Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Cheney visited with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and then departed the country two hours after the blast. The man has nerves of steel.
Although it did not appear that the explosion was a threat to the vice-president, the Taliban claimed responsibility and stated that Cheney was the target. Military officials believe the explosion was not intended to be a threat to Cheney since it was carried out at the gate, which makes me believe this may have been either a dry run, or simply a message that though they cannot get to important American targets at this point, the radicals are capable of getting close.
He wasn't sounding so golden to me last night. He made the remark that the tags for the radio show I had last Saturday indicated that we would talk about illegals, but the subject was never mentioned. True enough, the first show was a learning experience, and honestly, there were many things that can be improved upon, like covering more subject matter, making my voice louder, and reading comments by my readers and listeners are a few of them.
So, the discussion began with him telling me that I was prejudice against Mexicans.
My wife is Mexican.
"You think she's white," he said. "Besides, what would we do without the illegals here to do the sh*tty jobs? Whites won't do that kind of work."
First of all, I never said I had a problem with immigrants or Mexicans or anybody else with more pigmentation in their skin. I have a problem with people who jump across illegally, stick their hand out because they think they are entitled to programs funded by my hard earned tax dollars, and then spit on the American flag as they wave the flag of Mexico.
And I hate that argument that the Mexican does jobs whites aren't willing to do. Do people really think that if the Mexican laborer never came here to pick our fruits and vegetables, that the food would rot on the branches and work its way back into the soil because nobody would be willing to pick it? Toilets wouldn't get cleaned? Lawns would be unmowed? Dishes would pile up at the restaurants because all white people would refuse to clean them, thinking they are better than that? Get a life. I guarantee you, if a job is available, there will always be someone there to fill the position, regardless of color, race, nationality, or level of sense.
And legal immigrants made this nation great, not the kind hopping the border nowadays. I love immigrants that are happy to be here, desiring to be the best American they can be. I have a problem with law breakers that demand entitlements, commit crimes, and then proclaim they are taking back the American Southwest for Mexico. If you don't plan to be an American, and have no intention to play by the rules, go back home. We are better off without you.
Monday, February 26, 2007
I turned my television off.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Last night the first installment of Political Pistachio Radio on Blog Talk Radio aired. It was rough around the edges, my voice was quieter than it should have been, and it was a rousing success! Who would have thought that so many of you would be listening? Thank you to the callers (from all points of the globe - west coast, east coast, somewhere left of the Great Lakes, and Europe), and the listeners for the fantastic experience. It will only get better - Mrs. Pistachio will only get more comfortable (beware!), and more firsts will occur.
What firsts may that be, you ask?
I believe we may be the first husband and wife team on BlogTalk Radio (perhaps), but the big firsts were listening to Mudkitty and Night Rider banter back and forth for the first time EVER, having on the air a liberal cat, conservative couple, a couple of conservative dudes from Minnesota (Night Rider and the esteemed host of My Point Radio), a self-proclaimed Dr. of nothing (that's right, Dr. Blogstein paid a visit!), and a lovely lady from Brussels (my dear Tisha from Serenity Quest) all on the air together. But the big highlight was Mudkitty and Mrs. Pistachio.
Mrs. Pistachio said to Mudkitty, "You don't believe in God? Where do you think all this came from?"
As Mrs. Pistachio grows used to this radio show, and Mudkitty continues to call in as a side-kicking challenge to conservative thought, the interactions between those two will grow and the result, I believe, will be good radio.
To find out more about Political Pistachio Radio go to the blogtalk radio home page here, or to listen to the latest episode, you can simply use the media player in my sidebar.
I am looking forward to next Saturday, as I am hoping you are too.
Now back to writing!
Friday, February 23, 2007
I have ordered bumper stickers for Political Pistachio Radio (3" X 10"). They look like this:
If you are interested in having one, once they arrive I will be glad to send you out one. Send me an e-mail to either douglasvgibbs at yahoo.com or politicalpistachio at yahoo.com with your address and I will be glad to send you one as soon as they come in. If you desire more than one, just ask. Be assured, your address will be safely disposed of into my shredder once the bumper sticker is on its way.
Tisha requested a side bar logo for the radio show. I have three of them. Either you can use the bumper sticker above, or the houses with flags. Here's smaller versions that should fit your sidebar. I assume you know how to post it with the link. The link I'd prefer you'd use is either www.politicalpistachio.com which will bring them here, or www.blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio which will send them to the BlogTalk Radio site.
Hope you listen tomorrow. Calling in is encouraged. Call in number is (646) 652-2940.
Talk to ya then.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The left does not understand why conservatives are so upset with them, and why Christians are so offended by their attempts to achieve social change through humanistic reform. I am a firm believer that enlightenment, as defined by the left and their new age cousins, is simply an attempt to do away with consequences, and to enable the government to promote and provide, provide, provide.
