Tuesday, October 17, 2006
How to negotiate with terrorists
This post by Random Traverse is absolutely brilliant, and hilarious. Go to it here.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Mama's don't let your children grow up and be students at Columbia University
Minuteman Project under attack at Columbia University
It's bad enough that the leftist liberal socialist democratic party is full of rageful intolerance of anybody that disagrees with it, and it is even worse that the leftist army of doom and gloomers are also posing as teachers in our fine academic institutions, but it is unacceptable beyond imagination when the students that have been indoctrinated by this socialistic political ideology that constantly contradicts itself mindlessly copycats their activities of liberal idiocy.
Let's go back. I recently wrote a post about liberal hypocrisy. As you read this post, keep the double-standard, contradictory hypocrisy of the liberal left in mind.
Correct me if I am wrong. As I understand it, the primary reason that people of the left have a problem with the Minuteman Project is because they think that it is a racist organization designed to interfere with the immigration of opportunity seeking illegal aliens, sorry, undocumented immigrants. The left believes that the Minuteman project is a racist group. Anyone is racist against Hispanics if they are against illegal immigration. Do I have that right?
Now, the people that supports the leftist idea of allowing illegals to cross the borders without anything to stop, or even hinder, them are not racists, then. Correct? They are nice people who want nothing more than for those poor immigrants to have a place to work and live. And of course these people on the left, along with supporting illegal immigration tend to be against the war in Iraq (ready to cut and run at the earliest opportunity - oh, sorry, that's called an exit strategy - such a nice term for such a cowardly act) because of the violence that the United States is spreading across the globe. Do I still have it right?
So why is it that our tolerant, non-racist, non-violent friends of the left attacked free speech in America by physically assaulting, in mob style, a black man (Marvin Stewart, Director of Community Affairs for the National Minuteman Project) while calling him the N-word?
N-word? Wait, these people are mad at the Minutemen for being racist against Hispanics, right? But they use the N-word? And these anti-war people also did it in a violent, mob-like manner!
What did the protestors have to say afterward? "The minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration. They are a racist, armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the border. . . no human being is illegal." During the attack they also unfurled a banner in Arabic and English. Afterward one protester said, "I don't feel we need to apologize for anything. It was fundamentally a part of free speech."
These are the same people that called Mister Stewart the N-word, and attacked the man on stage.
So the left's right to free speech includes the right to take away the right to speak from the right?
And why is it so wrong for the Minuteman Project to exist? Does the left have sole possession of the right to dissent?
The idea of what's going on in our schools, and what is becoming of free speech was explained well on October 2, 2006 on Katie Couric's "CBS Evening News" when the father of a boy killed at Columbine shared his views on the deeper causes of the recent shootings in Amish Country. He said, "Violence entered our schools when we threw God out of them. This country is in a moral freefall. . . We teach there are no moral absolutes, no right or wrong, and I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children."
Airing his views, of course, was followed by a storm of criticism. One blogger said, "Grief makes people say stupid things."
Free speech from a conservative is wrong, according to the left, and must be silenced.
Rose O'Donnell banged away on gun control, and Elizabeth was not bowing to Rosie's leftwing views. Rosie threw a fit, to the point that Elizabeth recoiled as if ready to defend herself from a physical attack. Rosie was enraged, wanting to silence her, educate her of her leftist views. How dare someone not think like the left.
And more than a week after the Columbia stage-rush affair, disciplinary procedures for the protestors are still undecided.
What?
How about throwing their butts in jail for physically (and verbally) assaulting Jim Gilchrist (founder of the Minuteman Project) and Marvin Stewart!
The University president said, "It's too early to make any judgment whether there are disciplinary actions that should be taken."
Excuse me?
How long before they decide? After the election?
This was not a peaceful protest. The students rushed the stage and physically and verbally (you know, the N-word! That would be a hate crime in any other scenario) assaulted these men. End of conversation. If it was my school, disciplinary actions would be swift and meaningful!
Apparently free speech is fine for the left, but conservatives no longer have that right. And being racist against blacks is a hate crime, unless he's a member of the right. Then it is expected and accepted.
And the liberals preach that they are the kings of tolerance, and that the Conservative Right is intolerant. You know, from my angle, it seems like the liberal left is intolerant, racist, and exclusionary elitists that believe that they own the sole rights to having rights.
Need proof? Look at the left's record, starting with the Columbia University riot.
How about using the Dixie Chicks as an example as well? They bashed the president, were proud of their entitlement to practice their right to free speech, but when fans reacted they whined saying that their freedom of expression was being squashed.
Unfortunately, the liberals seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from others disagreeing with them. Freedom of speech, according to the left, is not to be shared with those who disagree with them.
Had a liberal been speaking at Columbia University do you think that a bunch of young Republicans would have jumped the stage? Of course not. They would have waited to debate their points. They would have acted like adults, rather than violent thugs bent on intimidating their opponents into silence and submission.
And if conservatives ever did rush a liberal speaker in a manner similar to Columbia, not that it would ever happen, the liberal media would have been all over it. "How brutally intolerant of those bigots," the newscaster would be saying. The New York Times would have had it plastered all over the front page for a week!
So, why do the liberals act so violently when the right disagrees with them? Or, for that matter, responding hatefully, using inappropriate language, and then changing the debate into an anti-Bush, anti-God attack? Immaturity perhaps?
The liberal left bases everything on emotions rather than specifics. Rage rather than principles. Intolerance rather than common sense. Feelings rather than facts. Then, as a result, they find it hard to control themselves. Perhaps their lack of a belief in God, or any belief in any reasonable moral code for that matter, allows for such behavior. Either that, or it could be a fear that if the other side is heard, people may actually recognize how wrong the leftwing ideology truly is.
Besides, the left would never want anyone to realize that their ideals are fueled by a hidden desire for a Marxist utopia, and that they are willing to crush the freedom the claim to hold so dear to reach that socialistic society.
Above: Watch the whole video - because the statement at the end of it by a Conservative Columbia University student is well worth it.
Below: O'Reilly's position on what happened as well as an interview with Minutman Marvin Stewart.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Liberal Hypocrisy
In light of recent events that have erupted in the political world regarding representative Foley, and a comment I received in which the liberal commenter stated that they believe "...most Americans...believe that they cannot trust Republicans in public office, and Democrats hold the moral high ground...and when the Republicans lose the radical religious right's hate-frenzy base, they have lost their voting base...", as well as being inspired by the rightwingguy's own article regarding The Hypocrisy of the Democrats (which is very well written and right on target), I decided to take a nice long look into this claim that the Republican Party cannot be trusted by the left, and as expected, found it full of idiocy and hypocrisy.
Let's think about this, now. The Democratic Party is obsessed with doom and gloom. Their agenda is to keep conservatives home from the voting booth, especially Christian Conservatives. But the attempt to get everyone to hate the Republican Party by spreading anti-Bush and anti-Christian propaganda commenserate of the lies spread by the now deceased Soviet Union (thanks to a Republican President, Ronald Reagan) against President Bush isn't working. His approval numbers are on the rise again.
So first they (the liberal left) turned on incumbent Republican Senator George Allen, digging up 30 year-old allegations of racism. The attack devolved into ugly smears and mudslinging, not to mention the fact that their racial accusations were unsubstantiated. And amidst the firestorm of liberal media speculation, the liberal left received a surprise when Allen's polling numbers went up, because it is obvious to the average voter that Allen was being railroaded, and no matter how carefully they orchestrated the attack, the intelligence of the American voter sniffed out that this was just another unconscionably despicable act of desperation by the Democratic Party. But why should anyone be surprised? Despicable activities is what the Democrats do.
When the you-know-what hit the fan for the liberal left, a new report came out about the Haditha Massacre claim, refuting it, exposing the claim for what it was. False. In fact, everything seems to be backfiring against the liberal left. Everything. So, with their backs up against the wall, they had to pull out their ace in the pocket. Representative Foley. They had planned to use Foley's follies as a coup de grace, rather than as an early gunshot. But with the polling numbers heading in directions they do not desire, Bush's successful national security speeches, dropping gas prices, and positive economic outlook surveys, they had to spring the trap early.
A Democratic National Convention operative told the American Spectator "A month before, we were looking at launching an offensive against Republicans who according to polling held a five-seat majority if the election were held at the end of August. . .by mid-September, Republicans were back to having held seats for a 15-seat majority. We were looking at a disaster in the making. . .[the remedy?]. . .pull out the bright shiny things that distract the average American voter away from the issues we all know and care about -- national security, anti-terrorism -- and focus on the ugly: Foley and Iraq. . .A majority within grasp wasn't drifting away, it was being yanked back by Republicans. . .Foley had to be bumped up on the scandal schedule." And to the left's delight, the Foley story has become a bigger mess than anyone had expected.
But is the Foley situation truly a successful attack by the left? Or is it backfiring? First, the Democrats, because the "pages" that Foley communicated with were males, are coming across in some sectors of the public as gay bashers. Also, it has come out that the liberals knew of this since August, making it obvious they released this information at this time not because they were so concerned regarding the despicable acts by a trusted representative, but because it was the best strategic time to release the information, and fuel a full-blown scandal. Besides, since when is the Democratic Party against sexual misconduct? The party of the liberals is known for sex scandals, and then suddenly we are supposed to believe that they "hold the moral high ground"? Oh, please. Let's run down some of the sex scandals in Congress, and mind you, this is only the Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress (coupled with how the Democrats looked the other way or condoned the actions of their people):
Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress Information compiled from the Washington Post, “Congressional Sex Scandals in History,” and other sources.
10. Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.
9. Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.
8. Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.
7. Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.
6. Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.
5. Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.
4. Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.
3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.
2. Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.
1. Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.
And that's only in Congress. That's not even remotely zeroing in on Clinton's scandals. (Bill wears flannel underwear to keep his ankles warm!)
And now, as Rightwing Guy has so accurately indicated in his article, "The Democrats have come out in mass numbers to attack the Bush administration's handling of the North Korea situation. . . saying that [Bush] has not been aggressive enough and that Iraq has taken away his focus."
Terry points out in that same article that the same Dems assaulted Bush for going it alone regarding Iraq and that he didn't try hard enough for a peaceful solution. . .and now they are criticizing him for taking a position of searching for a peaceful solution. Now the left states that he should have been more proactive in his dealings with North Korea. . . honestly, I like Bush, and I would never, ever desire a Democrat in office, but let's be honest, if Reagan had faced this situation, Navy fighters would have been ordered to commence upon an American air strike against North Korea as he did with Libya - - wait, that is wrong. Reagan would never have allowed the North Korean situation to get to this point in the first place. He would have isolated the government while helping the people. Remember, because of Reagan's strategies, the Soviet Union disappeared. North Korea is in the middle of a famine. Manutrition runs rampant throughout that country. More than 200,000 North Koreans are imprisoned in concentration camps. Reagan would have funneled every American dollar he could into providing food and aid through a system of private activity consciously designed to undermine the dictatorship, and as the food and aid was shipped in from every direction the energy of the government would have been focused on this problem of their citizens being thankful to the helpful Americans, thus taking their authority away, and a lot of people, as in Eastern Europe, would have created subverssive organizations and parties and would have taken action against the government, until the dictatorship splintered and fragmented and became no more.
But that is what Reagan would have done.
Bush is not Reagan, and I understand that, but thank God he's not a Kennedy, or a Kerry, or a liberal by any name. One thing that Bush does share with Reagan is the principle of leading us by choosing what he feels is best for the nation's overall security (not making his decisions based upon what the polls suggest, or crumbling under the idiotic attacks of the liberal left).
So, to "Rick and Kathy", the liberals that deposited their comment anonymous this time, probably because last time they left a comment I visited their site and proclaimed on Political Pistachio that they laughingly claimed to be Christian Liberals (so I suppose it is Christian to support the murder of unborn children, to shrug off sexual misconduct as they did with Clinton's BJ's delivered by our favorite Monica, dirty play in politics, taxing the people to death, double taxation as with the death tax, attacking the corporations and small businesses with heavier taxes as a penalty for becoming successful which in turn undermines our economic growth and stability, supporting a party that is proud of being Godless as Anne Coulter exposed, etc etc etc), you are wrong. You said that the Republicans cannot be trusted in public office. Answer? Only the Republicans can be trusted in office. You said that the Democrats hold the moral high ground. Answer? Hardly. One Republican sex scandal versus numerous Democratic sex scandals along with the fact that the Democrats are against censorship (ask the Mondales and Kerrys), support gay marriage, promote sex education in the schools to be applied at a younger age than it already is, and the association of the doom and gloom cut and run party with Hollyweird's immoralism, I hardly think that the Democrats could be even remotely considered as holding any position on moral high ground, unless that high ground is a hill somewhere in the depths of Hell. As for the religious right being a hate-frenzy base? Why? Because they support the war in Iraq? Because they support profiling? Listen, leftists, the war is on terrorism, and Iraq is a part of it, and if I hear another argument that we should have left Iraq alone because they weren't a part of 9/11 I'm gonna scream. I suppose we shouldn't have gone into Germany either, because they weren't a part of Pearl Harbor. And profiling is what stopped the last 9/11 style attack that was attempted to be launched from Britain. As for losing the Bible Belt's votes? Hardly. Goes back to that abortion, gay marriage, censorship argument. Besides, the problem of losing votes hardly is a problem to the conservative right. Nobody is losing any voters. The left made that up, as they do the polls. Last I checked, if you remember from earlier in this article, the election has changed from a 5-seat Republican advantage to a 15-seat Republican advantage.
Quick, the liberal boat is sinking, come up with another attack, quick!
Hey, liberals. I have an idea. How about you learn how to debate the issues, make decisions that will protect America, and quit aligning yourselves with socialistic political agendas that is designed to undermine and destroy liberty and freedom?
Oh, and now for a statement that no member of the liberal left has the ability to understand: God Bless America!
(for more, check out the last few videos I have on www.politicalpistachiovideos.blogspot.com - - a couple of which was discovered by my good friend Bushwack at American and Proud of it.
Let's think about this, now. The Democratic Party is obsessed with doom and gloom. Their agenda is to keep conservatives home from the voting booth, especially Christian Conservatives. But the attempt to get everyone to hate the Republican Party by spreading anti-Bush and anti-Christian propaganda commenserate of the lies spread by the now deceased Soviet Union (thanks to a Republican President, Ronald Reagan) against President Bush isn't working. His approval numbers are on the rise again.
So first they (the liberal left) turned on incumbent Republican Senator George Allen, digging up 30 year-old allegations of racism. The attack devolved into ugly smears and mudslinging, not to mention the fact that their racial accusations were unsubstantiated. And amidst the firestorm of liberal media speculation, the liberal left received a surprise when Allen's polling numbers went up, because it is obvious to the average voter that Allen was being railroaded, and no matter how carefully they orchestrated the attack, the intelligence of the American voter sniffed out that this was just another unconscionably despicable act of desperation by the Democratic Party. But why should anyone be surprised? Despicable activities is what the Democrats do.
When the you-know-what hit the fan for the liberal left, a new report came out about the Haditha Massacre claim, refuting it, exposing the claim for what it was. False. In fact, everything seems to be backfiring against the liberal left. Everything. So, with their backs up against the wall, they had to pull out their ace in the pocket. Representative Foley. They had planned to use Foley's follies as a coup de grace, rather than as an early gunshot. But with the polling numbers heading in directions they do not desire, Bush's successful national security speeches, dropping gas prices, and positive economic outlook surveys, they had to spring the trap early.
A Democratic National Convention operative told the American Spectator "A month before, we were looking at launching an offensive against Republicans who according to polling held a five-seat majority if the election were held at the end of August. . .by mid-September, Republicans were back to having held seats for a 15-seat majority. We were looking at a disaster in the making. . .[the remedy?]. . .pull out the bright shiny things that distract the average American voter away from the issues we all know and care about -- national security, anti-terrorism -- and focus on the ugly: Foley and Iraq. . .A majority within grasp wasn't drifting away, it was being yanked back by Republicans. . .Foley had to be bumped up on the scandal schedule." And to the left's delight, the Foley story has become a bigger mess than anyone had expected.
But is the Foley situation truly a successful attack by the left? Or is it backfiring? First, the Democrats, because the "pages" that Foley communicated with were males, are coming across in some sectors of the public as gay bashers. Also, it has come out that the liberals knew of this since August, making it obvious they released this information at this time not because they were so concerned regarding the despicable acts by a trusted representative, but because it was the best strategic time to release the information, and fuel a full-blown scandal. Besides, since when is the Democratic Party against sexual misconduct? The party of the liberals is known for sex scandals, and then suddenly we are supposed to believe that they "hold the moral high ground"? Oh, please. Let's run down some of the sex scandals in Congress, and mind you, this is only the Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress (coupled with how the Democrats looked the other way or condoned the actions of their people):
Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress Information compiled from the Washington Post, “Congressional Sex Scandals in History,” and other sources.
10. Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.
9. Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.
8. Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.
7. Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.
6. Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.
5. Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.
4. Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.
3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.
2. Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.
1. Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.
And that's only in Congress. That's not even remotely zeroing in on Clinton's scandals. (Bill wears flannel underwear to keep his ankles warm!)
And now, as Rightwing Guy has so accurately indicated in his article, "The Democrats have come out in mass numbers to attack the Bush administration's handling of the North Korea situation. . . saying that [Bush] has not been aggressive enough and that Iraq has taken away his focus."
Terry points out in that same article that the same Dems assaulted Bush for going it alone regarding Iraq and that he didn't try hard enough for a peaceful solution. . .and now they are criticizing him for taking a position of searching for a peaceful solution. Now the left states that he should have been more proactive in his dealings with North Korea. . . honestly, I like Bush, and I would never, ever desire a Democrat in office, but let's be honest, if Reagan had faced this situation, Navy fighters would have been ordered to commence upon an American air strike against North Korea as he did with Libya - - wait, that is wrong. Reagan would never have allowed the North Korean situation to get to this point in the first place. He would have isolated the government while helping the people. Remember, because of Reagan's strategies, the Soviet Union disappeared. North Korea is in the middle of a famine. Manutrition runs rampant throughout that country. More than 200,000 North Koreans are imprisoned in concentration camps. Reagan would have funneled every American dollar he could into providing food and aid through a system of private activity consciously designed to undermine the dictatorship, and as the food and aid was shipped in from every direction the energy of the government would have been focused on this problem of their citizens being thankful to the helpful Americans, thus taking their authority away, and a lot of people, as in Eastern Europe, would have created subverssive organizations and parties and would have taken action against the government, until the dictatorship splintered and fragmented and became no more.
But that is what Reagan would have done.
Bush is not Reagan, and I understand that, but thank God he's not a Kennedy, or a Kerry, or a liberal by any name. One thing that Bush does share with Reagan is the principle of leading us by choosing what he feels is best for the nation's overall security (not making his decisions based upon what the polls suggest, or crumbling under the idiotic attacks of the liberal left).
