? Darn straight, I am celebrating the death of this maniacal tyrant.

The world is much better off without him.

See a great video from Seven Stripes on my Political Pistachio Videos Blog.

Friday, December 29, 2006

John Kerry Visits Iraq

Thanks to a tip by Night Rider, and a blog at www.benofmesopotamia.blogspot.com, whose post on December 18, 2006, detailed Kerry's visit to Iraq, I received some interesting photos.

Okay, before you get too excited, let's qualify these.

Remember how members of the left try to convince us with brains in our heads that half of the military is populated by Democrats and how many of them don't want to be there? In fact, Kerry says that if you don't get a good education, you'll get stuck in Iraq.

If the troops are truly half Democrats, that particular half of our military people would shun the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, and flock to folks like John Kerry. Right?

Wow, am I laughing now. Proof is in the pudding, folks. I love it when reality proves that the left is populated, for the most part, by people hardly rooted in reality.

Okay, now look at the pictures.





Explanations?

Bill O'Reilly, when he visited, had over 400 soldiers waiting in line to meet him. Sean Hannity's visit was similar.

This first photograph of Kerry eating alone, with no troops approaching him or wishing to eat with him, was captured by one of the troops, since the press was amazingly not around to snap a shot of this.

The second picture is the gusher of tears I think that Kerry may have shed for not being received as he had hoped.

Or perhaps he shed no tears, and simply blamed it all on Bush.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Gerald Ford and James Brown die this week

My employers are such a grand group of gentlemen. Last Monday was Christmas, and Tomorrow (Friday) I will be diced and sliced in surgery to repair my stomach which is currently the home of two nasty hernias. So, my employer, out of infinite wisdom, decided that it was the perfect moment to send yours truly out of town for a few days.

The last three articles that have appeared on Political Pistachio were written on Christmas Day, and my wife posted them for me. She did a delightful job.

Now, on the eve of my surgery, I decided to do it differently. I have asked to be armed with a television and newspapers in my bed while I recover so that I can write my articles for my blogs daily, and my wife has kindly voluteered to enter them and post them for me.

Is she a great better half or what?

And I do emphasize the better half part.

Lefties? Don't get excited. That was not a statement for feminism. In the real world, a husband and wife compliment each other, and do it gladly. We are two halves of a whole. That is what makes a marriage last 22 years.

Anyhow, now that I am back from somewhere north of LA, I wanted to touch on a couple things that happened while I was out of town.

Gerald Ford, the nation's 38th president, the only president never to be elected to office, died at the age of 93 on Tuesday, December 26, 2006.

He may have been many things as president, good and bad, but I will remember him as a man of class.

When Carter narrowly defeated Ford for the presidency in 1976, Ford did not accuse Florida's ballots of being incorrect because of a bunch of chads, or refuse to concede until every last vote was counted. He conceded with dignity, congratulating the incoming president with class and honor.

Ford did not ask to become president. He was just filling in. In fact, I suppose you could say that Ford was an accidental president. He began as a congressman, appointed after 25 years in Congress to vice president in 1973 after Spiro Agnew left amid scandal. Ford was hand-picked by Nixon, which was fitting since he also became Nixon's replacement after Nixon resigned due to Watergate.

Gerald Ford was a man that believed in his nation, and believed in God. When he took office, he said, "I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your president by your ballots. So I ask you to confirm me with your prayers."

Imagine someone saying that in today's politically correct world.

Ford shortly after granted Nixon a pardon for all alleged crimes he committed as president. Some believe it is that decision that led to his eventual defeat in the 1976 election.

The fall of Saigon occurred during his presidency in April of 1975, signalling the end of the Vietnam War. His speech following that event included words from Lincoln saying, "America can now look forward to an agenda for the future, to unify, to bind up the nation's wounds."

He was an open man, plain and honest. Even after two attempts on his life by would-be assassins, he remained that way.

A graduate of Michigan University and a star football player, few envisioned young Jerry Ford to be a future president of the United States.

Ford also served on the Warren Commission that investigated the assassination of President Kennedy.

The most notible occurrence during his presidency, aside from pardoning Nixon and the end of the Vietnam War happened May 12, 1975 when Cambodia seized an American merchant ship, the Mayaguez, in international waters. Ford acted quickly, utilizing U.S. forces to raid a Cambodian island and recapture the vessel. Cambodia released all crew members shortly after. 40 U.S. servicemen were killed during the effort.

In 1978, after his wife's bout with alcoholism, the Betty Ford Center was founded.

President Ford will be most remembered for taking on the presidency at a volatile time, keeping the country on course. As Ford's former chief-of-staff once said, "President Ford had to bring our country back and make it whole again and he did it with dignity, he did it with great, great skill and sensitivity."

*************************************************

A billboard sign advertising James Brown coming to the Harrah's Casino in San Diego still stands along the interstate in Southern California. I saw it today as I drove my big-rig home from north of Los Angeles. It was haunting, seeing his image on that sign, on his knees, microphone held inverted to his wailing lips.

James Brown, the Godfather of Soul, passed on the day prior to Ford's death, on Christmas Day. He was 73.

Mudkitty once compared my work ethic to that of James Brown's, and I never thanked her for that compliment. James Brown was definitely the hardest working man in show business. He was known for his elastic dance moves, and all-out performances. He was, literally, an impossible act to follow.

According to an article at CNN.com I read, The Rolling Stones were heard to remark that they were terrified to come on after Brown in a 1964 concert.

He created funk in the 1960's that today lives on, with grooves sampled by pop artists, rappers and hip-hop artists.

His legacy lives on, and those of us old enough, or fortunate enough to see him perform, will never forget how he closed his performances. James Brown would fall to his knees, wailing into the microphone, become covered with a cape, be led almost completely off stage, still singing quietly, and then rise again to return to the center of the stage, bringing the crowd screaming to its feet. That type of closing suggested nothing less than a hard work ethic, and love for the fans.

As I am sure James Brown hoped for, he will live on forever in our hearts.

The illegals aren't the only ones crossing the border

According to CNS News.com members of the Mexican military cross the border between Mexico and the United States regularly as they partner with drug cartels and criminal gangs in order to protect drug smuggling operations.

Diplomatic dialogue with Mexico has accomplished nothing.

There is no nation in the world that would allow this invasion to occur except for the United States.

What is even more shocking is that many of these Mexican soldiers collaborating with drug cartels in an apparent effort to safeguard drug shipments were trained in the United States.

Regardless, it seems that these soldiers are lured by the money offered by the cartels. The amounts of money offered by these criminal organizations is probably much more than these soldiers could ever make in a lifetime.

And with the latest weakening of our borders, the drug cartels are becoming bolder, and are diversifying operations to include the smuggling of both narcotics and humans.

The Mexican Embassy continues to refuse to comment, the leftwing members of the United States government continues to refuse to recognize that such a problem exists, and the Republicans refuse to take the necessary actions to stop the bleeding.

I wonder what will happen when these people begin to smuggle weapons of mass destruction and Islamic terrorists into the United States. Will the politicians finally realize the need for a more secure border then?

Doubt it.

As Ronald Reagan once wisely stated: "A Nation without borders is not a nation."

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Iran's Ahmadinejad defies sanctions

On December 23, 2006, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1737, banning the supply of specific nuclear materials and technology to Iran, and freezing the assets of individuals and companies linked to Iran's nuclear program. The resolution also specifies that if Iran fails to suspend nuclear enrichment, further nonmilitary sanctions may follow. The language of the resolution is weaker than that sought by the United States, and was changed in response to Chinese and Russian concerns.

On December 24, 2006, the Khaleej Times reported that Iran announced it will start putting in place 3,000 uranium enriching centrifuges at a key nuclear plant in immediate response to the United Nations sanctions resolution.

This kind of uranium enrichment can be easily diverted to make nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad desires to be completely nuclearized by March of 2007.

