Friday, October 30, 2009

Why is it ok…

Why is it ok to refer to Hillary Clinton as Hillary Rodham Clinton, but it isn’t ok to refer to Barack Obama as Barack Hussein Obama?

Why is it ok to excuse Muslim fundamentalists in the US, but consider Christian fundamentalists as whackos?

Why is it ok for feminists to argue for women’s rights while they defend Muslims who defile women?

Why is it ok for Congress to propose spending a trillion dollars on health care and a trillion dollars on global warming initiatives while our nation is going bankrupt?

Why is it ok to for the government to continue to urge banks to offer mortgages to those who can’t afford them when that practice got us into this mess to begin with?

Why is it OK for Joe Biden to urge us to spend more so our national debt won’t destroy our nation?

Why is it ok to provide health coverage to 30 million additional people while taking actions that are certain to reduce the number of health care professionals?

Why is it ok to give illegal aliens and Islamic terrorists the rights of US citizens (benefits and Miranda rights) when they don’t believe in our legal system or hate our culture?

I could add to this list all night long – there are so many senseless things going on around me.  I don’t remember things being so screwed up.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Australian Officials had it right.

From a friend of mine…this bears repeating.  While this sentiment is several years old and is a composite of the views of several in the former Australian administration, it includes the wishes of many Australians and Americans.  Yes, the liberal truther sites will whine that such sentiments divide cultures (boo hoo) it is the intolerance, terrorism and hate of the radical Islamic culture that is doing the dividing, not those who are defending their nation and culture.

My friend puts the statement in context:  “This brings to mind what a wishy-washy idiot we have elected to represent our Country....just my humble opinion.”

'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians'.

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'. 'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!' 

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.' 

We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'

'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.

Don’t those of us who are aware of the corrosive, defiling influence this fascist movement imposes on our culture and liberties wish we had leaders with similar opinions.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

US Sovereignty, FEMA Camps, Natl'l Emergencies

Here are three potentially related topics that “the right” is concerned with:

  • The anticipated signing away of our national sovereignty by our President at the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December
  • The alleged “FEMA Camps” and the fear that those who speak ill of our President or his policies may occupy them
  • The unpleasant possible implications of the President declaring an H1N1 “National Emergency.”

My take on these three: The “National Sovereignty Giveaway”: It is evil and is something we should all get stewed about. Contact your Congressmen. FEMA Camps: I’m not sure. I don’t know enough about them. The H1N1 “National Emergency”: I believe it is overkill, a political stunt to help the average citizen believe the President is doing something when in fact a national emergency is not necessary.

These three topics are discussed below by those who know more about them than I do.

Signing away of our national sovereignty

This video by Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is an eye opener. Watch it! Who is Lord Monckton? He is a British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor and hereditary peer. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher's policy unit in the 1980s and invented the Eternity puzzle at the end of the 1990s. More recently, he has been at the forefront of debunking the “global warming” hype in Europe.

“FEMA Camps”

Some folks believe there are numerous FEMA camps around the nation poised to imprison…. who? Illegal aliens, unruly Muslims, or disenfranchised conservatives. Or in preparation for the anarchy that will result from the collapse of the dollar. What are your thoughts? Here is a representative video on the topic…

And last, but not least,

The H1N1 “National Emergency”

Many are skeptical about the Presidents motives for declaring a national emergency in response to a form of flu that has been shown to be relatively benign and which will likely make its rounds before half the population is vaccinated in December.

From the CDC:

Every year in the United States, on average:

  • 5% to 20% of the population gets the flu;
  • more than 200,000 people are hospitalized from flu-related complications; and
  • about 36,000 people die from flu-related causes.

So far, 1,158 deaths are attributed to the Swine Flu in the US.

Here is a representative expression of concern about our new, questionable “National Emergency.”

Obama's H1N1 national emergency declaration could invoke FEMA response to pandemic

Monday, October 26, 2009

Obama: I Won't 'Rush' Afghanistan Decisions

No freakin’ kidding.  How much time does this dude need?

Am I the only one who thought that the President’s policy advisors had these kinds of things planned out months in advance of a decision needing to be made – with multiple scenarios and options for action?  This man is scaring me.

Obama: I Won't 'Rush'
Afghanistan Decisions

President tells troops he won't risk their lives unless 'absolutely necessary,' as critics say time is running out.

Whoopsie – he’s lying again.

“If it is necessary,” Obama added, "we will back you up to the hilt."  Apparently he doesn’t think it is necessary.

All the while, we are losing 5 men here, 10 troops there, 30 somewhere else.  I know its a war and in war we lose people.  But this cat is sacrificing Americans because of his lack of decision.  We are months beyond when the decision should have been made.  And he still blames Bush.  Unfrickinbelieveable.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

While we abstain from making babies…

“Be fruitful and multiply” – that Biblical admonition is out of favor in the West.  The Mormon and Catholic churches have it right.  Large families serve a civilization-building purpose.  But many Catholics don’t care much for this doctrine, and Mormons are too few to have an impact.  Birth control, abortions, higher costs of raising kids, the popularity of deferring marriage and having promiscuous fun while single – these practices are hastening the demise of our western civilization.  “Why is that?”, you might ask.