So, to "Rick and Kathy", the liberals that deposited their comment anonymous this time, probably because last time they left a comment I visited their site and proclaimed on Political Pistachio that they laughingly claimed to be Christian Liberals (so I suppose it is Christian to support the murder of unborn children, to shrug off sexual misconduct as they did with Clinton's BJ's delivered by our favorite Monica, dirty play in politics, taxing the people to death, double taxation as with the death tax, attacking the corporations and small businesses with heavier taxes as a penalty for becoming successful which in turn undermines our economic growth and stability, supporting a party that is proud of being Godless as Anne Coulter exposed, etc etc etc), you are wrong. You said that the Republicans cannot be trusted in public office. Answer? Only the Republicans can be trusted in office. You said that the Democrats hold the moral high ground. Answer? Hardly. One Republican sex scandal versus numerous Democratic sex scandals along with the fact that the Democrats are against censorship (ask the Mondales and Kerrys), support gay marriage, promote sex education in the schools to be applied at a younger age than it already is, and the association of the doom and gloom cut and run party with Hollyweird's immoralism, I hardly think that the Democrats could be even remotely considered as holding any position on moral high ground, unless that high ground is a hill somewhere in the depths of Hell. As for the religious right being a hate-frenzy base? Why? Because they support the war in Iraq? Because they support profiling? Listen, leftists, the war is on terrorism, and Iraq is a part of it, and if I hear another argument that we should have left Iraq alone because they weren't a part of 9/11 I'm gonna scream. I suppose we shouldn't have gone into Germany either, because they weren't a part of Pearl Harbor. And profiling is what stopped the last 9/11 style attack that was attempted to be launched from Britain. As for losing the Bible Belt's votes? Hardly. Goes back to that abortion, gay marriage, censorship argument. Besides, the problem of losing votes hardly is a problem to the conservative right. Nobody is losing any voters. The left made that up, as they do the polls. Last I checked, if you remember from earlier in this article, the election has changed from a 5-seat Republican advantage to a 15-seat Republican advantage.
Quick, the liberal boat is sinking, come up with another attack, quick!
Hey, liberals. I have an idea. How about you learn how to debate the issues, make decisions that will protect America, and quit aligning yourselves with socialistic political agendas that is designed to undermine and destroy liberty and freedom?
Oh, and now for a statement that no member of the liberal left has the ability to understand: God Bless America!
(for more, check out the last few videos I have on www.politicalpistachiovideos.blogspot.com - - a couple of which was discovered by my good friend Bushwack at American and Proud of it.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
North Korea performs nuclear weapons test
Today the South Korean seismic monitoring center confirmed that tremors felt at the time of an alleged nuclear test in the north were not a natural occurrence. Later, the North Korean Central News Agency stated that an underground test was performed successfully.
The test places the world into a very precarious position, even though North Korea hasn't shown the ability to launch their weapons further than the immediate vicinity. Nonetheless, a nuclear strike on South Korea or Japan could be a consideration by the communist dictator.
The U.S. plans to push for stronger punitive measures, though they state that the explosion was smaller than the North Koreans desired.
North Korea has disregarded all international resolutions designed to stop this event, and has proven that they cannot be trusted. Their excuse is that the reason they built the bomb is that they feared U.S. invasion.
Their interest in building a nuclear weapon goes back to the years Clinton was in office, violating an agreement signed during that administration. Japan's Prime Minister has arrived in South Korea to discuss the situation with the South Korean leaders, stating that the nuclear test was absolutely unacceptable. The South Korean President also has conferred with President Bush on the phone over this already.
This situation has huge global implications, especially where it concerns the Middle East. How we respond to this will dictate Iran's nuclear aspirations. If we sit and take little action, Iran will pursue reaching the same level of nuclear capabilities with little worry of retribution from the west. Surprisingly, there is word that China warned the U.S. of the test 20 minutes before it occurred. I wonder if China will be a reliable partner in dealing with North Korea. Probably not.
Sanctions imposed by the U.N. security council are likely, but will unlikely deter North Korea from any further tests.
The test places the world into a very precarious position, even though North Korea hasn't shown the ability to launch their weapons further than the immediate vicinity. Nonetheless, a nuclear strike on South Korea or Japan could be a consideration by the communist dictator.
The U.S. plans to push for stronger punitive measures, though they state that the explosion was smaller than the North Koreans desired.
North Korea has disregarded all international resolutions designed to stop this event, and has proven that they cannot be trusted. Their excuse is that the reason they built the bomb is that they feared U.S. invasion.
Their interest in building a nuclear weapon goes back to the years Clinton was in office, violating an agreement signed during that administration. Japan's Prime Minister has arrived in South Korea to discuss the situation with the South Korean leaders, stating that the nuclear test was absolutely unacceptable. The South Korean President also has conferred with President Bush on the phone over this already.
This situation has huge global implications, especially where it concerns the Middle East. How we respond to this will dictate Iran's nuclear aspirations. If we sit and take little action, Iran will pursue reaching the same level of nuclear capabilities with little worry of retribution from the west. Surprisingly, there is word that China warned the U.S. of the test 20 minutes before it occurred. I wonder if China will be a reliable partner in dealing with North Korea. Probably not.
Sanctions imposed by the U.N. security council are likely, but will unlikely deter North Korea from any further tests.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
North Korean Tensions Continue
Five North Korean soldiers crossed into the Demilitarized Zone today. South Korean Soldiers fired off 60 shots. Kind of interesting that this happened as regional tensions are mounting in anticipation of communist North Korea's plan to test its first atomic bomb. Is North Korea testing some waters? Or are they taunting South Korea?
Associated Press reported that it was unclear whether the North Korean advance was intended as a provocation, or was rather an attempt to go fishing at a nearby stream. Four of the North Koreans were unarmed and the fifth carried a rifle. No one was hurt, and the North Koreans retreated.
Though rare, this kind of thing happens, but I am pretty convinced that this incursion into the DMZ was orchestrated to create tensions, and an excuse for needing the bomb. They will tell their citizens that South Korean troops opened fire on unarmed North Korean troops and that a standoff may be necessary.
The impotent U.N. Security Council had earlier warned the North not to follow through on its threats to test its first nuclear weapon (like they really listened when they were warned not to test their missiles). Japan will push for punitive measures if North Korea goes ahead with the tests.
And on an even weirder note, South Korean officials are going to visit in Beijing on Monday for two days of talks with Chinese officials about the nuclear test. Like China is going to do anything! North Korea is the far east's version of the Eastern Bloc. In fact, China has probably been assisting North Korea in their Nuclear ambitions!
Japan's Foreign Ministry stated that a North Korean nuclear test is "a grave threat to peace and security of northeast Asia and the world."
No kidding!
The Ministry further commented, "If North Korea conducts a nuclear weapons test despite the concerns expressed by international society, the Security Council (meaning the United Nations) must adopt a resolution outlining severely punitive measures."
The U.N. will do nothing. We are so wrapped up with terrorism right now, our ability to respond is minimal. And a Chinese official indicated that the only thing that would dissuade North Korea from carrying out the nuclear test is the removal of American economic sanctions. That's a bunch of B.S. because you know as well as I do that the only thing that will stop North Korea from developing and testing the bomb would be for it to be forcefully taken away from them. Problem is, the liberals may fall for such a lie and if able to they would promptly take action on getting kissy kissy with the North Koreans so that they could maybe convince them by talking to them not to follow their nuclear aspirations. . .and then as the bomb flies through the air the left will say to each other "nah, that isn't from North Korea, they're such nice people. They would never do something like that to us or Japan." BOOM! Nonetheless, as I have stated in a past post, the United States needs to somehow organize an operation to go in and stop this program now, by force, before it gets off the ground.
The sanctions, by the way, are for North Korea counterfeiting and money laundering. Reminds me of Islam. They are nothing more than a bunch of punks with a little power trying to flex immature muscle. As an added note, North Korea has boycotted six-nation talks aimed at dismantling its nuclear ambitions.
Like with radical Islamic terrorists, talking does not get the job done.
Bolton, the American U.N. ambassador which I like immensely, said that the U.N. Security Council needs to adopt a long-term strategy to deal with North Korea (which they won't), but the top U.S. priority now is to stop a nuclear test (and in my opinion, by any means possible - or else we have a real problem).
The left (and the social liberals around the world) still thinks that talking will do the job. Talking has not worked so far. What makes them think that it will do any good in the future?
Il is like a petulant child. He must be controlled, and made to follow the rules of the world. Otherwise, everyone suffers. Sounds like a mousetrap to me.
Associated Press reported that it was unclear whether the North Korean advance was intended as a provocation, or was rather an attempt to go fishing at a nearby stream. Four of the North Koreans were unarmed and the fifth carried a rifle. No one was hurt, and the North Koreans retreated.
Though rare, this kind of thing happens, but I am pretty convinced that this incursion into the DMZ was orchestrated to create tensions, and an excuse for needing the bomb. They will tell their citizens that South Korean troops opened fire on unarmed North Korean troops and that a standoff may be necessary.
The impotent U.N. Security Council had earlier warned the North not to follow through on its threats to test its first nuclear weapon (like they really listened when they were warned not to test their missiles). Japan will push for punitive measures if North Korea goes ahead with the tests.
And on an even weirder note, South Korean officials are going to visit in Beijing on Monday for two days of talks with Chinese officials about the nuclear test. Like China is going to do anything! North Korea is the far east's version of the Eastern Bloc. In fact, China has probably been assisting North Korea in their Nuclear ambitions!
Japan's Foreign Ministry stated that a North Korean nuclear test is "a grave threat to peace and security of northeast Asia and the world."
No kidding!