Is this any surprise? Iran isn't worried about any resolution. Ahmadinejad does as he desires, regardless of world opinion. He doesn't understand reasoning. He scoffs at negotiations.

The United Nothing is doing what it does best: Absolutely nothing.

So now the question arises, "What should we do about this?"

Some state that we need to invade Iran. Some say send in the special forces. Others proclaim that we ought to invade Iran's neighbors, putting us up against her from all directions. Regardless of the correct answer, none of which may have been stated, one thing we cannot do is depart from the region. Pulling out of Iraq, now that even the liberals have to recognize the defiance of Iran, would truly be a mistake, and a death sentence for any allies we have in the region, Israel, and eventually The West.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Rosie and Trump

Finally, somebody has the courage to stand-up to the obnoxious liberal that haunts us from "The View". After a few words from Rosie O'Donnell about Trump's decision to give Miss USA a second chance after her drunken party spree, Donald Trump voiced that he figured Barbara Walters regrets the day "...she put that animal on her show."

In fact, The Donald didn't stop there. He went on to call O'Donnell a "fat slob" and a "bully", as well as stating that Rosie is an "extremely unattractive person inside and out who doesn't understand the truth," and "she's a terrible person."

Trump admitted that he has this uncanny ability to "look at people and see what they are." Adding that, "She [Rosie O'Donnell] has an extremely low aptitude, in my opinion. . . and has failed at everything she's done." He also quipped, "I love to see bad people fail."

All of these words come as a result of what he considered to be slanderous remarks from the vocal liberal bi. . .er. . .uh. . .co-host of The View.

Rose called Trump a "snake-oil salesman" on the View for forgiving the disgraced Miss USA. She also blurted out, "Increasing debt brought Trump to business bankruptcy and the brink of personal bankruptcy."

Donald, the gentleman that he is, called her a loser on national TV and promised to sue her for either slander, or the bankruptcy remarks. No one is really sure what the grounds for suing her was, but he indicated he was mainly wanting to sue her for the fun of it.

While I normally do not condone name-calling, I wonder if it really bothered Rosie in the first place. And I really don't think that Rosie's comments were that slanderous in the first place because how can the remarks from a woman that nobody takes seriously be considered slanderous?

If anything, the bout between The Donald and Rosie was entertaining.

On a personal level, I was just thankful that Trump had the cajones to say about Rosie what the rest of us (or at least most of us) were already thinking.

Ding Ding. Round one goes to The Donald.

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Merry Christmas




So many news items have come up since my last post, and I feel like writing about all of them. However, in my heart I know that for the next few days all of these political things that the world continually throws at us is minor. Now it is time to celebrate the birth of our Lord. Granted, Jesus Christ was not technically born in December, and the three wise men actually didn't show up at his birth, but rather a year or so later. But splitting hairs is not what this is about. Christmas is a celebration of God made into flesh. An opportunity to honor the birth of the man that was born to die so that we may live.




There are many ideas regarding what following Christ represents, and I am here to tell you that I follow what is biblical. No modern day prophets, no spaceships in a comet, and nothing that claims Jesus was simply a good man.




Scripture states that Jesus Christ was born as a child. God made into flesh. The savior of mankind. The Messiah.




He has blessed me in many ways, and one such testimony to what He has done for me in my life is posted on one of my Christian Blogs. The link to the post on that blog is at the end of this post. Please visit it, and read it.




Some of you who know me well know that He literally saved my life, my marriage, and my soul. Perhaps sometime I will post the story about how I nearly died, and through God's grace, I survived.




Until then, let us celebrate Christ's birth.




Merry Christmas.




Matthew 11:28-30 (King James Version)
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.




Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
10And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.




Luke 2:14 (King James Version)
14Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.




Isaiah 7:14 (King James Version)
14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.




Matthew 1:23 (King James Version)
23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.




Isaiah 9:6 (King James Version)
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.




John 3:16 (King James Version)
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.






Saturday, December 23, 2006

Haditha Marines Charged

Four United States Marines have been charged in connection with the deaths of Iraqi civilians in Haditha a little over a year ago. Four other Marines have been charged with failure to properly report and/or investigate the deaths of the Iraqi civilians. Link to the story from Military.com.

I understand that the Marine Corps must take allegations of any wrong-doing by Marines very seriously, and I am satisfied in my beliefs that they carried out the investigations thoroughly, and believe that the proceedings are being conducted fairly, impartial, and will come to the proper conclusion.

It is entirely possible that after a Marine was killed by the explosion of an IED, the remaining Marines massacred 24 Iraqi men, women and children out of anger, or whatever. It is also possible that either these innocents were killed in the crossfire between Marines and insurgents, or that these civilians were assisting the attack upon the Marines and became combatants as a result, jusifying the actions of the Marines.

The initial report, if you recall, was that 15 Iraqi civilians were killed in an IED explosion, and eight insurgents were killed in the ensuing firefight. Later, it was determined that none of the civilians were killed by the IED.

What it all came down to was whether or not the deaths of these people happened under circumstances that followed the Rules of Engagement and Law of Armed Conflict.

Here in America, we do not understand what it is like for these troops. Anyone in these war zones can be the enemy. Children wield weapons. Women (even grandmas) are willing to wear bomb belts. Any action considered offensive will put any soldier in such a situation at the ready. And word from the region has it that the insurgents often blend in with the civilians, using innocents as shields, or as deliverers of death.

Perhaps these Marines are guilty, but I fear that those that have condemned these people are applying standards consistent with civilian societal views and understandings, and not consistent with the atmosphere of war.

This action of charging the Marines, and conducting a criminal investigation into the follow-up actions of the chain of command is damaging. Hey, if they are guilty and committed these attrocities as charged, then they have coming what they deserve, but even if that is the case, this is damaging beyond repair.

An accelerating media frenzy over this is overwhelming American politics. The mainstream media is using Haditha to further compare Iraq to Vietnam. In fact, I think that the liberal press is unable to think of any American war without reflexively placing it into a Vietnam mindset. The Western Press seems to be compelled to be anti-US military and anti-Conservative. The liberal press is willing to use any situation (with a little twisting usually) as a political tool to dismantle America's effort in Iraq and destroy the legitimacy of our presence. They desire to directly affect the case against these Marines as well as use it to their political means. The left wishes to disrupt the morale of the troops, and to undermine the image of the United States as a military power.

As far as the left is concerned, what happened in Haditha is a case of out-right murder. Doesn't matter if they have little or no idea of the facts in the situation. As far as they are concerned these were wanton killings performed in cold blood.

The only people that knows what truly happened in Haditha is the Marines and the insurgents that were there. The reports that the surviving Marines went on an hours-long killing spree by the media was tainted by the fact that these reporters desire to discredit Bush and the war in Iraq at any cost, including the futures of our fine United States Marines.

People don't seem to realize that Haditha was (and is) controlled by the insurgents. The insurgents call all the shots. The insurgents decide who lives and dies. The civilians in that region cooperate out of fear, coercion, or in some cases a desire to be part of the murderous effort carried out by Radical Islamism.

Anti-war lefties don't consider the hellish conditions that our troops must fight there way through. It does not seem to ever cross the minds of the liberal media to give our troops the benefit of the doubt. Apparently the press does not believe that we owe that to our troops, and instead will not be satisfied unless Haditha becomes their justification that Bush was wrong to go to war in Iraq and a lever to pull our troops from the region. They are feeding the public opinion, and with Hollyweird's history of producing films about out-of-control, cold blooded soldiers the public has been quick to jump on the wagon. Here's where the left doesn't get it. If this pushes us out of Iraq in a manner similar to when we pulled out of Vietnam, there is one difference that the left hasn't been willing to recognize. When we left Vietnam, the enemy didn't follow us home. Radical Islamists will. If we leave the region, we will lose. And I don't mean lose like someone loses a game. We will lose our safety, freedom, and eventually, we will lose our country to Islam.

Don't think we'd ever allow that? We already have a Muslim in public office by the name of Ellison who was only willing to take his oath on the Koran.

