January 2009
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Dec   Feb »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Month January 2009

Entries 10 Total

The Better Angels of Our Nature

Jan 31, 09 8:26 PM

A friend asked me about a theme that seems to run through my blogs–emotion.  She asked why I seem so intent on not allowing my emotions to have bearing on my reactions.  As a professional counselor, she has a different perspective on emotion than most others do. I started working on this yesterday, and I’d like to finish and post it now because God knows I won’t be available during the Super Bowl.  (The Steelers are damn good, but Arizona is my second home, so I have to root for the Cardinals!)

Emotion is a thing that humans truly corner the market on.  We’re the only creatures on this planet that experience it so intensely.  We’re the only beings on Earth who are so driven by it that we often become a boon to ourselves.  That’s not to say that emotion is necessarily a bad thing; I’m not saying that all emotion is harmful.  But it holds a power over each and every one of us that we’ve become programmed to accept subconsciously.  It’s as if we’re taught from a young age now to simply obey whatever we feel.  Whereas it used to be more common to discourage acting on impulse, we can see from the YouTube generation that impulse is almost all we recognize anymore.  Our impulse is driven by our emotions.

It’s natural for teenagers to be impulsive.  You teach a child to do what’s right; sometimes you catch them with their hand in the cookie jar, and you may spank them, but eventually they learn.  Once they become teenagers, their bodies start changing, their chemicals and hormones start reacting differently, and they start facing the prospect of going out on their own.  They have to learn lessons that will carry them through life.  When I was in junior high school in Houston, a program was developed that taught kids that “if it comes from inside you, then it’s good and you should trust it.”  When kids would beat me up–I still remember this–there would always be one teacher who wanted to tan their hides, yet the principal would want to sit us down, have a talk, and ask the kid who had pummeled me why they felt the need to do it.  It would go something like this: “Eugene, why did you pin Mel down and punch her?”  “Because I don’t like her!”  “Well, why don’t you like her?”  “She’s an idiot!”  “Eugene, we don’t call people names.  Why don’t you like her?”  “Because…she’s annoying!  I just don’t like her!  Everyone hates her!”

That conversation actually took place, and it goes on still today.  When I was much younger, you were paddled for the slightest infraction.  As I got older things changed and I barely noticed it until I had to look back at it and realized the stark differences.  Somewhere along the way, society started deliberately putting more emphasis on emotions, on feelings, as a means by which to gauge how we should behave.  It has resulted in the vast majority of people, whether they realize they’re doing it or not, reacting based entirely on what they feel rather than what they think.  “How do you feel about that” has become the question of the century.  We practically define ourselves by it now.

It has been reflected most of all in our political leanings.  “WAR IS NEVER THE ANSWER!”  Alright…why?  What made you come to this conclusion?  “THE DEATH PENALTY IS WRONG!”  Why?  On what is that statement based?  “YOU’RE SO INTOLERANT!”  What makes me intolerant?  “YOU CAN’T IMPOSE YOUR MORALITY ON ME!  MORALITY IS RELATIVE!”  Okay–then I’m your fault.  “WE NEED CHANGE!!!”  From what?  Exactly what needs to be changed, and how do you propose it be changed?  Are you willing to go for whatever change is offered for the sake of change, or have you actually given thought to the fact that things could, in fact, get much worse?

One of the hardest lessons I’ve learned in this life is that you cannot trust your emotions completely.  I have watched myself tear good friendships apart because I spent more time reacting emotionally rather than rationally.  I’ve made a lot of poor decisions in my past because I was more interested in feeding an emotional need instead of taking the time to question myself.  Ironically, it was the epiphany that I might be gay that first taught me to question how I feel.  Since then, I’ve had many experiences that have tested my faith in myself.  I’ve learned to think carefully before I react, even though I don’t always succeed in being logical first.  I’m human; human beings are the most thick-skulled, self-absorbed, stubborn creatures on the planet, and I’m no exception to the rule.