The Ministry further commented, "If North Korea conducts a nuclear weapons test despite the concerns expressed by international society, the Security Council (meaning the United Nations) must adopt a resolution outlining severely punitive measures."
The U.N. will do nothing. We are so wrapped up with terrorism right now, our ability to respond is minimal. And a Chinese official indicated that the only thing that would dissuade North Korea from carrying out the nuclear test is the removal of American economic sanctions. That's a bunch of B.S. because you know as well as I do that the only thing that will stop North Korea from developing and testing the bomb would be for it to be forcefully taken away from them. Problem is, the liberals may fall for such a lie and if able to they would promptly take action on getting kissy kissy with the North Koreans so that they could maybe convince them by talking to them not to follow their nuclear aspirations. . .and then as the bomb flies through the air the left will say to each other "nah, that isn't from North Korea, they're such nice people. They would never do something like that to us or Japan." BOOM! Nonetheless, as I have stated in a past post, the United States needs to somehow organize an operation to go in and stop this program now, by force, before it gets off the ground.
The sanctions, by the way, are for North Korea counterfeiting and money laundering. Reminds me of Islam. They are nothing more than a bunch of punks with a little power trying to flex immature muscle. As an added note, North Korea has boycotted six-nation talks aimed at dismantling its nuclear ambitions.
Like with radical Islamic terrorists, talking does not get the job done.
Bolton, the American U.N. ambassador which I like immensely, said that the U.N. Security Council needs to adopt a long-term strategy to deal with North Korea (which they won't), but the top U.S. priority now is to stop a nuclear test (and in my opinion, by any means possible - or else we have a real problem).
The left (and the social liberals around the world) still thinks that talking will do the job. Talking has not worked so far. What makes them think that it will do any good in the future?
Il is like a petulant child. He must be controlled, and made to follow the rules of the world. Otherwise, everyone suffers. Sounds like a mousetrap to me.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Where are all of the Americans?
An aunt of mine sent me this by e-mail, and it is so golden, I just had to share it with all of you.
A Somali arrives in Minneapolis as a new immigrant to the United States. He stops the first person he sees walking down the street and says,"Thank you Mr. American for letting me in this country, and giving me housing, food stamps, free medical care and free education!" But the passer-by says "You are mistaken, I am Mexican".
The man goes on and encounters another passer-by. "Thank you for having such a beautiful country here in America!" The person says " no American, I Vietnamese.
"The new arrival walks further, and the next person he sees he stops, shakes his hand and says "Thank you for the wonderful America !" That person puts up his hand and says "I am from Middle East, I am not an American!"
He finally sees a nice lady and asks suspiciously, "Are you an American?" She says, "No, I am from Russia !" So he is puzzled, and asks her,"Where are all the Americans?" The Russian lady looks at her watch, shrugs, and says...
"Probably at work!"
A Somali arrives in Minneapolis as a new immigrant to the United States. He stops the first person he sees walking down the street and says,"Thank you Mr. American for letting me in this country, and giving me housing, food stamps, free medical care and free education!" But the passer-by says "You are mistaken, I am Mexican".
The man goes on and encounters another passer-by. "Thank you for having such a beautiful country here in America!" The person says " no American, I Vietnamese.
"The new arrival walks further, and the next person he sees he stops, shakes his hand and says "Thank you for the wonderful America !" That person puts up his hand and says "I am from Middle East, I am not an American!"
He finally sees a nice lady and asks suspiciously, "Are you an American?" She says, "No, I am from Russia !" So he is puzzled, and asks her,"Where are all the Americans?" The Russian lady looks at her watch, shrugs, and says...
"Probably at work!"
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Foley's folly shouldn't sink the ship
Rep. Mark Foley, a congressman from Florida, and a member of the Republican Party, is an idiot, and is one of those people that Absolute Zero zeroes in on. He's sick, and I'm glad he got caught. The Democrats, of course, is all over this one. Thing is, the Democratic Party is always being haunted by charges of sexual misconduct. They're just happy it happened to a Republican for once. Thing is, they aren't jumping on this because they really think what Foley did was so wrong, it is a strategic attack. Their goal has nothing to do with morality. And their abilities to battle has nothing to do with honest politics. They can't argue the issues. The goal of the Democratic Party is simply to create hate against the GOP, as they are trying to incite against Bush, and Foley didn't help the Republican battle at all.
And now they are all over Dennis Hastert's handling of this affair, calling for his resignation. Are you kidding me? Granted, Hastert's past spending record is not one I agree with, but he took swift action when the Foley situation regarding his chatting with a teenage page in an overly friendly manner arose last week.
No more quiet dueling. The Republican Party can no longer allow the Democratic feeding frenzy to continue. It's time for the GOP to fight back, and make the voters realize that scandals happen, and I am pissed that this scandal involves a republican, but this crap has nothing to do with the conservative platform. Fact is, the Democratic Party cannot compete with the GOP when it comes to the specifics on the issues. The liberal platform would spell tragedy for our nation. They want to tax us into a recession, reward people for not working with hand-outs, cut and run out of the Middle East, increase our dependence on foreign oil while increasing the price of gas with higher oil taxes, allow every illegal and terrorist across the border, rub noses with jerks like Chavez in order to "keep the peace", run our currency into a global joint venture like Europe has, and allow China to run even more free to do as they please. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Foley screwed up, and he is a sick individual, but please, GOP, fight back, let the voters know who the liberals really are. Our future depends on it.
And now they are all over Dennis Hastert's handling of this affair, calling for his resignation. Are you kidding me? Granted, Hastert's past spending record is not one I agree with, but he took swift action when the Foley situation regarding his chatting with a teenage page in an overly friendly manner arose last week.
No more quiet dueling. The Republican Party can no longer allow the Democratic feeding frenzy to continue. It's time for the GOP to fight back, and make the voters realize that scandals happen, and I am pissed that this scandal involves a republican, but this crap has nothing to do with the conservative platform. Fact is, the Democratic Party cannot compete with the GOP when it comes to the specifics on the issues. The liberal platform would spell tragedy for our nation. They want to tax us into a recession, reward people for not working with hand-outs, cut and run out of the Middle East, increase our dependence on foreign oil while increasing the price of gas with higher oil taxes, allow every illegal and terrorist across the border, rub noses with jerks like Chavez in order to "keep the peace", run our currency into a global joint venture like Europe has, and allow China to run even more free to do as they please. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Foley screwed up, and he is a sick individual, but please, GOP, fight back, let the voters know who the liberals really are. Our future depends on it.
Monday, October 02, 2006
A couple books to check out - okay, it's a shameless plug for a couple of fellow writers I respect
Many of you out there know that I am a writer. Last July I had the opportunity to meet Dan Bessie. The picture and written account is in the "News" section of my main website. Well, earlier tonight I had the opportunity to meet two writers with two great books on the market that I was more than happy to purchase. The first is "Playing with the Enemy" by Gary W. Moore, also soon to be a Major Motion Picture. The second book is "Torpedo" by Jeff Edwards, STGC(SW), USN (Ret.). For those of you that like to read, especially where the military is involved, these books are for you.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Haditha revisited
Surfacing reports are casting doubts on the claim that United States Marines massacred 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha last November. One of the reports involves the transcript of an interview with Major Sam Carrasco who oversaw troop movements in the area when the alleged massacre took place. Major Carrasco indicated that he believed at the time the civilians died in crossfire between Marines and insurgents.
He told investigators that during the battle between the insurgents and Marines that they considered bombing a house where insurgents took refuge, and physically saw the insurgents go into the house, but did not bomb it because there was not absolute positive identification. As a result, from that house, the Marine Unit got shot up, and the Major regretted not bombing the house. The fear of killing civilians took priority, and many Marines died as a result.
Iraqi witnesses at that time had indicated that Marines shot civilians in their homes to retaliate for the death of a comrade, Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas in a roadside bomb.
There is ample evidence that a firefight took place between unsurgents and Marines. Civilians were caught in the middle of the firefight. Their deaths, however, were not the result of Marines firing into houses, but the result of door-to-door combat against insurgents inside those dwellings as the Marines sought to clear the houses and stop the insurgent gunfire.
There is video evidence supporting the Marine's claims. There is also a source that states that some of the civilian casualties resulted when Marines came under fire from insurgents inside a house and tossed a grenade into the house to eliminate the threat. A similar incident played itself out at another house.
The Marines, upon entering the city, were aware of the tight control the insurgents exercised over Haditha, including freshly laid IED's under the newly asphalted roads wired into the city power lines lining the road. Haditha was a city run by insurgents who controlled the residents with terror.
The blood of those civilians lays squarely on the hands of the insurgency.
Unfortunately, the liberal media would rather condemn Americans over terrorists. I suppose, by their reasoning, treason is only a matter of perspective.
He told investigators that during the battle between the insurgents and Marines that they considered bombing a house where insurgents took refuge, and physically saw the insurgents go into the house, but did not bomb it because there was not absolute positive identification. As a result, from that house, the Marine Unit got shot up, and the Major regretted not bombing the house. The fear of killing civilians took priority, and many Marines died as a result.
Iraqi witnesses at that time had indicated that Marines shot civilians in their homes to retaliate for the death of a comrade, Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas in a roadside bomb.
There is ample evidence that a firefight took place between unsurgents and Marines. Civilians were caught in the middle of the firefight. Their deaths, however, were not the result of Marines firing into houses, but the result of door-to-door combat against insurgents inside those dwellings as the Marines sought to clear the houses and stop the insurgent gunfire.
There is video evidence supporting the Marine's claims. There is also a source that states that some of the civilian casualties resulted when Marines came under fire from insurgents inside a house and tossed a grenade into the house to eliminate the threat. A similar incident played itself out at another house.