The left is ready to do whatever they can to ensure that the Haditha incident becomes synonymous with the entire effort in Iraq. Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia would be more than happy to see us withdraw from Iraq in defeat. The mainstream media is determined to sabotage any public support for the Iraq war, and demonize those that supports it. They claim to support the troops as does the conservatives, yet they call them baby killers, and play psychological games on the American public.

Political fallout from the charges will innevitably be the press and the left refueling their theory that President Bush lied us into the war. And they will say, if Bush lied then, why not the Pentagon and the troops lying now regarding the massacre of innocents?

And all of this on the eve of a Democratic take-over of Congress.

What the left doesn't seem to realize is that the conditions of Haditha, controlled by the insurgents to the degree that it is, is what will become of Iraq if we depart from Iraq. Murderous thugs armed by Iran and Syria will turn Iraq in another Cambodian nightmare. The sands of Iraq will become killing fields beyond what any of us could imagine.

I refuse to accept the idea that the left puts forth.

I refuse to accept the idea that we should disgrace ourselves and pull out of Iraq with our tails between our legs with a lable of "murderers" posted on our backs.

We have troops in harm's way around the world. We cannot allow them to believe that they are regarded with scorn as their fathers in Vietnam came to believe. And if those Marines truly did kill innocents in Haditha, their conduct is an aberration, not the norm. Despite the left's desires and treasonous activities, we must not allow Haditha to tarnish the noble service of our military men and women. Our military is faithful to America. They haven't failed us, and we must not fail them.

Friday, December 22, 2006

Mary did you know - 2006

As Christmas approaches, I just wanted everybody to remember that the reason for the season is Jesus.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Arlington Wreath Project

ZUCKER TAKES ON THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP AND JAMES BAKER

Remember Me

Touching. I have nothing to say other than: "The video says it all."

Hey, Ahmadinejad, the people are speaking! Are you deaf?

Elections in Iran resulted in moderate conservatives, who are opposed to Ahmadinejad, winning a majority of seats in the Iranian parliament. Reformists, also not in alliance with Ahmadinejad, won more seats than those of Ahmadinejad's party as well.

Ahmadinejad's response was to cry out that Iran would not be intimidated by the demands to dismantle its nuclear program, and of course he tore into Bush, saying, "Bush is the most hated person in the world."

The West believes that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, but Ahmadinejad has denied the allegations, claiming that the nuclear development plans are for only generating electricity.

As Ahmadinejad escalates tensions with the United States and enriches uranium, his debate that cast doubt on the Nazi Holocaust has made him look foolish. Perhaps the recent vote is the people asking him to put more energy on domestic issues.

Aside from the votes regarding the parliament, election results also showed a heavy defeat for Ahmadinejad supporters.

Elsewhere in the region, Christian leaders issued a worldwide call for prayer regarding "Arafat Day." Arafat day is a day when leaders of Islam ascend to Mount Arafat for a day of prayer and blood sacrifice, and throwing rocks at Satan.

The day is in support of the belief that the Devil tempted Father Abraham on Mount Arafat to sacrifice Isaac instead of Ishmael. They believe that the way the story is relayed in Genesis is a lie, and it is the root of deception for Judaism and Christianity.

Arab Christian Ministers in the Middle East are praying against the stronghold of Islam on this day, hoping for Christians everywhere to unite in prayer on December 29th and 30th.

The elections in Iran, and this story about Arab Christian Ministers, makes me think. Is Islam collapsing from within? Have the people decided that they've had enough of the Jihadists?

Let's hope so.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

All About Attitude

Today I was talking to a friend of mine and the subject of our conversation was the deterioration of societal values. There was a time in America when certain values were held up for generations.

Then, during the late sixties family values and traditions were tossed by the wayside. Enlightenment became a buzzward. Free love. Free thought. Tune in, turn on, drop out.

The attitude of society has been in a downward spiral ever since.

It is no surprise that when traditional values were no longer considered to be an important part of societal values, the number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases rose, as did the occurance of mental disease as well.

The war on Christmas, the increase of violence in our streets, the increase of violent crimes, sexual immorality, et centera, is a direct result of our changing attitude away from Christian based values.

What a simpler time it used to be.

Beyond what I have said in the prior paragraphs, I wasn't sure how to further state my meaning in this post, until my aunt sent me an e-mail that summed it up for me in the sense of simpler times, and humor regarding the generations past.

The e-mail contained the words of Will Rogers, who died in a plane crash with Wylie Post in 1935. He was probably the greatest political sage this country has ever known. The following concludes my post. Read them carefully. Though they are meant to be humorous, his words are also words to live by:

1. Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco.

2. Never kick a cow chip on a hot day.

3. There are 2 theories to arguing with a woman...neither works.

4. Never miss a good chance to shut up.

5. Always drink upstream from the herd.

6. If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

7. The quickest way to double your money is to fold it and put it back in your pocket.

8. There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves.

9. Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

10. If you're riding' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it's still there.

11. Lettin' the cat outta the bag is a whole lot easier'n puttin' it back.

12. After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him. The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.

ABOUT GROWING OLDER...

First ~ Eventually you will reach a point when you stop lying about your age and start bragging about it.

Second ~ The older we get, the fewer things seem worth waiting in line for.

Third ~ Some people try to turn back their odometers. Not me, I want people to know "why" I look this way. I've traveled a long way and some of the roads weren't paved.

Fourth ~ When you are dissatisfied and would like to go back to youth, think of Algebra.

Fifth ~ You know you are getting old when everything either dries up or leaks.

Sixth ~ I don't know how I got over the hill without getting to the top.

Seventh ~ One of the many things no one tells you about aging is that it is such a nice change from being young.

Eighth ~ One must wait until evening to see how splendid the day has been.

Ninth ~ Being young is beautiful, but being old is comfortable.

Tenth ~ Long ago when men cursed and beat the ground with sticks, it was called witchcraft. Today it's called golf.

And finally ~ If you don't learn to laugh at trouble, you won't have anything to laugh at when you are old.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Joy Behar Calls Rumsfeld 'Hitler-like' on 'The View'

It is because of people like this that we are losing the war in America - Or are we?

Monday, December 18, 2006

Holocaust Denial

In another ridiculous move on the propaganda front, Ahmadinejad has now taken his denial of the existence of the Holocaust to new levels. In search of International Legitimacy, he is making himself and the rest of the Muslim nations look like the radical Jihadists that they are.

And here's the interesting thing. As the Iranian President declares that the Holocaust is a myth, and that Israel should be wiped off the map, Baker and company with their Iraq Study Group Report recommends that we should ask Iran and Syria for help in stabilizing Iraq. That's like asking a fox to help collect the eggs in a hen house.

The war on terror is not being lost in Iraq. It is being lost in America. The Sunnis, Shiites, Al-Qaeda, Iran, Syria and the ISG Report is nothing compared to the out of control enemy known as Congress.

The Liberals seem to think that the Muslim nations desire peace with Israel, and democracy to work in Iraq.

WRONG!

The Jihadists desire the destruction of Israel, the use of Iraq as a terrorist training ground, and to discredit the United States and any Western idea that may reach the ears of their populace.

Claiming that the Holocaust is a lie is just another piece of propaganda designed to discredit Israel, and the West.

Apparently, Ahmadinejad hasn't read The Diary of Anne Frank. Or, he has, and believes it is a book of lies.


For those interested, I wrote an article regarding the brawl in the NBA last Saturday at ArmChair GM.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

The Sound of Thunder is spreading

Who's Offended? Who's the Victim? Who's the Aggressor? Who's being discriminated against?

I was reading the comments to an article I posted on My Point (Kerry and Treason), and the leftwing nuts were out in force.

I was reading posts on Yid With Lid's Blog (PC Gone Mad. . . ) and learned about another attack on Christianity - but this one up the freeway from my home.

NewsMax informed me by e-mail about a woman executed in China for distributing Bibles.

