Saturday, December 30, 2006

Ding Dong...

"I ask you, being an Iraqi person, that if you reach a verdict of death, execution, remember that I am a military man and should be killed by firing squad and not by hanging as a common criminal." ~ Saddam Hussein

Saddam is dead. I am not going to post a lengthy entry on this. Everyone else will. I see no point in adding my two cents when others can add them so much more eloquently than I.

The only observation I will make is this:

He knew it was his time. He wasn't surprised. He had the benefit of having a chance to repent of his sins. Most of his victims didn't.

I have seen the videos of the beheadings of innocent civilians by Saddams supporters and terrorist insurgents in Iraq, and they were usually unprepared for that sudden fatal thrust of the blade. They didn't know they would be dead within seconds. They retained hope until the end.

Saddam knew his fate was sealed. He had months, if not years to contemplate the decisions he had made in his life. The decisions that ultimately led to his execution.

Even in death, Saddam gets off easy.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Fair And Balanced

"Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative." ~ Kurt Vonnegut

I confess that I am not a news junkie. When I get up in the morning I do not turn on the TV news. I will watch almost anything else. I usually get my news when I sign on to AOL in the morning, and AOL doesn't always report news fairly. It tends to report it with a left leaning bias. My regular readers may have noticed, over time, that I often refer to AOL news when I post a blog entry.

For instance, I noticed AOL reported that President Gerald R. Ford died (I think they were pretty fair overall on this story for a change), but no where was the news that Saddam's death sentence was upheld on appeal.

Perhaps that is not good news for the Liberal media.

Because I am not a news junkie, I remember very few details about President Ford, except, according to the news media, he seemed to fall down a lot. It seems since he was a Republican, that was the only thing about his presidency that the news media thought newsworthy. That and the pardoning of President Nixon, which eventually even the news media agreed was a good idea.

Over the Christmas holidays (Yes, I say "Christmas", not "winter solstice" or some other Liberal nomenclature) We had the pleasure of my fiancee's 84 year old father, who spent Christmas weekend with us.

He is a news junkie. While he usually prefers FOX news, he does, on occasion, watch one of the other major news channels. And because he was a guest, I allowed him to choose the channel we watched. So, I watched news. All weekend.

It's a good thing, really. Because I finally had the opportunity to see what people are talking about when they argue over whether FOX news is indeed fair and balanced. And I think I see the difference between them and the other news outlets.

Whenever MSNBC or CBS or NBC or ABC or CNN etc, presents what they consider fair and balanced opinion segments, this is what they do:

They put one Conservative commentator on the panel and at least 2, usually as many as 4, Liberal commentators on, and then they give more time to the Liberals.

This is what the Liberal media calls fair and balanced.

FOX news, on the other hand, puts one Conservative and one Liberal commentator on and gives them equal time.

This is what the Liberal media calls radical extreme right wing reporting.

Even one of their top programs, Hannity and Colmes, presents both sides with equal time and they have both Conservative and Liberal guests. I don't see that kind of format being used on any of the other news networks.

So, in my opinion, when FOX news say they are fair and balanced, I agree.

It is no wonder they have the best ratings.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Choice: Death Or Death?

"One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one." ~ Agatha Christie

The extremely unreliable cable company here in the Fredericksburg area interrupted my internet service for a couple of days so I wasn't able to post this entry as soon as it was fresh in my mind.

I woke up in the middle of the night the other night with a realization that disturbed me and prevented me from getting back to sleep.

At last I am ready to concede that something has to be done in Iraq that isn't being done now.

Speaking as one American, I now think something must be done differently if we are to extricate ourselves from what appears to be lose/lose situation over there.

These ideas are not new and they aren't mine. I've heard them before, but now I think they seem to make sense.

The problem America is dealing with in Iraq is that we are not fighting a war against a recognizable enemy. We are not fighting an army, we are fighting civilians. It is against America's ethical policy to kill civilians in war and we will avoid it under almost all circumstances, sometimes in completely illogical ways.

My fiancee read a story in the newspaper the other day about a Marine in Iraq who was killed because of this commitment to innocent human life. A grenade landed near him and he had time to pick it up and throw it back, but doing so would have killed civilian women and children. Covering his head and letting it explode where it was would have likewise killed innocent women and children, so he did the only thing he could do under those extreme circumstance. He threw his body on the grenade and thereby saved all the civilians but killed himself.

The Liberals in our country would blame America for his death, and call it one more in a string of American servicemen deaths that are unnecessary.

I call it heroism.

What I was thinking about is this:

Whatever we do or don't do in Iraq is going to cost lives. The choice is whether they will be servicemen and women lives or civilians lives.

Now, a major part of the American armed forces training is to prepare them to sacrifice himself for his country. Dying is part of his job description. Obviously, men and women don't join the service to die, but they are all trained to understand it is part of the job of defending America.

The terrorists around the world understand that Americans will do anything to protect civilian lives so they take advantage of that fact by targeting civilians. They know our servicemen are trained to protect civilian lives by sacrificing themselves.

Osama bin Laden himself has said that America is a paper tiger. If we pull out of Iraq with anything short of total and obvious victory, it will be an incentive for more terrorists attacks on America.

I believe America has a choice at this point:

Americans are going to die. That's a given.

Will it be American servicemen or American civilians? There is no third option.

So, how do we end this thing?

Do we pull out and watch the terrorists take over and resume the attacks killing American civilians worldwide or do we stay, modify our tactics to be more effective, and continue to lose American servicemen lives?

I believe the answer is obvious.

My personal belief is an unpopular and repugnant one. The only thing these terrorists monsters understand is violence and death. If we are going to stop terrorism in the world, we will have to start using their own tactics against them. Start targeting their civilians, specifically, the families and friends of the terrorists themselves.

We need to use their own tactics against them.

Other than that, if we want to make sure America no longer suffers terrorist attacks on our civilians, the only option is total annihilation of all Muslims, and that is impossible. There are too many of them and they are not all terrorists.

We who believe the Bible are told that when Jesus returns to Earth, he will return with an army of Angels who will lay waste to the enemy and his followers, and the destruction will be bloody and final.

He will not be concerned about the lives of civilians or servicemen.

What will we choose? Dead American civilians, maybe yourself or your own family, or dead American servicemen, who are trained to sacrifice themselves for their country?

Either way something drastic has to be done to put an end to this thing, and unfortunately, all options involve more death and destruction.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

More To The Story?

"Silence is a text easy to misread." ~ A. A. Attanasio

Today is my birthday. My fiancee, Patti, gave me a real leather Kansas City Chiefs jacket, an official NFL product. I will admit that it is my favorite of the gifts I recieved. She also gave me some Christmas themed boxer shorts and two Izod brand shirts. My son gave me the Seinfeld 7th season collection on DVD. Great choice!

I've never received so many gifts for one birthday. I feel positively wealthy today!

Unlike previous year's birthdays when I have said, "I don't feel any older", this year, I do. Aches and pains and periods of no patience mixed with periods of infinite patience, and being set in my ways. I must have reached the point of no return or something. (sigh)

Comes now a story via AOL news which epitomizes the reason I started my blog in the first place. Regular readers will no doubt remember that I have repeatedly stated my reason for creating this blog was to make comments on news stories that tend to make me say "What the...?"

Apparently, a television actor who I never heard of was involved in an automobile collision in which a 17 year old boy was killed. The story tells us that his SUV jumped a curb, collided with a tree, and three under 18 teens were injured, one fatally.

I smell a rat!

The story does not explain why three teenagers are riding around Hollywood at midnight with an adult.

Were these people partying? Were they inebriated? Were they on a double date? It seriously seems to me, based on what little information we are provided with, that Mr. Garrison may have been up to something unseemly.

Look at what we know so far:

4 people in a car. Late at night. 1 of the people being a 26 year old adult male. The others being 2 15 year old girls and one 17 year old boy.

Maybe it's my natural skepticism, but those particular facts send up a red flag as far as I'm concerned.

I think there needs to be some investigation as to the actors intentions and his habits.