My friend, the counselor, thinks I’m just going through a period of far-opposite reactions to past experiences and that I’ll learn to embrace my emotional responses again someday.  Maybe.  For now, I just wish more people would stop feeling and start thinking.  Emotion can be an amazing thing when you’ve found the love of your life and they reciprocate your feelings.  But when deciding the fate of the free world, emotion now stands to do more damage than any of us realizes.  I believe with all my heart that was what Abraham Lincoln spoke of when he addressed the rumors of civil war after becoming the President:

“I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”  –Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address

Leave a Comment

Open Letter to the Gay Community

Jan 31, 09 11:40 AM

To all of my GLBT counterparts in America:

I’m reading a lot of things today that are turning my stomach.  I’m ashamed of the things I’m hearing and seeing.  Despite repeated calls from all of us for more tolerance of our different way of living and loving, we are showing hatred and intolerance like never before.  In light of the passage of Proposition 8, I can understand that many of us are upset.  However, it saddens me to see us reacting in such a way.

Conservative or liberal, we all have the same thing in common: we’re all gay.  Being politically conservative doesn’t make myself, Philip or Steve any less same-sex attracted as you.  It doesn’t make us any less human.  It doesn’t mean we don’t want to reach the same goals as you do as far as our rights go.  We are all connected through that.  However, we are being called on to answer to the actions that we do not approve of because of that connection, things that are completely counter-productive to reaching our goals. 

With the court’s decision not to keep private the names of those who donated money to the Yes On 8 campaign, people from our community have begun harassing and at times openly threatening those whose names are on the list of donors.  Here are some examples:

“Did you know you work for a judgmental bigot? I know I could not work for someone who encourages bigotry and hate.”

“What goes around comes around, and now you’re going to experience the comes around part. Have fun.”

The first quote was in an email to the employees of a real estate agent in California.  The second was in a voice mail to the same person.  Several business owners have reported repeated threatening voice mails, emails and visits from people angry about the passage of Proposition 8.  Several high-level managers of various businesses have been forced to resign in the wake of such harassment in order to protect the businesses they worked for and the other employees that were being negatively affected. 

You’re calling them hatemongers.  You’re calling them intolerant.  You’re calling them bigots.  And you are doing the very thing you are accusing them of–hating people you disagree with and doing everything you can to upend their lives.  Like the religious leaders who persecuted other denominations during the flegling years of America’s independence, you are becoming the very thing you say you’re trying to stop.  You are not the only ones who will be affected by this sort of behavior; all of us will pay for it in the end. 

I implore all of you to think before you speak and act.  Ask yourself how being so emotional might impact those around you.  Question your judgement before you call or email somebody–will this have a positive impact on our common cause, or will it only serve to strengthen the resolve of those who disagree with us?  Like it or not, there will always be more straight people in this world than there are GLBT folks.  If we want to have equal footing, we need to prove that we’re worth it.

From now on, I will be in partnership with those targeted by your hatred.  I may disagree with some of their beliefs, but I also believe in their right to disagree and I’d rather work with them than against them.  Any phone numbers, email addresses, ISP’s and names I can collect that are linked to Prop 8 rage, I will publish it here to expose you.  I will not tolerate the open hypocrisy perpetrated by my own community.  I don’t like being called a traitor, but hopefully, in time, you’ll understand.  I’d rather do what’s best for us than continue to allow us to be our own worst enemies.

Sincerely,

Mel Maguire

Comments (39)

Welcome, Chairman Steele….

Jan 30, 09 7:16 PM

steele1

Are you up to the challenge?

Michael Steele, the former Lt. Governor of Maryland, was elected as chairman of the Republican National Committee today.  He is African-American, he is Catholic and he is conservative.  So let’s see if anyone besides FOX News will extoll the historical significance of Steele as the first black chairman of the GOP.  Let’s watch to see if any journalists break down in tears or if anyone gets a “thrill up their leg.”  I seriously doubt it, but this is very special.