Because at the same time the Islamic world IS being fruitful and multiplying.  They now constitute 25% of the world’s population and growing much more rapidly than any other sectarian or non-religious group.  Within as few as fifteen years several currently “Christian” countries will have Muslim majorities. France, the Netherlands and Britain are our canaries in the coal mine.  They will likely experience Muslim majorities within the next 15 to 20 years.  With the growing popularity of Sharia law, the tyranny of the majority is not far off.

The findings of a recent Pew research study are ominous for the West:

New Muslim Demographics Data Calls for Hard Decisions on Immigration

Watch the video…

Many European nations must address the issue of immigration quickly if they want a chance of preserving their existing culture and freedoms.  In this country, we need to decide whether Islam is a religion or an all-encompassing fascist political movement worthy of prohibition before we can stem the tide here.

Proliferate and Regulate or Succumb.  These will be our choices in the coming decades.

Two excellent books on this topic include Mark Steyn’s “America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It” and Pat Buchanan’s “The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization”.

Hot headed. Knee jerk. Juvenile rumor mongers.

Lacking self-discipline and apparently having the analytical ability of 3-year olds, the Islamic Jihadi’s are doing what they do best…

"Muslims were disrespected! The foreigners shot the Koran, and then they burned it. They should be tried for this."

Once again we see rage and fury over a rumor. "Afghans protest rumored desecration of Koran by U.S. troops," by Laura King in the Los Angeles Times, October 25 (thanks to Pamela):

Hundreds of angry protesters in Afghanistan's capital today burned an effigy of President Obama, acting on rumors that American troops had desecrated the Koran.

U.S. military officials emphatically denied that any copies of the Muslim holy book had been mishandled, and accused the Taliban of spreading falsehoods to incite hatred against Western forces....

Add this to the cartoon outrage and the dozens of other manufactured tantrums these people have staged. This reminds me of the, knee-jerk, slanderous crap I have experienced from a hot-headed b---ard in my life. Oh, the damage that can be done - as bad as sabotage. Obviously one doesn’t have to be Muslim to act like a half-cocked nitwit, but apparently it helps.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Honor Killings: Women of America – Wake Up!

Especially you liberals and feminists out there.

You are inexplicably silent about the Islamic cultural practice of “honor killings” – the culturally/religiously sanctioned practice of killing wives and daughters who stray from the faith and shame the family.

Lest any are skeptical or ignorant of such practice in the US, here is some evidence for you.


Next, a July 2008 news report titled “Murder in the Family: Honor Killings in America.”

Next, a September 3, 2009 news report titled “Honor Killings on the Rise”.

And then we have the case of 17-year-old Rifqa Bary, the Christian daughter of Islamic parents, who very legitimately fears for her life due to threats from her parents and the teachings of her parents home Mosque.  The courts, ignorant of or simply ignoring this foreign cultural oddity, and more skeptical of Christianity than of Islam, recently ruled to send Rifqa back to her parents.

So, why are so many of us so oblivious to the reality of such practice?  Several reasons:

  1. Cultural-ego-centrism – we cannot fathom the thought that any culture would really condone such a thing.  It is so “un-Judeo-Christian.”  We are so accustomed to our own value system that we ignore the reality of others.
  2. Cultural equivalency – the idea, mainly held by liberals and progressives, that all cultures are equal in value and legitimacy; who are we to judge.  After all, our culture, our heritage isn’t so great.  Look, we killed off the native Americans, will brought slaves from Africa, we are all capitalist pigs.  Any other culture and cultural practice must be at least as good as ours.  Ya, right.  This is “cultural diversity” run amok.
  3. The desire to “get along”.  This is a mixture of fear and misplaced graciousness.  We don’t want to get anyone mad at us.  Graciousness is a great cover for fear and not wanting to address an issue that will kill our culture.  A psycho-babble word for this is “co-dependant.”

When will most of us wake up to the fact we are basically a good and noble nation with a culture and values worth sustaining; that other cultures are less inspiring, less prosperous, less free, and less humane than ours?  Every human being has a past containing events they are not proud of.  But should that destroy the goodness of the person?  The same applies to nations.  We are a nation with a culture worth preserving and defending against insidious foreign cultural practices such as honor killings and Sharia law. 

Remaining ignorant and blind to the reality of these cultural perversions and doing nothing about them is admitting to the valuelessness of our own culture.  How much garbage behavior from other cultures can or should we absorb?

Rifqa, I’m sorry our culture, our legal system, our people, let you down.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Why George Will is right and Gen. McChrystal isn't

George Will recently wrote a piece wishing us out of Afghanistan. At the same time, General McChrystal was requesting at least 40,000 more troops so we can “nation-build” in Afghanistan.

National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008), wrote this insightful article stating why McChrystal’s strategy will not work, and why the United States first needs to understand that we are fighting Islamic doctrine around the world, not just Jihadists in Afghanistan. We will continue wasting our resources and failing in our mission until we realize that.

Excerpts are below; read the entire article here.

“This process” [recommended by General McChrystal] is the gargantuan burden of building, from scratch, an oxymoronic sharia-democracy in a backwards, corrupt, fundamentalist Islamic armpit. And as if we’d learned nothing from the ravages against us, the process absurdly assumes that Islam — rather than being a major part of the problem — is an asset that we can turn to our advantage. If such a process could work (it can’t), it would take decades, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and cause an unknowable number of American casualties.