Of course, it is Hollywood, and that means if there is something immoral going on here, it will no doubt be swept under the proverbial rug and not much will be heard about this again.

It is a tragedy that a 17 year old boy lost his life. I hope I don't appear to be minimizing that tragic fact. But there certainly seems to be an undercurrent of additional tragedy in this story.

I hope I am wrong.

Monday, December 04, 2006

My Two Cents Worth

"History is a voice forever sounding across the centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on the tablets of eternity." ~ James A. Forude

It has been a while since I have blogsurfed to any degree, except for my daily visits to Lone Ranger's and Tug's blogs (and occasionally, ER's), but this morning, I stopped by over at EL's place. He has an interesting thread going on over there in his comments section about the decision of Rev. Rick Warren to allow Senator Barack Obama (D) Illinois to speak at his church about the worldwide AIDS epidemic.

I started to add my two cents to the discussion, but my two cents quickly multiplied to a much larger sum than I had originally intended to pay, so I decided to state my position over here at my place:

I wasn't in attendance at that particular conference on AIDS, but I am willing to bet that neither Rev. Warren nor Senator Obama mentioned the only sure way to prevent AIDS and indeed, eradicate it from the world.

Cease all homosexual sex worldwide. Just put an end to it. Now, that, of course, is impossible, but it is the only way to prevent AIDS positively.

Despite all the assertions coming mainly from the left that AIDS is not a "gay" disease, it most certainly is a disease affecting mostly those who actively engage in homosexual activities.

This is not to say that heterosexuals can't get AIDS as we know they indeed do, but in nearly every case when a heterosexual is diagnosed with HIV or AIDS, it is because somewhere down the line they, or someone who has donated blood, or someone who used the same needle for intravenous drug usage, have had intimate sexual contact with someone who has had sex with a homosexual.

It always starts with a particular homosexual act.

Does anyone know exactly how AIDS is contracted? It is contracted initially from the introduction of protein containing a certain unstable bacteria (or virus, if you will) into the rectum. Only after it is contracted anally, can it be introduced by other means.

With that in mind, if Obama did not call for the cessation of the homosexual act as the primary means to prevent AIDS, and if Rick Warren does not do the same, it can be arguably assumed that they have determined that Homosexuality is normal.

This acceptance of something that God tells us is an "abomination" is what is known as "moral relativism", which is a tenet of that new Godless religion called "Humanism". Those who continue to insist that homosexuality should be accepted as normal are called "moral relativists", meaning that they believe that what is moral is determined by the individual rather than by God.

This is regarded by most Bible believing Christians as "apostasy" .

Actually Muslims believe the same, but their method of dealing with it is decidedly more extreme.

If either of them welcome homosexuals into their church for any other reason than to bring them to repentance for the sin of homosexuality and to save them from that particular sin, but to welcome and support their dangerous, destructive, and sinful lifestyle, they are as wrong as those who practice this abomination.

Any church (and by church, I mean the members of a particular body of believers)that fails to condemn the sin of homosexuality is apostate, at least in that regard.

Churches are scripturally correct to encourage homosexuals to join and participate in their churches, but only as a means to reach them, and convict them of their sin, that they might find repentance and grace and turn from their sin and follow Christ into the eternal kingdom of God.

No where in the scriptures does God say, "Trust in Me, and continue to sin." Jesus did not tell the woman taken in adultery (which is something one must commit in order to perform a homosexual act, by the way), "Your sins are forgiven, now go and continue to sin." He said, "Go and sin no more."

How hard is that for you moral relativists to understand?

Monday, November 27, 2006

Another Homeowners Association Issue

"God creates men, but they choose each other." ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Sometime back, I posted an entry about a woman who was being fined for having a sign posted on her house that showed her support of the troops. As it turned out, it had nothing to do with her political views, and everything to do with homeowners association rules. She violated the rules of her homeowners association, which is why I will never be a member of a homeowner's association.

Upon reading that initial story, I was concerned that she was being persecuted for supporting the troops, and if that was indeed the case, I would consider it a violation of the free speech clause in our Constitution.

Now, from the associated press comes a similar story, but this time a homeowners association is objecting to a Christmas wreath in the shape of a peace sign.

I suppose, given the content of this story I should call it a holiday wreath instead of a Christmas wreath.

The homeowners association, in this case, insists the homeowner is not being persecuted for being against the "war in Iraq", but is simply in violation of homeowners association rules.

But, just to show everyone that I am consistent in my beliefs, I believe the homeowners association is wrong in the larger sense that the homeowner is free to express himself anyway he wants to in accordance with the constitution.

Even if the sentiment is anti-American, which in this case, arguably, isn't.

On the other hand, I also believe that when a homeowner signs a contract to abide by the rules of a homeowners association, (even if they are stupid rules) it is generally assumed that the said homeowner has read and understood the rules and agreed with them before signing the agreement.

If so, the homeowners association is perfectly within it's rights to determine what displays on the homeowner's home are appropriate and which are not.

I said essentially the same when the display was a patriotic one.

I really believe homeowners associations are a violation of the Constitution. Any association or individual that stifles anyone's free speech rights is violating the Constitution.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

A Thanksgiving Lesson Learned

"Human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives." ~ William James

Since I moved to Virginia, all of my time has been taken up with fixing up this house. It has three bedrooms, 2 baths, a formal dining room and a large family room with a fireplace.

Quite a change for me, moving out of a one room apartment into this place!

Anyway, the house had been vacant for three years when we started working on it and it was a mess. I can't describe what it looked like adequately, but I will give you a hint:

For a while, it's only occupant was a stray cat. (Peeyooo)

It also had been vacated hurriedly, and most of the stuff that was in the house (and refrigerator) three years ago was still in the house. We took hundreds of trash bags full of unusable junk and spoiled food out of the house while working on it. Well, maybe not hundreds, but I bet I'm close.

Anyway, except for one bedroom, it is livable and looking good once again. That one bedroom's ceiling had caved in sometime in the last three years. We haven't had it repaired yet.

Hopefully that is next on the agenda.

So, for Thanksgiving, we cleaned and detailed the house getting it ready for our first house guests.

My 17 year old son, who considers himself above manual labor, was drafted into helping. (against his will, of course)

I was stressing, under the gun to get everything shipshape before the guests arrived, and I was barking orders and complaining and yelling at the kid for not working harder and with more attention to detail.

Eventually, we got to the point where we had only finishing touches left, and I instructed my son to vacuum off the upholstery in the den while I vacuumed the living room rug. His was a chore that shouldn't take more than 5 minutes at the most.

After vacuuming the rug, I turned off the vacuum cleaner and to my surprise and consternation, I could still hear the other vacuum running in the other room. I looked toward the source of the noise, and found my son standing in the middle of the room, shirtless, with a shop vac hose suctioned to his abdomen, and laughing.

At that precise moment I learned a valuable lesson.

Here I was, rushing around all stressed and worried that all the work might not get done in time, and he was taking a little extra time to have a little fun!

As I wound the cord up on my Eureka, I silently chastised myself for letting the preparation for the holiday take precedence over the enjoyment of the holiday.

With a sigh, I sat down in a recliner and took a break. If we didn't get everything perfect, so what? We could still have an enjoyable holiday with our friends and family.

The kitchen floor didn't get mopped before the guest showed up and you know what?

They didn't seem to even notice.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

That Was The President

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." --John F. Kennedy

43 years ago today, The President of the United States was assasinated.

That Was the President, that Was the Man
(Phil Ochs)

The bullets of the false revenge have struck us once again,
As the angry seas have struck upon the sand,
And it seems as though a friendless world has lost itself a friend,
That was the president, and that was the man.

I still can see him smiling there and waving to the crowd,
As he drove through the music of the band,
And never even knowing no more time would be allowed,
Not for the president, and not for the man.

Here's a memory to share, here's a memory to save,
Of the sudden early ending of command,
Yet a part of you, a part of me is buried in his grave,
That was the president, and that was the man.

Everything he might've done and all he could've been,
Was proven by the troubled traitor's hand,
For what other death could wound the hearts of so many men,
That was the president, and that was the man.