The Marines, upon entering the city, were aware of the tight control the insurgents exercised over Haditha, including freshly laid IED's under the newly asphalted roads wired into the city power lines lining the road. Haditha was a city run by insurgents who controlled the residents with terror.
The blood of those civilians lays squarely on the hands of the insurgency.
Unfortunately, the liberal media would rather condemn Americans over terrorists. I suppose, by their reasoning, treason is only a matter of perspective.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Jihad Watch
As noticed on Bushwack's "American and Proud of It," here is a link to the latest installment of Jihad Watch on Hot Air - response to the Pope, and any form of Christianity version . . .
Thursday, September 28, 2006
The smear campaign against George Allen of Virginia is just another desperate move by a desperate party of liberal political orientation
I'm sure you folks have been reading about it - - the senate race in Virginia has turned into a mudslinging smear campaign complete with unsubstantiated racial accusations by the party better known for such tactics in the past. Of course I am referring to the Democratic Party, a political party many of us know as the one populated by ranting liberals who will stoop to anything to prove to anybody that they aren't the idiots that we have all figured them out to be.
Is this any surprise? Absolutely not. They, the leftists of this nation, have proven over and over that they cannot debate at any intellectual level - last case in point that I thought nails this one down was the Rick Santorum versus Bob Casey debate on Meet the Press. The liberals can't run a country, case in point is the Clinton and Carter presidencies. They can't even play fair in a basic race for the senate. Then again, since when has liberalism ever played fair?
And this one is good. I'm proud of our liberal friends. Just when you thought they couldn't become any more idiotic, they stoop lower. And this is an obviously well orchestrated attack, deemed to make the voter hate George Allen, just like they are trying to get the good people of the United States of America to hate George W. Bush with unfounded and idiotic accusations and distorted facts and viewpoints. The campaign against Allen, however, goes way beyond his political ideas. Now the democrats have decided to charge one of the republicans as being a closet racist. Rush Limbaugh said it best. He stated this morning that the attack on Senator George Allen as being charged a "closet racist who used the dreaded n-word while in college will boomerang against the Democrats."
Do the dems think that the public is that stupid? This is so obviously a desperate measure in a desperate situation that even the leftist media is recognizing the idiocy of this and are beginning to ask the question, "is Allen being railroaded?"
For those of you who don't know the story, this all began when the republican senator from Virginia, by stringing some syllables together, made up the name "macaca" (a similarity to another nickname he uses for his niece, Maka - he is known for nicknaming friends, family, and members of his staff in an attempt at humor) not knowing the name of a cameraman that James Webb (Allen's challenger for the senate seat - and Hollywood movie producer) had sent to film Allen. Well, being who they are, the media just knew that somewhere in this was a story of hate and racism, and they located the word to actually exist on another continent, and of course, as expected, it is a derogatory term -- used many years ago on in Tunisia. Without taking notice that the word has no meaning on this continent, or that Allen made it up without knowledge of its existence elsewhere, these liberal members of the press defined George Allen as racist for making the remark, and the democrats jumped all over it.
The cameraman did indeed claim to be offended, so Allen promptly apologized, as he should have, I suppose, and then the racist stories started pouring in. One report claimed that Allen wore a Confederate flag lapel pin as a kid in high school, and that he often used the n-word. Another claimed that he used to state all the time that Americans of African descent eat turtles when he played football in school. Another charges that Allen once put a deer's head in a black family's mailbox. What the liberals won't tell you is that none of these stories have legs, there are no records nor memories by interviewed deputies from 17 years ago that there were ever any complaints about severed animal heads, or that a lot of people that were on Allen's football team have come to his defense one of which is a black minister.
Of course the left is not challenging Allen in regards to policies, ideologies, or ideas. They can't. They learned that trying to debate would never work with the Santorum/Casey debate. If you can't tackle your opponent cleanly, you chop him off at the knees. Dirty, but effective.
The left has to play dirty. Not only do they not know how to debate using any kind of specifics, but now reports are out that even in the liberal polls Bush's approval rating is up to 42 percent. We are six weeks away from going to the voting booths to decide which party controls the U.S. Congress, and the democrats are losing the edge they thought they had. So they launch this crap, but the voters aren't stupid. The voters recognize dirty politics when they see them, and in this election will make their decisions based on the candidates past performance, record, and vision for the future, not on ridiculous attacks obviously orchestrated out of fear. Besides, they need to attack George Allen. He's a Reagan Conservative interested in running in 2008, and his success would be disastrous for them. They've got to get him know, before he can gain any momentum. Thing is, Allen doesn't fit the pattern that the left is accusing him of following, and once again they are slitting their own throats (that was meant as a figure of speech, of course, so any of you leftist readers out their better BACK OFF!)
The Republican Party is populated by persons of deep convictions laced with decency. The left can't stand it. The left smears themselves merely with their own actions, and when the "right" doesn't perform identically, they must create something. When Bush made it known that he seeks God's will, they cried out that he wants to make America a theocracy. Now this. Pessimism and defeatism is not what the voters wish to support. That's what is funniest about all of this. In an attempt to defeat the liberals at the polls conservatives have no need to do anything but stand back and allow the left to hang themselves with stupidy such as this racist accusation against an upstanding republican senator.
Is this any surprise? Absolutely not. They, the leftists of this nation, have proven over and over that they cannot debate at any intellectual level - last case in point that I thought nails this one down was the Rick Santorum versus Bob Casey debate on Meet the Press. The liberals can't run a country, case in point is the Clinton and Carter presidencies. They can't even play fair in a basic race for the senate. Then again, since when has liberalism ever played fair?
And this one is good. I'm proud of our liberal friends. Just when you thought they couldn't become any more idiotic, they stoop lower. And this is an obviously well orchestrated attack, deemed to make the voter hate George Allen, just like they are trying to get the good people of the United States of America to hate George W. Bush with unfounded and idiotic accusations and distorted facts and viewpoints. The campaign against Allen, however, goes way beyond his political ideas. Now the democrats have decided to charge one of the republicans as being a closet racist. Rush Limbaugh said it best. He stated this morning that the attack on Senator George Allen as being charged a "closet racist who used the dreaded n-word while in college will boomerang against the Democrats."
Do the dems think that the public is that stupid? This is so obviously a desperate measure in a desperate situation that even the leftist media is recognizing the idiocy of this and are beginning to ask the question, "is Allen being railroaded?"
For those of you who don't know the story, this all began when the republican senator from Virginia, by stringing some syllables together, made up the name "macaca" (a similarity to another nickname he uses for his niece, Maka - he is known for nicknaming friends, family, and members of his staff in an attempt at humor) not knowing the name of a cameraman that James Webb (Allen's challenger for the senate seat - and Hollywood movie producer) had sent to film Allen. Well, being who they are, the media just knew that somewhere in this was a story of hate and racism, and they located the word to actually exist on another continent, and of course, as expected, it is a derogatory term -- used many years ago on in Tunisia. Without taking notice that the word has no meaning on this continent, or that Allen made it up without knowledge of its existence elsewhere, these liberal members of the press defined George Allen as racist for making the remark, and the democrats jumped all over it.
The cameraman did indeed claim to be offended, so Allen promptly apologized, as he should have, I suppose, and then the racist stories started pouring in. One report claimed that Allen wore a Confederate flag lapel pin as a kid in high school, and that he often used the n-word. Another claimed that he used to state all the time that Americans of African descent eat turtles when he played football in school. Another charges that Allen once put a deer's head in a black family's mailbox. What the liberals won't tell you is that none of these stories have legs, there are no records nor memories by interviewed deputies from 17 years ago that there were ever any complaints about severed animal heads, or that a lot of people that were on Allen's football team have come to his defense one of which is a black minister.
Of course the left is not challenging Allen in regards to policies, ideologies, or ideas. They can't. They learned that trying to debate would never work with the Santorum/Casey debate. If you can't tackle your opponent cleanly, you chop him off at the knees. Dirty, but effective.
The left has to play dirty. Not only do they not know how to debate using any kind of specifics, but now reports are out that even in the liberal polls Bush's approval rating is up to 42 percent. We are six weeks away from going to the voting booths to decide which party controls the U.S. Congress, and the democrats are losing the edge they thought they had. So they launch this crap, but the voters aren't stupid. The voters recognize dirty politics when they see them, and in this election will make their decisions based on the candidates past performance, record, and vision for the future, not on ridiculous attacks obviously orchestrated out of fear. Besides, they need to attack George Allen. He's a Reagan Conservative interested in running in 2008, and his success would be disastrous for them. They've got to get him know, before he can gain any momentum. Thing is, Allen doesn't fit the pattern that the left is accusing him of following, and once again they are slitting their own throats (that was meant as a figure of speech, of course, so any of you leftist readers out their better BACK OFF!)
The Republican Party is populated by persons of deep convictions laced with decency. The left can't stand it. The left smears themselves merely with their own actions, and when the "right" doesn't perform identically, they must create something. When Bush made it known that he seeks God's will, they cried out that he wants to make America a theocracy. Now this. Pessimism and defeatism is not what the voters wish to support. That's what is funniest about all of this. In an attempt to defeat the liberals at the polls conservatives have no need to do anything but stand back and allow the left to hang themselves with stupidy such as this racist accusation against an upstanding republican senator.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Why we should be concerned about terrorism while the liberals swear it doesn't concern us.