But that is the McChrystal plan. The idea is not to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda but to build a modern nation-state that will eventually be both competent to fight and interested in fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda on its own.

Here is the irony. Those who favor McChrystal’s proposal argue, with great force, that a counterterrorism strategy — i.e., attacking terror nests from remote bases — cannot work. For that conclusion, they cite no less an authority than General McChrystal, who is the nation’s leading expert on military counterterrorism. But if “cannot work” is our criterion, then why would anyone favor a democracy-building effort in Afghanistan?

The real dirty little secret is that there is only one way to win the war, and that is to attack our militant enemies and their abettors globally. This being the case, our unwillingness to do that necessarily means anything else we try “cannot work.” We have taken real victory off the table. What is left is a series of “cannot work” options, and our burden is to pick the least bad one.

So can we go back to what is best in us, forthrightness, and stop talking about “victory”? Those who favor the McChrystal plan should be prepared to tell us how many lives, years, and hundreds of billions they are prepared to sacrifice on an experiment in Afghan democracy building that will not defeat our global enemies — and, in fact, will discourage the pursuit of our global enemies since, under our new doctrine, we can’t unleash American might without making a similar sacrifice wherever we go.

The question is not whether counterterrorism can work. It cannot — any more than having a police station a hundred miles away could guarantee that the local bank would never be robbed. The question is why we should think nation-building — the equivalent of lavish government welfare programs to address the “root causes” of bank robbery — is a better solution.

Pro-Muslim, anti-Christian Obama agenda…

Would you be concerned if the government imposed a tax on tithing? In fact, our government is currently considering such tax.

Refer to this link for specifics on the proposal – and be sure to view the video. From Atlas Shrugs: Obama And Allies Moving Against Non-Islamic Religions while Promoting "Zakat"

As currently proposed, this tax would be applied to any tithe beyond 5%. While all churches that practice tithing will be affected, this measure is aimed particularly at LDS in part as retribution for their stand on gay marriage.

This proposed measure is especially ironic in light of Obama’s vow to protect the Zakat in the US, which is the Islamic equivalent to the tithe. A portion of the Zakat is directed toward Islamic military, i.e., terror organizations.

This is further implementation of Obama’s promise “… that I will stand with them [Muslim immigrants] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” While a couple of internet “truth sites” fail to see through Obama’s nuanced rhetoric, I clarify the real meaning for doubters, below:

The quote appears in The Audacity of Hope” page 261, which reads in part as follows:

“…and I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” The question is - who is “them” he is referring to?

In context, within the paragraph, he is referring to US citizen immigrants from Arab countries and Pakistan (as his text reads “Arab and Pakistani Americans”), which happen to be countries of what official religion: Jewish? Methodist? Noooo. Islam. Therefore, it is NOT a distortion to insert the word “Muslims” in place of “them” in the above sentence, so the clear meaning, in context, can be taken to be:

“…and I will stand with Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

This proper interpretation is consistent with Obama’s actions of handcuffing the CIA and FBI both in war zones as well as in the US when interrogating terror suspects. He is already “standing with them.” He apparently considers the work of the FBI and CIA (their investigative methods) to be among the “political winds” shifting in an ugly direction. He wishes to give Islamic terror suspects the benefit of the doubt. This causes me to wonder to what extent he is interfering with investigations such as the recent New York City subway bombing suspects case to further his “standing with them [Muslims]?

I realize that Snopes and TruthOrFiction give Obama the benefit of the doubt with their published renderings of his “intent.”

From “” (Snopes says roughly the same thing):

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."-Fiction! [not really!! – Muccings]
This is a corruption [not really – Muccings] of a quote from Obama's book The Audacity of Hope. It is from a section that talks about the concerns of immigrants who are American citizens. [The paragraph the quote is taken from is specifically speaking of American Muslims from the Islamic Arab states and Islamic Pakistan. Snopes and TruthorFiction ignore this context. Obama cleverly avoids use of the terms “Muslim” and “Islam” here. These terms are used in a variety of other places in Audacity but are not referenced even once in the extensive Index of the book. He is either ignorant of or choosing to ignore the fact that the Islamic religion is at the core of Jihadi violence in the world. Why would he want to do that? - Muccings]

Here is the accurate and more complete quote: "Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. [It appears Obama is opposed to questioning terrorist suspects. - Muccings] They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II [At the time, the entire nation was fearful of Japanese sabotage, which was a real threat after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Obama is being a historical revisionist! – Muccings], and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction [Apparently he will stand with the saboteurs and the terror suspects. - Muccings]"

Monday, October 19, 2009

Health Care Op Ed…

Here is my attempt at promoting the position of “the other side.”

Conservatives argue against just about any version of health care legislation proposed by the President or Congress. It is true that many millions of Americans have little or no health coverage – Democrats want to do something about it.

Many in our capitalist society are not “socially responsible.” Many thousands of companies hire “contract” employees as a way around providing a health care benefit to their workers. Or they cut costs by hiring part times help – sometimes up to 39.9999 hours per week to avoid paying health insurance costs. And what about the unemployed, underemployed and those between jobs? Most of these millions are without any form of health coverage.

