Sunday, April 27, 2008

Inmates Running The Asylum (or, Democrats Running National Security)

First we have Democratic presidential candidate Barrack Obama saying he would meet with Iran without preconditions. Then we have former President Jimmy Carter visiting Hamas in Syria. Now we have Governor of New Mexico and former Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson meeting with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. These people want to control the national security of the US.

Obama has criticized the Bush administration for their approach to negotiations with Iran to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapons program. I have lost count on how Bush is supposed to negotiate with brutal dictators. With Iraq, Bush was criticized for not having an international coalition to confront them with. On this I don’t know if we should be more incredulous that the Democrats are lying, he did have an international coalition. Or if we should be concerned with the possibility that they really don’t know that Australia, Britain, Spain, Japan, Italy, Denmark, etc. are different countries. It is possible, with the snobbish east and west coast dominance of the Democratic party, that they think these are states in the “fly-over land” of the Midwest. The truth is that “international coalition” is Democratic for France. Their beloved France disagreed so that was it for them. Then we have North Korea in which Bush was criticized for having too many countries involved. He should have held one on one talks with them. Finally, we have Iran, who if I’m keeping score correctly, we should be talking to one on one. Obama either ignores or doesn’t care about the fact that weapons Iran are shipping into Iraq are killing American troops, including troops from the Midwest states of Britain, Spain, and Australia. I personally think that if Iran wants a nuclear weapon, we should send them one, at the tip of a missile (just kidding, of course).

Then we have Jimmy Carter who has visited the terrorist group Hamas as I wrote on earlier here. Obama was asked about this visit while campaigning and was very tepid in his criticism of Carter’s visit. As it turns out, he had an endorsement pending from Hamas in America and it’s possible he didn’t want to jeopardize this by criticizing Carter.

Now we come to Bill Richardson. Richardson has met with Venezuelan dictator and all around lunatic Hugo Chavez. The meeting was an attempt to gain the freedom of three American hostages held captive by Colombian rebels. This is obviously a noble cause and I pray for their families and for the safe return of the captives. With this said though, we have got to stop giving this lunatic so much credibility. Every time an American meets with him, it’s a PR coupe. Luckily it’s usually just crack pot has-been actors such as Sean Penn and Danny Glover. If you still think Sean Penn has any credibility, go here to see a story and even better, a picture, of him attempting to rescue children in hurricane Katrina and instead scooping out a leaking boat.

I believe though that Chavez is a dangerous threat to the US because of his oil. Liberals like to giggle over their clever accusations of George Bush fighting in the Middle East over oil. Would someone like to name a more important national security interest, short of an attack on the US, to protect? Fuel is everything to us and our economy, just look around. Nothing else touches everything we buy more than fuel, not even taxes. With this said, remember that this lunatic in Venezuela is the fifth largest supplier of oil to the US, shipping us 12% of our total imported oil. It is in our best interest to keep a man that controls this much of our economy from becoming too powerful.
So we have all of these geniuses running their own little private diplomatic missions and giving advice and criticism to the Bush administration and none of them know what the hell they’re talking about. Next thing you know they’re going to want to pull all of the troops out of Iraq and leave the Iraqi people behind to suffer.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Are Liberals Tougher Than We Thought?

Up until now I had always been under the impression that liberals were soft and weak-kneed. This is understandable taken their defeatist attitudes on Iraq and the war on terror in general. This all changed though with this article in the New York Post.

The story is about an incident that happened in New York at an event for Laura and Jenna Bush. The mother and daughter were coming out of the Y after speaking about their children’s book, "Read All About It.". A 22 year old man was yelling at the Bushes about the Iraq war when a couple told the man to shut up, this was an event for children. This hardened tough guy then proceeded to beat up their 18 year old, wheel chair bound, daughter. According to the article she fortunately appears to be unhurt.

This story is wrong on so many levels. First is the obvious, beating up a charming looking young lady in a wheelchair. The article has a picture of her and she looks like a cute kid, the thought of this jerk punching her in the shoulder and legs is nauseating. According to the article, the father tried to push him away to protect his daughter and the man went as far as reaching around the father to continue hitting her. It’s just too bad someone in the crowd didn’t give this idiot a whipping. I’m not a fan of vigilantism but this man certainly needed to be taught some manners.