Former president Bill Clinton got a little heated when asked to respond to claims he didn't do enough to catch bin Laden in a Fox interview. Then, later, when I was watching a John Stewart's Daily Show, a program that I occasionally catch just to see what the idiots of the left have to say, he makes a comment about how the press was all over Clinton for anger, but said nothing about his (get this) intelligent comments later in the interview. Then John Stewart said something that I hear often - - by invading Iraq we have gone into a region that we have no business in because what goes on there with their governments does not concern us.
New Agers have said similar things. Pray for them, be concerned about the oppressed people of the Middle East, and for God's sake don't get mixed up in that little disagreement between Israel and the Arabs. It just does not concern us.
My answer to that mentality is expressed nicely in a story a friend sent me by e-mail recently. Read the following story, and see if you get the connection.
The Mousetrap
A mouse looked through a crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife open a package.
"What food might this contain?" The mouse wondered - he was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap.
Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning. "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"
The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, "Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you but it is of no consequence to me. I cannot be bothered by it."
The mouse turned to the pig and told him, "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"
The pig sympathized, but said, "I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but there is nothing I can do about it but pray. Be assured you are in my prayers."
The mouse turned to the cow and said, "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"
The cow said, "Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you, but it's no skin off my nose."
So, the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap-- alone. That very night a sound was heard throughout the house -- like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey. The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught. The snake bit the farmer's wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital and she returned home with a fever.. Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient. But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig. The farmer's wife did not get well; she died. So many people came for her funeral, the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them. The mouse looked upon it all from his crack in the wall with great sadness.
So, the next time you hear someone is facing a problem and think it doesn't concern you, remember -- when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk.
New Agers have said similar things. Pray for them, be concerned about the oppressed people of the Middle East, and for God's sake don't get mixed up in that little disagreement between Israel and the Arabs. It just does not concern us.
My answer to that mentality is expressed nicely in a story a friend sent me by e-mail recently. Read the following story, and see if you get the connection.
The Mousetrap
A mouse looked through a crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife open a package.
"What food might this contain?" The mouse wondered - he was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap.
Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning. "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"
The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, "Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you but it is of no consequence to me. I cannot be bothered by it."
The mouse turned to the pig and told him, "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"
The pig sympathized, but said, "I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but there is nothing I can do about it but pray. Be assured you are in my prayers."
The mouse turned to the cow and said, "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"
The cow said, "Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you, but it's no skin off my nose."
So, the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap-- alone. That very night a sound was heard throughout the house -- like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey. The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught. The snake bit the farmer's wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital and she returned home with a fever.. Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient. But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig. The farmer's wife did not get well; she died. So many people came for her funeral, the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them. The mouse looked upon it all from his crack in the wall with great sadness.
So, the next time you hear someone is facing a problem and think it doesn't concern you, remember -- when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk.
Monday, September 25, 2006
One Nation Under God
Throughout our history our nation's leaders have carried their plans and hopes to God in prayer. Today we regard prayer in our national life as a forgotten tradition. We no longer have the sense of coming earnestly to God. We simply pray as a formality.This nation was born in a meeting based on prayer, some of its most important decisions being made only after careful prayer to God. There needs to be a renewed emphasis on prayer today.One of the reasons the world community, specifically the United Nations, has become so ineffective in handling global situations is that there is no prayer and no recognition of God. The UN lifts no prayer to God for guidance and blessing because we are so afraid of offending our secular neighbors.People tend to say prayers only in times of great stress, danger, and uncertainty. After 9-11 the churches were brimming with people in prayer. Where are those people now? Since then we have flown through bad storms, and prayer is nothing more than a trickle. Though it is instinctive for man to pray in a time of trouble, even then people have turned away from prayer.Christ instructed His followers to pray, both by teaching and example. So fervent and so direct were His prayers that one time when He had finished praying His followers turned to Him and said, "Lord, teach us to pray." (Luke 11:1) They knew that Jesus had been in touch with God, and they wanted to have such an experience.Now, at this tumultuous time in history we stand in a great need of prayer. Shall we be a people of prayer in such a time as this?
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Pride and Patriotism
This morning, on the way to worship, I spotted an old pickup truck on the freeway being driven by an older Mexican gentleman that reminded me of my wife's father. My mind immediately rationalized that he was probably a hard working man that came here from Mexico searching for a better opportunity for himself and his children.
Then I noticed a blue bumper sticker plastered to his back window. The sticker was large and easily read, placed in a prominent portion of the window, up high, with pride. The sticker read, "MY DAUGHTER IS SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE."
There is nothing better than an American of Mexican descent, or a Mexican immigrant of legal residence (for that matter) proud of their American connection rather than holding out their hand for welfare freebies, and then biting the American hand that feeds them, only to ask for more hand-outs, while pledging their allegiance to another flag. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage, but to appreciate, and defend, the nation that gave you the opportunities that you came here for is the right thing to do.
And then, why is it that a man like him, or my wife, who came to America from Mexico, believes more in defending our nation, and protecting our interests, and protecting our shores from further terrorist attacks by taking the battle to the terrorists than many of those born right here in freedom? Who cares if Bush feels like invading Iraq was in God's best interest or not? Why does that flippin' matter? We were invaded on 9/11. The jihad came to America. We all cried afterward, and held our pride up when Bush said that "The United States will hand down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts." - President George W. Bush, 9-11-2001.
We also agreed with the president, even though he carries his Bible under his arm (of which I not only don't have a problem with, but I appreciate), when Rumsfield stated, "It will not be quick and it will not be easy. Our adversaries are not one or two terrorist leaders, or even a single terrorist organization or network. It's a broad network of individuals and organizations that are determined to terrorize and, in so doing, to deny us the very essence of what we are: free people. They don't live in Antarctica. They work, they train and they plan in countries. They're benefiting from the support of governments. They're benefiting from the support of non-governmental organizations that are either actively supporting them with money, intelligence and weapons or allowing them to function on their territory and tolerating if not encouraging their activities. In either case, it has to stop. We'll have to deal with the networks. One of the ways to do that is to drain the swamp they live in. And that means dealing not only with the terrorists, but those who harbor terrorists. This will take a long, sustained effort. It will require the support of the American people as well as our friends and allies around the world."
Did we forget 9/11? Did we forget our anger? How about this quote? Did we forget it too? "The planes were hijacked, the buildings fell, and thousands of lives were lost nearly a thousand miles from here. But the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were an attack on the heart of America. And standing here in the heartland of America, we say in one voice – We will not give in to terrorists;We will not rest until they are found and defeated; We will win this struggle – not for glory, nor wealth, nor power, but for justice, for freedom, and for peace; So help us God." --Tom Harkin
Even Bill Clinton, before he flip-flopped as liberals tend to do, said, "A few months ago, and again this week, bin Laden publicly vowed to publicly wage a terrorist war against America, saying, and I quote, 'We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians. They're all targets.' Their mission is murder, and their history is bloody."
Even the international stage was with us at that time. "The full horror of what has happened in the United States earlier today is now becoming clearer. It is hard even to contemplate the utter carnage and terror which has engulfed so many innocent people. We've offered President Bush and the American people our solidarity, our profound sympathy, and our prayers. But it is plain that citizens of many countries round the world, including Britain, will have been caught up in this terror." --British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Interview, September 11, 2001.
Unfortunately, after reading about the treasonous remarks of the American Media, and receiving emotionally charged (but short on facts) comments on my last post by persons whose site claims that they are Christian Liberals (but they are Americans, nonetheless), and by some of the comments I here certain friends and family say that are liberally charged by the New Age movement and the remnants of the "love-beads" generation, I find it sad to say that the most patriotic person I know of, aside from my president, and fellow conservative bloggers, is the British Prime Minister, who isn't obviously American. So, let's close with his remarks.
"So what do we do? Don't overreact some say. We aren't. We haven't lashed out. No missiles on the first night just for effect. Don't kill innocent people. We are not the ones who waged war on the innocent. We seek the guilty. Look for a diplomatic solution. There is no diplomacy with Bin Laden or the Taliban regime. State an ultimatum and get their response. We stated the ultimatum; they haven't responded. Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try, but let there be no moral ambiguity about this: nothing could ever justify the events of 11 September, and it is to turn justice on its head to pretend it could. The action we take will be proportionate; targeted; we will do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties. But understand what we are dealing with. Listen to the calls of those passengers on the planes. Think of the children on them, told they were going to die. Think of the cruelty beyond our comprehension as amongst the screams and the anguish of the innocent, those hijackers drove at full throttle planes laden with fuel into buildings where tens of thousands worked. They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000 does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it? There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Any action taken will be against the terrorist network of Bin Laden.... As for the Taleban, they can surrender the terrorists or face the consequences - and again in any action the aim will be to eliminate their military hardware, cut off their finances, disrupt their supplies, target their troops, not civilians.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
We will put a trap around the regime and I say to the Taleban: Surrender the terrorists or surrender power. It's your choice.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
America has its faults as a society, as we have ours.But I think of the Union of America born out of the defeat of slavery. I think of its Constitution, with its inalienable rights granted to every citizen still a model for the world. I think of a black man, born in poverty, who became chief of their armed forces and is now secretary of state Colin Powell and I wonder frankly whether such a thing could have happened here. I think of the Statue of Liberty and how many refugees, migrants and the impoverished passed its light and felt that if not for them, for their children, a new world could indeed be theirs. I think of a country where people who do well, don't have questions asked about their accent, their class, their beginnings but have admiration for what they have done and the success they've achieved. I think of those New Yorkers I met, still in shock, but resolute; the fire fighters and police, mourning their comrades but still head held high.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
As for those that carried out these attacks there are no adequate words of condemnation. Their barbarism will stand as their shame for all eternity.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair
AS AN OLD MEXICAN MAN WITH A BLUE BUMPER STICKER IN HIS BACK WINDOW WOULD PROBABLY SAY RIGHT ABOUT NOW - - - GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Then I noticed a blue bumper sticker plastered to his back window. The sticker was large and easily read, placed in a prominent portion of the window, up high, with pride. The sticker read, "MY DAUGHTER IS SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE."