Conservatives argue that the government and special interests such as unions are simply legislating a power grab. They call it a “control issue.”

Proponents of a health care overhaul argue that providing some form of universal coverage is the moral and right thing to do. That is hard to argue against. The current system favors those among us who are fortunate enough to work for companies that offer and supplement the cost of good coverage. The “haves” have it – the “have nots” don’t.

Practicing Christians and others who strive to act civilly and morally would have to conclude that the current system is selfish. If we are to feed the hungry and clothe the poor and take care of widows and orphans, why are we not also called to care for the sick and infirm? The churches aren't stepping up. Other non-profit organizations are not equipped and able to assist the millions who can’t afford health insurance. This being the case, what is so wrong with the federal government filling this gaping void through creation of a mechanism to fill the health insurance black hole wherein millions of Americans are lost?

From a moral perspective: Proponents – 1 Opponents – 0


Not willing to let a good argument lie peaceably, I am compelled by some inner wonkiness to present a counter argument. A good op-ed deserves a good op-op ed.

The moral argument is a good and valid one. But let’s peel back the morality onion one more layer, because there are other aspects of morality that are being ignored.

We’ll look at this from two perspectives:

  1. The role of government, and
  2. The responsibility of individuals, including employers, employees, and others

First, the role of government. Since when has health care in this country become the responsibility of our government? Once they are responsible for our health care, how far will it go? Will government provide everything the patient needs? Will they mandate what treatments can and cannot be provided? Will they reduce the quality of coverage many now pay for and enjoy?

If the resources of government were unlimited; if the efficiency of government was award winning; if the ethics of government were above reproach; then there would be little to argue about. Health care is one of those services where the cost can be infinite – a bottomless pit. We never cease hearing the plea “what is the value of one human life?” There has to be rationing. Should the government be doing the rationing?

Fact check:

  • The resources of the government are limited.
  • The efficiency of government is not award-winning.
  • The ethics of government are not above reproach.

The government as middleman and arbiter of who gets coverage, what kind, how much, how often, when and at what cost does not sound like the way to go. The governments role should be limited to three things:

  1. Promoting efficiency - enacting tort reform to eliminate costly lawsuits and reduce medical malpractice insurance costs.
  2. Promoting competition – open up competition across state borders for example
  3. Prohibiting coverage discrimination – eliminate “preexisting condition clauses” while allowing premiums to be higher for those who have avoided paying for coverage during their healthy years.

These are legitimate functions of government. They are things they can do reasonable well because they involve minimal bureaucracy and taxpayer funding.

Second, the role of the individual. What should be the responsibility of the individual for his/her own health care? Should they rely on government? Should they rely on their employer if they have one? Should they rely on their insurance company for 100% of their health care needs?

Sometimes there is no employer or insurance company. Should he rely on his own resources or just leave things to chance? What if the individual simply chooses to be irresponsible by being indifferent or remain in ignorance? Is it the government’s job to make him responsible?

We are responsible for feeding and clothing ourselves. The great majority do a decent job. Able bodied people are responsible for productive work and earning a living. Why shouldn’t able bodied people be responsible for providing for their health care needs? Is it the government’s job to bail out people for irresponsible health care decisions the same way it bails out banks from irresponsible financial decisions?

The responsible individual will do whatever it takes to provide for her health care – self insure if she has the money; get a job with an employer that has a good plan; or sacrifice and prioritize to pay for her own coverage. Pop culture “necessities” drain away the personal resources that should go toward our personally responsible health care. Personal priorities are often upside down. Ahhh, it’s so much easier to let the government do it.

“Oh, the cost , the cost. It is too great,” they cry. That is because most people, especially the ones who can’t afford it, expect health insurance to cover everything – with $15, $5, and zero dollar co-pays and low out of pocket limits. Insurance is designed for catastrophic events, not every little cold and sniffle. Many ignore the current option for major medical coverage. Major medical is quite reasonable – a fraction of the comprehensive coverage most seem to expect. A $1,000 a month plan can be reduced down to $100 a month with many major medical plans. This greatly reduces the numbers of those who claim they can’t afford it. Prioritize better. But at the same time, don’t penalize those who CAN afford more comprehensive plans.

Here is the ultimate moral question:

Who should be responsible for your health care decisions and priorities? You or someone else?

Monday, October 12, 2009

Grasping in defense of Islam…

Now and then in discussing the merits of Islam with someone, they will make a comparison with Mormons. This comparison comes about after I suggest how disconcerting it is that many Muslims resort to accusing law enforcement of profiling them instead of condemning radical Muslims involved in terror plots. The majority Muslims who do this appear to be sympathizers with the radical fringe.

