Sunday, January 29, 2012

Florida Highway Patrol Priorities Screwed Up

Several months ago the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) made the news with their illegal, self-serving practice of citing drivers for flashing their headlights at oncoming vehicles to warn of a speed trap ahead.  Apparently some officers were put off by the good Samaritans who kept others from getting ticketed which messed up the cop’s quotas for the month.

Today the FHP made the news by failing to close off a section of I-75 north of Orlando where they were aware of heavy smoke and fog resulting in 12 deaths.

Twelve cars and seven semi’s were involved in the accident.  More HERE.  The FHP closed the road briefly, and inexplicably opened it up again.  Moments later the deadly crashes began.

Let’s see:  Ticketing drivers for encouraging other drivers to slow down and then failing to close down a highway resulting in a dozen deaths.  Hmmmm.

It seems obvious to me that some pretty poor decision-making has been going on in that agency.  Does anyway else see a problem with this?

Friday, January 27, 2012

“Judge not…”: The most abused verse in Scripture

I participated in a Bible study on Matthew at a Catholic church the other night.
The video-taped teacher quickly glossed over Matthew 7:1 “Judge not lest ye be judged.”  Or another translation:  “Do not judge, so that you won’t be judged.”  He gave a six second reprise of the the common admonition to refrain from judging because we are all sinners and who are we to point out sin in others.
Our post-Christian culture has aborted the real meaning of this verse in favor of abstaining from discernment of right and wrong, good and evil.   This goes a long way in explaining the decline of morality in our nation.
This mistaken interpretation was demonstrated by another class member who said “we should never judge an individual because he has his reasons for doing what he is doing that we may not be aware of.  We should never judge another’s motives.”
Wrong !  Wrong!   Wrong!
This verse needs to be understood in context.  Jesus is addressing the problem of  hypocrites.  Jesus never says “everyone” is a hypocrite.  And not everyone  is a hypocrite.  Even if you believe most people are hypocrites, maybe even ourselves, you probably know some fine people who are not.  He is pointing out that those who ARE hypocrites have no credibility when they call attention to the shortcomings of others.
So, is it ok for the “non-hypocrite” to point out the sins of others?  Absolutely.  When we cease being hypocrites – when we take the log out of our own eye - we are then in a position to take the speck out of our brother's eye. (verse 5).  As one commentary states:  “Believers DO have a responsibility to help one another repent of sins, but only after first dealing with their own serious sins.”
And yes, we are called to judge the character and motive of others.  The Holman Bible Dictionary declares:  “The interpretation of Matthew 7:1 that Christians should not make value judgments of the behavior of others is shown to be erroneous by multiple commands in Scripture to do exactly that.”
The Bible is replete with examples of a Godly mandate to judge.  The prophets of the Old Testament surely judged.  Look at Isaiah for example.  And in the New, look at Matthew 7:15-20, John 7:24, and 1 Timothy 3:10.  Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:10 called for distinguishing between spirits, evil and otherwise.  Paul in Romans doesn’t hold back in judging homosexuality as sin.  Are we not to judge the behavior and chosen lifestyle of the homosexual?  Or the thief, or the adulterer?
We shouldn’t judge the “motive” of others?  Really?  A finding of guilt or innocence of someone charged with a crime requires determination of “motive” in addition to “means” and “opportunity.”  The business person is wise to judge the motive and character of one he chooses as a business partner.
What would become of our culture if…
  • We eliminated judging character and morality as a couple of the most important criteria for voting for the best candidate?
  • All judges across the land were prohibited from judging because we are all sinners?
  • We determined that faithfulness and character in choosing a spouse was off limits?
  • Judging character and loyalty as the best reasons for choosing our friends was declared unscriptural?
  • We no longer could judge faith, loyalty, and dedication as the basis for choosing leaders in our churches?
This leads to the biggest cancer of all:  Moral relativity.  This is the cultural disease where we believe no one’s actions, words, religion, or politics are better or truer than anyone else’s.  They are all just as good.  They are all just as true.  The Muslim on the plane should not be judged because Islam is no better, no worse than Christianity.  And that Muslim probably doesn’t know any better, just like the child predator may not know any better.   That’s just their beliefs.  Their motives should not be judged.
You’ve GOT to be kidding.
Our rampant erroneous interpretation of Matthew 7:1 denies the concept of good and evil, right and wrong, truth and lies.  This is the very thought pattern that is leading this nation into moral decay.  This is why our mainline religious denominations have accepted abortion, gay ministers, and gay marriage.  This is why we are tolerating all manner of vile entertainment and immoral behavior of teenagers and selfish greed among our electorate.
Just as we as a nation must become energy-responsible by adopting the policy of “drill, baby, drill”, we also need to become morally responsible by adopting a personal policy of “judge, baby, judge.”  But we can do this only after we do all we can to build our own character so that we are worthy to put into practice the judging God calls us to do.