Reports from the MSM say that Steele was the most moderate candidate.  I’m not sure that is accurate.  I will dig further, but everything I have heard from him is conservative.  Sean Hannity gave him the big thumbs up, and I know Hannity doesn’t embrace RINOs.  I have a feeling that the MSM is trying to spin things in their own way and downplay Steele’s significance.

Steele wrote a great piece for the Politico back in November.  He outlined his vision for the GOP.

Return to timeless Republican principles. And include a positive, optimistic message that envisions a new, stronger, more prosperous American future. Ronald Reagan spoke to our deepest longing as a people. He gave a voice to principles that are true for all people in all times. Retool our message, but base it on those proven conservative principles for which our party has always stood: Our freedom is from God, not government. Our prosperity comes from a free people in a free market, not overtaxing, free-spending bureaucrats. We celebrate and protect life, born and unborn. And our best hope for a brighter future is in the empowerment of individuals and families, not in the constraints imposed by a bloated bureaucracy. 

Nothing moderate or even liberal there.  It’s a very true message. And it’s an optimistic, conservative message.  There are questions about his abortion stance, but Steele insists he is pro-life and was endorsed by the National Right-To-Life Committee.  His rhetoric invokes the messages of Ronald Reagan.  I have heard Michael speak many times – especially his discussions with Hannity.  I feel very confident that he is a conservative.

I will dig a little further on Steele.  I have always been a fan, but I want conservative principles to trump all from here on out.  Aside from being a conservative, I also think that Michael Steele has a couple of other things going for him.  He is an excellent communicator who is media-savvy and inspirational.  He comes across strong on TV and radio and is open to utilizing new media to get the message across.  We have lacked that in recent election cycles.  Michael Steele is also an outsider.  He was the only candidate for the RNC who wasn’t a committee member.  There are potential cons in that regards, but I feel good that it is a pro which will give him a different perspective.

Nobody in the GOP gets a free pass right now.  The party is in a sad state.  Michael Steele promises to open things up and regain the base in the Northeast and other parts of the country. And he is focused on the GOP grassroots nationwide.  He speaks of improving the GOP image, but he hasn’t said anything that leads me to believe that the improvement necessarily involves sacrificing conservative principles.

I am willing to give Steele the benefit of the doubt because his rhetoric is right on, and the intangibles just feel right.  But also know that I will dump him and anyone else in the GOP leadership the very second that I believe that they are leading us down the same destructive path that led us to our present state. I didn’t see anyone else in the running with more promise for change.  I thing the RNC made the correct choice.  I just hope that Mr. Steele doesn’t make me a liar.

 

UPDATE:  I just watched Hannity’s interview of Michael Steele on his FOX News TV program.  Steele chose Hannity as his first interview after being elected as Chairman. I feel really good now.  Sean threw out all of the hints about lukewarm Republicans and pseudo-conservatives.  Steele was flawless.  He says that true conservative principles are the key to the resurrection of the GOP.  I’m with Michael Steele right now.  I have no reason to doubt him.  I will be vigilant, but Michael Steele said all of the right things.  I think he can energize this base.

Comments (35)

Our 11 Friends In The House

Jan 29, 09 6:34 PM

As you all know by now, yesterday’s stimulus bill passed the US House without a single GOP vote.  And we were joined in our opposition by11 Democrats.  As Rush and other conservatives noted – the only “bipartisan” thing that happened yesterday was a vote AGAINST this ridiculous bill.  This legislation was no more a “stimulus” bill than Hamas is a benevolent, community-centered organization in Gaza. It was a pork-laden omnibus spending bill filled with rewards for liberal interest groups.

So, to answer questions posed in response to my last post, I decided to profile the 11 Democrats who reached across the aisle in order to do the right thing.  I researched these folks.  I know who some of these guys are but not all.  It’s interesting to see who helped us out in our unsuccessful struggle against this crap.  Here they are:

Allan Boyd (Florida):  Leader of the Blue Dog Democrat caucus.  Enough said.

Bobby Bright (Alabama):  Former mayor of Montgomery and a freshman.  Anti-abortion, progun and in favor of drilling in ANWR.