The response is: “But there are radical Mormons and that doesn’t make the other Mormons bad.” Yes, and “radical” Presbyterians, Catholics, atheists, and Lutherans. This is a faulty analogy on so many levels. Let me count the levels:

  1. The fringe Mormons are a separate and distinct organization.
  2. The main body of Mormons established a separate organization to disassociate themselves from the illegal practices of the fringe group. (something the “average” Muslim fails to do.)
  3. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between the practice of polygamy by the fringe group of Mormons and the practices of radical Muslims involved in terror plots. The outcome of the Mormon radicals is more children. The outcome of the Muslim radicals is terror and killing. Both practices are illegal, but there truly is a difference in outcomes, wouldn’t you agree?
  4. The agenda of the radical Mormon is to remain separate from society and raise a moral family in peace. The agenda of the radical Muslim is to spread their faith by use of force, intimidation, terror and killing in order to force their intolerant Sharia law upon the nation in which they reside.
  5. The main body of Mormons publicly and privately condemns violence and disassociates itself from any organization that practices or promotes it. The main body of Muslims may occasionally publicly condemn violence, but privately supports their violent cohorts through teaching curriculum and monetary contributions that supports terror groups, the imposition of Sharia law and the eradication of Israel, Jews, and other “infidels” among whom are all non-Muslims.
  6. The main body of Mormons preach, teach, and practice tolerance. The main body of Muslims around the world have a continuing and in your face practice of intolerance and violent reaction to anything that offends them. Things that offend range from cartoons, to family members leaving their faith, to opinions about Muhammad to legitimate and necessary efforts to curb terrorism (99% of which happens to be committed by Muslims) including alleged “profiling.”
  7. Even if levels 1 through 6, above, didn’t exist, why do Muslim defenders believe that two wrongs make everything OK?

Comparison with Mormons, indeed. There are also too many "infidels" who have their head in the sands of ignorance.

There are various levels of complicities with the radical element among Muslims. While fewer than 5% of the 1.3 billion Muslims may actually participate in terror plots and other violent acts on behalf of Islam, a larger percentage openly cheers them on and facilitate their actions. A still larger percentage than that privately cheer them on and support them in some fashion. Another portion, those who may feel strongly against Islamic radicalism, will be intimidated by Islamic peer pressure to tacitly support the radicals, very much like the average German during the rise of Nazism. The remaining tiny percentage, the really brave, will become an Islamic apostate, with their life under a death threat.

Yet the average non-Muslim applies their non-Muslim morality to this whole scenario, denying that such beliefs can occur among so many people.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

The Great Right Wing Divide on Afghanistan

Fascinating.  During the Vietnam war, the right wanted more troops, aggressive US action, and clear victory.  The left were anti-war, draft evaders, and wanted our troops to come home.

After 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq started the same way.  The right was gung-ho to take care of business in both places.  The left was more reticent.  The broader middle generally supported our revenge.

Today we see a different picture – a reversal from the last 50 years.  There are significant numbers of my conservative friends who believe we should not be in Afghanistan any more.  Even conservative George Will has expressed this sentiment.  Not that we want to abrogate victory.  It is because our Commander and Chief believes in fuzzing up the concept of victory.  Our presence no longer has a clear purpose under our appeaser in chief.

Ironically, it seems that the liberals are taking up the banner to exert our influence in Afghanistan by buddying up with the Taliban to fight al Qaeda.  Yup, that’ll work.  What a waste of lives.

Sure, there are those on the right who continue to support the fight.  But increasing numbers of my cohorts are seeing the handwriting on the wall and see the futility - at least during the next three years.

We will not have a clear mission in the “war on Islamic supremacy” until our leaders understand the enemy.  As long as we don’t understand what we are defending against, we will continue to flounder, wasting lives, resources and time.

What liberals have in common with the ignorant

Ignorant in the good sense:  Being unaware.

On virtually every topic I have the opportunity to dialogue with liberals about, the one thing they have in common is their ignorance of the topic about which they opine – or rather about which they throw out trite phrases.

Example one:  Discussion about morality or lack thereof of “free trade” - how freely corporations pollute and indulge in child labor and slave wages in other nations to avoid being subject to the laws and economy of our own nation.  Her response:  “You can’t legislate morality.”  The reality is every law on the books legislates morality, from the prohibition of  murder to having only one spouse, to not stealing someone else’s property.  The debate is over whose morality is legislated, not whether morality can be legislated.

Example two: Discussion about the nature of Islam.  He opined that Islam is indeed a religion of peace.  It is difficult to discuss a subject with someone who is totally oblivious to the facts without sounding preachy and condescending.  But a head in the sand will avoid the truth every time.

Example three:  She said Obama will be a great president and voted for him - even after I pointed out all his radical associations and socialist policies enunciated in Audacity of Hope.  Fuzzy hope prevailed over logic and wisdom.

I am convinced that liberals are who they are because of a genuine lack of information, concern, or a desire to remain oblivious.  They live in an information vacuum that is filled by whatever media fluff fills their senses.  These are not stupid people as in “lacking intelligence.”  They are certainly intellectually capable.  They just have no desire to understand many of the issues around them.  To defend their ignorance, they dogmatically repeat trite, warm and fuzzy sentiments that feel good, but bear little relevance to the topic being discussed.


Friday, October 09, 2009

The Gelding of the President

Barack Obama has just joined the ranks of Yasser Arafat, The United Nations, Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, and Albert Gore, Jr. in being awarded (as opposed to ”winning”) the Nobel Peace Prize.

From Pamela Geller:

Because nothing means anything anymore. Because good is evil and evil is good. Because we live in a morally bankrupt world.

