September 2007
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Aug   Oct »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Month September 2007

Entries 10 Total

Engage Them?

Sep 19, 07 4:41 PM

I’m continually amazed at the folks who think it is a good idea to engage Syria in Middle East talks.  Two recent events emphasize the need of the US to put someone in the White House who will have a firm hand against terrorists and their sponsors.  We don’t need someone like Hillary or Obama who will legitamize thugs like the ones who run Syria and Iran. Consider the following:

 #1:  Yet another anti-Syrian politician was killed by a bomb in Lebanon. Antoine Ghanem,  a member of the Christian Phalange Party and a supporter of the democratically elected government of Lebanon, was assasinated along with six others.  The UN has yet to make serious headway in their investigation of other Lebanese politicians that were supposedly targeted by Pro-Syrian factions – including former PM Hariri.

 It is very obvious that Syria is behind the assasinations and is attempting to undermine the Lebanese government.  Despite the strong evidence implicating direct involvement from the highest levels of the Syrian government, nobody in the international community seems eager to offend Assad and his criminal regime.  Yet they are eager to engage him despite the risk of offending Israel, the US and others who revere democracy in the Middle East.

#2:  The story began with reports of an Israeli fighter jet incursion in Syrian airspace.  As details have begun to emerge, it seems that the incursion had actually been a planned operation aimed at a Syrian nuclear installation.  Further details are emerging that the bombing coincided with a suspicious shipment to Syria from North Korea.  I wonder what that could be?

Syria is known to possess biological and chemical weapons.  You can read here about their cooperation with Iran on this front.  And given Iran’s race to obtain nukes, it would only be a matter of time before this unholy alliance was fully capable of holding the Middle East hostage with their arsenal of deadly weapons.

So I guess my question is this – Why would we bother trying to engage Syria at all?  These two incidents only go to further the notion that Syria is actively working to destabilize the Middle East.  They are a pawn in Iran’s attempt to assert Persian dominance in the region.  Syria has shown no propensity for rational discussion or progress in calming the tensions or creating a lasting peace.

Consider that the Syrians still freely allow terrorists to cross their border with Iraq en route to a struggle with the US and Iraqi forces in that nation.  Consider that they fully embrace Iran and echo their dangerous threats against Israel.  Consider that they continue to prop up Hezbollah and Hamas militarily and allow members of those terrorist groups to operate freely within their borders. And we are supposed to deal with these people?  Those who advocate such a course of action should instead try to deal with reality.  Syria cannot be a constructive player in the Middle East under the current regime.  And we should not treat them as such.

Leave a Comment

My Sympathy for Britney

Sep 18, 07 6:32 PM

britney.jpg

Wow, things really are not going well for Britney.  Just like the writer of Fox News that wrote this story, my knowledge of her is somewhat limited.  Although I always did remember her being one major star that did say she supported George Bush back when the rest of Hollywood was dissing him.

However; it turns out after her major flawed performance at the MTV awards, she was just fired last night by her manager and she was also fired by her divorce attorney.

She is also at risk of losing custody of her kids to her ex-husband (who I understand isn’t exactly the most prominent and accomplished “man.”)

New album or no new album, she really needs to go away for awhile and clear her head.  It’s very sad to see talented young women (Whitney included) get sidetracked and screwed up by horrible men.  While all of it was self-inflicted, it’s hard to not feel some kind of sadness for her.

Comments (1)

The Constitutionality of Flag-Burning…

Sep 18, 07 12:54 PM

I absolutely love the opinions of our great commenters.  Jennifer, Airforcewife, Shawmut, Devil Dog, V the K, etc…..  I love the discussions we wind up having over these issues and honestly, I serve as a class-A ranter on issues that I find worthy of either ranting about or laughing at.  So I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you and to enjoy the luxury of your feedback.  The feedback that often times takes the issues to a deeper level of importance. 

I have another friend – a good-hearted “libertarian” who absolutely hates the war in Iraq, dislikes the Bush administration, and even though he describes himself as a “libertarian” he seems to always err on the side of liberalism in our many – many debates and discussions. 

Recently, he sent me the above video to provoke a discussion about flag-burning and its constitutionality.  He knows I am against it and he claims to be “personally” against it as well but always manages to argue in its favor.

Most liberals use the old “freedom of speech” canard in defending issues like this.  So here is my thoughts on flag-burning and using public podiums such as the White House (as enacted in the scene above) to carry it out.

First, I agree that theoretically it is an act of free speech or expression to burn a flag.  But I also agree that it is theoretically an act of free speech and expression to insult someone in public, fondle yourself in public, etc.  Theory and actual law never seem to mesh well together and whenever laws are created to protect the citizens of this country from overly-hostile “constitutional” behavior, it creates an opportunity to find camaraderie and rapport among Americans.  (Thus also explaining the utter failure of libertarianism.)