The glory that was Lincoln's never died when he was slain,
It's been carried over time and time again,
And to the list of honor you may list another name,
That was the president, and that was the man.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Explain This To Me, Please

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." ~ Mark Twain

The GOP body is barely cold and already the Democrats are making noises that threatens Americans, in my humble opinion.

Representative Charles Rangel (D) New York, has proposed re-instating the draft to bolster our forces in Iraq.

Now, I admit I have been out of the loop of late, so maybe I forgot, but it seems to me the Democrats were the ones that were accusing Republicans of planning on re-instating the draft. It seems to me the Democrats were against the idea at the time. Maybe they were just hoping to scare the American people into voting them into office ostensibly to keep that from happening.

It also seems to me that the Republicans denied that was even conceivable.

The Democrats were supposed to be the ones that were against the draft, weren't they?

Also, while I'm on the subject, Democrats are talking once again, (or is that continually?) about increasing the minimum wage by as much as two dollars an hour.

Now, I'm no expert on economics. Lord knows I can't even handle my own finances, but it seems logical to me that raising the minimum wage is a fast track to a drastic rise in inflation. This is how I see it:

Raising the minimum wage is supposed to enable the minimum wage earners in the country to afford those goods and services they previously couldn't afford.

Companies are forced to raise their employees salaries by two dollars an hour. Consequently, in order to keep their profit margin constant, they have no choice but to raise the prices on goods and services.

Am I right so far?

So, under that scenario, minimum wage workers now make an additional $80.00 a week, and goods and services that were once unaffordable have been raised in prices up to where they are once again unaffordable to those same minimum wage workers.

So then Congress will have to meet again and approve another wage increase to make those goods and services affordable again. But then, (consarn it) employers have to raise prices again.

I can go on, with Congress raising the minimum wage and employers raising prices to cover the loss in profits ad infinitum, but in the end what the whole thing does is cause massive inflation and a crippling of our economy, not to mention all the things that go with inflation like wholesale layoffs, and small businesses all over going bankrupt.

But, as I say, I'm no expert about these things.

I'm sure some loyal Democrats will be happy to explain to me how I am all wrong on this.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Murtha Loses

"Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." ~ Mark Twain

Well, now that Jack Murtha didn't get chosen to be 2nd in line to San Fran Nan, maybe he will go ahead and take the $50,000.00 from the FBI.

Or maybe he can get a loan from his brother, the Defense Contractor. After all, Murtha arranged for him to get the defense contracts in the first place.

He owes him.

Monday, November 13, 2006

No Worries, Mate!

"Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking." ~ Clement Atlee

The other day, I created a post painting a doomsday portrayal of what may happen when the Democrats take over the House and the Senate.

It was extreme, even fanciful. What I meant was, according to what the Democrats have been saying, all these things and more would happen.

In reality, I predict none of these things will happen. Instead of surrender in Iraq, higher taxes, the purging of God from all facets of American life, etc, I predict a lot of talk. But little action.

Why? Because that's the only things that the Democrats can do. Talk. Talk. Talk. But little, if any action. Listen to their rhetoric sometime. They can solve all the problems in America with talk, and negotiation.

They think they can talk the Islamo-fascists into being nice. (because negotiation with people you can't negotiate with has worked so well in the past.)

Then there will be the inevitable endless discussions about what is the best way to raise taxes, and get free medical care for all Americans, and on and on and on.

In the end they will have accomplished next to nothing.

Because the Democrats only plan is to talk about what they want to do.

And, after the American people see what the Democrats are capable (or incapable) of doing, they will happily vote the Republicans back into the majority.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Meet Doc Johnson

"All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

Meet Robert P (Doc) Johnson, USN CPO Ret. "Doc" is my wife's father. Last week he celebrated his 84th birthday. He has no hearing in his left ear and only 5% hearing in his right ear. His wife, Virginia, died a little over a year ago of breast cancer, ending a marriage of 58 years. His depression was so severe that he rarely talked to anyone until recently.

Recently he began talking about his experiences in World War II. I have had the privilege of being the one to whom he chose to break his silence. He is hard to understand and oftentimes his mind wanders off topic, but his memory is sharp as a tack. The following is part of what I have been able to piece together from our conversation, which is usually one sided because he has difficulty hearing my questions, with the help of some research on the internet:

Doc joined the Navy sometime around 1939 at the age of 17. He had 10 brothers, and he was one of eight who served in America's armed forces at the same time during WWII. Incredibly, at least to me, all but one survived the war.

Doc served on several ships in different capacities, including the USS Colhoun, a 1060-ton Wickes class destroyer, in the Pacific theatre during World War II.

The Colhoun was built in 1919 at the close of World War I, as a destroyer. When the expansion of World War II in Europe and growing tension with Japan required enlarging the active fleet, Colhoun was taken to the Norfolk Navy Yard in June 1940 and converted to a high-speed transport. With the new hull number APD-2, she recommissioned in December 1940 for operations and training in the Atlantic and Caribbean in connection with the development of an enhanced amphibious warfare capability.

U.S.S. Colhoun

Colhoun arrived in the south Pacific in July 1942 and helped land U.S. Marines on Tulagi on 7-8 August, at the opening of the long and bloody Guadalcanal Campaign. She continued on transport and patrol service during the first weeks of that operation. On 30 August 1942, while off Guadalcanal, she was targeted by Japanese bombers. Hit several times, USS Colhoun soon sank off Lunga Point with the loss of 51 crewmembers. 18 were wounded, (out of approximately 149 crewmen) including Robert "Doc" Johnson. Doc was blown completely off the ship and into the water.

Doc's memory is unclear of how long he was actually in the water, (he was, after all, in shock at the time) but he remembers that his clothes were blown off of him and when he and a few shipmates were rescued, and except for his undershorts, he was totally naked. He received some severe powder burns on his hands and arms, (the scars are still visible) but otherwise was unharmed physically.

He went on to serve the United States until his retirement. His daughter, my wife, never knew Doc received the purple heart for his injuries until I asked him specifically about any decorations he received for his service. If he received any other medals, he didn't say. The purple heart was the only one he admits to earning. He may have more. He won't say.

I talk about Doc Johnson and his service to our country not because anything he did was particularly special. At least to the most Americans. No one in my family ever served in the service with any distinction.

I, myself, was judged physically unfit for military service when I enlisted and was given the draft deferment known as 4-F. I was not allowed to serve.

So Robert Johnson is the first actual combat veteran I have ever personally gotten "up close and personal" with, to borrow a phrase. The singular thing that strikes me about Doc is his humbleness regarding his role.

He says, "I don't see anything special about what we did in the war, we were just doing our jobs".

And that attitude is perhaps what makes Doc Johnson and hundreds of other veterans special, and why we honor them on this day. Without the unquestioning willingness to do their duty, and the understanding of his responsibility, in spite of danger and overwhelming odds, The United States of America might not exist as the most powerful nation on earth.

And the fact that this country is the most powerful nation of Earth is a testament to the courage and the diligence of the humble American servicemen and women who we honor on this day, Veterans day.

I don't think we can say thank you nearly enough to all of them, but once again, Thank you, Veterans.

Friday, November 10, 2006

What I've Been Thinking About

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." ~ Ronald Reagan

So, Lincoln Chaffee is considering a move from the Republican party to the Democratic party.

There's a shocker for you!

Considering that through the years Mr. Chaffee has acted more like a Democrat than half of the Democrats in the party, I'd say this move was a little late in coming. Good riddance as far as I'm concerned. He has been an Albatross around the Republican Party's neck far too long.

Bon voyage, Mr. Chaffee, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

I don't understand the rationale behind the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. Seems to me the timing of this announcement did the Bush administration no favors at all. If the Democrats weren't already riding a high, Rumsfeld has to go and sweeten the victory for them. I don't get it.

He has been under a relentless barrage of unwarranted and undeserved attacks since becoming Secretary of Defense and has handled them better than any Democrat would, refusing to attack back or use the Democrats favorite argument of using ad hominen attacks to distract the American people from the real issue.

So why now? Acquiescence?

I think it is a bad move by the Bush administration to ask for his resignation, particularly at this time.