It is not the government's position to provide any more than basic security from foreign invaders, and ultimately provide protection of life, liberty and property. Otherwise, for the most part, government should be limited. Now, my liberal friends, don't go thinking I am calling for anarchy, that is not what I said, and there are more functions to the government I think should be in action, but the point is, I don't believe that it is the government's place to provide me with a decent standard of living (that is up to me, through my hard work and dedication to myself and my family), I don't believe that government has any business taking control of the corporate world (like that idiotic statement by Hillary about taking more from the oil companies because they made too much profit - what is this? Penalties for success?), and I guess overall I am saying that I don't believe there should be a centralized government dictating what is in the public's interest, and what is not. As Bill O'Reilly has stated, "It is not the job of government to promote and, if possible, provide more freedom, a better environment, broader prosperity, better health, greater fulfillment in life. . . " It is the government's job to protect our freedom, and to provide regulations to assist in protecting the environment to a point (but not to the point that it is overly zealous and breaking the back of industry). It is up to the individual to provide himself (or herself) with prosperity, a healthy life, and fulfillment in life. If someone wants to die of obesity instead, that too, is their right.
The more I read and watch society and observe the politicians the more I realize that the left believes that success should be penalized by distributing the wealth because surely any successful person did not truly make it on their own - surely societal assistance was in there somewhere in regards to their success (no such thing as a self-made man, I guess). The left believes that terrorism exists because of America's existence as a superpower, and that the United States is just as guilty of terrorism (if not more so) than the Islamists with its military being all over the world. Responsible people, in their eyes, do not become so from parental discipline, and society cannot allow discipline of our criminals to continue - punishment is not the answer in their eyes, treatment is. Any idea that there may be a higher power is hogwash, and anyone believing such a thing should not be allowed to promote such beliefs in the public square, or anywhere else other than in the darkest corner of their home, because it might offend someone somewhere. Offending Christians is a minor offense. Everyone should live peacefully together, talking out their differences, and peacefully working together.
Great. But you forgot something. Human nature.
Human nature dictates that a person usually desires being the best they can be (in most cases) and striving for whatever it is the person desires be it independence, a home, a nice car, a cool stereo system, whatever. Human nature also takes advantage of situations, pushing the envelope, seeing what one can get away with. Our welfare system is a great example of that. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and most people know the difference, and they know the difference between right and wrong because of Biblical values. This is why the left hates people of faith so much. Followers of God see them for what they are, and call them out.
Let me go back to the consequences thing. The left supports the legalization of drugs. The idea is to eliminate the crime element by no longer making it a crime. That is idiotic.
What about the consequences for deviant sexual behavior? Their argument is that it must have something to do with something in the genetic makeup in the individual, so now there are no consequences for such actions. Homosexuals are now being treated as if they are their own race striving for equality, and sex offenders have minimal terms so that they may be treated of this horrid disease. No matter that the victim is affected for life. After all, according to the left, we can't judge anyone on their personal behavior, and God is judgmental, so those Christians must be pushed down.
While they are at it, the left also thinks (as I understand it) that world consensus is needed to use military force. That's one of the reasons they are so mad at Bush over Iraq. He did it without everyone in the world being in complete agreement.
I suppose doing nothing when it comes to the terrorist element is the better option. I suppose become isolationists, or dancing through the daisies with our socialist neighbor to the north and the nations of Europe that have forgotten that socialistic ideals failed in Soviet Russia is a better idea. Apparently the left forgot what happened in southeast Asia after we abandoned Vietnam. A similar bloodbath awaits Iraq if we cut and run. The left seems to have amnesia in regards to history. And for those lefties that argue that they agree with Afghanistan, just not the invasion of Iraq, that's like saying that we should have declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, but not Germany or Italy.
Okay, now I'm going on a tangent. Let's list this properly so that Tom and MK can respond properly. Direct question, no word twisting allowed, so don't misrepresent what I am saying here. Yes or no: Does the edicts you follow include that making a judgment regarding someone's personal behavior is wrong (including things like, oh I don't know, Christianity's view of homosexuality, for instance); Anyone who believes in God shall not acknowledge Him in public (be it in politics, at public school, etc - because such recognition of a God is offensive to everyone else); The wealthy must "pay their fair share", essentially giving to the poor, including seizure of private property if necessary; parents cannot be and shouldn't be the only provider of moral values to children, especially when relating to abortion and sexual education, which "must" be taught to such children through the public schools; abortion is a mother's right, euthanasia is a dying person's right, but murderers must not be put to death for their pre-meditated murder of another individual because killing is wrong; military force cannot be used as a preemptive measure, and any military campaigns must be approved by the global body; All people are entitled to their own personal gratification therefore narcotics should not be prohibited (Amsterdam?); Government must provide a good life for its citizens, raising taxes to provide health care, housing, jobs, and whatever else because citizens are entitled to these things just for being citizens, success such as earning riches must be punished, taken away from the wealthy, and redistributed. Is that correct? Do I have that right?