A week ago, I read a story at Townhall (Non-marriage marriage) and commented on it stating that extending Civil Unions to Heterosexuals (thus, eliminating traditional marriage) is just more proof that our society is deteriorating, and more evidence supporting that the God is being systematically removed from our society.

The situation described on Yid With Lid's site is about an incident in Riverside, California where Olympic Skater Sasha Cohen was performing. When a high school choir began singing Christmas carols, the police was called in to order them to stop because they feared the skaters in the show would be offended. Sasha Cohen is half Jewish. More interesting is that Sasha was unaware that the occurrence event transpired! And further more, she was shocked by it when she was informed about what had happened. So, this brings up the first question from the title.

Who's Offended?

A Christian is not offended when people say Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas, or by other religions receiving exposure, such as the Jewish Hanukkah. However, Christians are offended when their right to proclaim "Merry Christmas" is taken away, because everyone is so afraid that someone might be offended. Most right thinking non-Christians ARE NOT OFFENDED by Christ. Ask Yid With Lid. Ask Jenn of the Jungle of Screwliberals.com. Unless someone practicing their religious freedom may be accompanied by a bomb-belt (such as in the case of the six flying imams), our right to freedom of religion must be protected. The funny thing is, the ones everyone is trying not to offend, aren't offended in the first place. Who are these anti-Christian kooks really trying to protect?

NewsMax send me an e-mail about Christian Persecution. Granted, it was an advertisement for The Voice Of Martyrs, but the story caught my attention. Apparently, a 34 year-old woman and her mother-in-law went to their local market in Guizhou Province, China. Jiang, the younger of the two women, handed out Bibles and Christian literature. The Chinese police caught wind of this, handcuffed the two women, and brought them to the police station. After interrogation, they were sentenced to 15 days incarceration for "spreading rumor and disturbing social order."

They knew the risks, but had still distributed the Bibles and literature. But jail-time was not enough, so the Public Security Bureau beat these two women to death, later claiming they died of natural causes.

Who's the Victim?

In the debate over the separation between church and state, those attacking the church would have you believe that they are victims, and that Christianity thrives to create a theocracy where the church controls the government. They would have also believe that Christians are no longer persecuted. The family of this Chinese woman would disagree.

In the Muslim countries Christians comprise of 5% of the population. Christianity is punishable by death in most of those countries. In May of this year a Navy Chaplain faced court-martial for praying outside the White House because he was in uniform at the time. Remember, a chaplain is a military clergyman. In April of this year Wisconsin began disallowing state employees to donate part of their paychecks to faith-based charities. Other charities continued to be acceptable. Wal-Mart was criticized last month when they changed their tune and decided it was okay to greet customers with "Merry Christmas". School districts around America now forbid Christian Christmas carols to be sung in music programs (Hanukkah songs and secular songs like Frosty the Snowman are fine). In 2004 NBC 5 in Chicago reported that on the School buses around the local school districts the radios must be turned off this time of year so that Christmas music will not be played on school buses. At a high school in Seattle a couple years ago, Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" was deemed to be too religious to be performed by the school's drama department. The Nativity Scene was booted from a Holiday Fair in Illinois this year. An e-mail to me from ChristiansUnite.com informed me of a Christian elder murdered in Iraq. And that doesn't count Elton John proclaiming that Christianity ought to be banned, and all of the other stories circulating regarding the war on Christianity. Who's the victim? Hardly those claiming to be offended by the Cross. This is not being naive, as some would accuse. The war on Christianity is real.

Here are some of the sentences from the comments to my article, Kerry and Treason, on My Point:

I think Kerry is an honest and decent man and he's right about what he says. George Bush has messed things up in the middle east. And yes, Palestinians are innocent people trying to recover their stolen land or are you still living with the lie that Israel are the good guys?

I agree with Proud Democrat. Kerry didn't bash the US but the moronic evil US president. And Israel has already caused so much damage in the middle east. Can't it just live peacefully with its neighbors? Your media tells you Palestine and Iran are the aggressors and the evil ones but it's NOT the truth. Thousands are killed everyday by Israel and it's also the case now in Iraq.

Who's the Aggressor?

I can't even believe that this question has to be asked. Every single Muslim leader agrees: Israel Must Be Annihilated. Does that sound like Israeli aggression? To answer this question, below is the article I posted on my Townhall blog, A Right Angle in a Left Turn World, recently.

The Sound Of Thunder
Sunday, December 10, 2006 1:23 AM

In America, when we hear the sound of thunder, it is most often associated with the weather. This is not necessarily so in Israel.

Israelis live through war upon war.

Members of the Israeli military routinely witness in utter horror the way civilians and children are used as human shields. An Israeli friend of mine once told me about how he watched three terrorists walk out of a house holding at arms length their own children as human shields. He also told me how once in Tul-Karem he saw more than ten terrorists hold up in a mosque and after shooting and killing two soldiers. The terrorists then called the United Nations and the Western Press to show how Israeli soldiers had surrounded the mosque. What the media did not report, he told me, was how the Israeli troops did not enter the mosque out of respect for religion.

On a forum I am a member of an Israeli poster relayed a story of how he, and a group of fellow Israeli soldiers, stopped an ambulance during Operation Defensive Shield. The ambulance belonged to Bethlehem, but for some reason was way outside its normal route designation. Suspicions were heightened when the ambulance made its way through a number of roadblocks. When he and his fellow Israeli troops opened the back of the emergency vehicle, expecting to see a patient, he saw a vehicle full of terrorists holding guns, and they weren't wounded at all. Beneath these men in compartments designed for medical supplies was C-4 and grenades. The foreign press converged on the scene rapidly, jumping all over the "Israeli Army Aggressors" for stopping an ambulance.

Another story relayed to me was regarding a funeral staged for a young adult. As the procession moved along, unknowingly being filmed by the Israelis, the area around the funeral procession blew up into a battle. As the fight began, the corpse got up off the stretcher and began firing an automatic weapon.

The mainstream media claims that these incidents are nothing more than myths, and can't be proven. Some members of the mainstream media (and of the liberal left) actually claim that Israelis make up these things just to make Hezbollah and all of the other terrorists look bad.

Israel exists among enemies. The liberal media twists the truth to see it in a light more approving of the terrorists. Israel is always labeled as the aggressor. They have been ever since the establishment of the State of Israel. They are always willing to give up land for peace. Any peace. Now, with the advent of the Iraq Study Group, Israel is being asked to give up the Golan Heights. Israel will probably do it. They are willing to do just about anything for peace. Peace that never comes, and never will.

Terrorists burn Jewish synagogues with glee. But the left can't see the hypocrisy in their failure to recognize such atrocities. They can't recognize what death like that could possibly be. They don't understand how it could be possible that a mother of a suicide bomber could speak proudly of her dead child, happy that they blew up women and children.

The U.S. advisory group now concludes that Israel must talk to Syria and solve its conflict with the Palestinians to help Bush stabilize Iraq. Syria will not stop supporting Islamic extremists, and the Israeli issue with Palestine has nothing to do with Iraq. Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, said the Iraq Study Group Report will actually "fuel insurgents and others vying to fill Iraq's security vacuum."

Abdel Moneim Said, head of Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic studies in Cairo said that the Iraq Study Group Report would result in "America suffering a loss of its reputation and credibility in the region."

The mainstream media screamed for so long that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq, but suddenly Iraq has everything to do with Israel's battle with Hezbollah.

This is the same mainstream media that criticized Israel for attacking Hezbollah in response to rocket attacks.

I wonder if the mainstream media would criticize the United States for responding in any way other than burying the dead bodies if rockets were being launched over the border from Mexico into the United States.

Perhaps then, the sound of thunder would mean more than simply a storm to us as well.


----

In California a new bill has been sponsored by state Senator Carole Migden intended to expand civil unions to heterosexual couples. This will allow marriage rights to be extended to marriages that are not marriages. Even marriage is losing God.