Then we have irony. Liberals like to see themselves as champions of the helpless and poor. I mean isn’t it us conservatives that are thoughtless and uncaring? Ready to push disabled and poor people under a bus just for fun? I guess they only advocate for disabled people as long as they adhere to the party line. The nerve of this girl disagreeing with him. Didn’t she realize he was a peaceful, understanding man?

Lastly, we have the anti-war left exposed for what they really are. They have no boundaries. The father of the girl victimized by this man was right, this was an event for children, by the wife and daughter of President Bush. His anti-war nonsense had no business there. I would suspect this man would be willing to join Code Pink in their protests across from the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. These idiots have in the past protested on the sidewalk across the street in view of soldiers recovering from injuries sustained in service to our country in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or maybe he supports vandalizing recruitment centers?
No matter how you look at this, it is horrifying. But I am willing to admit when I am wrong. It turns out there really are some tough guys on the left.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Chicken’s Coming Home To Roost For Democrats?

I’ve always wondered what would happen when the hippies of the 60’s and 70’s grew up and reached middle age or older. It turns out that what they were destined to do was to become an embarrassment to the Democratic party.

Starting with the 1992 Presidential election, the free lifestyle of that era has haunted the Democratic party. In 1992 we had Bill “I didn’t inhale” Clinton as the first president to smoke a big one. Bill Clinton also had some questions to answer about how he protested the Vietnam war. Then of course there is the well publicized sexual antics of the former president. This is a man who would embarrass the freest of the free love people of the 60’s.

In 2004 of course, we had John “dude give me your medals so I can throw them away in protest” Kerry. Mr. Kerry has the distinction of being the first manufactured war hero who squandered his credibility by testifying to the US Congress about manufactured war crimes. This election also marked another major turning point for the Democrats, an era that may eventually be known as “the time when the Democrats have to face the truth”. The political organization known as the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth (SBVT) ran a large advertising campaign questioning John Kerry’ Vietnam war experience. While some of the assertions put forward by the group were called into question, the fact remains that the story of Kerry’s war experience as reported by him had a lot of holes in it and he never was able to fully explain some of the questions that arose. Also, this group and others made Mr. Kerry accountable for his actions after the war. From making vicious, and at a minimum exaggerated, accusations about war crimes to ties to anti-war radicals, the group was able to further highlight the hypocrisy displayed by Mr. Kerry’s claim to his national security credentials.
Now we have Barrack Obama. Mr. Obama has gone from being the new coming to just the latest Democrat who has to answer for his past. In recent weeks we have the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who is a throw back to the far left separation racists of the past such as the Black Panthers, et al. Rev. Wright’s bizarre accusations about the US government creating AIDs to get black people, his “the Chickens have come home to roost” for the US on 9/11, and his “God Damn America” have been a major embarrassment for not only Mr. Obama but for the Democratic Party as whole. Now we have Mr. Obama’s admitted friendship with William Ayers. Mr. Ayers is a former member of the domestic terrorist group the Weather Underground. Mr. Ayers has admitted to bombing several government buildings and on the day of the 9/11 attacks, had an interview published in The New York Times in which he said he felt they did not do enough. While admittedly Mr. Ayers was the recipient of a cruel twist of fate having his interview published on 9/11, this does not take away the fact that he said what he did in the interview. The real problem for Mr. Obama is that he simply will not disown these people. This has to give us a real insight into his character. I personally believe this is going to give Mr. Obama a place next to Mr. Kerry as a potentially promising candidate who was derailed when his past caught up with him. Or as Rev. Wright would say, Mr. Obama’s chickens have come home to roost.

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Time Magazine And The War Against America

I must be considerably more naïve than I have thought. Every time I think the disdain for America on the left has reached a new low, they surprise me. You would think I would get it eventually. What has me upset now is the April 21st issue of Time magazine.

This issue uses a famous photograph of World War II to make a case for global warming. The cover of the magazine has the picture of the soldiers raising the American flag on the island of Iwo Jima. In place of the flag, Time substituted a tree. The article is about global warming and seeks to compare the war against global warming to the struggle against brutal dictators in WWII. The magazine makes the case that we need to put forward the same effort against global warming as we did in WWII.