This is why you don't like the Conservative Right. The Conservative Right believes that personal behavior when it comes to morals that will adversely affect society should not be rewarded, Biblical Values are the values this nation was founded upon, and has prospered because of. God Bless America. Wealth gained by an individual helps the economy when their business grows and provides jobs - taxing the wealthy too heavily creates a stagnantation of the economy. Persons that have not earned their living has no entitlement to a free handout. Parental rights are paramount, and a parent has the right to discipline their child through spanking or whatever manner they see fit (as long, of course, when it isn't obvious abuse), and should be the sole providers of the moral concepts their child receives. Innocent lives are precious and should not be terminated by abortion, especially in the name of "choice", and if an established life can be saved it should be (I was in a coma, and essentially a vegetable that completely relied on machines to keep me alive for a while -- good thing my wife didn't believe in pulling the plug), and a punishment should fit the crime. Multi-death murderers should be sentenced to the death penalty. People who abuse little children sexually should be imprisoned for life. If military action is necessary to protect the nation it should be carried out. Obviously, recklessness is not encouraged, but when a dictator with ties with terrorist organizations has weapons of mass destruction (and has a history of using them) and vows to provide them to your enemies that have continuously practiced terrorism against you and your allies, an attack is justified. Drugs are dangerous to the person taking them AND those around that person, and should never be legalized. The government will not provide for me what I am capable of providing myself. Regulate some things if necessary? Fine. But I don't want any gifts, and I don't want my tax money used to reward people for not working, etc.
Now, I am sure the liberal readers of this post will twist this, convolute it, and so forth. So, before you open your traps, let go of "where's your sources," and anything else you normally throw out there. I understand this is hard for you because it is a large dose of common sense and among the left I don't believe that common sense is common at all. And remember this, you can't convince me otherwise. If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
Now for the shameless plug - don't forget the premiere of Political Pistachio Radio at BlogTalk Radio this Saturday 4 pm Pacific Time/7 pm Eastern Time (That's 6pm for you folks in Minnesota). Call in when the show is live! Number is (646) 652-2940. Or if you miss it, listen to it later by going to the archive.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Douglas V. Gibbs
XXXXX XXXXXXXXX Ave.
Murrieta, CA 92563
February 21, 2007
XXXXX XXXXXXXX High School
Dear Mr. XXXXX,
Tonight my daughter came to me with tonight's homework from your class. The assignment, as I understand it, is for her to write a paragraph using four vocabulary words explaining why teachers must discuss morality with today's youth.
I am appalled by the assignment. It is not the school's business to explain morality to my child. That is my job as a parent. I am a Christian, and I do not approve of secular explanations of morality being taught to my children, for in most cases such secular teachings disagree with my scriptural beliefs. I have a fundamental right to be the exclusive provider of moral information to my child.
You have been placed in that position as a teacher to teach my child literature, not moral values.
I request that you do not deduct points for my daughter not turning in this assignment. I would rather you issue an alternative assignment more befitting of an English class. If there is a problem, please contact me by e-mail at the above address, or by phone in the evening at (951) XXX-XXXX. Non-compliance with my wishes will result in me taking this up with the school board.
Thank you for your time.
Douglas V. Gibbs
Ironically, tonight's post was going to be about how the Liberal Socialist Left/Secular Progressives believe that the teachers are more important than the parents in our children's lives. I was going to explain how to bring about the socialistic change they are indoctrinating our children. Liberals believe our children should be shaped by the community, not the parents. They believe parents have no right to know if their daughter is pregnant, or having an abortion. They support sex surveys for second graders (few years ago, Palmdale School District in L.A.), and that Christianity is narrow-minded and has no business being a part of a child's education.
Then, as I began to write, my daughter came to me with tonight's assignment. She's a Junior in High School, and I realized that I needed no sources on the internet to prove my point about tonight's post. The proof was sitting next to me with an assignment in her hand.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
I'm a Christian, but this isn't a Christian post, it is a post about obvious truths.
Over time we have shrugged off little things that really don't matter. Shorter skirts? Fine. Playboy magazine? No big deal. Sexual Revolution? Groovy. Pornography? Freedom to watch what we wish. Sexual predators? How did that happen? Hmmm, I wonder. Yes, I realize that sexual predators have always been around, but the increase of the problem is obvious.
Get the point?
Little things add up.
Now, in society, we have decided that Christ is offensive, sex ought to be a casual practice, killing unborn children is simply a choice, and our young daughters have no need to advise their parents of having abortions, or even getting pregnant in the first place.
Think about it.
Related post at my Townhall blog: A Right Angle in a Left Turn World
and check out Andrea Shea King at http://askshow.com
Sunday, February 18, 2007
North Korea is just another nation in a long line of countries that has broken the majority of the treaties they have ever signed.
Sure, it's a relief that an agreement regarding North Korea's nuclear program has materialized from the most recent round of six-party talks, and the agreement is certainly better than a military confrontation (I can hear the left now getting all excited, proclaiming that negotiations work just dandy). However, when taking into account North Korea's track record, I think we need to hold our applause for a while.
In keeping with the new agreement, North Korea has agreed to shut down the Yongbyon reactor within 60 days in exchange for 50,000 tons of fuel oil. Also, North Korea is required to readmit the international inspectors it expelled in 2002. Talks are expected to make an attempt at normalization in regards to diplomatic relations between North Korea and the United States.