Obama won what? This is embarrassing. Who's next? Bill Ayers? Stuart just pointed out this Nobel Fun Fact: This year's Nobel Peace Prize winner (Our Esteemed President, peace be upon him) recently refused to meet with the winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize (the Dalai Lama), in an attempt to suck up to China.

Obama has sided with evil, abandoned the Jews, the Iranians, the Hondurans, the Eastern Europeans, capitalism, individual rights, American sovereignty -- in under a year.

This wasn’t awarded for what he has accomplished, but for what anti-Americans hope he will accomplish.  Its purpose is to stoke his ego into “performing” as the world wishes.  One commentator called Obama’s prize, “the gelding of the President.”  The purpose of “gelding” in the world of horses and mules is to make the animal calmer and better-behaved, and more suitable to being manipulated into subservience. 

This is the purpose of the Nobel Prize in the case of Obama.

Actually, this is a case of transparent manipulation of an ego on the international stage – a bribe.  A wiser recipient would decline the “Prize” in this situation.

Time Magazine came out with this article:  Obama’s Nobel:  The Last Thing He Needs.  Refreshingly on target for such a left leaning publication.

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Nazis are new US partner in German coalition

That is the moral equivalent of what Obamaniac wants to do in Afghanistan with the Taliban:

“The official…added that the president is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future, reiterating what Obama said in March.

The assessment comes from an official who has been involved in the president's discussions with his war council about Afghanistan strategy.” From Fox News “Politics.”

So, did we get it wrong these past several years.? The Taliban is really not so bad? We will now suck up and partner with them to form an Afghan government? You have got to be kidding! Read this excerpt from Wikipedia:

In 1996, Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. He came without any invitation from the Taliban, and sometimes irritated Mullah Omar with his declaration of war and fatwa to murder citizens of third-party countries, and follow-up interviews,[97] but relations between the two groups became closer over time, and eventually bonded to the point where Mullah Omar rebuffed its patron Saudi Arabia, insulting Saudi minister Prince Turki and refusing to turn over bin Laden to the Saudis as Omar had reportedly promised to earlier.[98] Bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that Al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. Several hundred Arab Afghan fighters sent by bin Laden assisted the Taliban in the slaughter at Mazar-e-Sharif.[99] Taliban-Al-Qaeda connections, were also strengthened by the reported marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter. During Osama bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan, he may have helped finance the Taliban.[100][101]

Perhaps the biggest favor Al-Qaeda did for the Taliban was the assassination by suicide bombing[102] of the Taliban's most effective military opponent mujahideen commander and Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud shortly before 9 September 2001. This came at a time when Taliban human rights violations and extremism seemed likely to create international support for Massoud's group as the legitimate representatives of Afghanistan.[102] The killing, reportedly handled by Ayman Zawahiri and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad wing of Al-Qaeda, left the Northern Alliance leaderless, and removed "the last obstacle to the Taliban’s total control of the country ..."[103] After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, Osama bin Laden and several Al-Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court.[104]

The Taliban protected Osama bin Laden from extradition requests by the U.S., variously claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing" in Afghanistan,[105] or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or any proof" that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that "without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin... he is a free man."[106][107] Evidence against bin Laden included courtroom testimony and satellite phone records.[108][109] Bin Laden in turn, praised the Taliban as the "only Islamic government" in existence, and lauded Mullah Omar for his destruction of idols like the Buddhas of Bamiyan.[110]

Yes, indeedy. The Taliban is now our friend. Is there any wonder why Army chaplains in Afghanistan are seeing a huge upswing in troops who are confused about their mission and losing heart? This sentiment is typical…

“Sergeant Christopher Hughes, 37, from Detroit, has lost six colleagues and survived two roadside bombs. Asked if the mission was worthwhile, he replied: “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.””

Does our mission sound fuzzy or inane to you? Yes, me to. That simply means our leadership sucks.

These kinds of unfathomable revelations are what cause normally well-adjusted people to consult with chaplains and turn religious in general. The astounding things in religion that require faith to believe are more solid and rational than the goings on in world politics - especially the goings on of the Obama administration. Hey, this may be the one positive "change" coming out of this radical in the White House - an increase in religious faith.

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Pathetic Way to Run a War…

Mmmm, mm, mmmmm, mm, mmmm.  What a way to run a war.  Summon a bunch of politicians who know little about the military, less about running a war, nada about Afghani tribalism, and even less about Islamism, the enemy, and seek their advice.  That is what Obama is doing.  This is turning into the ultimate politician-run war – doomed to failure.  Dumb leading the ignorant.  What a bunch of dopes.  Thus is the danger of hyper-inflated egos.

U.S. lawmakers press Obama on Afghan war strategy

By Sue Pleming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama told congressional leaders on Tuesday his decision on a new Afghan war strategy would not make everyone happy, while Republicans urged him to heed his military commander's call for more troops.

Obama summoned key Democratic and Republican lawmakers for a meeting at the White House to hash out their views on how to overhaul strategy in the eight-year war, where the military says the Taliban has the momentum in the unpopular conflict.

Obama told the meeting his decision, to be announced in the coming weeks, would be based on what he thought would be the best way to prevent future attacks on the United States and its allies, a U.S. official said.