Jim Cooper (Tennessee):  Member of the Blue Dog Caucus

Brad Ellsworth (Indiana):  Member of the Blue Dog Caucus.  Former sheriff recruited by House Dems to run against a vulnerable GOP incumbent.

Parker Griffith (Alabama):  Freshman replacement for Dem. Rep. Bud Cramer – a longtime conservative Dem rep.  He favors off-shore drilling and border fences. Might be vulnerable next time around.

Paul Kanjorski (Pennsylvania):  Appears to be a moderate Dem.  Told CNBC that he didn’t think Republicans were consulted enough about the stimulus bill.  Apparently, he is a vulnerable Dem facing a tough reelection battle.

Frank Kratovil (Maryland):  A freshman who replaces Republican Wayne Gilchrest (who was defeated in the primaries by a conservative GOP candidate).  He won by just over 2000 votes in a GOP district.

Walt Minnick (Idaho):  A freshman who defeated a highly unpopular one-term GOP incumbent idiot.  Will likely face an uphill reelection battle in one of the most conservative districts around.

Collin Peterson (Minnesota):  One of the 7 original founders of the Blue Dog Caucus.  Represents a rural district and often votes with the GOP on guns, abortion, etc.

Heath Shuler (North Carolina):  Asked Pelosi for permission to vote against the stimulus because of bad reaction back home.  Former U. of Tennessee football star.  Member of the Blue Dogs. [Note: This guy is a self-interested joke]

Gene Taylor (Mississippi):  Blue Dog.  Pro-life, pro-gun – voted to impeach Clinton.  Regarded as one of the most conservative Dems in the House. [Side note:  He should just switch parties.  We'll trade one of our New England RINOs for Taylor]

So there you have it.  A quick glimpse at the folks who joined us.  There are actually about 50 members of the Blue Dogs with more applications pending.  So I am suprised at how few of them joined us.  But be assured that there is some potential there.  Don’t take this post as an endorsement of any of these folks (except maybe Taylor who just needs to come out of the political closet and run as a Republican).  A lot of these guys are being politically expedient. The rest should just run as Republicans and be true to themselves.  And note that I would eventually like to purge RINOs from the GOP.

The Blue Dogs, however, are very critical to the GOP.  If the Republican leadership really wants to reach across the aisle, I suggest that they reach out to these folks to create a “coalition of sanity.”  I am familiar with many of the Blue Dogs, and I can’t imagine most of them being happy with the socialist agenda that Pelosi will be pushing.

Comments (9)

Obama’s “New Era of Responsibility”

Jan 29, 09 2:03 PM

It started with an inauguration that came with a price tag of $153 million. Next came an $819 billion “stimulus” (maybe that was what he was talking about when he referred to “lipstick on a pig”). Republicans stepped up in the House; every single one voted NO on the Generational Theft Act of 2009, proving they might actually have a spine after all. It gets better.

To celebrate the big win, Obama threw a White House bash. The menu? Vodka martinis and Wagyu steak.

Yep. You read it right. In case you didn’t know, Wagyu steak (also known as Kobe beef) goes for no less than $90 a pound. I’ve had it before; it’s the most incredible steak I’ve ever had. But I was on a date with a girl who had a trust fund and I wasn’t the President of the United States trying to solve an economic crisis that’s set to outstrip the 1982 recession. We also weren’t serving the entire White House staff, 48 politicians AND THEIR SPOUSES at a swank cocktail party after declaring this the “new era of responsibility.”

But wait…there’s more!

After saying the following in Oregon…

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times…and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK…That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

…And saying this in Washington…

“Because of what? Because of some ice? We’re going to have to apply some flinty Chicago toughness to this town. I’m saying that when it comes to the weather, folks in Washington don’t seem to be able to handle things.”

…The word is that Obamessiah cranks up the White House thermostat to 78 degrees. According to David Axelrod, The One’s senior adviser, “he’s from Hawai’i, okay? He likes it warm!” I love how he leads by example. While my roommates and I turn the heat down and carry big, fuzzy blankets around to stay warm (there’s a reason why I love my pink bunny slippers), the President is spending my tax dollars on his heating bill and outrageous parties. Great leadership skills, there, Mr. President!