This is horrific on so many levels. First, it cheapens what happened in the entire WWII. Over 400,000 Americans lost their lives in WWII fighting to preserve our country. Over 16 million Americans served. Millions of Americans lost sons, daughters, spouses, and parents. America was attacked and drawn into the battle. My own grandfather served in WWII and lost a brother in the south Pacific. To his death my grandfather, who served in Europe and helped liberate a Jewish concentration camp, would not talk about his experience. I have always believed that while he led a good and productive life and was a great man, he did not talk about the war because what he saw was not easy to remember.

Global warming, on the other hand, may or may not be real. The current science is, at best, sloppy and inconclusive. There have been numerous reports of global warming scientists cherry picking data from studies to make their case.

In the battle of Iwo Jima itself, over 6,800 Americans were killed. This photograph is an American icon and represents freedom itself in the United States. To use this photograph in this way spits on everyone of their graves. The cover of the magazine trivializes the battle and begs comparison to John Edwards calling the War on Terror a “bumper sticker slogan”.

I don’t think people on the left have ill intention with these types of things, I think it is actually worse than that. I think they simply regard America and all it stands for with contempt. I think that both the fact that this picture means so much to Americans and the number of injured and dead Americans at Iwo Jima is simply irrelevant to Time magazine. I think they simply don’t get why it is important.
One of these days I may finally come to my senses and stop being so naïve. For now though I will probably continue to live in my own little world were I can think that some boundaries still remain. Where there are lines that will never be crossed. I have noticed though that my world seems to be getting smaller and smaller every day.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

One Of The Greatest Threats To American Society?

We are ignoring something that is, in my mind, a silent but very serious threat to America. Yes, I am talking about reality shows. Or, more precisely, the importance we place on them in our society.

I will admit I have a very poor opinion of these shows and further I can say, proudly I might add, that I have never seen any of them. What started out as mere disinterest has slowly developed into a personal mission to avoid them at all costs. I find the thought of watching these shows to be mind numbingly dull. I believe they have managed to take an already idiotic line up of shows on television to a new low. Let’s just say I don’t like them.

Also, I want to be abundantly clear that I do not feel they are as great a threat to our society as terrorism, recent reports of children not graduating from high school, or the very real threat of a Democrat being elected president (shudder). The effect they have had on our culture though is nearly as profound as these though.

My greatest concern is the effect the shows have had on the news. It is hard to be concerned about the dumbing down of television because TV has always found a way to out-stupid itself. As examples I give you the Dukes of Hazard, any Saturday Night Live episode aired since the original cast left, and The View. The real threat is how the “respectable” news reports on the happenings on reality shows, The American Idol in particular.

Evidently there was a person voted off the island on American Idol last night because a survey of online news sites including, The Drudge Report,, CNN and showed that all had prominent postings on their site for the results. ABC didn’t have one because it had a story about some apparent panty mishap for a contest on some other reality show (sorry didn’t go look at this story). CBS didn’t have an American Idol story because it left room for a Dancing With The Stars pictorial.

I understand the reason why the news organizations report on these stories, money. They are sacrificing the news to appeal to the most base desires of the public. The next story you will read is how the American news media is steadily loosing credibility. Do you think they will ever figure it out?

Now before you accuse me of being completely humorless and lacking of any ability to enjoy myself, understand I personally could care less about reality programming. If people want to watch it, knock yourself out or, more accurately, have your brain sucked out by the television set.
My concern though is the emphasis afforded it by the national media. We do have problems in this country we must address. We still live under the threat of terrorism and I can’t help but feel that we are not talking about it as much because it brings us down. Tough. Ignoring it will not make it go away. We have gas prices that are killing us. We have global warming oops sorry, this just in, the earth has been cooling the last few years (actually just kidding, the news media hasn’t been reporting on this). We recently have had a report released that approximately 50% of kids in large cities are not graduating, including less than 25% of the kids in Detroit. This story lasted for about two days in the media. If you really want to get depressed about the news, really stop and think about the fact that this story was bumped from the news for the latest on American Idol. The good news though is if we continue with our present graduation rate, the reality shows are guaranteed an audience for decades to come.