"He also made it clear that his decision won't make everybody in the room or the nation happy, but underscored his commitment to work on a collaborative basis," the official said.

At the heart of the debate within the Obama administration is whether it would be best to send more troops to Afghanistan and work to earn the trust of the Afghan people or to more narrowly focus the war effort using airstrikes against al Qaeda targets.

Republican Senator John McCain warned Obama against "half measures" and urged him to implement a plan by the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, who wants as many as 40,000 more troops and trainers to fight the war.

"I am very convinced that General McChrystal's analysis is not only correct but should be employed as quickly as possible," McCain told reporters after the 90-minute meeting.

"There is no middle ground," said McCain, who lost the election to Obama last year.

Democrats countered that Obama was being responsible by taking his time to decide on a strategy in Afghanistan.

"We all realize the important decision the president has to make. Eight solders were killed on Sunday, one of them was from Reno, Nevada," said Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, who represents Nevada.

More Asinine Directives from Washington

It is not enough that we are directed to read Miranda rights to combatants in wartime scenarios.  Now Washington is directing the emasculation of the power of county sheriffs enforcing immigration laws.  Enforcement of immigration laws is something the Federal government inexplicably refuses to do.  The feds are the ones that should be directed to cease their directives.

DHS strips Arizona sheriff of authority to patrol for illegal immigrants

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he will continue his controversial "crime suppression operations" despite a Department of Homeland Security decision to strip him of authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants based solely on their immigration status, the East Valley Tribune reports.

“It’s all politics,” says Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County.

Arpaio will still have the power to check the immigration status of people booked by his officers, but not the authority to conduct street patrols looking for illegal immigrants.

His “crime suppression operations” are saturation patrols in designated areas where deputies would find illegal immigrants by stopping them for traffic infractions and minor violations, the paper says.

The department of Justice and other federal agencies are investigating the sheriff’s office on accusations of racial profiling during the operations, the paper says.

Arpaio said he will be able to still conduct the crime sweeps under state human smuggling laws and an obscure federal law that allows local police to arrest illegal immigrants.

A spokesman for the Phoenix office of ICE declined to comment until after pending agreements with the country are signed.

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Wow! The end game of homo activists…

Ceasing discrimination against homosexuals is not enough.  We must stop our subtle advocacy of heterosexuality.  It is wrong to infer that heterosexuality is the best practice.  That might warp little minds.  There should not be any preference shown that heterosexuality is preferred.  What’s next?  We shouldn’t suggest that abstaining from pedophilia is the best practice?    Oh wait, Kevin apparently believes that, too.  Read below the video.  Is there any line against deviancy anymore?

Here is Obama’s “Safe School Czar” Kevin Jennings criticizing schools for using proms and Romeo & Juliet to promote heterosexuality.

Kevin has a different interpretation of what constitutes safe schools than most of us.  Of course, most of us are wrong.  He didn’t see fit to report a case of pedophilia that was reported to him when he was a teacher:

Obama's Safe School Czar Hid Case of Pedophilia
washingon times/the lid ^ | 9/28/09 | The Lid

Posted on Monday, September 28, 2009 9:09:04 PM by Shellybenoit

Everybody may have a different Idea of what "safe schools" may mean, but I would imagine many people who would include pedophilia in a list of things that make schools safe, with the exception of President Obama's safe schools Czar, Kevin Jennings.

A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an "older man." At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama's "safe school czar." It's getting hard to keep track of all of this president's problematic appointments. Clearly, the process for vetting White House employees has broken down.

Obama’s most favorite world event yet…

Neutering our national defense is nothing compared to this. Obama can be so proud.

UN Calls for New Reserve Currency

Arabs Plot to Drop Dollar

Word is out. Level the economic playing field by getting rid of the dollar that favors the US in world financial matters. Obama must be wringing his little socialist, one-world equality hands with glee with this one.

“Chinese financial sources believe President Barack Obama is too busy fixing the US economy to concentrate on the extraordinary implications of the transition from the dollar in nine years' time. The current deadline for the currency transition is 2018.”

"Important progress in managing imbalances can be made by reducing the reserve currency country’s 'privilege' to run external deficits in order to provide international liquidity," UN undersecretary-general for economic and social affairs, Sha Zukang, said.

Speaking at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Istanbul, he said: "It is timely to emphasise that such a system also creates a more equitable method of sharing the seigniorage derived from providing global liquidity."

He said: "Greater use of a truly global reserve currency, such as the IMF?s special drawing rights (SDRs), enables the seigniorage gained to be deployed for development purposes," he said.

Wheeee…all of the Beatles’ and Rolling Stones drug-induced song lyrics are coming true now that the liberal buzz-heads from the 60s drug culture are advising the President.

And I wouldn’t blame the Arabs for this. It is our own consumptive, spendthrift, socially and financially irresponsible habits that are to blame. Let’s spend our way out of recession. Yeah, right, Bush and Obama and Congress. They are all spineless fools. They feel a need to keep the masses happy, despite the long-term consequences. And as long as we, the masses are happy, they stay in power and we all go down together.

Sunday, October 04, 2009

Obama’s foreign policy: A possible positive result

Obama has done a lot of things that cause conservatives to believe he is screwing up our national security and relationships with our allies.