This will undoubtedly be seen as another coup for the Democrats. I see this as a lose/lose situation at this point.

I have heard that the reason that Rummy is stepping down now is to boost Bush's approval ratings and avoid a lame duck Presidency, but if that is true, I would be very disappointed with Bush. I thought he had more heart and integrity than that. I certainly hope there is a more valid reason than just to boost the Presidents popularity. That sounds more like something a Democrat would do.

Well, like I said, I don't understand this move by Rumsfeld. I suppose it's politics.

And politics really is a dirty business.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

The Death Of Reason

"Be careful that victories do not carry the seed of future defeats." ~ Ralph W. Sockman

Unlike many of my Conservative blogger peers, I am not going to assign blame for the Republican Party's stunning loss in yesterdays mid-term elections. I'm not even going to look for someone or something to blame.

The American voters have made their choice. The Democrats have won.

God help us.

I have always made it a point to try not to gloat when my team wins. I try very hard not to allow myself to be smug when it appears my predictions have borne out to be accurate. I don't laugh in the faces of foes I have bested. I try to carry myself with grace when victorious.

The reason for this attempt at humility?

Well, in less than a month I will turn 55 years old. In my 55 years on this planet, I have learned several lessons, most of them the hard way. One of them is this:

Egg on the face is not only unattractive. It stings.

However, I know without a doubt, that the Liberal and Democrat commentators that so often offer their comments on my blog will not ascribe to that particular self defensive philosophy. I know they will soon appear here and gloat to their hearts content.

I will do my utmost to bear these commenters with grace and dignity. I will try very hard not to allow myself to be offended.

With that firmly in mind, I console myself with the possibility that sometime in the next two years or so, these same Liberal commentators, who now are feeling so smug and giddy with the excitement of victory, will, in the middle of some cold dark night, wake up soaked in a cold sweat with the realization that their votes helped to destroy, or at least marginalize, what was once the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

They will realize with horror, that the once strong economy is in the dumps. The stock market has plummeted, taxes are so high that even the most financially comfortable among us may not be able to afford them, inflation and unemployment has skyrocketed, crime has increased sharply, terrorists are freely streaming over our open borders and attacking America with brazen regularity. Possibly even with nuclear weapons.

No longer will they hear the stirring strains of "God Bless America" or "The Star Spangled Banner" before a ball game. The phrase, "In God we trust" will no longer be emblazoned on American currency. In fact, if the Democrats have their way, we may be spending Euro dollars to pay the additional governmental fees with which we will be inundated.

They will be risking fines or imprisonment if they get caught worshipping in the church of their choice, unless the church of their choice is a mosque.

They will escape to same sex partners to avoid paying the increased marriage penalty which will only be imposed on a marriage between one man and one woman.

And so on.

Extreme? Perhaps.

But if some of the newly elected Senators and Congressmen succeed in enacting the legislation that they have in the past suggested may be the best course for America, that scenario may not be so improbable.

A few days ago, I sat down and began hammering out a blog entry about the campaign rhetoric being espoused through the various campaign ads in the media. The premise was that they are all promising a change in Washington if elected. Both Republican and Democrat.

My Father used to say, "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

In my humble opinion, I don't see what changes are needed in Washington. The economy is stronger than it has been in decades. The unemployment rate is the lowest in history. The stock market averages are setting new records every week. Taxes are low, We have at least some semblance of security in our country and are working toward making it stronger. We are making steady progress in the war on terror.

We haven't had a terrorist attack in our country since 9/11/2001.

What needs to be changed?

Well, maybe Government spending could be decreased, but other than that, I think we are doing pretty good.

"If it aint broke, don't fix it".

Then I lost my internet connection, lost the entire entry, and due to my schedule, I didn't have time to rewrite it, so it was never posted.

Incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, proclaimed last night, "The Democrats are ready to lead us in a new direction."

What direction is that? Backward? As far as I can see, America was headed in the right direction already. If we change direction, where will we end up?

So, I can no longer say, "If it aint broke, don't fix it".

Because now, it is broke.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Democrats Trivialize Black Voters

"I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally." ~ W. C. Fields (must have been a Democrat)

The Prince George county council has overwhelmingly endorsed Republican Michael Steele for Senate in the state of Maryland. The 5 members, who are all black, have expressed concern that the Democratic Party has "trivialized" black voters.

Those of us who have read Lone Ranger's Blog, "Stop the Republicans" know the Democrats have trivialized black voters all along.

It was only a matter of time before black voters finally saw through the Democrats propaganda. Traditionally, black voters have been overwhelmingly Democrats, but more and more black voters are starting to see them for what they really are, a party full of elitist racists.

No party has done more to maintain separation of the races than the Democratic party, and now the black voters are finding that out.

I have no doubt that bloggers such as Lone Ranger and the increasing availability of access to the internet have been instrumental in exposing the misinformation propagated by the Democratic party.

Who says modern technology is a bad thing?

Oh. One more thing. The 5 County Council members who have endorsed Michael Steele?

They are all Democrats.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Smear Campaigns

"People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest." ~ Hermann Hesse

I'm sitting here listening to an advertisement for Jim Webb, Democratic candidate for Senator from Virginia and I am laughing. His entire point is that his opponent, Republican George Allen supports President Bush.

If he really thinks attacking the people who support the current administration will get him elected, he is sorely mistaken.

It is a weak argument by a weak candidate. I predict his strategy of "guilt by association" will backfire.

I can't speak for the majority of Virginians, but as a new resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, his ad only reinforces my commitment to vote for George Allen.

Yes, the reason I have been absent lately is because I was in the process of moving to Fredericksburg, Virginia.

My only regret is that I won't have a chance to vote for Maryland Republican Senatorial candidate Michael Steele and stick it to the Democrats once again.

After watching the avalanche of political campaign smear campaigns this year I have come to the conclusion that even the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat.

No, I don't really believe that.

But when you have a chance to speak personally to a candidate as I did recently, they really love that line.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Rally 'Round The Reprobate

"The zeal which begins with hypocrisy must conclude in treachery; at first it deceives, at last it betrays" ~ Sir Francis Bacon

OK. Let me make myself perfectly clear. Mark Foley is a disgusting pervert. What he did was absolutely indefensible and I won't defend him or sugar-coat his actions. (unlike the Democrats, who do nothing but defend and sugar-coat reprehensible behavior on the part of their leaders, as we shall soon see) He resigned and he should have. He should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. He should be added to the Nationwide sexual predator list, and should have every thing he does monitored 24/7 to be absolutely sure he doesn't do it again. There is nothing that can be done to him that wouldn't be deserved in my opinion.

On top of everything else, Foley compounded the scandal by offering a variety of weak, ridiculous excuses for what is, in my opinion, utterly indefensible perversion.

He said he was an alcoholic. Then, he said he was a homosexual, no doubt to endear himself to the Democrats, who continue to insist that "homosexuality is normal". (In doing so, he forgot one very important tenet of Democratism, the position that homosexuality is normal unless the homosexual is a Republican, and then it is a perversion) Then, he said he was molested as a child by a priest. This is a blatant effort to minimize the offense.

Actually, he isn't so dumb, is he? He knows the Democrats love a good excuse for reprehensible behavior. If you can shift the blame to a more responsible person, you can be excused, even for child molesting.

It would have worked, too, if he had also jumped to the Democratic party.

None of these explanations are legitimate excuses for his behavior. No matter what kinds of trauma one may have been exposed to as a child, or even later in life, we are all accountable for our own actions, regardless of whatever malady, real or imagined, we may have gone through.

We always have a choice.

We can choose to allow negative influences to shape our moral character, or we can refuse to let them affect us and resolve to succeed in whatever endeavor we set our mind to.

That said, I also want to make perfectly clear that as far as I'm concerned no one is accountable for what he did but Mark Foley himself.

No, not even Dennis Hastert.

This is nothing but the typical Democrat tactic of trying to smear a Republican leader in order to gain votes, or at least, keep the Republicans from voting in the upcoming election.

Now that I have made it clear that I neither condone nor defend Foley's actions, I have a few other points to make.