Wait, don't cheer just yet. Remember 1994? That was the year of a provision that closely resembled this one, and it included promises of such talks as well, and none of it ever led to meaningful negotiations. Simply put, North Korea never fully complied to that agreement, and the agreement finally broke down altogether in late 2002.
If North Korea does surprisingly disable their nuclear program, additional aid will follow. Perhaps even more U.S. economic concessions will follow as well. But it is a big "if" that North Korea will abandon the goal of nuclear aspirations. However, if they do abandon their nuclear program, it would be way beyond the 1994 agreement, which only required North Korea to freeze its plutonium program.
Now for the holes in the agreement. North Korea is obligated to account for the plutonium extracted from the Yongbyon reactor since 2002, but is not required to specify the details regarding any nuclear weapons that they may have already built. Imagine that. They would be receiving a $400 million aid package to close their reactor, which is a handsome reward, while already having a credible arsenal. Also, in regards to North Korea's uranium enrichment program, which is different from their plutonium program at Yongbyon, North Korea has never acknowledged that a uranium enrichment program even exists, so uranium enrichment is not addressed in the agreement - meaning they can continue such a program, and remain squarely within the perameters of the agreement.
And don't forget, North Korea's history is proof positive that they cannot be trusted. The nation has broken every agreement it has ever signed on the nuclear issue. Even though North Korea joined the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, they violated that agreement on two occasions (in 1993 and again at the beginning of this current crisis in 2002) before they completely withdrew from the treaty. The violations were both about illegally blocking inspectors in both of those years.
Okay, I admit IF North Korea was to abide by this most recent agreement, it would be an encouraging first step, but remember who this is we are dealing with. They can't be trusted, and we would be extremely naive to assume that the North Korean nuclear crisis has been resolved.
And as this is going on, the left is also screaming for the United States to make nice with Iran.
Like North Korea, Iran cannot be trusted, and has a track record to support that belief. And on top of that, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has pubicly stated that he, and the entire nation of Iran (and the Muslim World for that matter) seeks the eradication of Israel.
Iran, like North Korea, also seeks nuclear weapons to destroy its enemies, and Israel, the United States, and any other free nation of the world, is in their crosshairs.
So, is there anything to discuss with Iran? Perhaps we can talk them down to smaller dirty bombs so that they can only annihilate a few thousand of us at a time. Or maybe, if we're lucky, the untrustworthy Iranians will promise not to use any of their weapons.
Observing the mullahs since the late 1970's, and watching Ahmadinejad, has convinced me that like Kim of North Korea, Chavez of Venezuela, Castro of Cuba, any leader in China, and any other leader in the Islamic World, Iran cannot be trusted, and Ahmadinejad is not capable of being rational.
Making deals with dictators may seem encouraging, but remember, Chamberlain made an agreement with Hitler before World War II, and we know how that one ended up.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Thanks to Gunz at http://gunzandebyjo.net/WordPress for posting this video and making me aware of it. Visit Gunz and Ebyjo's site. They are true blooded Americans, a veteran and a teacher, who still believes that we are a nation united under God. Also, it is official, Political Pistachio Radio will launch this coming Saturday (at BlogTalk Radio) at 4:00 pm Pacific Time. Listen, enjoy, call in, and tell your friends about it. For those interested, I am in the process of having some bumper stickers made up. When I get them in, I will mail one (or more if you want) out to you, if you want it.
Friday, February 16, 2007
For information purposes, I am a military veteran, a conservative Christian, and a heavy equipment operator with wild hours. I don't tend to bite off more than I can chew, but I do tend to spread myself thin sometimes. And yes, Tom, I've had a few surgeries at the VA hospital. Your job is irony abound, indeed.
Regarding George Carlin, rather than a retraction, I offer an explanation. I received it in my e-mail, met the words with approval, and posted it because I had been gone from home since the early morning and it was a quick post before I went to bed. As you regular readers know, I do my best to post everyday. But, I don't want to simply be a news service, so opinion is offered in every post. It really doesn't matter, I suppose, or maybe it does to some, that there are sites that say that Carlin did not say those things, but the words are still wonderful, and I am glad I posted it, though maybe George's photo ought to be removed. Maybe it was Ted Nugent that said those words. Sounds like something he would say. Perhaps.
Regarding the Death Penalty and Tom's fascinating comments regarding Christianity, I've heard your type of argument before, and can understand how you came to such a conclusion. I was once blind, as well, but now I see. Anyhow, my opinion regarding the death penalty is not based on my Christianity, although I am sure I could find a way to use the Bible to support my argument. My opinion regarding the Death Penalty is purely personal, and involves moments in my life I don't relate to strangers. We all have our crosses to bear, and that is one of mine.