I’m cranky. I need a martini. Make it with Vodka.

Comments (7)

Are They Back?

Jan 28, 09 6:57 PM

I was encouraged a little bit early on today when the news broke that House Republicans, joined by a few Dems, had blocked Obama’s request to delay the digital TV extension.  Obama and the Democrats wanted more time to subsidize folks who hadn’t bought the appropriate equipment to make their televisions ready for the transition.

The 258-168 vote failed to clear the two-thirds threshold needed for passage in a victory for GOP members, who warn that postponing the transition from the current Feb. 17 deadline would confuse consumers.

House Republicans say a delay also would burden wireless companies and public safety agencies waiting for the spectrum that will be vacated by the switchover, and create added costs for television stations that would have to continue broadcasting both analog and digital signals for four more months.

I can’t say that this was an issue that was at the forefront of my consciousness, but I was amused by the fact that the Senate had just passed the extension unanimously – acquiescing to Obama’s request.  The House Republicans would have none of it.  I thought this was pretty kewl, and it raised my eyebrow a bit that the GOP in the House had enough discipline to block the move by denying Obama and the Dems  the requisite 2/3rds vote that was required.

Then things got really interesting in the House, and I was amazed.

The ridiculously wasteful, pork-laden stimulus bill favored by Obama and the Dems passed the House.  Not a good thing for the nation.  I was bummed when I saw the headline, but when I read the article, I “felt a thrill up my leg.”

The final vote was 244-188, mostly along party lines as expected. All Republicans who were present voted against the bill. They were joined in their opposition by 11 Democrats.

The largely partisan vote was a slap in the face of Obama who said earlier Wednesday that  Republican support would back up his argument that a new style of bipartisan politics is needed in Washington.

The emphasis is mine.  EVERY REPUBLICAN VOTED AGAINST IT.  I was momentarily shocked and awed.  I cannot fathom that even the RINOs voted against this bull.  It gave me hope beyond my wildest dreams.  Yeah – the “stimulus” bill passed, but it didn’t pass with one single GOP vote.  Who would have thought?

Two GOP victories in one day in the United States House of Representatives.  One substantive.  One moral.

Looks like Republican leaders Boehner and Cantor are doing their job.  My greatest fear was that the GOP would be a weak opposition.  That seems to be the case in the Senate.  But apparently, John Boehner is rallying the troops in the House.  Perhaps Mitch McConnell needs a tip or two.  And I am particularly disappointed in my own senator, John Cornyn – head of the NRSC.  He put up a block against Hillary’s confirmation then voted for her.  Then he voted to approve the nomination of tax-cheat, Timothy Geithner, for Secretary of the Treasury.  The Senate GOP has some lessons to learn – apparently.  Maybe they have bought into the Obama lovefest.

Nevetheless, the point of this post is that Republicans in the House appear to be heading in the right direction.  I seriously hope this continues.  The Dems in the House are not as close to the 2/3rds majority as is the case in the Senate.  It will be up to John Boehner and Eric Cantor to make sure that Obama and the liberal oligarchy in Congress are not able to steamroll their liberal/Marxist agenda through Congress.  The stakes are high at this point.  The future of our nation is in question.  And, apparently, the Republicans in the House are the only ones in opposition with the balls to stand up and heed the call.

Comments (8)

Ignoring the First Amendment

Jan 28, 09 2:14 PM

This is rich…the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has started a petition to give to Rush Limbaugh. “Express your outrage about Rush’s comments today!” What did he say? He said something a few other people had said previously about Barack Obama: “I hope he fails.”

Rush makes a good point to conservatives. Obama’s policies are blatant socialism, and they can do quite a bit of damage to the American way of life. Obama does, in fact, hope to absorb as much of the private sector into government as he can, socializing America more than we ever would have dreamed (and Bush got the ball rolling for him with that ridiculous bailout). These are not things we want Obama to succeed at. It’s why we’re critical of him. Liberals didn’t want the war to succeed, and that’s why they were critical of Bush–but you didn’t see Republican lawmakers starting up petitions to “express outrage” to the famous liberals out there who gained even more fame by bashing Bush.