Who's being discriminated against?

In our deteriorating society, God is offensive, and political correctness is the new religion. Who's being discriminated against? Nobody, except those who believe in a Christian God.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Hollyweird's Grip on Reality

We all know, and figured out long ago, that those beautiful people that populate the fairytale land of Hollyweird lost touch with reality long ago. But it still amazes me when something comes up that really hammers that point home (Rosie O'Donnell does this daily so it doesn't amaze me anymore when her mouth spouts out idiotic things), and when it is so contradictory to what they claim they believe, yet they are so far gone into la-la land that they don't even recognize the hypocrisy.

This latest installment of "How Hollyweird Once Again Proves Its Lack of a Grip on Reality" is brought to you by an article brought to my attention by Night Rider. The article fueling this post is at Newsbusters.org.

Julia Roberts, that sweet girl that first gained our love and respect by playing a whore in Pretty Woman, recently provided her voice for the role of Charlotte in the recent movie version of Charlotte's Web. Apparently as a result of being in the movie, Julia has found a soft spot in her heart for spiders (along with puppies, kittens, baby seals, spotted owls, Kangaroo Rats, trees, and convicted murderers).

I've been saying this for years, in regards to animal rights activists who just so happen to be against the death penalty and pro-choice. "Save the puppy, show compassion for the convicted remorseless serial killer, but kill the baby."

Before we get into a huge abortion debate, like we did over my last abortion post (Friday, November 10th: The impact of abortion on our moral values in politics and society) let's look at this rationally. How can anyone say something like Julia Roberts did in regards to spiders on Good Morning America (December 13, 2006) "You think, that's a person, or somebody's Mom or somebody's best pal." and yet still celebrate a woman's right to terminate the life of an unborn child (remember, most of these kooks support abortion up to full term) and protest the death of a convicted murderer via the death penalty.

It just makes no sense to me.

Save the spider. Kill the baby.

Shouldn't it be, get a shoe and squash the spider, but please don't murder another unborn child?

View the video where she makes these remarks about spiders here.

Also, for those of you interested in my view regarding the issue of the Separation of Church and State, feel free to visit my other political site, A Right Angle in a Left Turn World.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

A Political Pistachio Interview: Conservative Cowboy

I meant to post this earlier in the evening, but my work-a-day job had other ideas, so here I am late Thursday night posting this interview at a time that is probably Friday morning for a great many of you.

The subject of tonight's interview, Christopher Brocious, is the mastermind behind The Cowboy Code Marshals & the Cowboy Code. If you've seen sites with that Marshal's Star on the sidebar, you know who the Conservative Cowboy is.

When you visit his blog, the first thing you will notice is the country music that begins playing. The current song about the upcoming politically correct, non-offensive holiday is great. Next you'll notice an American Flag proudly waving just above the photo of Christopher wearing a white cowboy hat. Well, good guys wear white, and Christopher is definitely one of those that rides his horse on the side of good.

Then a little further down you will notice other symbols that will peek your interest, and it is one of those icons that called to me to have this interview with him. When you get to the latter questions you will understand what I mean.

As the interview began, I desired to know what the driving forces behind his conservative viewpoints, and his urge to blog, are. So, for the first question, I asked: I read "What makes me rightwing" on Rightwing Guy's blog not too long ago. In that post he detailed what makes him a rightwinger (including personal beliefs and poignant statements. Why do you consider yourself a conservative?

I think that being a conservative (as opposed to Republican) means that you believe in the Federal Republic system, strong States rights, strong values, national defense and most importantly the rights of citizens. Meaning of the people, by the people, for the people. I don't know if that exactly answers your question, but those are the things I believe and I think that "Conservative" is the best label for it.

My dad was a United States Marine. I grew up with his teachings instilled (and drilled) into my skull. As a young adult, I entered the Navy and served nearly four years. My career was interrupted by an injury that made me unfit for duty. My upbringing, and my career in the Navy, made me a more responsible young man, and solidified my conservative belief system. Do you have any military background, and if yes, how has that background affected your belief system? Also, if yes, what made you enter the military and what benefits did you derive from it?

I did not serve in the military. My Father is a Vietnam Veteran and my Grandfather was a decorated WWII Veteran and Nazi POW. So even though I did not serve in the Military, I have strong ties to it. However, it did not overtly affect my upbringing as my Father and Grandfather did not speak of their service.

I began blogging earlier this year, a year or so after I launched my main website at douglasvgibbs.com. When did you begin blogging, and what was your original motivation for it?

I began in January of this year. My original motivation? A shiny new toy! I'm a technical geek and I was curious about blogs, so I started one. It took me a while to decide whether or not I was going to get into it on a regular basis.

What are your deep reasons for blogging?

Originally, as I said it was just a toy. Then it became a bit like a journal. Then I discovered other blogs and found people who blogged about things that I agreed with and suddenly I was inspired. I blog because it is my small way of making public all manner of things that I would otherwise have no platform for. Whether that is something that I feel deeply for, or some small thing I find funny. I guess simply put, it's my way of sharing with others those things that are important or interesting to me.

Do you use any service to help generate hits for your blog, or do you depend on the age old strategy of "Word of Mouth?"

The closest I come is blog rolls. Other than that I think people find my blog by following the link from comments I made on other blogs.

I’m a hits junkie on my blogs. I hope to eventually become a top blogger like Texas Fred and Istapundit. Would you like to become a top blogger? And if yes, what strategies do you think will help you in reaching this goal?

Yes and no. I think it would be nice to have a very large and respected blog (well, I guess I could call Fred respected, lol), but I don't think I would want the responsibility. I don't really desire to blog full time, and I think that is what it takes to run blogs like that.

I am a writer, so one reason I blog is to become better known by my writing, in the hopes that it may assist my drive to become a published novelist. Do you hope that your blogging will evolve into something bigger, and if yes, what?

Unless I suddenly become wealthy and don't need to work, I'm not really interested in blogging being more than a habit. On the other hand, if the Republican party were to make some serious reforms that I could truly stand behind, I would be interested in blogging to Political ends.

The information age has been growing at an insurmountable pace. The internet, I think, is the driving force behind that. How do you think blogging is affecting the already exploding world of information, and where do you think blogging will go in the future?

Absolutely the internet is the driving force. The ability to share information and ideas in real time with so many people can only lead to advancements in leaps and bounds. I think blogging is just starting to carve out a niche as a legitimate news source. I cannot help but believe that the blogosphere will continue to grow and evolve and hold the mainstream media accountable for their reporting.

Who are the bloggers that are your favorites, and do you find yourself ever trying to emulate another blogger?

My biggest favorites are Big White Hat, Robert of American and Proud, Texas Fred, Jarhead John, Lem of Hillbilly White Trash and yourself, of course. I would say that I am inspired by and respect all of them, but I don't really emulate anyone else. Although I am sure I pick up little things from each that I take with me. But I do that with everyone, I feel that you should always be learning and evolving.

How do you decide what to write about?

It is usually what I personally find interesting. I think about it this way: If it is a subject that is "water cooler" conversation that I would be interested enough to bring up with my coworkers and friends, I generally will blog about it. Either that or it is some news snippet I catch that makes me rant!

Have you ever deleted comments, and what kind of comments do you prefer on your site, and what kind of comments make you hit that delete button?

I haven't deleted comments yet that I can recall. My regular readers are the ones who usually comment, but once in a while I will get someone that totally disagrees with one of my posts and comments about it. I handle it by responding and trying to prove to them that they are wrong and I am right! One thing I don't do is just ignore them without a rebuttal. The only thing I would not stand for is outright hate speech, or comments that are for no other reason than to instigate argument.

I love the Cowboy Code. How did it come into being, and what made you decide to begin the Cowboy Code Marshals Blogroll?