Regarding the Bank of America post, I am surprised nobody claimed me to be a racist. Good for you, my liberal commenters. Those who have read my site for a while knows that my wife was born in Mexico, and is currently in the middle of applying for citizenship to the United States. She grew up in the states and considers herself an American. That is a different story altogether. She has problems with illegals, considering all that she's gone through to play by the rules. With all of the hoops she's had to jump through, its a slap in the face when a criminal that illegally crossed (illegal equals criminal in my book - or does breaking the law in your opinion not mean that someone is a criminal?) the border gets a free pass.
Israel. I don't assume that all liberals are anti-Israel, but I do think that liberals don't have Israel's best interest in mind when they defend the Muslim nations that are not secretive about their desire to eliminate the small nation from the face of the earth. I don't desire the elimination of anybody, including the Muslim nations, but I do desire that the radicals that wish for the destruction of Israel and Christianity be stopped. Otherwise, the result could be something far worse than what the United States suffered on September 11, 2001.
And finally, back to my wife, she has agreed to do the radio show with me. What radio show? Well, Wide Awakes Radio has run into some serious problems with their stream, so I am going to have to have my show through BlogTalk Radio (the same service that MyPoint Radio uses/see sidebar on left for link). I will stick with the Saturday schedule, but will have morning shows when I can so that my European readers may listen, since 5pm Pacific time is 1 am in London and 2 am in Brussels.
I'll keep you posted on the Radio Show.
Oh, and one more message to the liberal invasion of Political Pistachio: I am firm on my belief system, and I don't compromise. You are entitled to your opinion, but if you don't like mine enough that you get to the point that you can't behave, read a different blog - break my rules and I will delete your comments. I believe in allowing the freedom to express your opinion, but remember, this is still my blog and as fair as I try to be, even I have my limits. Don't cross those limits, and we will be fine.
Douglas V. Gibbs
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
According to Bank of America's statement release, the new Bank of America card is available to people who lack both a Social Security number and a credit history, as long as they have held a checking account with the bank for three months without an overdraft.
Read more about this at The Dan Stein Report.
HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
We all recognize that Israel is a tiny nation surrounded by the enemy. Liberals tend to think that Israel is the enemy, and folks like Jimmy Carter even go as far to say that Israel is the aggressor in the region.
The Muslim nations surrounding Israel wish for Israel's existance to be eliminated, but one of their main cries to the world is that Israel has too much land, and should give some of it to the Arabs (specifically Palestine).
What if Israel was New Jersey, and the other 47 continental states were the Muslim countries. The states around New Jersey, after bombarding the Garden State with rockets, missiles, suicide bombers, and other terroristic attacks, declares that New Jersey should not exist. Through all of the attacks, miraculously, New Jersey survives. Then, the other states claim that New Jersey has too much land, and should give some of it up.
Here's the thing. As Islam zeroes in on Israel, and the Jewish people are squeezed into a smaller and smaller piece of land, all it does is make them an easier target.
But Israel has been willing to give up land for peace. They just wish to exist.
Islam believes otherwise.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
"I believe that the punishment should fit the crime," was my rapid response.
"But death? Is it really a human's place to issue death as a punishment? Wouldn't that be in the domain of God?"
"No offense," I said, "but that sounds like a liberal response fueled by their misunderstanding of Christianity."
She said, "I'm a Christian. I understand fine."
This is a hot topic. In my defense, I feel that if a penalty fits the crime (death penalty for serial murderers that are beyond rehabilitation), it will deter others from committing the same crime.
Mrs. Pistachio, armed with her college taught psychology background, believes that everyone is capable of realizing the errors of their ways.
I agree, to a point. With God all things are possible. But I'm not about to give Charles Manson a second chance because he claims to be rehabilitated. There are some people that deserve the death penalty. Manson, Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein, to name a few.
"So," she says, "what about rape and child molestation?"
I believe in second chances. The people who rape and molest children deserve a second chance after a minimum of 25 years of incarceration. Then, if they do it again, pump them full of a lethal injection.
Mrs. Pistachio did not like that answer. "Rape is not murder. 25 years is too long. The minimum should be 15 years."
I disagree. A life was still ruined. Murder, those of the serial kind, or pre-meditated without emotional duress involved, deserve a minimum of 50 years. Other murder cases would have to be determined on a case by case basis, such as crimes of passion, etc. Rape, minimum of 25. Child molestors, in my book, should be ranked right up there with murderers, but start with 25 years. Second offense? No mercy.
Talking to these severe offenders, and teaching them the errors of their ways, does not cure the animal inside. All the psychology in the world will not soothe the victims, or their families. A life was destroyed, and the price must be paid.
Mrs. Pistachio disagrees.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
In the link above: A man who believes that the soldiers returning from Iraq deserve a Welcome Home. This will bring tears to your eyes as you watch this story, and how the troops respond to the love and appreciation they are shown.
And after listening to that interesting piece put together by Roger Hedgecock, how about this:
We now have solid evidence that Iran is aiding Iraqi Rebels. Serial numbers and other markings on bombs show that Iran is linked to explosive devices used by Iraqi militants. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that the evidence was collected by the military, and for some of the members of the Bush Administration this is their first opportunity to view this evidence.