Here is another great article on "The Cult of Judge Not."

Monday, January 23, 2012

Hundreds of military tanks move in California…

Take a look at this video of a very long train full of military tanks heading southbound south of Santa Cruz, California…

Then tell me what you think these tanks are going to be used for.


A.  Recently manufactured as routine replacement in various parts of the world.

B.  For use in the Middle East/Iran

C.  For use in Korea

D. For use in the United States.

E.  All of the above

F.  Other ______________________________________________

I could understand that these tanks were simply new off the production line if there were a merely dozen or so being transported such as we see when new cars are in transit, 6 or 8 at a time, on auto carriers on the Interstates.  But this many tanks in one haul represents a major repositioning.

I lived in South Florida during the Cuban Missile crisis and remember seeing convoys of military vehicles of this magnitude heading toward Homestead Air Force Base.  That sight gave pause.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Gingrich in surprise SC win…

Well, it surprised me, anyway.

A week ago I predicted a Romney/Santorum win in this conservative and evangelical state with Gingrich coming in third.  I wasn’t alone.

Thanks to a timely rant that resonated with the South Carolina electorate against a shallow Desperate Housewife-type question by CNN’s John King, Gingrich is the winner.  Not by a small margin, either.  Early indications are Gingrich 44%, Romney 22%.  

In fact Gingrich’s spirited chastening resonated so well nationwide that FOX Business commentator Neil Cavuto was endowed with hundreds of irate comments on his web site for being critical of Newt’s criticism.  Cavuto continues his uphill obsession with defending his fellow newsmen on his website HERE.

What Cavuto and most media do NOT understand is this:  There is waaaaaaay too much media pandering to gossip, social screw-ups of the rich and famous, and fun but insanely insignificant trivia of everyday life.  The neighborhood gossip  is Mother Teresa compared to the content priorities of the media. 

Those of us who are really concerned about the direction of our country are also really pissed off at the lack of serious discussion about the serious issues facing our country.  I’m glad Gingrich won for this reason alone.


Who endorses Gingrich, Romney?

A check of who is endorsing who helps to identify deeper ideological differences between the candidates.

While there is an exception or two, governors and moderates tend to endorse Romney and conservatives and Tea Party folks tend to endorse Gingrich.

Here is a sampling of who has endorsed who so far…


Chuck Norris

Michael Reagan

Rick Perry, Texas Governor

Sarah Palin

Tim LaHaye

Frank Gaffney


John Huntsman

Bob McDonnel, Virginia Governor

John Bolton

Nikki Haley, South Carolina Governor

Bill Haslam, Tennessee Governor

What does this tell us about the candidates?  Let’s see what we can learn from this.

The most obvious, Governors gravitate toward former governors.

John Bolton is an interesting case.  His endorsement is odd because of Romney's weak stance on Islam compared to Gingrich’s.  But then again this may be understandable since Bolton was an advisor to Bush when Bush claimed Islam was a “religion of peace.”  Bush received some pretty poor advice.  I suspect Bolton has some antipathy toward Gingrich since earlier Gingrich said he would like Bolton as his Secretary of State, although this could have been an endorsement bribe.