Well, I am a Cowboy at heart. I used to love watching repeats of the Lone Ranger on Saturday mornings when I was young. I came across Gene Autry's Cowboy Ten Commandments and started doing a little research. Then I found many other "codes" from the old cowboy figures of the 1950's and I put them all together on one page. Big White Hat's Straight Shooter's Club is what gave me the idea for the blog roll. I wanted to have a way for people to find the code and those who believe in it to proudly show it!

Now for the nitty-gritty questions. What gave me the idea of interviewing you originally is the fact that you advertise on your site that you belong to a Masonic Lodge. How long have you been a Freemason, and what led you to it?

My journey into Masonry started in 1996. One of the most influential people in my life, a man who was a mentor to me was such an inspiration that his example alone led me to ask him about his Masonic Ring. If he belonged to and firmly believed in such an organization I knew it was something I wanted to be a part of.

There are many misnomers regarding freemasons. What myths would you like to see vanish, and what is your input in assisting that to take place?

Oh, there are so many! The one that I feel the deepest about is that Freemasonry is not compatible with Christianity. Freemasonry is a Fraternal group. It is not a religion, and does not at any time profess to be. To become a Freemason you must only have a belief in a monotheistic Diety. And while Freemasonry teaches good works, it teaches them as a conduct for life, not as a path to salvation. The myths that somehow Masons worship Satan or are pagans really does disturb me. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Freemasonry is sometimes placed right up there by conspiracy buffs with the Illuminati because of some of the secret practices of freemasonry's lodge activities. Why do you think people have made that connection, and what do you think will help kill that myth?

First, we have to establish that the Illuminati was an organization formed by a former Freemason and I believe he made the connection so as to gain notoriety and therefore publicity so that people would join him. The historical Illuminati have been defunct for well over a century, even though copycat organizations exist today - riding on the coat tails of that same notoriety.

I think that people perpetuate it today for the same reason that people claim to be abducted by aliens. They want to be seen as "in the know" of some secret, some important person who has cracked some secret organization that in reality does not exist.

Like UFO's and alien abductions, I don't think the myths will ever die. Not unless tin foil hats and Thorazine become mandatory, that is.

Is there anything else you would like to say about being a mason?

I am proud to be a Freemason. It has been nothing but a positive influence on my life. Some day I hope to stand beside Freemasons like Benjamin Franklin, George Washington; and of course Gene Autry and the "Duke" (Masons and Cowboys!!!) in the Celestial Lodge above.

Final question. What makes you a cowboy (and please don't say because you have a pair of boots, a hat, a large belt buckle and go to the bar at night to line dance)?

I would never say that! The Cowboy Hat does not the Cowboy make. Being a Cowboy is about being a good person. It's about believing in being thankful for what you have, working hard, and respecting others. I don't always hold true to the Cowboy Code in everything I do, but I certainly try. I may not Cowboy, but I am a Cowboy in my heart!

Thanks for the opportunity to do this interview Douglas. And I would like to say that I am very proud that you chose me to be your first blog interview. I'm honored!

Thank you, Christopher, for participating. And for you folks out there, also feel free to visit his non-blog website at www.chrisbrocious.com. I hope this was enjoyable for all who read it, and enlightening to those curious about one of the more respected figures of the blogosphere. Added note, I suspect that in the comments there will be some strong statements regarding belief systems as they relate to some of the subject matter of this interview. Please, keep it clean and tidy.

And Mudkitty, the invitation to you for my next interview is still on the table. Don't worry, if you e-mail me your e-mail address will remain in a safe under lock and key. I truly do believe that you would make a fine subject for the next interview.

Night Rider, your suggestion has been duly noted for another participant as well.

For those of you having difficulty commenting since I moved to beta, if you have a google account sign in with your e-mail address - or use the "other" function to manually type your name and URL.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

UN Closing its Eyes to Darfur Again: UN Human Rights Council, what a bunch of horrible,horrible people!

YID With LID: UN Closing its Eyes to Darfur Again: UN Human Rights Council, what a bunch of horrible,horrible people !

Night Rider brought this post to my attention. Thanks Yid with Lid. Also, Political Pistachio's first interview with a fellow blogger will premiere tomorrow night! For those of you that know the Cowboy Code, you know who the interviewee is. As for the rest of you, this is a good one. Putting the finishing touches on it now. Pay a visit Thursday night or Friday for this interview event - - a type of event I plan to have about every two weeks for now on. If anybody has a recommendation of someone you would like to see me interview, please let me know by e-mail at douglasvgibbs at yahoo dot com - - and Mudkitty, I am extending a personal invitation to you for the next interview. Do you dare step into my den?

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Liberal Absolutes and a victory for Christmas

Those of us on the right tend to call it "twisting" when it comes to liberal responses to simple questions. Actually, the root cause of their seemingly emotionally charged, warped responses come from a practice of seeing things in absolutes.

And sometimes they just don't get the point.

When someone on the right indicates that we can't leave Iraq the left says, "So we must stay in Iraq forever?"

If that's what will protect freedom, and our nation, then I suppose so. Depends on the need. Hear that? Depends. No absolute. Try it on other things, leftwingers. Look at the world from the point of view that things may change, and all plans don't always work out exactly as expected.

That is not defeatism, as one commenter on the left may say. Abandoning a nation that will fold faster than South Vietnam did once we are gone is defeatism.

How about the War on Christmas issue? They seem to think that saying Merry Christmas is offensive. They seem to think that Christians want to force everyone to say Merry Christmas. In the words of Bill O'Reilly, we don't care whether or not you decide to say Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, or whatever. What we have a problem with is when government agencies or employers order people not to say anything with the word Christmas in it. It is wrong to take away someone's right to say Merry Christmas, or to celebrate it with Christmas decorations.

By the way, speaking of Christmas and Bill O'Reilly, he announced tonight that the Christmas Trees are back in the Seattle Airport. The public outcry was enough for them to return the trees.

That, my friends, is a victory for Christmas.

On another note, I have an interview of a fellow blogger in the works, probably to be posted Thursday night. Stop by to read it. I expect the interview to be educational and thought provoking.

God Bless.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Death to the Dictator

Today Iranian students at the Amir Kabir Technical University staged a demonstration against President Mahmamoud Ahmadinejad which included an exploding firecracker and the burning of the Iranian President's photograph. More amazingly, this happened while Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at the university.

When the students began chanting, "Death to the dictator," Ahmadinejad responded calmly, "We have resisted dictatorship for many years. . . nobody can bring back a dictatorship even in the name of freedom."

Ahmadinejad supporters began chanting in response, and according to the Associated Press, the chanting silenced the protestors. There was no report of arrests.

I don't care what Ahmadinejad says (elected in 2005), for the past 30 years Iran has been ruled by an authoritarian regime which ignores the rights of its own people and constantly imprisons, tortures and murders those who peacefully dissent against its holy regime. Student activism for democracy and freedom is alive and well in Iran. The protest I wrote about above began and ended completely peacefully. The concern here is that the Iraq Study Group Report states that the United States ought to negotiate with Iran and Syria, but leaves out anything about any dialogue about Iran’s nuclear program. Doesn't matter, I highly doubt Iran would come to the table with anybody's interests in mind other than their own, and they would spend the whole time knowing that no matter what everyone else desires, they are going to go forward with their nuclear plans. The violence Iran and Syria puts forth through groups like Hezbollah is something the architects of the ISG report either forgot, or misunderstood since such violence is constandly downplayed to the American public by the mainstream media.

How do you bring to the table people who could care less what you have to say?

Ahmadinejad has made it clear to everyone. He believes that Israel is a threat and will disappear under his hand, replaced by a Palestinian nation. Israel, according to Ahmadinejad, will collapse, and the West will follow.

The Iranian President has also made it clear to everyone that he doubts the Holocaust ever existed and that America will fall under the pressure of Islam. Specifically, America must convert, or die.

Two days ago the Iranian foreign minister also said that Iran would be pleased to assist an American withdraw from Iraq, promising to help with the stability in Iraq.

Yeah, right.