The first is that I find it interesting that the Democrats vigorously defend the so-called rights of homosexuals unless it is a Republican homosexual, then all of a sudden they are perverts.

I have seen time and time again, whenever a Democrat is caught in some scandal, the Democrats and their accomplices in the media will rally to his defense, regardless of the infraction.

William Jefferson, Democratic Congressman from Louisiana, was caught hiding $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer. He got his hand slapped and is still in the legislature.

Rally 'round the reprobate.

Bill (BJ) Clinton was caught not only having sex with a 19 year old girl, including phone sex, (which could be argued to be even more personal than instant messages or e-mails), but then lied about the affair to a grand jury. But the Democrats all rallied to his defense, insisting that what he did in private was his own personal business, and not ours, and we should just stay out of it.

The Democrats insisted there is nothing wrong with a married President having oral sex with a woman 30+ years his junior and then lying about it in front of God and everybody, and yet, Mark Foley (and every other Republican) should be thrown out of office for his particular perversion.

A perversion, incidentally, that the Democrats continue to insist is normal and indeed, have been persistent in their efforts to get it legalized. Remember how hard they have been trying to get the legal age of consent lowered to 12?

Rally 'round the reprobate.

Democrat Jerry Stubbs, some years ago, did more than just type a few lurid e-mails to an underage page. He actually had sex with him. What did the Democrats do about it? They rallied to his defense, offered excuses, insisted that it wasn't the absolute worst thing he could have done, and then, when it became clear that they'd have to do something, they at last agreed to censure him. Then, when the whole thing blew over for him, his Democratic colleagues not only forgave him, but actually gave him a standing ovation upon his return to the chamber.

Rally 'round the reprobate.

Look, I'm not saying Mark Foley should be excused for what he did. I am saying that what's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

If Foley is wrong to do the things he did, then so are the aforementioned Democrats. If he should be kicked out of office and publicly humiliated, so should they.

One more thought:

By immediately resigning as soon as he was caught, he proved, as reprehensible a sub-human as he is, that he is still a better man than Bill Clinton. As far as integrity is concerned. Clinton didn't resign. He didn't even offer to resign. He denied, and fought, and passed the responsibility.

But then, that's to be expected.

After all, he is a Democrat, isn't he?

Monday, September 25, 2006

Clinton Blows A Gasket

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much." ~ from "Macbeth" by William Shakespeare

When I first saw the interview of former President Bill Clinton, the first thing I thought was, "Here he goes again, trying to salvage his legacy."

Then I gave it some more thought and it struck me how much like a child he was behaving. Children tend to refuse to take responsibility for their actions, too. And then they blame everyone but themselves, sometimes even constructing elaborate conspiracies. I was reminded of Bill Cosby's comedy routine, "Russell, my brother, who I slept with."

I don't remember the routine word for word, but in his routine, he discussed how he and his brother would jump on the bed at night instead of going to sleep, hoping in vain that they wouldn't get caught by their father, who promised to produce "The Belt" if they didn't settle down.

In this particular routine, they broke the bed, and just as they feared, their father came in and demanded to know who broke the bed. The kids made up a mysterious man, who came in through the window, and jumped on the bed till it broke and then ran out, laughing.

Yep. Sounds like 'ole Bill. Someone else is to blame.


I don't want to leave this subject without giving Mr Clinton his due.

I don't see what else he could have said in response to Mr. Wallace's question. Clearly, he couldn't sit there and tell the world that he didn't do everything he could to get bin Laden. Even if he had to lie.

I just think, as a former President, one who should be unflappable, he showed surprising lack of control, which is the problem he had as President, as well, in my humble opinion.

It has always been my contention that the Lewinsky scandal showed him to have an amazing lack of self control, which, in my opinion, made him suspect as an effective Commander in Chief.

Think about it.

How can we expect the most powerful man in the world, a man who has the power to push a button and end the world, to be able to refrain from pushing that button in a fit of rage, if he can't even control his own base sexual urges?

And now, we have seen his lack of control again. Anyway, that's my opinion.

I don't blame him for defending himself. Any of us would do the same.

And it really was a pretty stupid question. Did Mr. Wallace expect him to say he didn't do all he could to find bin Laden?

Still, although it was a stupid question, it was a simple question, and one that should have not engendered such an impassioned response.

Perhaps Mr. Clinton protests too much?

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Should Chavez Go Unpunished?

"Civilization is a method of living, an attitude of equal respect for all men." ~ Jane Addams

I am outraged over Venezuela's El Presidente Hugo Chavez's remarks before the UN on Wednesday. How incredibly disrespectful to the president of the most powerful nation in the world!

I think something should be done about this. I don't know what, but it would seem that some sort of sanction or censure is certainly in order here. Perhaps Mr. Chavez should be banned from ever entering the United States again.

It would be a travesty if nothing is done to Mr. Chavez for this grievous affront to our President and to our country.

This is so outrageous, in fact, that even New York Congressman Charlie Rangel took offense, as well he should have. Although his outrage is probably feigned in an effort to boost his political profile, he nevertheless expressed the sentiments the average American no doubt feels. I give him credit for saying out loud what other Democrats probably think, but are so bent on undermining George W. Bush and his administrations policies, that they will keep quiet.

In addition to the incredible rudeness of Mr. Chavez's remarks, I find it incredible that he would abuse the privilege that this country afforded him, in inviting him to speak before the UN, by flinging our graciousness to him back in our collective faces.

I cannot believe that any American would not see this as an incredible insult to our President, and to our country, and to all Americans, Republican and Democrat.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Democrats And Free Speech

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do." ~ Dale Carnegie

The following letter was sent to Disney CEO Robert Iger:

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger

President and CEO

The Walt Disney Company

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, "When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, "As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” ["9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as "deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, "It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” ["9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, "he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. ["9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, "It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.


Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Byron Dorgan

Funny. I don't recall Senate Republicans sending ;etters to Michael Moore demanding
he not release his so-called documentary, Farenheit: 9/11.

Why aren't Liberals complaining about Nazi book burning now?

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

A Somber Anniversary

"Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out." ` Sydney Smith

On this 1 year anniversary of the day Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, I thought I would re-post a previous post. Out of all the events since September 11, 2000, nothing has impacted me or made as significant a change in me as Hurricane Katrina.

I'm not the only one. Blogger buddy
ER was also profoundly impacted by the catastrophe. He and I were effected by it differently, and it led us in different directions ideologically, but none can deny the profound impact the event had on our lives. Perhaps you readers can site similar ephiphanies.

The following appeared on my blog on September 8, 2005. This is how it changed me:

Stay with me on this posting. Read it all the way through. It is important to me for you to understand what I am trying to say, so don't read a few lines and then skip to the comments to leave a comment about how I am a Nazi or something.

The hurricane last week has made me rethink some things. As I said in a previous post, it has laid bare my heart.

Also, in a previous post, I mentioned that my son calls me a racist.

I guess I am.

See, I grew up in a different time, another place. There were no black people where I grew up. At least not any that I knew personally. In the neighborhood where I grew up, there was a low income apartment complex a few blocks away. Only black people lived there. I don't remember my parents ever saying anything about them, good or bad.

All I knew about them was what things I noticed about them:

They stayed up all night.
They slept late in the day.
Their yards were messy.

They were scary to me, a child with no knowledge of them. I stayed away from them. I never actually had to interact with a black person until I was in high school, and I was surprised. They were pretty much the same as me, except for their color. And an attitude. I think it was the attitude that made me a racist. They seemed to carry chips on their shoulders. That is, of course, no excuse.

I didn't know at the time that my chip was bigger than theirs.

Anyway, most of my life I have known many African Americans, some good, some bad. Since high school I have had to interact with them more and more as they have assimilated into society. Then, I came to the conclusion that I didn't like them unless I got to know them personally. Once I got to know one, I always liked them. Always. But I had to get to know them first, and I didn't go out of my way to do that.