There is nothing better than an American of Mexican descent, or a Mexican immigrant of legal residence (for that matter) proud of their American connection rather than holding out their hand for welfare freebies, and then biting the American hand that feeds them, only to ask for more hand-outs, while pledging their allegiance to another flag. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage, but to appreciate, and defend, the nation that gave you the opportunities that you came here for is the right thing to do.
And then, why is it that a man like him, or my wife, who came to America from Mexico, believes more in defending our nation, and protecting our interests, and protecting our shores from further terrorist attacks by taking the battle to the terrorists than many of those born right here in freedom? Who cares if Bush feels like invading Iraq was in God's best interest or not? Why does that flippin' matter? We were invaded on 9/11. The jihad came to America. We all cried afterward, and held our pride up when Bush said that "The United States will hand down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts." - President George W. Bush, 9-11-2001.
We also agreed with the president, even though he carries his Bible under his arm (of which I not only don't have a problem with, but I appreciate), when Rumsfield stated, "It will not be quick and it will not be easy. Our adversaries are not one or two terrorist leaders, or even a single terrorist organization or network. It's a broad network of individuals and organizations that are determined to terrorize and, in so doing, to deny us the very essence of what we are: free people. They don't live in Antarctica. They work, they train and they plan in countries. They're benefiting from the support of governments. They're benefiting from the support of non-governmental organizations that are either actively supporting them with money, intelligence and weapons or allowing them to function on their territory and tolerating if not encouraging their activities. In either case, it has to stop. We'll have to deal with the networks. One of the ways to do that is to drain the swamp they live in. And that means dealing not only with the terrorists, but those who harbor terrorists. This will take a long, sustained effort. It will require the support of the American people as well as our friends and allies around the world."
Did we forget 9/11? Did we forget our anger? How about this quote? Did we forget it too? "The planes were hijacked, the buildings fell, and thousands of lives were lost nearly a thousand miles from here. But the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were an attack on the heart of America. And standing here in the heartland of America, we say in one voice – We will not give in to terrorists;We will not rest until they are found and defeated; We will win this struggle – not for glory, nor wealth, nor power, but for justice, for freedom, and for peace; So help us God." --Tom Harkin
Even Bill Clinton, before he flip-flopped as liberals tend to do, said, "A few months ago, and again this week, bin Laden publicly vowed to publicly wage a terrorist war against America, saying, and I quote, 'We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians. They're all targets.' Their mission is murder, and their history is bloody."
Even the international stage was with us at that time. "The full horror of what has happened in the United States earlier today is now becoming clearer. It is hard even to contemplate the utter carnage and terror which has engulfed so many innocent people. We've offered President Bush and the American people our solidarity, our profound sympathy, and our prayers. But it is plain that citizens of many countries round the world, including Britain, will have been caught up in this terror." --British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Interview, September 11, 2001.
Unfortunately, after reading about the treasonous remarks of the American Media, and receiving emotionally charged (but short on facts) comments on my last post by persons whose site claims that they are Christian Liberals (but they are Americans, nonetheless), and by some of the comments I here certain friends and family say that are liberally charged by the New Age movement and the remnants of the "love-beads" generation, I find it sad to say that the most patriotic person I know of, aside from my president, and fellow conservative bloggers, is the British Prime Minister, who isn't obviously American. So, let's close with his remarks.
"So what do we do? Don't overreact some say. We aren't. We haven't lashed out. No missiles on the first night just for effect. Don't kill innocent people. We are not the ones who waged war on the innocent. We seek the guilty. Look for a diplomatic solution. There is no diplomacy with Bin Laden or the Taliban regime. State an ultimatum and get their response. We stated the ultimatum; they haven't responded. Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try, but let there be no moral ambiguity about this: nothing could ever justify the events of 11 September, and it is to turn justice on its head to pretend it could. The action we take will be proportionate; targeted; we will do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties. But understand what we are dealing with. Listen to the calls of those passengers on the planes. Think of the children on them, told they were going to die. Think of the cruelty beyond our comprehension as amongst the screams and the anguish of the innocent, those hijackers drove at full throttle planes laden with fuel into buildings where tens of thousands worked. They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000 does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it? There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Any action taken will be against the terrorist network of Bin Laden.... As for the Taleban, they can surrender the terrorists or face the consequences - and again in any action the aim will be to eliminate their military hardware, cut off their finances, disrupt their supplies, target their troops, not civilians.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
We will put a trap around the regime and I say to the Taleban: Surrender the terrorists or surrender power. It's your choice.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
America has its faults as a society, as we have ours.But I think of the Union of America born out of the defeat of slavery. I think of its Constitution, with its inalienable rights granted to every citizen still a model for the world. I think of a black man, born in poverty, who became chief of their armed forces and is now secretary of state Colin Powell and I wonder frankly whether such a thing could have happened here. I think of the Statue of Liberty and how many refugees, migrants and the impoverished passed its light and felt that if not for them, for their children, a new world could indeed be theirs. I think of a country where people who do well, don't have questions asked about their accent, their class, their beginnings but have admiration for what they have done and the success they've achieved. I think of those New Yorkers I met, still in shock, but resolute; the fire fighters and police, mourning their comrades but still head held high.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
As for those that carried out these attacks there are no adequate words of condemnation. Their barbarism will stand as their shame for all eternity.--British Prime Minister Tony Blair
AS AN OLD MEXICAN MAN WITH A BLUE BUMPER STICKER IN HIS BACK WINDOW WOULD PROBABLY SAY RIGHT ABOUT NOW - - - GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Ever seen a Christian Jihadist? Me neither.
I'm not Catholic, so when the Pope speaks I'm usually not hanging on the edge of my chair with the TV in my face. However, when Pope Benedict XVI made his comments regarding the alleged prophet Muhammed and his teachings of hate and murder the pope was right on the money. And the interesting thing is that the comments made were not recently concocted words regarding Islam. The Pope was quoting a 14th century Byzantine Christian. Nothing has changed. Islam is the same violent religion it was centuries ago. And isn't it interesting after these comments how a large number of Muslims proclaiming themselves to be peace loving reacted violently? They insult Christianity and Judaism daily, but if anything is said about the Muslim religion that isn't complete flattery mobs take to the streets all over the world and act in ways that are far from being even remotely like the peace loving religion they claim to be. The reaction by Islam to the Pope's statements is just another warning sign of what the freedom-loving nations of the world are up against.
And one more word for the idiots that try to claim that Christianity is as much a danger as is Islam --- Have you ever seen a Christian strapping explosives to his body to kill himself along with kids and other innocents?
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
The United Nations actually buys the line of bull by Iran that their nuclear program is peaceful
According to the Associated Press, today, Iranian president Mahmound Ahmadinejad addressed the 61st session of the United Nations hours after President Bush and stated, "Iran's nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye of United Nations inspectors."
He responded to the accusations that he is seeking to develop atomic weapons with a statement saying that Iran is committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
You and I know that these are all false statements. Dictators, throughout history, have proven time and time again that what they desire is a better weapon so that they may spread their agenda, or ideology, more efficiently, and with more terror attached than before. And on top of that, In an obvious reference to the U.S., he indicated falsely that he felt there were some permanent members of the security council using the powerful body as a tool of "threat and coercion." Look who's talking! I suppose Hezbollah and their involvement financially, as well as in other ways, with numerous terrorist cells, is an exception.
The Iranian President also said, "The question needs to be asked: if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the U.N. organs can take them into account."
"If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roes of prosecutor, judge and executioner," he added. "Is this a just order?"
The war on terror, which includes activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, falls far short of being a simple case of having "differences" with those particular nations. Terrorism by the hands of Islamic Jihadists is an age old problem that has been escalating and growing for generations, and now, after an attack against America on our soil on 9/11, we are at war with terror. Any nation that harbors terrorists, assists terrorists, trains terrorists, or finances terrorists, is on our hit list. Simple as that. Iran has a long history supporting terrorism and spreading terrorism (most notably the hostage crisis of '79), and we would be fools to allow them anything close to resembling the ability to build a nuclear weapon. The U.N., unfortunately, along with the liberal left, is too stupid or naive to recognize that.
The U.S. and Britain played central roles in crafting a U.N. Security Council resolution passed in July that gave Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment and asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to report on Tehran's compliance, dangling the threat of sanctions if Iran refused.
Iran, all along, has made it clear to the world that they have no intention of suspending uranium enrichment.
The Iranian president (shouldn't call him president, because he sure didn't attain that status legally) Mahmound Ahmadinejad also made reference to the U.S. efforts in Iraq, saying "the occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq" and every day hundreds of people get killed "in cold blood." Well, how about that, he's right for once, people are getting killed in cold blood. That's why we are there. To assist the Iraqi people against the terror threat (al-Qaeda and Iranian influence is largely responsible for the cold blooded killing going on in Iraq) present in that nation, until Iraq's own forces can get a handle on it and protect the nation themselves.
Ahmadinejad claimed that numerous terrorists apprehended by the Iraqi government were "let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers."
"It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq," he said.
And when terrorism is no longer a problem in that nation, then we will move on - - I think Iran and Syria ought to be next, personally.