The petition talks about jobs, health care, and our place in the world.  Since when is it the government’s place to tell me where to work?  Since when does the government have any business telling me where to go to get treatment for an illness or injury?  I don’t want my taxes paying for socialized health care that will do little more than ruin the health care system we have.  Our place in this world?  As far as I can tell, the only reason that is in jeopardy is because of two things: Muslim extremists and those who capitulate to them.

Back on topic, though, government officials have no business whatsoever telling any private citizen–no matter how much they dislike him–that he is not allowed to exercise his Constitutional freedom of speech.  That is EXACTLY what they’re doing.  Sure, they have the same right, but they’re lawmakers.  They represent the government.  When they do something like this, it is the exact same as the government telling someone they can’t say certain things.  If Republicans had started such a petition against Air America’s Randi Rhodes, there would have been an outcry the likes of which we had never heard before!  Liberals would have been calling for their heads to be served on silver platters.

I guess the same rules don’t apply to them.  Why?  Because liberals are so superior.  They know what’s right, so the rest of us should just give up and fall in line, right? 

I don’t think so.  Democrats attempted to officially censure Rush back in 2007.  They actually held a vote to give him a punishment reserved solely for members of Congress who behave outrageously.  This marks the second official attack on the free speech rights of Rush Limbaugh.  I don’t always like the guy, but he makes a lot of very good conservative points, and regardless, it’s not anyone’s place to tell him what he can and can’t say.  Where was this “come together” sentiment when you liberals were calling Bush a Nazi, a murderer, and calling for him to be impeached and tried for war crimes?

Obama himself paid a “visit” to the White House press corps, during which he was more than happy to field softball questions.  But the instant a writer from Politico asked him about his pick for deputy Secretary of State, Obama let that writer know in no uncertain terms that he was agitated and that writer was on the verge of losing his press pass.  During the campaign, anyone who dared to ask Obama or Biden the tough questions was immediately blacklisted.

It’s already started, folks.  This is just the beginning.  Talk about the tyranny of the majority…this is why Obama scares me.  It starts with small steps like this and gets bigger and stronger until we suddenly notice that we’ll never be able to undo it. 

Ignoring the First Amendment for your own gain will eventually put you in the same prison as your opponents.

Comments (9)

Fifteen Minutes of Peace

Jan 27, 09 2:16 PM

News has now come across the wires that Barack Obama has given his first interview as the President. Instead of giving it to a US station, however, he gave it to Al-Arabiya. His message? It was to the Sharia-loving Muslim nations:

AMERICA IS NOT YOUR ENEMY.

Really? When did this happen?

I have no doubt that there are people in Sharia nations that actually don’t hate us. Unfortunately, I do doubt that there’s enough of those people to make a real difference. It only takes one to strap a bomb to his body and walk into a crowded mall. It takes one to build, place and remote-detonate a charge in an underground parking garage. It only took a handful to hijack four commercial jetliners and crash them into three of the most famous buildings in America, killing thousands.

That minority in those Sharia nations that doesn’t hate us? They haven’t been able to stop the extremists. Why? Because their governments support the terrorists and their missions in any way they can. They provide money, shelter, and equipment to get the job done. If their country doesn’t, then Osama will. And there’s always another non-Sharia country out there willing to give these predatory ingrates the benefit of the doubt.

In reading some of the comments on local news sites, I’m reading things written by people who are either completely daft or deliberately ignorant. They say it’s all Bush’s fault, that US-Muslim relations suffered because of the policies that led to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hate to tell you this, folks, but it started WAY before that. Ever hear of the Barbary Wars? When America was still a young nation, just after the Revolutionary War, Muslim pirates were raiding settlements up and down the New England coast. Our government appeased them: they paid the ransom demanded by the Sharia governments for a time. Then along came Thomas Jefferson, and he changed everything. He asked the emissary of Tripoli why their people were committing these crimes, and the emissary told him, “it is the right of all good Musselmen (Muslim men) to take what they wish from infidels and force the infidel into submission.” Jefferson bought a copy of the Qur’an and read it, then took the fight to them. We won twice.