Still, I was wary of Black people. Distrustful. Even after I learned that there were no big differences between them and me. I learned to get along with them and be nice to them. I learned to interact with them in business, at sporting events, in recreation, and in church. To all observers, I was not prejudiced. I tried hard to treat them with respect, and the way I would want to be treated.

But whenever a crime was committed by a black man or woman, I would think to myself, "Of course, it is a black person". Whenever I found out some black person had a different last name then his daddy, I said, "Of course, he is black." And so on.

I hid my prejudice well.

In spite of my attitude, I began to accept them as equals. I made friends with some of them. Once my black friend Tim and I went to a singles bar. (that was when I drank) He was going to show me how to pick up girls. He had a really good sense of humor and he was slow to anger. That evening someone in the bar called him a nigger to his face. He just smiled and motioned towards me and said, "Yep, and this is my Massa" Later, he told me that whenever some white guy called him a nigger he got himself a white girl just to spite them. Except he didn't say "got himself". I think you know what he really said.

I laughed but secretly I said to myself, "Of course."

I had another black friend when I lived in Lubbock, Texas. His name was Kevin. He took me to Odessa to visit his mom and siblings one time. Man, that woman sure could cook! It was in his mom's living room that he told me that black people were taught from birth that they were supposed to always lie to "whitey".

Stupid me. I believed him. I remember I thought, "Of course...He's black!" He probably laughs about that to this day.

So, over the years I have learned that black people aren't really different than white people. It has been a long difficult lesson to learn. I have lost out on a lot of rewarding experiences because of my prejudice. I have missed out on having a lot of loyal friends, too.

Still, now and then, inside my pointy little head, my racist brain screamed, "Of course. He Is black".

There was one reason that I have continued to be racist over the years. It is those people, white and black, that maintain the division between the races. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Lewis Farrakhan, Teddy Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Robert Byrd, etc. They maintain the division by spreading hatred between the races. They do that by accusing people who aren't in the least racist of being so. It's hard not to be racist with all those influences.

Then came Hurricane Katrina.
Look at this picture. What do you see? Do you see a black woman? So do I. But I see a black woman who is hurting. She hurts. We hurt. I hurt. All God's children hurt.

My heart goes out to this unnamed woman. My heart goes out to all the victims of Hurricane Katarina. It matters not if they are black or white. They are people. People who live, love, hate, laugh, cry, worship, interact, suffer.

People who die.

I don't think I am racist anymore.

Friday, August 25, 2006

How To End The GWOT

"Power never takes a back step - only in the face of more power." ~ Malcolm X

This post will make our Liberal friends, namely Dan, spit nails, but I have been thinking about this for some time. I believe there is a solution to this war on terror thing, but it involves taking some rather drastic steps that we so far have been unwilling to take.

I think Osama bin Laden gave us the answer to this particular problem himself, when he said, "America is a paper tiger."

Years ago I was the manager of a marketing office in a major nationwide corporation that was mired in a slump. Sales were lackluster and it seemed, despite my best efforts, my employees were becoming apathetic. My boss called me in and told me, "You need to fire someone. Who are you going to fire?"

He went on to explain that something drastic had to be done to shake the employees up, and get them out of the doldrums. All the motivational techniques had failed to elicit the proper response, so he decided that what is known in the business as a "public execution" was in order.

A "public execution" in our business meant firing someone in front of everyone else, not behind closed doors, which was, of course, the typical method.

So, I selected an employee (who, incidentally, later became my wife) and, in the morning sales meeting, I fired her.

It had the intended effect. After sitting in stunned silence for a few seconds, the remaining employees were noticeably shaken, but I could tell, impressed. After that fateful meeting, personal performances among my employees improved dramatically.

This is something like what I think should be done to end this seemingly unending struggle against terrorism.

Do the terrorists indeed think that America is a "paper tiger"?

If so, I believe it's time to show them what America can do. We need to show them that not only can we annihilate them, but are willing to do just that in order to stop this scourge.

Here is my solution:

Using all the intelligence information that we have on the possible whereabouts of bin Laden, hit that particular area with a nuclear bomb. Whether we kill bin Laden or not is immaterial. We will have shown the world, particularly the terrorists, that this paper tiger has iron teeth.

Would the terrorists continue to murder innocent men women and children in the name of Allah?

I don't think so. Once they realize that America not only has the power to wipe them out, but the willingness to unleash that power, they will surrender.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Mel Gibson

"...every day I'm more confused as the saints turn into sinners
All the heroes and legends I knew as a child have fallen to idols of clay..."
~ From "Show me the Way" (Styx)

I used to drink alcohol. I used to drink a lot. Maybe alcohol affects people differently, but I know when I drank to excess, I would often say things that I later regretted, too, as Mel Gibson claims. The difference is that I never said anything, as far as I know, that wasn't something I didn't think.

For instance, I remember once being in a bar with a friend getting sloppy drunk and telling him I loved him. Well, I really genuinely liked him as a friend, but if I had been sober, I never would have voiced that opinion to him.

It's a guy thing.

My point is, I wonder if maybe Mr. Gibson really is anti-Semitic, as many have suggested.

I remember before his film, "The Passion Of The Christ" was released, many "Hollywood insiders" were suggesting the movie was anti-Semitic. I saw the movie and I saw no hint of anti-semicism therein. But I have been thinking.

The aforementioned insiders know a thing or two about Mel Gibson that the rest of us don't know. They know him personally. They have presumably had many off-the-record conversations with him. Perhaps he has made anti-Semitic statements to them in the past.

If a reviewer reviews a film, (especially a reviewer with personal issues with the filmmaker) and already knows Mr. Gibson has made insensitive statements before, it would not be not unusual for said reviewer to see anti-semitism in the film. My point is: Perhaps Mel Gibson is indeed anti-Semitic.

That said, although it lowers my personal opinion of him a great deal, I will not participate in any sort of boycott against Mel Gibson's movies.

I don't like the politics of many of the celiberals in Hollywood, but I enjoy much of their work. I can separate politics from entertainment.

I don't like Sean Penn's politics, but I like Jeff Spicolli.

I don't like George Clooneys politics, but I like Ulysses Everett McGill.

I don't care for Natalie Maines' political statements, but I enjoy the Dixie Chicks music.

I don't like Rosie O'Donnell's Liberal viewpoints, but I love her comedy.

Barbra Streisand has a beautiful singing voice. Should I refuse to enjoy her singing because I happen to disagree with her politics?

I had tremendous respect for Mel Gibson. I thought he was a cut above the rest. Perhaps I have been wrong about him. Perhaps he is not exactly what many of us had envisioned. But is that not partly our fault? Are we not guilty of trying to elevate mortals to immortality?

So, the bottom line is: Mel Gibson is human.

Who knew?

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Don't Mess With Israel

"The left is testing its strength on Israel, but its ultimate target is the United States." ~ David Horowitz

I haven't been able to follow current events as closely as I want or need to lately, due to the fact that I've been very busy with my new job and a new relationship. For that, I apologize.

This latest conflict in the Mid-east has me more than a little concerned, not so much for the instability of the middle east, so much as for what it means for the future of America.

Unless I'm wrong, Israel didn't start this fight, and yet, I keep hearing about the hundreds of casualties being inflicted upon the Lebanese and the Hezbolla terrorists, but I have heard very little about the casualties inflicted upon the Israelis themselves. Not that nothing has been reported regarding Israeli lives lost. But it seems to me there is a lot more concern in the majority of the media for the loss of lives of Israel's enemies, than that of Israel's people.

They simply did what America should have done when terrorists first struck us. They retaliated swiftly and with as much force as they deem necessary.

I am concerned that the American media is backing the wrong horse in this fight.

This is my take:

Israel is the land God gave to the Jews. They are His chosen people. No one, not Palestine, not Hezbollah, not Lebanon, has any right to that land. It is Israel's. It has always been the Jewish people's land. God gave it to the Jews, and that is a fact. Wishing that the Jews lose, as the American media seems to want, doesn't change the fact.

This war will not go well for the enemy of God's chosen people. And it will not go well for any country or any countries media that supports the enemy of Israel.

Anyone that is against God's people is against God.

Any country that turns against God and His people is destined for destruction.