He responded to the accusations that he is seeking to develop atomic weapons with a statement saying that Iran is committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
You and I know that these are all false statements. Dictators, throughout history, have proven time and time again that what they desire is a better weapon so that they may spread their agenda, or ideology, more efficiently, and with more terror attached than before. And on top of that, In an obvious reference to the U.S., he indicated falsely that he felt there were some permanent members of the security council using the powerful body as a tool of "threat and coercion." Look who's talking! I suppose Hezbollah and their involvement financially, as well as in other ways, with numerous terrorist cells, is an exception.
The Iranian President also said, "The question needs to be asked: if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the U.N. organs can take them into account."
"If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roes of prosecutor, judge and executioner," he added. "Is this a just order?"
The war on terror, which includes activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, falls far short of being a simple case of having "differences" with those particular nations. Terrorism by the hands of Islamic Jihadists is an age old problem that has been escalating and growing for generations, and now, after an attack against America on our soil on 9/11, we are at war with terror. Any nation that harbors terrorists, assists terrorists, trains terrorists, or finances terrorists, is on our hit list. Simple as that. Iran has a long history supporting terrorism and spreading terrorism (most notably the hostage crisis of '79), and we would be fools to allow them anything close to resembling the ability to build a nuclear weapon. The U.N., unfortunately, along with the liberal left, is too stupid or naive to recognize that.
The U.S. and Britain played central roles in crafting a U.N. Security Council resolution passed in July that gave Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment and asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to report on Tehran's compliance, dangling the threat of sanctions if Iran refused.
Iran, all along, has made it clear to the world that they have no intention of suspending uranium enrichment.
The Iranian president (shouldn't call him president, because he sure didn't attain that status legally) Mahmound Ahmadinejad also made reference to the U.S. efforts in Iraq, saying "the occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq" and every day hundreds of people get killed "in cold blood." Well, how about that, he's right for once, people are getting killed in cold blood. That's why we are there. To assist the Iraqi people against the terror threat (al-Qaeda and Iranian influence is largely responsible for the cold blooded killing going on in Iraq) present in that nation, until Iraq's own forces can get a handle on it and protect the nation themselves.
Ahmadinejad claimed that numerous terrorists apprehended by the Iraqi government were "let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers."
"It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq," he said.
And when terrorism is no longer a problem in that nation, then we will move on - - I think Iran and Syria ought to be next, personally.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Kevin Costner Bashes Bush Assasination Film
Taken from Human Events Online (click title for link):
KEVIN COSTNER has waded into the debate about controversial new movie DEATH OF A PRESIDENT, insisting British director GABRIEL RANGE failed to consider how GEORGE W BUSH's family would react to scenes of the US President being assassinated. The DANCES WITH WOLVES star was caught up in the controversy at the Toronto Film Festival in Canada at the weekend (09-10SEP06), where he premiered his new film, THE GUARDIAN, alongside the screening of Death of A President. Movie fans reportedly sat in stunned silence at the end of Range's screening, which featured doctored images of Bush getting shot, and Costner, who wasn't in the audience, isn't happy with what he's heard about the film. He says, "It's awfully hard if you're his children, his wife, his mother, his dad; there's a certain thing we can't lose as human beings, which is empathy for maybe the hardest job in the world. "Whether we think it's being performed right or not we can't, like, wish... or think that's even cute."
Finally someone in Hollywood has the class and guts to say something that may displease the rest of the club.
KEVIN COSTNER has waded into the debate about controversial new movie DEATH OF A PRESIDENT, insisting British director GABRIEL RANGE failed to consider how GEORGE W BUSH's family would react to scenes of the US President being assassinated. The DANCES WITH WOLVES star was caught up in the controversy at the Toronto Film Festival in Canada at the weekend (09-10SEP06), where he premiered his new film, THE GUARDIAN, alongside the screening of Death of A President. Movie fans reportedly sat in stunned silence at the end of Range's screening, which featured doctored images of Bush getting shot, and Costner, who wasn't in the audience, isn't happy with what he's heard about the film. He says, "It's awfully hard if you're his children, his wife, his mother, his dad; there's a certain thing we can't lose as human beings, which is empathy for maybe the hardest job in the world. "Whether we think it's being performed right or not we can't, like, wish... or think that's even cute."
Finally someone in Hollywood has the class and guts to say something that may displease the rest of the club.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Having a problem with Illegal Aliens does not make me racist.
There are three kinds of people in the United States of America. Citizens, legal residents, and illegal aliens. I have a problem with the third group.
This said, I have received a lot of flack over that position. In fact, one old man, the grandfather of a friend of mine, read my post about Mexico's plan for the American Southwest, and swore that if he saw me on the street and recognized me, he'd kick my racist ass. This gentleman is Mexican.
One of my sisters in law, my wife is Mexican as well, calls the illegals "my own people."
Everyone knows my position. Illegals are a serious problem, and are a part of a larger agenda. Agree or disagree with me, that is your perogative. Before you decide against a stronger fence along the border, however, remember this:
The problem at the border goes way beyond the Mexicans crossing into the country. My main drive for how I feel is not the illegal aliens. My main drive is what might be crossing over the border with them - - specifically, terrorists that have one motive in life - - to kill us.
Secure the borders, if not to stop illegal immigration, at least to stop another terrorist attack on American soil. I just wish Bush and crew agreed. The amnesty thing is such garbage.
This said, I have received a lot of flack over that position. In fact, one old man, the grandfather of a friend of mine, read my post about Mexico's plan for the American Southwest, and swore that if he saw me on the street and recognized me, he'd kick my racist ass. This gentleman is Mexican.
One of my sisters in law, my wife is Mexican as well, calls the illegals "my own people."
Everyone knows my position. Illegals are a serious problem, and are a part of a larger agenda. Agree or disagree with me, that is your perogative. Before you decide against a stronger fence along the border, however, remember this:
The problem at the border goes way beyond the Mexicans crossing into the country. My main drive for how I feel is not the illegal aliens. My main drive is what might be crossing over the border with them - - specifically, terrorists that have one motive in life - - to kill us.
Secure the borders, if not to stop illegal immigration, at least to stop another terrorist attack on American soil. I just wish Bush and crew agreed. The amnesty thing is such garbage.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Rosie's an idiot, and Michelle Malkin isn't
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/14/the-conservative-view/ After Rosie O'Donnell stated that Christianity is as large of a threat as Radical Islamic Terrorism, this is Michelle Malkin's and Mary Katharine Ham's response in their own little version of The View
And visit the link of the sponsor as well at http://www.iraqitruthproject.com/
And visit the link of the sponsor as well at http://www.iraqitruthproject.com/
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The Liberal Media missed this one!!
Subject: Denzel Washington, and
Brooks Army Medical Center
Don't know whether you heard about this but Denzel Washington and his family visited the troops at Brook Army Medical Center, in San Antonio, Texas (BAMC) the other day. This is where soldiers who have been evacuated from Germany come to be hospitalized in the United States, especially burn victims. There are some buildings there called Fisher Houses. The Fisher House is a Hotel where soldiers' families can stay, for little or no charge, while their soldier is staying in the Hospital. BAMC has quite a few of these houses on base, but as you can imagine, they are almost filled most of the time.
While Denzel Washington was visiting BAMC, they gave him a tour of one of the Fisher Houses. He asked how much one of them would cost to build. He took his check book out and wrote a check for the full amount right there on the spot. The soldiers overseas were amazed to hear this story and want to get the word out to the American public, because it warmed their hearts to hear it.
The question I have is why does:
Alec Baldwin, Madonna, Sean Penn and other Hollywood types make front page news with their anti-everything America trash and Denzel Washington's Patriotism doesn't even make page 3 in the Metro section of any newspaper except the Local newspaper in San
Antonio?
GOD BLESS YOU DENZEL
FOR YOUR PATRIOTISM
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
The War on Terror from www (dot) progressforamerica (dot) org
Click the title of this post to go to the site and video.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
2996 Tribute to Azael Ismael Vasquez, Age 21, killed at the World Trade Center on 9-11-2001
Azael Ismael Vasquez, 21, of New York, NY, died Sept. 11, 2001, a victim of the coordinated terrorist attacks against the United States on the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon, Washington DC, and elsewhere.
He was a food service handler for Forte Food Service simply performing his duties in one of the towers when the cowardly acts of terrorism commenced.
An article in the New York Daily News indicated that the funeral for Azael Vasquez was held on January 19, 2002, four months after the attacks, because of the unfortunate difficulty in locating his remains. Vasquez's father has said that he hasn't been able to return to his son's grave since the funeral.
Azael Ismael Vasquez, we will all remember you, and your fellow victims, forever. This tribute is posted for the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States of America, September 11, 2001.
We shall never forget.
God Bless America.
Monday, September 04, 2006
I'll be silent for a while
I am scheduled for a surgery that will keep me flat on my back for a week or so, so I may not be posting for a while. . . but I'll be back when the time comes. I will make sure I am able to post my 2,996 tribute on 9/11.
As an added note, on 9/11/2006 as we give tribute to the 2,996 victims of the act of war against the United States that forced us into waging a war on terror, a friend of mine is going to travel to Europe - - and promises me a postcard from every country he visits. I will keep ya'll posted of his travels. As an added note, Scott is going to give out a few of my cards along the way - - hopefully making Political Pistachio more international than it is now - - one can hope, anyway.
As an added note, on 9/11/2006 as we give tribute to the 2,996 victims of the act of war against the United States that forced us into waging a war on terror, a friend of mine is going to travel to Europe - - and promises me a postcard from every country he visits. I will keep ya'll posted of his travels. As an added note, Scott is going to give out a few of my cards along the way - - hopefully making Political Pistachio more international than it is now - - one can hope, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)