And does Iraq agree with the liberal recommendation of a U.S. withdraw?

Of course not. In fact, the Iraqi President called the Iraq Study Group Report dangerous, and claimed that the recommendations of the report are not fair or just and they undermine the sovereignty of Iraq and their constitution.

The Kurdish leader also criticized the report, and added that an increase in troops could also be detrimental, because it would be seen as a sign of little faith in Iraq's security force. Remain in Iraq, but don't over do it, I take it.

That largest criticism came in regards to the report's call for the approval of a de-Baathification law that could allow thousands of officials from Saddam Hussein's ousted Baath Party to return to their jobs.

The protesting students in Iran made a clear statement. They are tired of having a dictator rule their country. Yet, through the recommendations of a report that carries nearly no value we are ready to hand Iraq over to the Iranian regime.

I just hope that Bush keeps his sanity and holds his course.

The mainstream media, as expected, is still having trouble reporting the facts and what they mean in the real world - preferring to continue their verbal shots at Bush in their attempt to convince everybody of their "Bush is a menace to the world" agenda.

And since when is it our place to ask Israel to give up the Golan Heights, or for us to launch a Middle East Peace Effort without Israel's involvement? What was that? Yes, without Israel's involvement. Specifically, an organized conference promoted as a forum to discuss Iraq's future, and Baker proclaimed that Israel is not invited because the conference is a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure.

Hey, Baker, listen to Israel for once. Don't negotiate with terrorists. They will break every promise. They will break every treaty. They cannot be trusted. They never have been capable of being trusted, and never will be.

Makes me sick.

Pics of Rumsfeld in Iraq

Gazing at the Flag has some great pictures of Rumsfeld's recent visit to Iraq, and as he indicated to me in a comment, you can see how much the troops love him.

Gazing at the Flag - Rumsfeld's Farewell Visit to Iraq

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Thank the Troops, Support the Troops

A touching video portraying what our boys and their families have to go through to keep us safe. Originally posted to youtube on Veteran's Day, but I didn't find it until now. Worth watching.

Rumsfeld's Farewell

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is on his way out of office. He resigned after the war policies he helped create came under severe scrutiny by the Democratic Party. After the recent publication of the Iraq Study Group Report which characterizes the situation in Iraq as grave and deteriorating, he visited this weekend with the troops in Iraq to thank both them and their families for the sacrifices they have made, and are still making.

Rumsfeld's last day as defense secretary is December 17. The end of his time in office is not his priority. Rumsfeld's priority is clearly wanting to keep the focus on the troops, supporting them for their efforts, and supporting our presence in Iraq.

Even the Iraqi government recognizes the idiocy of the Iraq Study Group Report for what it is, saying that the conclusion by the group that Bush's policy in Iraq is not working is in error. Iraq President Jalal Talabani denounced the report saying it offered dangerous recommendations that would undermine his country's sovereignty and that the recommendations were "an insult to the people of Iraq."

The departure of Rumsfeld from the political scene may be detrimental to our policies in Iraq, especially if Bush does not stand firm against the incoming liberal Congress.

This trip to Iraq for Rumsfeld is his 15th visit since the war began, and follows an emotional farewell on Friday at the Pentagon, where the defense secretary defended his record on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Good News

Good news as reported by the mainstream media:

.

.

.

.

and now for some good news they won't print:

A routine patrol by a group of Marines changed into a mission to save a sick baby in Iraq. The main players were Navy Medic Chris Walsh and the 1st Battalion 25th Marines. While patrolling the streets of Fallujah the Marines were faced by an enemy attack that commenced with an IED explosion adjacent to Walsh's vehicle. As the battalion set to chase the trigger man a woman came from one of the houses calling to them that her baby was sick. The Medic looked at the baby and realized immediately that the child required care.

The two month old child suffered from a rare intestinal abnormality, and as the threat of another attack loomed, Walsh made a quick decision.

The mission changed from the trigger man to the baby girl. For the next three months Walsh and the team made house calls under the cloak of darkness, taking photographs, consulting experts, and attempting to obtain papers to allow her to leave the country for medical care.

Staff Sargeant Ed Ewing said about the visits, "We showed up at all different times of the night. They never knew when we were coming. We did that purposely to protect us and protect their family."

After a couple months passed one of their vehicles was struck by an IED. Three men died, the third being Navy Medic Walsh. For those who survived, saving the child became a eulogy to their fallen comrades.

Eventually, the child was granted permission to leave Iraq, and received care in Boston. The child is now stable, and adjusting to her new life.

The mother of the Medic, Maureen Walsh, received a letter from one of the Marines involved, explaining her son's involvement in the saving of the child's life. She has since met the child, saying that "It made me feel like Chris was there. He wanted something like this. He wanted to make a difference in somebody's life."

Also, feel free to read my post entitled "The Sound of Thunder" on A Right Angle in a Left Turn World.

Friday, December 08, 2006

Has our society gotten that out of whack?

The answer to the question above is "Yes."

In Bellmead, Texas a four-year old was put into in-school suspension for hugging his teacher's aide, or at least that is what the father of this child states.

However, the school states that the four-year old rubbed his face in the chest of a female employee. The principal of La Vega Primary School sent a letter to the parents of this child that stated (now get this) the pre-kindergartener demonstrated "inappropirate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment."

The father immediately wrote the administrators indicating that the aide simply misread a hug from the four-year old. He is demanding that the whole incident be removed from the child's academic file. He stated that his son is too young to know what it means to act sexually.

The response from the school was to remove the sexual references on the discipline referral, but they denied his request for an apology by the aide, or the removal of the paperwork regarding the incident. The file remains, with the sexual references changed to "inappropriate physical contact."

Are you kidding me? Assuming that the child hasn't been abused sexually or been inappropriately exposed to pornographic material, a child at that age is sexually innocent. Fifty years ago the aide would have patted the boy on the top of the head, told him to rejoin his classmates, and that would be that. Now, the kid is branded as exhibiting inapproprate sexual behavior.

The kid is four-years old! Give me a break! Please tell me that I'm not being unreasonable here. Did I miss something?

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Pearl Harbor Day and the lessons we refuse to learn


On December 7th, 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, crippling our Naval Fleet and nearly demolishing our air power. 2,400 Americans died. Roosevelt wanted nothing to do with fighting a war with Japan, but Japan had other ideas. Some people even allude to the idea that Roosevelt's administration had an idea that the attack was coming, but there has never been any proof to support such conjecture.

The famous "Day of Infamy" speech aired over the radio that day in 1941, and as we did immediately after 9/11, the nation united and rose to the call.

Our men joined the military to fight for our freedom. The women assisted in producing the goods necessary for the war effort. An embargo was imposed on Japan for oil, steel, and scrap metal. Japan’s assets were frozen.

Shortly afterward, Germany declared war on the United States of America, and we joined the fight in Europe as well.

It took four years to defeat the enemy, and the troops came home as heroes. The courage of our parents and grandparents (depending on your age) kept us free, allowed liberty to live on, and forged America into a mighty weapon against evil, and those that would come against liberty and freedom.

Now, five years after an attack as horrific as Pearl Harbor, if not more horrific, we have proven that we learned nothing from our elders. The enemy is more hostile, has struck us on the mainland, and like the Kamakazees is willing to embark on suicide missions to kill us.

But our leaders want to open dialogue with this enemy. Appease them as Europe attempted to appease Hitler during the years leading up to his invasion of Poland. An Iraq Study Group has been formed desiring to negotiate with the leader of Iran, the very same man that has told us to convert or die. The group recommends talking with Iran and Syria without even blinking an eye in consideration of Lebanon (a nation falling once again under the tyranny of these violent neighbors), the study group calls for Israel to give up the Golan Heights to try to appease her enemies.

The same kind of think tank offered to give land to Hitler, and then he took more than what was offered.

You can't reason with the unreasonable. Didn't we learn that on December 7th, 1941? Didn't we learn that doing nothing against our enemies spells defeat? Evil will triumph, and destroy our nation if we simply talk.