In the example I used with him, I asked him to imagine walking up to an elderly woman on the street, screaming in her face and telling her you detest her because she smells of nursing home and Ben-Gay.  She starts to shake and cry because she is frightened and simultaneously wonders how someone can be that cruel.  The offender in my opinion used his theoretical right to free speech in this matter.  But because the Constitution also grants us the right to peace and civility (all people) we must have a system of laws to moderate between what is “just free” and what is “free and civil.”  The laws that stem from the Constitution are made to protect the people.  In the case of the old lady, she is the victim and has the right to peace and civility, therefore the offender could be subjected to a “disturbance of peace” arrest.  He exercised his right to free speech under the Constitution but infringed on someone else’s Constitutional right to be protected by the law equally. 

Liberals and libertarians blather on about rights as if they are the only thing that matter.  It’s my freedom of speech and no matter who I hurt or who I harm in the process, the ultimate goal is to fully illustrate that right!   

“Rights” in my opinion is also subjected to another infamous “r” word – one that liberals hate – “Responsibility.”

As Dr. Laura Schlessinger once said: “I need the acknowledgment from you that I have rights, but you need the acknowledgment from me that I have responsibilities – that’s the cycle.”  We do have a responsibility to exercise a contribution to maintaining a civil level of expression in this country.  You can say what you want, do what you want, but if you are going to be vulgar or offensive to where others’ peace of mind is at risk, you are subject to a fine or penalty.

Moreover; if someone wants to burn a flag in their own private home, that is fine.  If someone wants to have a campfire in their private yard and throw in the U.S. flag, the Bible, and the Constitution that would be okay as well.

But when we use public podiums to do things like expose our genitals, verbally insult or hurt one person or group of people, or disgrace this country by burning the symbolism of what our men fought and died for generations ago to make some shallow point about something they disagree with, conformity to popular opinion on what is and what isn’t offensive is necessary.  If not, you go to jail.

Taxpayers are not funding a person’s right to offensive-freedom.  Keep it out of the White House and off of public streets.  It’s the law and the majority of this country finds it offensive.

I welcome all comments on the topic.

Thank you.

Comments (6)

And There are Those That Love Attention:

Sep 17, 07 10:02 PM

And it’s so funny, I don’t mind giving it to “him.” 

Following up to my last post, the fine fella in that video made a video responding to Fox News. 

Of course they showed the clip on Fox because they were homophobic.  I suppose it has nothing to do with the fact that he’s a psycho.  And of course, he degrades his own people by insulting Ann Coulter by insinuating she has an adam’s apple.

Tell me again, why does mainstream America think that gays are freaks?  Is it the Republicans again?

Comments (4)

There are “fans”….

Sep 17, 07 9:51 PM

And there are “psychos.”

This was mentioned on Fox News and Jimmy Kimball this week.

Comments (8)

Just Remember Everyone, Europe Hates Us!

Sep 17, 07 9:07 PM

2007_09_17t132617_450x335_us_religion_rights.jpg

While most liberals continue to bathe in the myth that European countries hate us for fighting terrorism, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour (pictured above) is growing concerned of increased prejudice and bigotry in regard to Muslims which she claims is common in Europe.

I wonder if it’s because countries in Europe; being a little closer to it all than we are, caught on to their game in time to start exercising attack-preventatives.  Apparently, with this new development, Europe would have no problem with the USA completing its mission in the Middle East, right?

While liberals whine about the Patriot Act, I don’t recall anyone from the UN concerned about prejudice against Muslims here in the U.S. 

If the Muslims wanted to be prejudged less by Europe, perhaps they should join the fight against the ones making them look bad.  We keep hearing how the peaceful Muslims outnumber the violent extremists but when are we going to see them rise up to fight so that others don’t have to right now?

It seems to me Muslims have a choice.  They just don’t seem to be making the right one.

Comments (1)

The Advocate Celebrates the Standardless

Sep 17, 07 12:33 AM

The Advocate has put out their 40th anniversary issue where readers got to choose their 40 top heroes.

I personally have never been more proud to be a gay man.  Especially when I see that most of the choices (a real shocker!) were standardless liberals.  For the two people left on Earth that still believe that liberals are indeed the party of progressives, let’s take a quick look at five of the 40.