But there may be one bright spot. We are no longer perceived as being the lead defender of the west. We have relinquished what many perceive as the Bush junk yard dog mentality. No more “Matt Dillon” galloping to the rescue of the young maiden.

The other “townsfolk” now know they have to share the burden for law and order in their territory, their national defense. But the big question remains: Do they have either the will or the means to defend themselves? History over the past 95 years says they don’t.

Oh well. It was a thought, anyway.

On a related note, Yahoo News reports “…commentators on the left say the military ought to keep its advice private without trying to influence public debate, with New York Times columnist Frank Rich accusing the generals of an attempt to "try to lock him (Obama) in" on Afghanistan.”

But the military rightfully doesn’t want to take the fall for the failure of a political solution to the Afghan war. They are right to lay out what is needed from the military perspective. If the President fails to heed their advice, the failure is properly on his shoulders. No wonder Obama is dumbing down his definition of “victory.” He is preparing us not to expect very much.

Here is a gem of a quote from George Will:

"A presidential strategy is half-baked if its author decides it is dubious after its first collision with difficulty. "

Result of binding and gagging our troops…

Obama has his ways of provoking public sentiment against follow-through that would allow success in Afghanistan.

First, prohibit effective interrogations.

Next, prohibit use of of air cover.

Next, embolden enemies by showing our weakness through pandering

Next, inform the world that we really don’t intend to “win.”

Next, require Miranda rights be given to terrorist captives.

Finally, ponder for months about the need for a troop increase.

Any wonder why we just experienced the death of 10 US soldiers in the deadliest battle in 15 months?

It must be “resentment” – It must be “racism”

Of course, there isn’t any good reason why Rio de Janeiro should win the Olympics bid other than the world’s “resentment” against the US because of Bush.  Just like there isn’t any good reason why people would be upset with Obama’s naiveté in foreign policy, his radical past and continuing ties, his socialist/communist leanings and agenda, and his disdain for capitalism other than “racism.”  It appears the thinking of these people is so shallow that their own biased anti-American and racist thoughts bubble up to the surface.

Chicago torpedoed by anti-U.S. sentiment?

October 3, 2009

BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter

Some Chicago officials say anti-American resentment likely played a role in Chicago's Olympic bid dying in the first round Friday.

President Obama could not undo in one year the resentment against America that President Bush and others built up for years, they said.

"There must be" resentment against America, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said, near the stage where he had hoped to give a victory speech in Daley Center Plaza. "The way we [refused to sign] the Kyoto Treaty, we misled the world into Iraq. The world had a very bad taste in its mouth about us. But there was such a turnaround after last November. The world now feels better about America and about Americans. That's why I thought the president's going was the deal-maker."

Saturday, October 03, 2009

No clue why he shot them…

Afghan soldier shoots dead two American troops

Shahedullah Shahed said “we have no clue why he shot them.”  No clue.  I’ve got a clue.  Could it be that Islam teaches them to kill the “infidel wherever they may be found?”  Sleeping in bed or otherwise.

Sat Oct 3, 2009 11:25am EDT

KABUL (Reuters) - An Afghan soldier on guard at a joint base with U.S. troops shot dead two American servicemen and wounded two others as they slept, a provincial official said on Saturday.

Shahedullah Shahed, spokesman for the governor of Wardak province west of Kabul, said the shooting took place after a combined team of Afghan and U.S. forces had returned from a joint operation late on Friday.

"The Americans were in the middle of sleep when an Afghan soldier on duty opened fire on them," Shahed said.

"We have no clue as to why he shot them."

A statement from NATO-led forces said two American soldiers died from injuries suffered in a "hostile attack" in eastern Afghanistan on Friday. A press officer for the Western troops said he could give no further details of the incident.

(Reporting by Hamid Shalizi; Editing by Andrew Dobbie)

Friday, October 02, 2009

Congratulations, Rio de Janeiro!

The best Olympics proposal won.  Our household had a happy celebration this morning after learning that Chicago was eliminated first.  This was as much a victory for America as it was for as Brazil.

Maybe this will be a humbling kick in the butt for Chicago (and our President) to forego some if its corruption in favor of some character building exercises they desperately need.

Letterman: You can tell a man by the jokes he tells

It is one thing for a slimeball like Letterman to be blackmailed and be forced to reveal on national TV his multiple sexual forays with his staff. It is one thing for Letterman to frame his “confession” in a manner that makes light of his behavior.

But It is quite another for his depraved audience to laugh and enter into sustained applause during his public disclosure.

What a wonderful, faithful audience they are, lending their “moral” support to a man in his hour of need. Haa, haa haa! Isn’t he funny!

What a picture of our perverse, misguided American culture. I can’t decide whose behavior is worse, Letterman’s or his audience.

The perverseness of the audience reminds me of when a female neighbor some time ago wore a tight top with skeleton fingers grasping across her breasts, not to a party, but out in public. Ha, ha, ha, isn’t that clever! I didn’t laugh. But then, I am such a sanctimonious prude. Her “audience” was her mother who complemented her outfit. I wonder if she would have complemented her husband if he wore tight drawers with skeleton fingers grasping his crotch a la Michael Jackson, RIP.