A guest on the Laura Ingraham show this morning defended the Administration's UAE ports management deal on the basis of an overarching federal policy that is at the heart of the matter.
Why would the President suggest this morning, in response to the warranted uproar of concern about national security, that "people don't need to worry about security?" Is it because another federal policy takes precedence over national security?
What is that "other" policy? As this guest explained, it is the economic vitality of this nation. It is the material wealth of this nation we are concerned with. And he was sincerely matter of fact when he was saying this. He explained that we are part of a global, multi-national economy. We are a trading partner - a trade zone. We have to reach out and be a part of all of it to remain competitive and successful. And the ports deal is a part of it. While the above is not a direct quote, that is the essence of his message.
That "policy" statement explains our lax immigration policy as well.
While I enjoy prosperity and a successful economy as much as the next guy, these policies verge on greed at the expense of security. I think of Pooh Bear getting his hand stuck in the hollow of the tree, not wanting to let go of the honey, while the bees have a field day with the rest of his hairy bear body. Trouble is, our hairy bodies may get blown up, not just stung.
The business interests in this nation are huge and greedy. The President is not immune - he's bought into it. There are billions hinging on this deal. There will be a lot of excuse making by those special interests with the most to gain from "the deal."
"The deal" does not meet the straight-face test with regard to national security. But if we understand that our primary national policy is greed, then what this administration does will make more sense. I hope this helps those who were heretofore as befuddled as I.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Spending tax dollars to rebuild Islamic Mosques
Something is very strange here. We can't spend federal dollars on places of worship unless it is to rebuild an Islamic Mosque? An Islamic mosque in Iraq is bombed by a bunch of satanic psycho radicals and what do our Ambassador and President promise? "We will help you rebuild it."
Numerous Baptist churches in the United States are torched by a bunch of satanic psycho radicals and what do our leaders promise? "No federal dollars can be spent on church-related matters."
Isn't there something a bit odd about this? Why is it OK to spend our money on the religions of others but not our own? Especially a religion as full of hate and murder as that one. Am I being Islamo-phobic? Am I fearful of rattlesnakes? Well, yeah.
Quote from tonight's news:
"U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the top American commander in Iraq also warned it was a "critical moment for Iraq" and called the bombings [of the Islamic Temple] a deliberate attempt to create sectarian tension. They promised the U.S. would contribute to the shrine's reconstruction."
Why do they call it a "shrine?" To cover the fact that it is an Islamic Temple?
Before (if ever) there is one cent spent to rebuild the facilities of a religion who's proponents wish to dominate us, shouldn't we help our own? Oh, yes, we have "separation of church and state." But apparently that is only intended to limit us in our own country. When our taxes are used in a foreign country to buy someone off, anything goes.
Numerous Baptist churches in the United States are torched by a bunch of satanic psycho radicals and what do our leaders promise? "No federal dollars can be spent on church-related matters."
Isn't there something a bit odd about this? Why is it OK to spend our money on the religions of others but not our own? Especially a religion as full of hate and murder as that one. Am I being Islamo-phobic? Am I fearful of rattlesnakes? Well, yeah.
Quote from tonight's news:
"U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the top American commander in Iraq also warned it was a "critical moment for Iraq" and called the bombings [of the Islamic Temple] a deliberate attempt to create sectarian tension. They promised the U.S. would contribute to the shrine's reconstruction."
Why do they call it a "shrine?" To cover the fact that it is an Islamic Temple?
Before (if ever) there is one cent spent to rebuild the facilities of a religion who's proponents wish to dominate us, shouldn't we help our own? Oh, yes, we have "separation of church and state." But apparently that is only intended to limit us in our own country. When our taxes are used in a foreign country to buy someone off, anything goes.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Respecting Muslim Violence...
I hear calls from various corners of civilization, such as the Pope, to "respect" the Muslim religion - to refrain from publishing cartoons of Muhammad which, by the way, happen to be true and to the point.
Well, I certainly cannot respect a religion that teaches or encourages their adherants to act like psychotic lunatics with or without minimal provocation.
So, in celebration of my own views, I offer those of one who writes better than I:
I couldn't resist posting this entire commentary by dear "don't hold back" Ann Coulter...
MUSLIM BITES DOG by Ann Coulter
February 15, 2006
The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn't that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don't go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. Their immediate response to all bad news is mass violence. That's a "dog bites man" story and belongs on page B-34, next to the grade school hot lunch menu and the birth notices.
After an Egyptian ferry capsized recently, killing hundreds of passengers, a whole braying mob of passengers' relatives staged an organized attack on the company, throwing furniture out the window and burning the building to the ground. Witnesses say it was the most violent ocean liner-related incident since Carnival Cruise Lines fired Kathie Lee Gifford.