This list, or an expanded version of it, may be a good guide to who you may want to vote for.  Which endorsers do you most respect?

I have a great deal of respect for Chuck Norris, Michael Reagan, Sarah Palin, and Frank Gaffney.  Gaffney in particular has one of the clearest understandings of Islam, even to the extent that he has been labeled an Islamophobe by the Soros-funded far left.  That is a good thing.  From what I’ve learned from Romney’s national security advisors, I would rather have Frank Gaffney advise Gingrich than Walid Phares advise Romney.

Gingrich comes closer to defining Islamic threat…

Even Newt Gingrich, in his attempts to tell the truth about Islam, falls short in his description of that particular enemy.  Here is his statement from his website:

Understand our enemies and tell the truth about them. We are engaged in a long war against radical Islamism, a belief system adhered to by a small minority of Muslims but nonetheless a powerful and organized ideology within Islamic thought that is totally incompatible with the modern world.

This is somewhat more accurate than Romney’s position which is basically “Jihadism is no part of Islam.”  At least Gingrich dares to name the name “Islam.”  Romney disassociates Islam from Jihadism which is both cowardly and wrong.  Obama disassociates all Islamic terror from any term associated with Islam, whether it be Jihad, terrorism, or any word the media has used in the last 10 years associated with violence in the name of Islam.

The kind of speech given in the video below at least gives hope that someone understands:

But saying “…radical Islamism [is] adhered to by a small minority of Muslims… within Islamic thought…” also misses the mark.

Radical Islamism is the CORE of Islamic thought.  It may not be the core of most Muslim thought, but it IS the core of Islamic thought.

C’mon people, wake up!

Friday, January 20, 2012

Romney’s position on Islam makes little sense…

I like Mitt Romney as a person.  But some of his statements about Islam are beyond odd.  They  show a shallow, misinformed understanding of the nature of that ideology and the threat we face from Islam.  One misinformed sounding quote is “Jihadism is no part of Islam.”  Most recently he called Lebaonon “a democracy” and praised Hezbollah for its health care program.

Desiring clarification of the statement that “Jihadism is no part of Islam,” and understanding that Walid Phares is a national policy advisor to Governor Romney, I emailed Dr. Phares and asked if he would straighten out my rather unfavorable understanding of Romney’s statement.

Beth Malik, on behalf of Dr. Phares replied.  She provided a link (below) to an American Thinker article that elaborates Romney’s position which, in essence, is that Jihadism is the national security threat, and not all of Islam.

I replied that my concerns were not resolved by her answer but in fact were confirmed.

Beth replied once again, and again confirmed that Romney’s concern is limited to Jihadism, not Islam –they only consider Jihadism as the threat and not the ideology (Islam) that promotes that threat.  She further stated that Romney’s position is “very sophisticated” and “very advanced”, especially in comparison with the other candidates who only use the term “radical Islam” without defining it.

Unfortunately that comparison is NOT true.  Here is a quote from the New York Times on one of Newt Gingrich’s views on the Islamic Threat:

Long before he announced his presidential run this year, Newt Gingrich had become the most prominent American politician to embrace an alarming premise: that Shariah, or Islamic law, poses a threat to the United States as grave as or graver than terrorism.

That doesn’t sound like an ill-defined comment on “radical Islam.”  It is a statement that defines the real threat of the political essence of Islam:  Sharia Law.

The facts surrounding Islam’s founding, doctrine, historical practice, and statements of Islam’s leaders today lead me to believe that the Romney campaign is grossly out of touch with the Islamic threat to our way of life.

Read through the sequence of emails, below, and then let me know, with your comments, if you believe Romney’s position on Jihad and Islam are adequate to address the threat.


My Original Message…



Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:05 PM

Subject: internet visitor


Are you still an advisor to Mitt Romney (Ihope)?