I grieve those that lost their lives on December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001. We owe it to them, their families, their loved ones, and every American citizen to stand firm, stand our ground, and finish what was started. We must stand united against this enemy, or they will divide us within.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Repercussions of Carter, Clinton, 9/11, and the Cut-And-Run

Terrorism as we are experiencing it now began during the Carter Administration, and Jimmy did nothing about it. Actually that is not entirely correct. Jimmy Carter did plenty. He gave Iran over to the Islamofascists, fired 800 CIA Agents, and gave away the Panama Canal.

The day of Reagan's inauguration, the Iran hostages were released. In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists and President Reagan responded by sending U.S. Marines to Beirut. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists. Reagan said the United States would not surrender, but the Democrats drafted a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. In 1986 when a West Berlin disco frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American, Reagan dropped bombs on Libya. American planes bombed Qaddafi's residence, killing his daughter. Ronald Reagan accomplished all this while simultaneously winning the Cold War over Soviet totalitarianism.

Daddy Bush, during his presidency, caved under Democratic pressure, and his dealings with terrorism, which commenced only when he got permission from the United Nothing, accomplished nothing.

"The Road to Ground Zero" story in the Jan. 6, 2002 London Sunday Times told how many real, actual and missed opportunities the Clinton administration had to capture and defang Osama bin Laden. Clinton's primary concern at the time was to get re-elected. Anything controversial needed to be avoided, so from the beginning to the end of the administration, the Clintons demanded absolute proof before acting against terrorists. This attitude led to inaction.

After the attack of Feb. 26, 1993, Mr. Clinton refused to admit that the World Trade Center had been bombed. In October 1993, when Black Hawk helicopters were shot down in Mogadishu, Somalia, Clinton refused to give a response that might upset anybody.

At one point the Sudanese offered to let the U.S. see their intelligence files and all the data they had gathered about bin Laden and his associates who had visited Sudan. The Clinton Administration repeatedly rebuffed through both formal and informal channels. If the Clinton administration had accepted and examined these files, countless terrorists could have been tracked. Sudan's offer to arrest bin Laden and deliver him to U.S. officials was likewise refused.

Richard Miniter's book, "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," follows a documented recital of the links between bin Laden's al Qaeda units and Iraq that should convince all but the most extreme Bush-haters that these links exist and continue.

Carter's and Clinton's refusal to recognize the scope of this growing conflict with Radical Islam is what eventually led to the attack on America on September 11, 2001. If we cut and run from Iraq, especially during this stage in the game, we stand to lose even more than the lives lost at the World Trade Center in 2001.

We live and die by our image in the world, and specifically by our image in the Middle East. Our successes are due to our military strength, and as long as we appear invincible, no Middle Eastern leader will seriously attempt to challenge us again as they did on September 11th, 2001.

Iran took the hostages in 1979 because Carter appeared weak. 9/11 occurred because Osama bin Laden viewed us as weak after the failed Clinton Administration. I'm sure he was surprised all to hell when Bush took the fight to the terrorists in the Middle East.

If we cut and run, or play some redistribution of the troops game, chaos will ensue in the Middle East, and the nations of the region will fall completely into the hands of Islamic Clerics and Dictators.

The credibility of our military might is on the line. A show of weakness could affect the balance of power all over the planet. Iran and Syria has their jaws open, ready to devour Iraq the moment we depart. And once that happens, they will be emboldened to strike the United States again. No terrorist attacks have returned to America since 9/11 because we took the fight to them. Now that we are in Iraq, and we have eliminated a dictator that was killing many more people than those that were dying during Saddam's reign of power, we are obligated to remain in that nation - indefinitely.

If we cut-and-run, not only will Iraq fall into Iran and Syria's hands, but once again our image of strength will be compromised, and this time we may not be able to pull out of the consequences.

It's not about winning. It's about survival. And if we cut-and-run now, we all lose.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Hillary positioning herself for 2008

After reading an article tonight about Chavez winning his re-election in Venezuela (proclaiming it to be just another step in the direction of success for the socialist revolution), I came across an article at Newsmax.com reporting that Hillary Clinton is worried about Barack Obama's surge in popularity, and she is secretly contacting high-ranking Democrats and informing them of her 2008 intentions in regards to a run for the presidency.

Last week the New York Post reported that Clinton's campaign team began recruiting staffers for her 2008 bid for the presidency.

Though we've all realized that Hillary Clinton was planning to run in 2008, despite the fact that she's already served two terms through her husband, Bill, it is surprising that she has jumped the gun a little early rather than reserve her active steps toward a presidential bid until January. Nonetheless, Barack Obama's popularity has grown to a point that Hillary sees him as a serious obstacle.

Watch for her to pretend to be a little moderate and hide her far left side so that the swing voters will remain in her corner. In fact, I think that the newly elected Congress will do the same, riding the fence, until a Democrat reaches the White House. Then, the far left fireworks will ignite.

However, as gloomy as it may seem, as long as the Democrats remain wimps in the face of Iraq, and if Maliki gets his head out of his rear and gets tough and squashes the violence in Baghdad and surrounding areas, the Democrats will never be able to deal from any position of power. Stability in Iraq will equal success in Iraq, and only make the Republicans gain favor with the unsure moderate voters.

If Syria, Iran, and Osama bin Laden continue to feed the violence in Iraq, and Iraq's Prime Minister continues to take a weak stance against the senseless battle between the two Islamic religious factions, Democratic popularity will continue to rise, and the end result could very well be the election of the first woman to the presidency in American History.

Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Oh, by the way, on a happier note, I had the opportunity to witness a fantastic production tonight. Handel's "The Messiah" was performed at a local church, and our own Prying1 was one of the singers in the choir. Great show. A performance I would expect to experience at a performing arts center. Prying1's site owner is a stand-up guy, as well. I feel priviledged to have met him.

Enough is Enough

I love a good debate. In fact, I live for good debates. Debates. Not mud slinging. Not name calling. Not comments that X-out Christ. Not jargon that alienates my loyal readers to the point that they decide that commenting is no longer worth it.

When Liberal Trolls began to frequent my Political Pistachio, a good blogger friend warned me that though my attitude of allowing all sides to be able to voice their opinions on my site was admirable, the left fails to understand specifics, and eventually enough will be enough.

I've reached that point.

I love receiving comments. I appreciate various opinions. Gunz and Conservative Cowboy are friends, and I will defend them before I defend any leftwing trolls. So, those of you on the left, and you know who you are, play nice, or I go to moderating comments and your words will never see the light of day. Discuss, debate, and enjoy the diversity of our beliefs. Do not X-out Christ anymore, do not put down my readers, do not sling anymore mud. If you desire for people to provide references for what they write, cite yours as well. This nation was founded for freedom of religion and freedom of speech, but this is my site, and my rules apply here. I would prefer not to ban anyone, or lose readers because some liberal moonbat has gotten out of control.

Thanks, love you all, I'm leaving now to go Prying1's advertised "Handel's Messiah".

God Bless, and feel free to comment without moderation for now.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

could the NY Times move to the (choke) right?

Found this on Tom Shakely and Friends Site.

Maurice Greenberg, Republican Donor, Moves To Buy New York Times


Published by Tom Shakely on November 29th, 2006 under National News No comments
In surprising news today, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, the billionaire insurance mogul, has been positioning himself to obtain majority shareholder status in the New York Times Company, thereby breaking the stranglehold by the current Sulzberger media family.

This would be big news, not only because of new ownership but because Greenberg has donated to Republicans in the past, meaning that he might be in a position to reinvent the modern New York Times as a newspaper that doesn’t print every leak and anti-American piece of terrorist-aiding propaganda it can find.

Well, maybe that was a little harsh, but the current New York Times definitely doesn’t have American’s national security interests in mind usually, and it would be nice to see some brave new ownership at the staggering giant.