More recently, in the mid-1970′s Muslims started becoming openly hostile to Americans again. Iranians raided the US Embassy in Tehran and took the Americans inside hostage, holding them for 444 days. What did Jimmy Carter do? He negotiated. He placated them. After that the Muslims thought we were pushovers. They bombed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. They drove a truck laden with explosives into the Marine barracks in Beirut. Reagan bombed their turbans off, and we saw a lull in the action.

Then came Bill Clinton. Saddam stopped allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq, and the bombings resumed. The Khobar Towers, the World Trade Center, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole…nothing was done about these attacks. Clinton ordered a single building to be bombed in the Mideast, and the Muslims claimed afterward that it was a pharmaceutical factory (and presented evidence to prove it). Clinton had Osama in the crosshairs and his inept Secretary of Defense gave the order NOT to shoot. The Sudanese government offered Clinton help in capturing Osama and giving intel on militant Muslim organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, but Clinton refused the offers.

Along comes Bush, and eight months into his first term they hit the World Trade Center again. This time, the smiling Osama bin Laden gets his wish–the towers fall, the Pentagon is hit, and we’re shaking our heads wondering how it happened. To this day we have people claiming Bush didn’t do enough to stop it. These are the same people who decry the US PATRIOT Act as unconstitutional and wail for us to close Guantanamo Bay.

The lesson I’d have thought we’d have learned by now is that the more you placate an extremist, the more time and resources he has to figure out how to kill as many of us as he can. They don’t dislike Americans because of Iraq or Afghanistan; hell, we helped ‘em win their war for independence from the Soviets. They don’t dislike us because of Guantanamo bay. They dislike Americans because we’re infidels, we are an open ally of Israel, and we do not obey Sharia law. According to their religion, they’re supposed to kill us for those reasons. We have two options here: submit or die. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like either of those.

Obama was quoted saying thus: “…the U.S. has made mistakes in the past, but the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.”

I’d like to know which alternate reality he was living in 20 or 30 years ago. I have no interest in restoring that hell. We’re not the ones carrying out suicide bombings, so I don’t see how the mistakes were ours. If you appease them now, you may win your fifteen minutes of peace, but they’ll only come back with the same murderous bloodlust, ready to kill you as soon as look at you.

I know. I’m just being Islamophobic.

Comments (20)

Coulter Spanks McClellan on “Dr. Phil”

Jan 26, 09 11:36 PM

FINALLY – someone posted this interview in both parts on youtube.  Until today, only PopModal(the conservative alternative to youtube) had it.  Now, I am guessing that it took a conservative on youtube to post it as well.  It is certainly one of those rare appearances where the host (just as Jay Leno was a few years ago) was absolutely polite to Ann Coulter. 

On the other shows including Today and The View,the hosts had biases about Ann Coulter way before she came on.  That’s why in both appearances, she had the hardest time getting out a full sentence before she was interrupted.  The fear sets in their eyes as she starts to make great points, because heaven forbid, someone might agree with her.

This was the case on Dr. Phil.  The audience was apparently not pre-screened for “liberal only” as they are on shows like The View. 

In this interview, Ann explains the true concerns on Obama, the media love fest for him, and finally gives Scott McClellan the biggest beating he’s been deserving since stabbing the President in a back a few months ago.  When the moment comes, Dr. Phil enjoys every bit of it as well as the audience.

On youtube now and in other articles, liberals are whining and suggesting that Ann Coulter be “moderated.”  She didn’t need to be moderated.  Unlike Joy Behar and Whoppi Goldberg, Dr. Phil is actually able to get through a conversation without screaming.  This interview was fair and all got to answer completely and be heard.