Bush and his people have been saying all along that the Iranians are tied to terrorist bombings in Iraq. Now that there is evidence supporting this assertion, do the liberals still want to hob-nob and negotiate and talk with the Iranians?
By the way, last week Iran stepped up its warnings to the United States with the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei saying that an American military action against Iran will be met with a military response.
In the meantime, Iran is routinely testing missiles.
Once they have their missiles ready, and nuclear weapons complete, don't think for a moment that Iran won't hesitate to use these weapons against Israel and targets in the West.
. . . and don't forget that this weekend I am guest blogging at American Pundit
Friday, February 09, 2007
Three pedestrians have died recently due to these kinds of irresponsible actions. In one case, people were yelling and screaming for the person to stop (they were listening to their music full blast) and the person kept walking right out into traffic unaware of their surroundings.
That's the key. They were unaware of their surroundings.
I think that it is a good thing to be responsible. I believe people should use common sense and common courtesy. I do not believe the government, in some cases, should force common sense upon us in the form of law.
Wearing seatbelts is a good thing. I wore one before it became law after a near-fatal car accident I had when I was merely 19 years old. Wearing helmets on motorcycles is a good thing, I have no problem with people taking initiative to take proper precautions. Telling the person on the other line to hold on for a second before you look both ways to cross the street is a good thing. Pausing the music, popping out one of those speakers in your ear, and observing whether or not it is safe to proceed is a good thing. All of these things require the use of our God-given common sense.
Unfortunately, common sense is not real common.
But the government has no business requiring people not to be stupid.
Opponents of what I am saying will bring the drug issue and carrying a firearm in the streets into this equation.
Sometimes, when a much larger crowd is in danger as a result of stupidity, the government must step in to protect its citizens.
But with all respect to those that passed away on the streets of New York City for being less than intelligent about their daily pedestrial journeys, I have a right to be stupid if I desire. What's next? Will the government take away my right to sit at the computer too dang long because it's not good on my eyes and posture?
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
According to Euphoric Reality, the DHS Inspectors Admittedly LIED to Congress about the Border Patrol Case.
Also, notice in my last article that Mrs. Pistachio decided to chime in on the comments with her own opinion, and I find her opinion to be right on the mark.
Recently, Brenner of American Pundit asked me to guest blog this upcoming weekend on his site, and I have a feeling the offer is open-ended in the sense that even after the end of the weekend vacation, I am still welcome to post on his site. By the way, if you haven't noticed, I have quite a presence around the net, so if you aren't one to check the sidebar, here's a quick list of my latest articles out there on the World Wide Web:
Nancy Pelosi's Great Big Jet
Prayer at the DNC
Tolerance to Blame for Sex Crimes
UC Irvine is Scene of Anti-Israeli Outburst
Mexican Soccer Team Refuses To Shake Hands With Americans
Racial Dialogue edges on the ridiculous
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Mr. Ramos is one of two Border Patrol Agents who shot a fleeing drug runner/illegal alien in the rear, and were convicted for improper handling of the situation.
Why was Ramos in the general population at the prison in the first place?
He was attacked last Saturday night after he fell aleep. The assault included repeated blows and kicks to the back, shoulders, arms and head. To date, he has not received medical attention for the injuries, but has been placed in Isolation in order to protect him from any further assaults.
Did the Warden not see this coming? Why wasn't he separated from the other inmates, especially illegals, from the beginning?
If our prison systems can't protect federal agents, how out of control have they become in other arenas?
And why hasn't President Bush pardoned these Border Patrol agents for doing their job?
By jailing these two men, and now not taking appropriate action to protect them in the prisons (as well as not making sure Ramos receives the medical attention needed) sends out the message to illegals that they have the upper hand. How can we control our borders if we are not willing to take care of the things associated with it?
Monday, February 05, 2007
Specifically, he is trying to capitalize on all of the propaganda perpetrated by the liberal media, hoping that taking a provocative stand on the Iraq War and pushing for health care that leans more towards social medicine, will help him emerge from the pack as a leading candidate.
Edwards is calling for a complete withdrawal from Iraq within 18 months, challenging his rivals to confront Bush more directly.
His health plan ideas, which hopes to bring care to those who can't afford it (a group I was a member of for eight years, only beginning to pay for coverage through my paycheck when my hospital bills became more than what it would cost for insurance, and as VA cut back, less than a year ago - - we've had to tighten our belts, and I've had to search for additional incomes, but we're pulling it off, proving with a little elbow grease it can be done), will include raising taxes on the higher income brackets, making them pay for the additional $120 million per year.
The article I read said that this move was in hopes to shed his moderate image (funny, I've always seen him as a far left bottom feeder myself), so that he may offer himself as more electable and more authentic than Hillary (as if Hillary has any authenticity).
He also wants everyone to see him as more experienced than Obama. Fact is, everyone knows that Obama is the least experienced one out there, but what does it matter? They are all still a bunch of jackasses - - - er, um, donkeys, er um, Democrats.
Oh, and Rudy Guiliani has proclaimed himself a candidate for the Republican ticket.
Personally, I secretly wish that Dick Cheney or Newt Gingrich would decide to run.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
What the hell?