The "offense to Islam" ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem. So it's not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be "Offended Muslims Remain Calm."
What is stunning about this spectacle is that their violence is working. With a few exceptions, the media won't show the cartoons that incited mass violence around the globe (cartoons available at www.anncoulter.com). And yet, week after week, American patriots endure "The Boondocks" without complaint.
Where's the justice here? Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran. The mass violence by Muslims over some cartoons reminds us why we have to worry when countries like Iran start talking about having nukes. Iran is led by a lunatic who makes a big point of denying the Holocaust. Indeed, in response to the Muhammad cartoons, one Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau and The New York Times.)
Iran is certainly implying that it has nukes. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you can't take chances with berserk psychotics. What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with a nuclear bomb? If you don't want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don't point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about "camel jockey"? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?
In addition, I believe we are legally required to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the Quran's alleged prohibition on depictions of Muhammad, I've got documentation to back that up! Muslims in Syria torched the Danish Embassy a few weeks ago, burning it to the ground. According to everyone, the Syrian government was behind the attack — the prime minister of Denmark, Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan. I think even the gals on "The View" have acknowledged that Damascus was behind this one.
McClellan said: "We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support." We are signatories to a treaty that requires us to do more than "hold Syria responsible" for this attack. Syria has staged a state-sponsored attack on our NATO partner on Danish soil, the Danish embassy. According to the terms of the NATO treaty, the United States and most of Europe have an obligation to go to war with Syria. Or is NATO — like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming — inapplicable when Muslims are involved?
Liberals complain about "unilateral action," but under the terms of a treaty created by Dean Acheson and the Democrats, France, Germany, Spain and Greece are all obliged to go to war with us against Syria. Why, it's almost like a coalition! OK, Mr. Commie: Saddle up!
COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER
Well, I certainly cannot respect a religion that teaches or encourages their adherants to act like psychotic lunatics with or without minimal provocation.
So, in celebration of my own views, I offer those of one who writes better than I:
I couldn't resist posting this entire commentary by dear "don't hold back" Ann Coulter...
MUSLIM BITES DOG by Ann Coulter
February 15, 2006
The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn't that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don't go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. Their immediate response to all bad news is mass violence. That's a "dog bites man" story and belongs on page B-34, next to the grade school hot lunch menu and the birth notices.
After an Egyptian ferry capsized recently, killing hundreds of passengers, a whole braying mob of passengers' relatives staged an organized attack on the company, throwing furniture out the window and burning the building to the ground. Witnesses say it was the most violent ocean liner-related incident since Carnival Cruise Lines fired Kathie Lee Gifford.
The "offense to Islam" ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem. So it's not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be "Offended Muslims Remain Calm."
What is stunning about this spectacle is that their violence is working. With a few exceptions, the media won't show the cartoons that incited mass violence around the globe (cartoons available at www.anncoulter.com). And yet, week after week, American patriots endure "The Boondocks" without complaint.
Where's the justice here? Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran. The mass violence by Muslims over some cartoons reminds us why we have to worry when countries like Iran start talking about having nukes. Iran is led by a lunatic who makes a big point of denying the Holocaust. Indeed, in response to the Muhammad cartoons, one Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau and The New York Times.)
Iran is certainly implying that it has nukes. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you can't take chances with berserk psychotics. What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with a nuclear bomb? If you don't want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don't point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about "camel jockey"? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?
In addition, I believe we are legally required to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the Quran's alleged prohibition on depictions of Muhammad, I've got documentation to back that up! Muslims in Syria torched the Danish Embassy a few weeks ago, burning it to the ground. According to everyone, the Syrian government was behind the attack — the prime minister of Denmark, Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan. I think even the gals on "The View" have acknowledged that Damascus was behind this one.
McClellan said: "We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support." We are signatories to a treaty that requires us to do more than "hold Syria responsible" for this attack. Syria has staged a state-sponsored attack on our NATO partner on Danish soil, the Danish embassy. According to the terms of the NATO treaty, the United States and most of Europe have an obligation to go to war with Syria. Or is NATO — like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming — inapplicable when Muslims are involved?
Liberals complain about "unilateral action," but under the terms of a treaty created by Dean Acheson and the Democrats, France, Germany, Spain and Greece are all obliged to go to war with us against Syria. Why, it's almost like a coalition! OK, Mr. Commie: Saddle up!
COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER
Sunday, February 05, 2006
A sensitivity training quiz...
Which upsets Muslims most:
a) 9/11 in New York
b) 3/11 in Madrid
c) 7/7 in London
d) cartoons
a) 9/11 in New York
b) 3/11 in Madrid
c) 7/7 in London
d) cartoons
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)