If so, is he listening to you?

I ask this because of an occasional quote I hear from him such as this one:

“Jihadism is not part of Islam.”

That may as well be Barack Obama saying this. And we don’t need that kind of ignorance in the White House.

Please straighten out my understanding of this.



Phares Reply…

From: Walid Phares []
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: internet visitor


I have forwarded your message to Professor Phares who indeed is a Senior Advisor to Governor Romney

He asked me to forward this article to you, which he recommends. He believes these notions are somewhat explained in the piece

From what I understand the Governor meant that Jihadism is the actual national security threat and it is not all of Islam. Meaning it is the doctrine that openly threatens the US. One can still debate any religion theologically in a free society but the component that is a direct menace is Jihadism. It targets non Muslims and moderate Muslims aliek. That's my reading of the Gov.'s position

Don't hesitate to contact Dr Phares in the future.

Can you send us your web site, blog or your CV to have it on file?


Beth Malek



My Reply….


To: 'Walid Phares'

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:46 PM

Subject: RE: internet visitor


Thank you for your reply.

I understand the essence of the American Thinker article, that Mr. Romney does not dwell on the literalist interpreters version of Islam, that he thinks Islam itself is benign, that there is a radical element that has attached itself to Islam that is the problem.

It is exactly that position with which I whole-heartedly disagree. The historic Islamic doctrine, as taught and promoted by the dominant Islamic leaders today, is what informs and serves as the basis for Islamic intolerance and hatred toward the west today. Yes, there are Muslims who are uninformed about their faith, nominal Muslims who prefer western values just as there are “nominals” of every religion. But unlike Christianity, devoutness of Muslims increases what we call the “radicalization of Muslims.” The more devout Muslims tend to be the more radical Muslims become, do they not? Doesn’t that inform us at all about the nature of Islam?

I’m sorry to say that the answer you offer only adds to my concern about Mr. Romney’s position on Islam.



Phares Reply…

From: Walid Phares []
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: internet visitor

Let me try one more time to explain a notion that is very sophisticated.

I don't think Governor Romney is saying that Islam is benign or not. These are your words. There are some in town who state that either one would take a position on all of Islam and Muslims based on texts or not.

In theological debates one can proceed in religion and philosophies analysis. You are free to base your theological or political judgement on your understanding of it. There is no quarell.

But the Governor and decision makers do not state their position based on theological grounds. They look at the threat and defines it. The threat that actually targets and organize, and is moving forward is not theological texts. It is made of networks, finances and political forces. He coins them as Jihadists. If you have noted he didn't say Islam is a religion of Peace or Islam is a religion of war. He said a majority of Muslims are peaceful, and that is a reality. And said the organized force that is targeting us are the Jihadists (including regimes and groups) and that too is a fact.

Reaching that point in national security is very advanced. The other candidates said the threat is "Radical Islam" thinking they made an advance. In fact they aren't able to define what it is.

Now, if you as a citizen wish to declare that the threat is a theology in the absolute, that is your view not the one of Governor Romney, not even the other ones, as they make a distinction between 'radical Islam" and Islam

I do respect your views and hope you success in your debates




My Reply…

Thank you again for your reply, Beth.

Many believe it is foolhardy to isolate the tactics (Jihadism) from the ideology (Islam).  Such separation squanders potential understanding of the motivation behind the Jihadism that we are fighting.  It results in us not knowing our enemy as well as we need to.

In fact, here is something more advanced than separating the tactics from the ideology:  Consider Islam as (primarily) a political ideology using “religion” as a protection.  Think “Communism or Fascism cloaked in religious zeal.”

After all, as many point out (Warner, Spencer, and others), the Islamic holy books devote most of their space to how Muslims should think and act with regard to the “infidel”, “unbeliever”, and “apostate.”  Their ideology is political also because their belief system is mandatory/coercive, not optional, e.g. Sharia Law.  It is enforced through force – I’m certain you know all this. 