“Moderation” to a liberal means screaming over your conservative guest, filling the audience with liberals, then replaying it on youtube and marking it: “Ann Coulter gets “Pwned” on The View!” 

Yeah, I know, “pwned” isn’t a word, yet liberals still feel the need to use it.

Also, in the second video, note how the audience responds when Ann points out where the venom truly resides in politics.

Comments (40)

Spreading Hate

Jan 25, 09 5:21 PM

On election day, something unexpected happened: California voters elected Barack Obama as the next President but also voted yes on Proposition 8. For those unaware, Prop 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution meant to rescind the right for same-sex couples to marry. It had been granted earlier in 2008 when the California Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Naturally, there was a horrendous backlash. Gay rights activists all over the country screamed bloody murder. In California, local activists started targeting businesses that were owned or managed those known to have contributed to the “Yes On 8″ campaign. El Coyote, a mainstay restaurant in Los Angeles (a really awesome place, I’ve been there and I love it), was targeted because the owner’s daughter–also a manager–had given just over $1,000 to Yes On 8. The negative publicity forced the manager to resign. Many were forced to resign in the face of vehement demands that they do so. The gay community fronted the targeting of these people and did so shamelessly–and still claim they are right to do so because “we’re trying to stop hate.”

I guess that depends on how you define hate.

It’s popular at these gay rights rallies to hold signs reading “stop the h8,” “stay out of my relationship,” and “stop the Christian taliban.” One woman stripped to her thong underwear, put tape over her nipples, and wrote “stripped of human rights” across her chest in black electrical tape. If it weren’t crude enough to get me kicked off, I’d post it. Since when is marriage considered a human right? If marriage is a human right, then why are churches not penalized for refusing to marry straight couples who refuse to go through their marriage counseling course? Starving someone, beating them half to death, publicly humiliating a person with violence, raping them–those things are stripping someone of human rights. It makes you look ridiculous to claim hate and a violation of human rights over something that small. In light of the true violations going on in our world, yes, gay marriage is small.

My father doesn’t agree with gay marriage. Does that mean he hates me? Absolutely not. My father and I are now very good friends; we disagree on some things, but I know that my dad loves me. I take it very personally when people decry as hatemongers those who vote for marriage protection amendments because of the kind of man my father is. Same with my brother…I know he loves me and the fact that I’m gay is little more than a second thought. The people I’m closest to aren’t trying to limit my life or make me a second-class citizen; they just don’t see the point of altering what marriage has been all throughout history. It is perfectly okay to agree to disagree.

When I was a teenager going to church, bands like Five Iron Frenzy and the Supertones were big names. I still have very fond memories of going to the ska/punk shows with my church friends, though now many of them won’t give me the time of day. Two years ago, the death of one of our friends brought us all back together quite unexpectedly. All of us had changed in many ways, but one thing was made very clear: some of them did not want to continue to speak to me after we all parted ways. One of them at least had the guts to tell me why, because they didn’t approve of the fact that I had come out, and some didn’t believe that the friend who had died approved of it, either. If that’s their view, fine. That just means they weren’t real friends to begin with. The church I went to after that was shocked and openly disapproving when I finally admitted to them that I was gay. But I’m not willing to accuse any of them of real hate. Sure, they’re jerks for acting like that, but hatemongers? I save that title for the lone “friend” who threatened to kill me after I came out.

Using the accusation that someone is a bigot or a hatemonger over issues like this only sounds hysterical. We’re not winning anyone’s hearts and minds with this kind of behavior. In fact, I think we stand a very good chance of losing all we’ve gained if we keep this up. We need to be far more wise in our application of titles such as “hate.” And if you’re only using this accusation to stop an argument, you’re doubly wrong. Fred Phelps is the perfect measuring stick, folks–if someone is doing things like what he does, it’s hate. If it’s little more than disagreeing with one aspect of a larger issue, you sound ridiculous and you make us all look just like you.

I’d like to be able to have a civil conversation with those who are against gay marriage. This sort of thing makes them want to shut us all out.

Comments (28)
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 347 other followers