America has long been an ally of Israel and that is how it should be. As my regular readers know, I support America very strongly, but if we ever turn our backs on Israel I will be the first to speak out against America's policies.

It is the height of arrogance to suppose we know better than God.

These media people who seem to be in support of Israel's enemies are courting America's destruction. We need to support Israel in this conflict. The future of America depends on the future of Israel.

In the end, Israel and Israelis' people will win. God will assure that. If America ends up supporting Israel's enemies, America will be no more. The American media would do well to read the Bible and see what eventually happens to Israelis enemies.

Here is what I have to say to America, and to the American media:

If you want America to continue to be the greatest country on Earth, don't mess with Israel!

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Social Insecurity

Sorry folks. I have been working such long hours recently, I got lazy and didn't check the facts on an e-mail I received. I just haven't had a lot of time to post and I felt guilty that I hadn't posted something, at least, so I got an e-mail from a friend, and didn't check it out, I just posted it. I apologize. Both for being lazy and for stooping so low as to simply accept a misleading e-mail as fact. I violated my own rules, that I set for myself to never post information without checking it's veracity first, and all I've done is embarrass myself. Also, although I have posted other peoples writings before, I really prefer to post original thoughts. I will be more careful in the future. Sorry again, and I'll try to post something more original and thoughtful in the future.

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Entering a New Era (What? Again?)

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." ~ William Shakespeare

"Do you smoke?"

This was the first thing my new boss said to me the very first time I laid eyes upon him.

New boss? Yes, new boss. I suppose an explanation is in order here.

June 30, I was home in the morning eagerly awaiting the arrival of my 22 year old "natural" son, who was driving up here all the way from his home in Wichita, Kansas to spend a week with me and my youngest son, 17 year old John. He was then going to take John back to Wichita with him, to spend the remainder of the summer.

My kids, Anthony and John, before they left

He had called about an hour earlier to let me know he was close and would need to be directed the rest of the way. And then, an hour or so later, he called me from the gas station around the corner from me. Then he arrived and we exchanged pleasantries about his trip and his plans, and the scenery, and whatnot, but it was Friday morning and I still had to work.

For some reason, I wasn't getting a signal on my cell phone inside the house, so I had to go outside and stand across the street to call into my dispatcher and be logged on for the day. So I called.

Then the unthinkable happened.

I called in and one of the dispatchers, Alex, answered. I said, "This is four oh one two. Log me in".

"We don't have any work for you today". Alex said, as if this was not an unusual occurrence.

"Excuse me?" I said, not sure I heard him right.

"He repeated, "We don't have any work for you today."

"What do you mean you don't have any work for me today?"

"We just don't have any work for you today".

"I don't understand, I have a regular route. I always have work!" Growing nervous, "The same work everyday, How could I not have any work today?"

"Well", He said, matter-of-factly, "We don't have any work for you today."

Ok, the conversation went on like this for a while longer, with me getting increasingly anxious and Alex getting increasingly annoying with the same answer for my question, which I continued to ask over and over, but with different inflections and slightly different wording each time. Eventually, he told me he would have the boss call me with an explanation.

About an hour later, the boss called. He said, (and I quote) "We don't have any work for you today."

Eventually I managed to drag the information out of him that I had been summarily released from my contract. Not fired per se, but they had no work for me to do, possibly forever. This on the basis of some questionable reports about my conduct, which, to this day, still remains a mystery as to what I could have said or done to warrant losing my job.

And believe me, I surely have no clue. One thing I am sure about: I did not get the opportunity to defend myself, nor face my accuser, or even know what my particular offense was.

So I made some calls, and contacted some contacts, and the following Monday was filling out a questionnaire about my background for a background check, and interviewing for another position in Baltimore. I was told I had the job pending receipt of a good background check, but was not told any details about the position. Like, How much is the pay, and what would I be doing?

So, I spent the remainder of the week enjoying my impromptu (and unpaid) vacation, and spent much of the time with my sons. They left Thursday the 6th of July, and I called another company and inquired about the possibility of a position with them.

I visited them on Monday last week, and they hired me on the spot, without even reviewing my application. They asked me if I could start tomorrow morning (Tuesday) but I wanted to hear from the first place before I agreed to got to work for them.

I had made two job contacts and was offered both jobs, and now I had a dilemma. Which one should I take?

Easy choice, as it happened.

the first place called me back on Tuesday and told me I could start the very next day, whereupon they told me what my pay would be and what I would be doing.

I chose the second company. The one that was 35 miles closer to where I live.

So when I reported to my first day of work on Wednesday morning, the first words out of the mouth of my new boss, who I had just then laid eyes on for the first time was, "Do you smoke?"

He wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to make the guy who was going to train me miserable, since he doesn't smoke and doesn't want to ride with a smoker.

I don't smoke, and I rode with him.

Halfway through my first day, our truck broke down (bad alternator) and we had to call a tow truck to haul us from Martinsburg, West Virginia, to Frederick Maryland.

And therein lies another tale:

The tow truck driver was a sullen, strong silent type, and as soon as he arrived, he backed his truck up, and had the back end of our truck off the ground before I and my trainer even knew he had attached the mechanism. We scrambled out of our truck and into his just before he got back in his truck and started to move.

I was scrunched up against the driver, and as I am wont to do in such awkward situations, I made a joke. I said, "Hope you used your deodorant!"

To which the driver scowled and spoke the first and only words he was to utter the entire 45 miles back to Frederick:

"Shut the f*** up!"

So, we rode in silence a very uncomfortable 45 miles to Frederick, Maryland. When we arrived, the driver spoke again:

"Well, I don't know where they want it but I know where I'm going to put it!" He laughed and, just like turning on a switch, he suddenly became jovial, cheerful, and talked and laughed as if he hadn't earlier been behaving exactly the opposite.

I don't know. Bi-polar maybe?

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Paper Tiger Should Show It's Teeth

"Above all things, never be afraid. The enemy who forces you to retreat is himself afraid of you at that very moment." ~ Andre Maurois

Recently, North Korea test fired some missiles that supposedly did not carry any warheads. From what I understand, the reason for the test was to determine if they had successfully built a missile with the capability of striking targets at long range.

There had been a lot of speculation about what America would do about it, and there was even some speculation that Bush would order the missiles shot down. Fortunately, the order was not necessary as it appears the missile tests were a failure.

So the world can breathe easier now.

Or can it?

I have given the matter some thought, and I will admit, before the tests were done, I was thinking that we really didn't have much choice but to shoot them out of the sky. There are several reasons I thought it was the best thing for us to do.

First, we really don't know what that little pot bellied dictator will do. For all we knew, those missiles were armed with nuclear warheads. What if they were? Could we really trust Ill to not send them up armed? How would we be able to tell if they were or not? If they had been armed and the tests were successful, he could have taken out an entire American city before we could react. Remember, this little dictator is not in his right mind. You can't put anything past a crazy person.

Second, we had to take them out simply to show North Korea that we are not the "paper tiger" that Osama bin Laden says we are. When a bully threatens to take your lunch money, you don't back down and meekly hand it over because he will be waiting there the next day to take it again. You have to stand your ground and make it clear that you cannot be intimidated. Letting that missile test go off unmolested made us appear cowardly, in my opinion.

Also, the other nations of the world were watching. If American wants the support of nations like Russia and Germany and Japan and China in the future, in the preparation of a war or a police action, we had better show them that to get on the wrong side of the United States is a risky decision.

When Muhammed Ali was the world heavyweight boxing champion, he wasn't well liked primarily because he was brash, arrogant, and cocky. He actually would predict the exact round in which he intended to take his opponents out! But guess what? He was able to back up his boasts. If he said he would knock out his opponent in the seventh round, he knocked out his opponent in the seventh round.

He earned respect from both his detractors and his opponents because he was able to prove that he was exactly what he said he was. The greatest of all time. America would be wise to follow Ali's example.

By the same token, if America wants respect from her allies, we had better show them that we have the muscle to get the job done and the willingness to demand their support. Blowing those missiles out of the sky would have proved to them that we are perfectly capable and willing to do whatever it takes to convince our enemies of our strength and capablities.