Saturday, April 12, 2008

The Democratic Party And Terrorists

What is it with Democrats and the sponsors of terrorism. As I posted here we had three members of the United States House of Representatives travel to Iraq in the build up to the invasion of that country as paid PR flacks of the Iraqi government. Now we have former President Jimmy Carter planning to travel to Damascus to meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled leader of the terrorist organization of Hamas.

Hamas is a terrorist group who, according to it’s founding charter, is committed to the destruction of Israel. It carries out attacks in Gaza, the West Bank, and inside of Israel. It is responsible for more than 500 deaths in the last 15 years.

We probably should not be surprised by Mr. Carter’s actions. First he has not only shown in the last few years that he has barely a shred of the class most of us had previously ascribed to him, he as with all Democrats, will do whatever he can to embarrass George Bush and the US government. The cost to the country is irrelevant to them as long as they can get Bush.

Finally, there is the accusation of anti-semitism leveled against Mr. Carter by many, especially after his latest book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid". I will admit I have not read his book and am very unlikely to do so. There was a significant outcry from Jewish groups and individuals after it’s release though and Mr. Carter did very little to deny the accusations.

As it turns out though, Mr. Carter is not the first to meet with Hamas. Representatives from the administration of Bill Clinton officially met with them. Also, Jesse Jackson met with them in 2006. So not only is Mr. Carter meeting with this terrorist group, he evidently had to wait his turn to do so.

Then of course we have a man who wants to be the next President, Barrack Hussein Obama, who has said he would meet with Iran. In an interview with the New York Times last October, Mr. Obama said that he would meet with Iran “without preconditions” and even suggested he might consider offering up membership in the World Trade Organization and other economic incentives. He obviously doesn’t have the same travel agent as the Democratic Congressmen, they didn’t have to pay to go to Iraq, they got their trip funded for them instead. If anything this shows Mr. Obama is not very fiscally responsible.

On the flip side we have President George Bush who is old fashioned and doesn’t believe we should meet with those who sponsor terrorism. He believes we should not meet with a dictator who has denied the existence of the Jewish Holocaust, has the stated goal of the destruction of our ally Israel, and helps pay for the weapons killing our troops in Iraq (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). He has refused to meet with organizations who attack buses and restaurants with families in them with bombs packed with nails so they inflict more damage (Hamas). He didn’t feel the need to meet with, or go to Iraq to shill for, a dictator who tortured, gassed, and murdered his own citizens and, in his spare time, monetarily supported terrorists who placed those nails in bombs to kill families in Israel (Saddam Hussein). All of this of course concerns the Democrats in the US. I mean what will the rest of the world (France, Russia, Venezuela) think?

Actually, this all gives me an idea. Why are we wasting all of this time, money, and troops trying to find Usama Bin Laden? One has to think it will only be a matter of time until some Democrat will travel to the hills of Pakistan to meet with him. When they do we can just follow them and when he comes to greet them, we can just jump from behind a tree and grab him.

Monday, April 7, 2008

Protesting Done Right

There was an article by Reuters posted Monday April 7th about an art exhibit in Austria that you may not know about. You can find it here. This art exhibit is at Vienna’s Roman Catholic Cathedral in the Cathedral Museum. The exhibit contains such horrific pieces as a “Crucifixion picture showing a soldier simultaneously beating Jesus and holding his genitals” and a remake of the last supper called 'Leonardo's Last Supper, restored by Pier Paolo Pasolini' which showed the Apostles sprawling on the table and masturbating each other. This painting is by Alfred Hrdlicka, a communist and atheist. This, understandably, has Christians in Austria, Germany, and the United States very upset and is making it’s way around the blogosphere. The church is getting angry responses via e-mail to protest the exhibition.

My thoughts on this are two-fold. First is Yuck. I have to believe that not only does the “artist” have clear issues with religion (which is probably why he is an atheist) but I also find the homoerotic nature interesting. I am never clear why it is that when artists want to attack Christianity, they have to do it with sex. I would think a little counseling would go a long way for Mr. Hrdlicka. Also, why do atheists have such an overwhelming need to attack religion. I find it interesting that someone who so strongly guards their right to practice their non-belief is so completely consumed with other people trying enjoy the same right of practicing a belief in religion. I have always believed that they may not be completely comfortable with their decision. One would think that if they were comfortable with atheism, they would find the notion that other people believe as irrelevant.