Then the ad plays a second time, and a third time.
I had to hear that junk three times!
The advertisement completed its segment saying, ". . . can-do spirit in education, business, and health. . .Good people doing great things on the CBS Evening News."
As if that is a rarety?
Is there something wrong with America? It must be so - - - CBS says so.
I mean, look at the horribly disfigured economy . . . oh, wait, bad example. Our economy is strong as heck and our unemployment rate is below 5%. Okay, sorry, look at the troubled stock market. . . oh, wait, it's hitting all-time highs. Hmmm. Wait, I'll come up with one. The war on terror - that's it - that's what's wrong with America. This war is causing the terrorists to get mad and attack us. . . wait, hmmm, there's been no attacks on American soil since 9/11. Hang on, I'll find that "so much" stuff that is wrong with America (must be true, Katie Couric says so). Hmmm, let me think. Racism? Not really, not in any resemblance to decades past, anyway. How about sexism? Nope, Katie is a high ranking idiot at CBS, and she's a woman; and we have a woman speaker of the house, and Hillary is poised to run for president, so sexism isn't what's wrong with America. Wait, it's the border. . . nope, can't go there, the jumpers are free to jump the border anytime, so from a liberal point of view the rights of the illegals being squashed by those horrid patriotic people that believe the U.S. should remain sovereign is not yet a problem.
Oh, wait, I know what it is. Gosh, and it was under my nose all along. I knew it. If Katie Couric says there's a lot wrong with America, it must be so. Here it goes: The wealthy make too much money after all of that hard work and time they've invested in whatever it is that made them wealthy, and to be fair and equal they should hand over a lot of that money in the form of taxes to people that do less, and are less deserving of it so that they may continue to live the good life on welfare programs; and there are still those narrow-minded people out there trying to save the lives of unborn children; and our enemy that would like to chop our heads off don't have enough special privileges yet; and Christians are still allowed to follow their silly little religion; and the Border Patrol has not been disbanded yet; and the government doesn't control everything under our nose yet - - - oh, gosh, this is horrid, there is so much wrong with America - - - what do you say we send greetings cards to the radical terrorists apologizing for defending ourselves, requests to Europe to learn how they have stripped their people of so many freedoms and embraced socialism, create home abortion kits (oh, wait, we have that in the form of a pill - my bad), take all of the money away from the rich and hand it out to everyone sitting at home, seize the corporations and place them under government control, and outlaw Christianity as we grant radical Islam more rights so that we don't offend them.
Does that sound fair?
And while we are at it, replace that blue field of stars on our flag with either a hammer and sickle, or a crescent moon.
I have three words for CBS and Katie Couric: Kiss My Butt.
Friday, February 02, 2007
I rarely work with those two co-workers that out-age me, so I spend most of my days babysitting the young'uns. They provide plenty of entertainment for me, to be honest. I spend a large part of my day laughing at these kids showing up in the nicest duds, and scared out of their minds of getting dirty.
For my pay I operate a digging machine. A trenching machine, to be more specific (no, not a backhoe - I get asked that a lot). Here's a picture to give you a better idea (I've posted this pic before).
And yes, that is me on the machine offloading it from my big rig.
If the machine breaks down, we fix it on the job, and I have no problem getting up to my elbows in oil or grease. The kids? They usually put on latex gloves and trash bags over their clothing.
During the normal workday the kids do things like wear gloves so that their hands stay smooth (no calluses for those young hands), and if a dust cloud is thrown into the air by my machine tossing dirt from its conveyor belt, they are standing in a spot farthest from. If their heads aren't shaved, their hair is combed just right when they show up as if they are ready to go out on a date. All of them have smoothly shaved faces, plucked (and reshaped/shortened) eyebrows, shaved arms and legs, wear more than enough sun block (and lotion for smooth skin after the day is done), various arrays of jewelry in their ears, eyebrows, noses, lips and tongues, and spend more time looking in the mirror or yapping on their cell phones (what up! is the usual greeting) rather than having any conversation in the work truck on the way home (if I'm not driving the rig) with their operator (meaning me).
Now, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with exceptional hygene and wishing to be presentable to the ladies. But at work in the dirt? And these kids attitudes along with the looks, the cars, and so forth, borders on narcissism.
Then, here's the kicker, because I am older I grow a little more hair on my body than they do. I have a goatee beard, and my face the majority of the time (where there isn't a beard) has a five o'clock shadow. The hair on my arms is thicker than theirs (for the few that don't shave their arms, anyway), and I have some hair on my chest and a lot on my legs.
I did not provide this description to gross anybody out. I am just explaining my point.
Anyway, the young kids, the ones that almost look feminine with their grooming practices, made me wonder about today's generation.
Then, they have decided that my lack of concern over the things they are concerned over makes me nothing more than a throwback. They call me the hairy one, Sasquatch, caveman, etc. I usually respond that they are just jealous because they are not man enough to look like a man like me. Here comes the kicker: They don't want to be manly. It is out of style.
Excuse me? Did I miss something?