  1. Madonna:  Well of course they had to have her in there.  I suppose it has to do with the fact that she has more shoes than Evita and Imelda Marcos combined.  But that isn’t all!  Of course Madonna’s slutty behavior in the 90′s where she sexed us all to death, did everything naked (include playing with her dog – refer to the book “Sex”) under the moon, and went out of her way to offend people by flashing her sexuality and using the “F” word 18 times on Letterman is what attracts her to the gay community.  (Trust me, many of them behave the same way to this very day.)  Finally let’s not forget her several abortions (who needs life anyway?).  
  2. Barney Frank:  The gay-Democrats favorite “hero.”  This man had so many standards that he dated, had sex, and lived with a gay prostitute while the prostitute simultaneously ran an escort service out of Frank’s home. 
  3. Hillary Clinton:  Other than constantly confusing her for Evita, gays love this woman because she sold her soul to a man who cheated on her many times, treated her badly, and molested interns in the White House.  She never had the self-respect to get out of a relationship that degraded her as a human being (yet, LET’S GIVE HER THE WHITE HOUSE!) so I can see how the majority of the gay community can identify: sell your soul, sellout your self-respect, and do it long enough to advance your career!  Hey, who needs dignity?
  4. George Michael:  Yeah, I know he attempted to seduce a cop in a forest-preserve-bathroom.  Yeah, I know he was caught in a public park with other “respectable” gay men.  (Again I can see how the majority of the gay community can relate.)  But hey, he’s a lot cuter than that Republican that was just caught in a bathroom and ridiculed by Democrats, isn’t he?
  5. Matthew Shepard:  While anyone could feel sympathy with his family or with him, let’s re-think what put him in that position.  He went to a gay bar one night, got drunk, and consentually left with two strange men to have sex.  (Again I can see how the majority of the gay community can relate.)  Because he was gay and Democrats needed something else to politicize to distract Americans from issues like terrorism and taxes, suddenly there was a spate of special-interest Bills suggested for hate-crimes legislation.  After of course, Democrats happily supported Thurgood Marshall in the 60′s along with William Brennan and other liberal Supreme Court Justices who worked feverishly to make things much easier on hardened criminals with their idiotic rulings.  The same thing that happened to Shepard happened to women years before, the same year, and years after his death.  Gay society had opportunity to use this to promote decent behavior within the community and decided for some reason that it was hate created by Christians that was reponsible.

If The Advocate or any American gave a damn about the issues harming our community such as crime, the spread of HIV, and reckless-irresponsible personal behavior, not one of the above would be considered a “hero” to anyone with a brain.  Every one of their behaviors demoted human life and morality, promoted irresponsible behavior, and supported activities that lead to contracting genital warts and AIDS.

For those who disagree, just do what you have always done: turn your head the other way and pretend that it’s the Republicans that did it.

****Update*****

The actual top 40 overall heroes did not include George Michael or Madonna.  However; there were other side top 40 lists that did include them.  They fell under musicians.  Here is the article on Michael and here is the article on Madonna.

 Moreover; check out the piece on Hillary.

The idea that these folks are “respected” by the community is appauling.

Moreover; I did fail to mention Rosie O’Donnell.  Someone who has worked feverishly to separate the community from the rest of reality.  One who adopts children and dresses them up as terrorists for costume parties.  One that thinks 9/11 was a government conspiracy, that the troops are terrorists, and that “radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam.”

Comments (36)

Democrat Disgrace

Sep 12, 07 5:08 PM

Sorry I’ve been out of action for a bit, but I’m back – and I’m mad as hell.  The congressional hearings on Iraq featuring the report by Ambassdor Crocker and General Petraeus has turned into a circus of clowns.  Democrats, especially those seeking the 2008 presidential nod, have displayed their duplicity, deceitfulness, arrogance and ignorance throughout the hearings thus far. 

Considering that the Senate confirmed Petraeus unanimously, I fail to understand what the issue is.  Now those same Democrats who lauded Petraeus as an intelligent, honorable, qualified leader are here to slander him.  Why?  Because he brings them a message that they don’t want to hear – namely, that the surge is working in Iraq.  Here are a few of their comments and some associated articles.

 Hillary Clinton

Hillary gets into the game.  The last person on the face of the planet who should question anybody’s credibility is this despicable “human being.”  Rudy seized the day by pointing out her “venom.”  Here is what Her Highness said to the General:

“Despite what I view is your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today,” said Clinton, “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief.”

For anybody to believe anything that Hillary says requires a major suspension of belief.

John Kerry

Kerry got in on the action too and questioned the General’s credibility in the press before Petraeus even delivered his assessment.

“I think the general will present the facts with respect to the statistics and the tactical successes or situations as he sees them,” Kerry said. “But none of us should be fooled _ not the American people, not you in the media, not us in Congress _ we should not be fooled into this tactical success debate.”

He doesn’t want to debate tactical successes?  Why are you even there, Senator?  What is the point?  Isn’t tactical success, as you term it, a major factor in winning the war?  What a dope.

Tom Lantos

The California Representative took his turn at calling the administration liars and implying that Crocker and Petraeus were there to deliver the administration’s message.