Furthermore, what is this exhibit doing in a church in the first place? In my mind this is the same as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People having an art exhibit depicting lynchings or a synagogue showing art work glorifying Nazism. It is not the church’s place to be controversial. Finally you have to wonder what they are doing showing artwork by a atheist. If we are to follow the church’s teachings, we should practice tolerance for a man like Mr. Hrdlicka. There is a wide gap between tolerance and promotion though.

Secondly, we do have to draw a comparison between the way Christians have reacted to this and how Muslims reacted to a Danish cartoonist depicting the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist (where would he get that idea?). Bernhard Boehler, director of the museum, compared the protestations to the outcry against the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. In 2005 the newspaper printed 50 cartoons of the prophet Muhammed, one with his turban as a bomb. This caused outrage across the Muslim world because any depiction of Muhammed is forbidden. So let’s compare. In the Christian protest we had people upset, some wrote critical blogs, some sent e-mails. In the Muslim protest more than a 100 people died, the Danish Embasies in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran were set afire, the Danish, Norwegian, and German flags were desecrated in Gaza, and Muslim leaders issued death threats against the cartoonist. All further proof that the Muslim religion is peaceful. I find Mr. Boehler’s comparison to be absolutely offensive. I think it is likely he is trying to confer some of the blame onto the critics to get himself out of hot water because I suspect the parishioners have a lot of questions about this exhibit.

Saturday, April 5, 2008

War Hero Or Wimp?

It is becoming apparent that the 2008 presidential campaign is going to be between John McCain and Barrack Obama. Because of this John McCain is tailoring his campaign largely to contrast him against Obama, effectively ignoring Hillary Clinton. Therefore McCain has just finished a trip to the Middle East to re-enforce his foreign affairs credentials. He is currently traveling around the country on what has been described as an autobiographical tour to define himself. One of the truisms in politics is the winners and losers are often determined by who defines them, their opponent or themselves. So on this tour McCain is reminding the country of his service in Vietnam as a fighter pilot. We are especially reminded of his time as a POW. We are reminded of his capture and five and a half year stay. We are reminded of the fact that he was given the opportunity at freedom at one point but refused to leave until the men captured before him were released.
So let’s do a little comparison. On one hand, we have a fighter pilot who was shot down, captured, and tortured by the enemy. This man would not abandon fellow soldiers to gain his own freedom, suffering subsequent torture for his valor. On the other hand we have an anti-war empty suit who can’t even make up his mind on what he would do with the troops in Iraq. He has said he would pull all troops from Iraq immediately, leaving the country to fall into chaos and cause the suffering and death of millions of Iraqis. But wait, as part of this plan to pull all troops from Iraq, he would leave troops to be a reactionary force (he hasn’t explained how many of these no troops in Iraq will make up this force). This man has voted to withdraw funding for troops in a war zone. This is a man who is in bed with the far left anti war movement in America. From these lunatics we have such gems as America and George Bush being called terrorists (Cindy Sheehan among others), belittling John McCain’s POW experience (Gloria Steinem), the military being for people who cannot succeed in college (John Kerry), and the Democratic Congressional Pro-Iraqi Caucus (see previous blog).
Barrack Obama, as everybody knows, is currently running against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. He cannot find much comfort in the fact that out of the two of them, she appears to be the more macho and manly Democratic candidate. To be fair to Obama though, Hillary Clinton is actually more manly than approximately half of the men in the Democratic party. This is partly due to her coarse and, well manly, demeanor.
There is considerable argument over what is going to determine how people vote this year, the war in Iraq, the economy, health care, etc. I think it is mostly, like almost all presidential elections, going to come down to a comparison between the candidates. I further believe that there is no real comparison. I can see the debates between McCain and Obama now. On the stage you have a war hero and you think of the POW camp, the torture, and the foreign affairs credentials. Next to him you see the caricature of the skinny little kid from every sports or camp movie who is always sucking on his inhaler when he gets nervous. It’s not going to be pretty.