It was our failure to stick it out and fight in Bosnia that prompted Osama bin Laden to characterize America as a "Paper Tiger" Consequently, we are in a war that, if we had taken a stand and struck back decisively, we may have avoided in the first place. You cannot allow bullies to take your lunch money and expect them to not take further liberties. If you do, they know they can.

Fortunately, the missile tests failed. Perhaps our missile defense system was at the ready in case the course was altered. We may never know. Rush Limbaugh suggested that it is entirely possible that we did shoot the missiles out of the sky, but won't admit it because of national security. That's an interesting theory except for one thing. If we had, the New York Slimes would have already printed that information.

But I think we made a mistake not showing our teeth to North Korea in this case.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

CIA Reorganizes

"People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." ~ A. J. Liebling

Well, the New York Slimes has done it again.

What you may ask?

Now they are reporting that the CIA is no longer interested in pursuing Osama bin Laden. This, in their typical fashion, is misleading. The CIA has not stopped looking for bin Laden. They have simply disbanded a special unit who's mission was to capture him.

They go on to say, "The decision to close the unit was first reported Monday by National Public Radio".

The first indication that should make us examine this story a little closer, is that National Public Radio reported the story. Between them and The New York Slimes, one couldn't find two more subversive, anti-American, anti-Bush News outlets.

Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a view within the agency that Mr. bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was.

Mr. Scheuer said that view was mistaken.

"This will clearly denigrate our operations against Al Qaeda," he said. "These days at the agency, bin Laden and Al Qaeda appear to be treated merely as first among equals."

I wonder if Mr. Scheur is the mysterious anonymous source from whom the Slimes has been getting all those National security secrets they have been disclosing to our enemies?

In recent years, the war in Iraq has stretched the resources of the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, generating new priorities for American officials. For instance, much of the military's counterterrorism units, like the Army's Delta Force, had been redirected from the hunt for Mr. bin Laden to the search for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed last month in Iraq.

Leave it to the Slimes to put a negative slant on The war in Iraq. They are attempting to make it look like we are losing, which, of course, we aren't.

An intelligence official who was granted anonymity to discuss classified information said the closing of the bin Laden unit reflected a greater grasp of the organization. "Our understanding of Al Qaeda has greatly evolved from where it was in the late 1990's," the official said, but added, "There are still people who wake up every day with the job of trying to find bin Laden."

Wait. An intelligence official who was granted anonymity to discuss classified information? By whom was this mysterious anonymous official granted anonymity? By the New York Slimes? By NPR? If any official is granted anonymity to discuss classified information, it certainly wouldn't be by a socialist News organization.

In his book "Ghost Wars," which chronicles the agency's efforts to hunt Mr. bin Laden in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks, Steve Coll wrote that some inside the agency likened Alec Station to a cult that became obsessed with Al Qaeda.
"The bin Laden unit's analysts were so intense about their work that they made some of their C.I.A. colleagues uncomfortable," Mr. Coll wrote. Members of Alec Station "called themselves 'the Manson Family' because they had acquired a reputation for crazed alarmism about the rising Al Qaeda threat."

Obsessed? Made their colleagues uncomfortable? Crazed alarmism? Oh yes, throw in another negative zinger which is totally unrelated to the decision to disband the unit.

Obviously, the Slimes is counting on the fact that most Slimes readers haven't the attention span to read the article all the way through the last paragraph. The true reason the unit was disbanded is found in the last paragraph of the article.:

Intelligence officials said Alec Station was disbanded after Robert Grenier, who until February was in charge of the Counterterrorist Center, decided the agency needed to reorganize to better address constant changes in terrorist organizations.

It is simply a re-organization. The Slimes has once again created the proverbial mountain out of the proverbial molehill. But only to create even more animosity toward the United States from the Liberals.

Liberals love to bring up the argument that bin Laden is the only person responsible for terrorist attacks across the globe, and that our focus should be his capture.

In fact, the Liberals love to bring up any argument that can further denigrate America, our troops, and the President.

But as the death of Zarqawi has demonstrated, with or without bin Laden, terrorism will still be the most imminent threat to the safety and security of the world, and will still be the reason our troops are fighting in Iraq.

There is no doubt that the capture of bin Laden is pivotal to sucess in the GWOT, but he is not the only threat to the world.

In fact, because of the constant vigilance of President Bush, and the armed forces of America, and yes, even the CIA, bin Laden has been pretty much neutralized.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

The History of Independence Day

"America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens." ~ George W. Bush

In a recent survey, 71% of Conservatives describe themselves as very proud to be American, while only 42% or Liberals said they are very proud of being American. This is no surprise to the Conservatives. When Liberals do everything they can to undermine the efforts of the troops in Iraq, and call their commander-in-chief a war criminal and a liar, is there really any doubt that these people are considered by true mainstream Americans to be un-American?

Today, we celebrate the 230th birthday of the United States of America. This is the greatest country on Earth, in spite of those Americans that hate their own country, the Liberals, this is still the home of the brave and the land of the free, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Independence Day is the national holiday of the United States of America commemorating the signing of the Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

At the time of the signing the US consisted of 13 colonies under the rule of England's King George III. Leading up to the signing, there had been growing unrest in the colonies surrounding the taxes that colonists were required to pay to England. The major objection was "Taxation without Representation" -- the colonists had no say in the decisions of English Parliament.

Rather than negotiating, King George sent extra troops to the colonies to help control any rebellion that might be arising. The following timeline will give you a crash course in the history that lead to the signing of the Declaration of Independence and America's break from British rule.

1774 - The 13 colonies send delegates to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to form the First Continental Congress. While unrest was brewing, the colonies were far from ready to declare war.

April 1775 -- King George's troops advance on Concord, Massachusetts, prompting Paul Revere's midnight ride that sounded the alarm "The British are coming, the British are coming."

The subsequent battle of Concord, famous for being the "shot heard round the world," would mark the unofficial beginning of the American Revolution.

May 1776 -- After nearly a year of trying to work our their differences with England, the colonies again send delegates to the Second Continental Congress.

June 1776 -- Admitting that their efforts were hopeless, a committee was formed to compose the formal Declaration of Independence. Headed by Thomas Jefferson, the committee also included John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Philip Livingston and Roger Sherman.

June 28, 1776 -- Jefferson presents the first draft of the declaration to congress.

July 4, 1776 -- After various changes to Jefferson's original draft, a vote was taken late in the afternoon of July 4th. Of the 13 colonies, 9 voted in favor of the Declaration; 2, Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted No; Delaware was undecided and New York abstained.

John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence. It is said that he signed his name "with a great flourish" so "King George can read that without spectacles!"

July 6, 1776 -- The Pennsylvania Evening Post is the first newspaper to print the Declaration of Independence.

July 8, 1776 -- The first public reading of the declaration takes place in Philadelphia's Independence Square. The bell in Independence Hall, then known as the "Province Bell" would later be renamed the "Liberty Bell" after its inscription - "Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants Thereof."

August 1776 - The task begun on July 4, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, was not actually completed until August. Nonetheless, the 4th of July has been accepted as the official anniversary of United States independence from Britain.

July 4, 1777 -- The first Independence Day celebration takes place. It's interesting to speculate what those first 4th festivities were like. By the early 1800s the traditions of parades, picnics, and fireworks were firmly established as part of American Independence Day culture

The Star Spangled Banner
The National Anthem of the United States of America, written by Francis Scott Key, is a song that stirs emotion in many a citizen. It can be an uplifting experience to be at a public event and join in the singing of this proud anthem.

But believe it or not, some people don't know all the words to the song. They may know how to fake it, lipsynching and mumbling during the opening festivities at Ball Games. But the fact remains, they do not know the words to the National Anthem!

Friends, don't let this happen to you. Before you head out for 4th of July festivities, take a moment to memorize the lyrics to the nation's most important song.

For the purposes of the average public celebration, knowing the first verse of the anthem is plenty to get you by. True purists, however, will want to know all four verses.

The Star Spangled Banner

By Francis Scott Key

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Happy Independence Day!