Have you ever heard the term: Metrosexual?
Well, if not, here's a quick lesson.
Apparently, being metrosexual is the latest fad. It is basically fashionable to act gay (in the sense of a gay man's style of dress, sensitivity, love for shopping, grooming standards, etc.), even if you are not gay. Specifically, this term refers to males who have taken narcissism to a whole new level. They are the young dudes that have taken the GQ thing to its limit. And they spend an ungodly amount of funds on their clothing while they are at it.
Hey, I have no problem having a nice wardrobe, but not the "to die for" outfits these guys wear. I throw on some jeans, sneakers, a nice shirt with a fishing logo on the back, maybe a ballcap, and I'm good to go out to dinner, dancing, or the movies. These metrosexuals (and even the younger guys that claim they aren't) have to have the black dress shoes, nice pleated slacks (of which I wear too. . . well, I have one pair that I wear a couple times a year, I think. They're somewhere deep in the closet behind my many pairs of blue jeans), the button down silk shirt with the gold lined button covers, the expensive watch with some Japanese character in the middle of the face, gold rings on their fingers, bling bling around their neck, and diamond studs on their ear lobes big enough to choke a horse.
And I understand being sensitive. I am a sensitive guy. Growing up, and when I first married Mrs. Pistachio, I was proclaimed to be the most sensitive guy anybody had ever met, and I am a cold hearted flounder compared to these prancing beauties.
Okay, understand me, here. I am not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to do what they can to look good, or whatever. That's their business. I am not gay bashing, either, though homosexuality is not on my list of favored activities by anybody. But I am a believer that extremes are bad, and metrosexuals take the extremes to the extreme.
And it makes me uncomfortable when they give me garbage over the fact that my idea of looking good is not the same as theirs. "Go back to the seventies and eighties," they tell me.
I wish I could.
Metrosexuals claim that they are not afraid to embrace their feminine side.
Neither am I. Her name is Virginia. She's my wife. She's feminine, I am masculine.
The good news is, Metrosexuality is on its way out, and Macho is on its way back (read about that here).
I don't need a bunch of skin care products and labels on my clothing to make me an acceptable man to my woman. All I have to be is myself, and she loves me for that. Metrosexuals feel like they have to put on this chirade to get the gal. Leave the flaming to the gays, my friends, and just be yourself. Your woman will love ya for it. And if she doesn't prefer you for who you really are, she's not worth it anyway.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Today, on Fox News, a statistic was provided that made me shudder. In Britain, in a survey conducted recently, 50% of Muslims in that country support the radical agenda of Radical Islam. 50%! That's half!
Liberals tend to state that we haven't experienced another 9/11 scenario because the terrorists are either not capable, or don't care enough about us to do it again. I beg to differ.
When Radical Islam attempted to divide the United States by attacking our nation on September 11, 2001, America did something that the radicals did not expect. We united. Coupled with the fact that we have taken the fight to them, the enemy has determined that the way to divide us is not by another terror attack, or at least not yet. Terrorism worked wonders on Spain, and a number of other nations, but Americans have this thing about uniting when pushed against the wall.
So, Radical Islam has decided that the way to defeat the West is by using our liberty and political correctness against us. Now, Muslims all over the Western World are gradually demanding special privileges. They expect us to bend over backwards for them in our countries in the name of fairness, while in the Muslim dominated regions the Islamists give no such consideration to Christians, Jews, or anyone else that is non-Muslim, for that matter. And what's worse, the non-Muslim taxpayer usually winds up paying for such privileges (such as the turning of the toilets in London's prisons so that Muslims do not have to face Mecca, or have their back to it, when doing their business).
And all the while, we grin and comply.
Do liberals and other so-called enlightened people not understand that when they call for the domination of the world by Islam, they mean it?
In the politically correct arena Islamists claim they want to be accepted and treated as equals in our society, as they bring devisiveness. The truth is, they believe that they are superior to non-Muslims, requiring themselves to be segregated from non-Muslims while residing in OUR society, and believing that eventually they will overrun Western Culture, bringing Sharia Law to the entire globe.
Instead of moving ahead, Islam wishes civilization to hurtle back in time, to an age of barbarism where civil rights only exist for the fortunate few, where women have no rights, and supremacy is determined by who wields the quickest sword.
The Islamists are demanding praying rooms, special restrooms with facilities to wash their feet for prayer, special seating on buses and planes, special accomodations, special this, special that. What's next? Muslim only drinking fountains? I thought we did away with the practice of segregation in the sixties.
I have no problem with people coming to America, or any other free nation, seeking a new life and a peaceful environment. Freedom is a precious thing, and should not be accepted lightly. But these Islamists are mocking our liberty. They have found our weakness, and it is our kindness and giving nature. They are using our liberty against us. Their conquest of the West has begun, and most of us don't even realize it.
Oh, and remember that bit about making sure the toilets in a London prison point somewhere other than Mecca for the Muslim prisoners? The way Radical Islam has me feeling right now; honestly, if I knew where Mecca was, I'd point toward it to do my business of evacuating my bladder.