Well, General Petraeus, you saw it coming.  Those unguarded ammo dumps became the arsenals of insurgency. Those weapons have been turned against us.  How very typical of this war. The Administration’s myopic policies in Iraq have created a fiasco.  Is it any wonder that on the subject of Iraq, more and more Americans have little confidence in this Administration?  We can not take ANY of this Administration’s assertions on Iraq at face value anymore, and no amount of charts or statistics will improve its credibility. This is not a knock on you, General Petraeus, or on you, Ambassador Crocker.  But the fact remains, gentlemen, that the Administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two Committees and the Congress that victory is at hand.  With all due respect to you, I must say … I don’t buy it.

We don’t care what you buy, Mr. Lantos.  You were openly stating in the press (weeks before this hearing) that you were closing your mind to the General’s report without even considering the testimony.  You are even more indication of the arrogance that pervades your side of the aisle in regards to this and almost any other issue.

Robert Wexler

Perhaps the biggest joke in the House is Rep. Wexler from Florida.  This two-faced slimeball managed to call the General a liar and a patriot in the same sentence.

With all respect General, among unbiased nonpartisan expert consensus is far. The surge has failed based on most parameters. In truth, war related deaths have doubled in Iraq in 2007 compared to last year. Tragically, it is my understanding that seven more American troops have died while we’ve been talking today. Cherry picking statistics or selectively massaging information will not change the basic truth.And please understand Gen. P., I do not question your credibility. You are a true patriot. I admire your service to our nation, but I do question your facts……….I am skeptical General, more importantly the American people are skeptical because four years ago very credible people while in uniform and not in uniform came before this Congress and sold us a bill of goods that turned out to be false. And that’s why we went to war based on false pretense to begin with.This testimony today is eerily similar to the testimony the American people heard on April twenty eighth nineteen sixty seven from General William Westmoreland, when he told the American people–America was making progress in Vietnam.

Right, Congressman.  You know the facts better than our commanders.  You have all the answers.  And you have a real gift for trying to make someone feel good about themselves while spitting in their face.  What a miserable human being.

And it just gets worse folks.  If anything, the Dems have used these hearings to make fools of themselves.  The tone may become decidedly more civil over the next few days after the outrage that came from their first day of bashing an honorable, decorated General.  They’ll just have to count on MoveOn.org to pick up their slack further.  Or maybe they can sneak more Code Pink protestors into the hearings.

What has happened here is reprehensible.  Regardless of how the Democrats feel about the war, their bellicose and personal tone is unwarranted.  The real tragedy here, though, is that their opposition to the war is not a principled matter of disagreement.  It is a matter of political expediency.  They are kowtowing to their leftist fringe base and attempting to score some political points against an administration that they have always detested.

Don’t look for things to get much better, and don’t look to this circus to answer questions.  The Dems were decided before they ever walked into the chambers.  They knew what their leftist masters expected, and they will deliver – one way or another.  It doesn’t matter if the surge is working or not.  As they have clearly shown – the facts are irrelevant.

Comments (10)

Ron Paul Slowly Says Goodnight!

Sep 11, 07 11:11 PM

Love it!  Finally people are starting to speak up.

Comments (1)

A “Nudge” for Duncan Hunter…

Sep 8, 07 9:37 PM

hunter1.jpg 

In re-living the Texas straw poll earlier this week, a great article followed up.

In this same straw poll, is should be noted that John McCain won only eight votes out of 1,300.

“U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter of California won the poll, easily besting former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who had many supporters at the gathering but whose bring-the-troops-home message did not thrill the voters, who were delegates to past state or national GOP conventions.

Most candidates blew off the poll. But Hunter, a Vietnam veteran, stumped Texas leading into it and hammered his commitment to the Iraq war, his belief in fair trade and his advocacy for a fence on the Mexico border.”

I am a bit ticked off at Fox News for not making this a bigger story.  As I type this, they are discussing Fred Thompson.  I do like Fred, but Hunter appeals to me a bit more for the following reasons:

  • He built the fence beween San Diego and Mexico.
  • He’s a true Vietnam Veteran.
  • He is promising committment to completing the Iraq war the right way (victory!)
  • His son is in Iraq right now.
  • The people of Texas in a poll selected him over Fred Thompson.  Not to be a suck-up to Philip and Jennifer here, but I do not think there is a better representation of America’s heartland than Texas.
  • It was fun to watch Ron Paul stomped out by both Duncan and Fred.

One more thing to consider.  Fred Thompson is a Tennessee Senator.  What does that mean?  It means he had to be the minimum amount of conservative that he had to be to get elected there (a very red state).  Hunter on the other hand has won elections in the very blue land of San Diego consistently getting 70% of the registered Democratic vote as well as 60% of the hispanic vote.

By the way, he kept the support of hispanics after building the fence.  Which I think is a great representation of what hispanic-Americans REALLY think about illegal immigration.

We have about 120 days until the Iowa caucus.  I am begging you folks to at least check out all you can on Duncan Hunter.

Comments (3)
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 332 other followers