This raises a question:  Do Walid or Mitt believe the attempt to impose Sharia law in this country is either part of Islam or part of Jihadism?

Ignoring the texts of this ideology is like ignoring Mein Kampf or the Manifesto.  There is little difference.  The only reason for ignoring this parallel that makes any sense to me is perhaps in the mind of some ignoring these similarities may be out of fear of offending or inciting Muslims predisposed to hate us.  If we persisted with such fears with regard to the other two cited ideologies, we would be speaking Russian or German.  I hope that is not the thinking of the Romney advisors.


Thursday, January 19, 2012

Willful ignorance vs. Shallow convictions

Have you ever encountered a situation where you thought you were on the same page with someone concerning a moral issue, but they turn on you when discussing this topic  with a third party friend of theirs?

This is a “Peter denial, cock-crowing moment”.  This is a situation where siding with a friend (or peers, as in “peer pressure”, or “political correctness” as in politics) was more important than that individual’s so-called “moral convictions.”

I experienced this recently concerning the topics of abortion and gay marriage.  The “third party” individual I was having this discussion with has spent most of her 40 years of life in la la land* and claims “I should be able to do what I want with my body” referring to her right to abort.  At the same time 1) she claims to know and believe the Bible, 2) she understands that there is another body – not her own – inside the body of an aborter, 3) she proclaims belief in gay marriage, and 4) she self-righteously exclaims “don’t tell me what to believe” when I challenged the basis for her opinions.  

Short review:  She is clueless about this whole issue and doesn’t care a whit about the illogic of her attitude – which goes far in explaining why she has achieved little in life.

Enter now the individual who has consistently expressed her convictions that abortion and gay marriage are both wrong.  Witnessing the immoral and illogical statements of her friend, instead of supporting the Biblically moral position that she has expresses in private many times, she instead tells me I am wrong and demands the end of the discussion.  Whoa!!  A voodoo head-spin moment.  Blindside alert!  Time to shake the dust off my sandals.

This brief encounter included this paraphrased exchange:

Her:  “I can do whatever I want to do. I want to do what I want to do.”

Me:  “The essence of the Bible chronicles our human willfulness against God.”

Her:  “Don’t tell me what I know.  I know the Bible.”

Voodoo head spin lady to me:  “She’s right.  Be quiet.”

Me, thinking to myself:  Shocked, dumbfounded, betrayed, silenced.

And I concluded to myself that it is more difficult witnessing the denial of one who you thought believed than the denial of one who never did.

John 18:25-27 –Meanwhile, as Simon Peter was standing by the fire warming himself, they asked him again, “You’re not one of his disciples, are you?”  He denied it, saying, “No, I am not.”  But one of the household slaves of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Didn’t I see you out there in the olive grove with Jesus?”  Again Peter denied it.  And immediately a rooster crowed.

Denying the truth of the Scriptures is the same as denying Christ.


* La la land:  An attitude toward life that maintains no serious commitment or endeavor, that dwells on pop-entertainment and gossip, that rejects moral principle, that relies on the largess of others for survival,  and who is satisfied in that condition.  A place that is remote from reality.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Why moderation toward Islam won’t work

Today I heard one possible defense of the terminal political correctness concerning Islam embraced by most of our political leaders.  And it comes from law enforcement professionals.

Here it is: 

Don’t offend Muslims with the truth: They may be our best snitches.

Here is the rationale.  If we avoid the truth about Islam – it’s historical intolerance, its advocacy and practice of violent Jihadism,  its hatred of Jews and Christians,  its vile treatment of women, its lying and deceit to further its cause, its barbaric Sharia law, and its demands for tolerance from the infidel – if we disassociate Islam from all of these beliefs and practices, we will be less likely to offend Muslims and better able to recruit Muslim informants so we can discover the really bad stuff being promoted by the “radicals” within Islam.

Mitt Romney has done this by saying “Jihadism is no part of Islam.”  Did he say this so that we can gain the confidence of “moderate” Muslims to assist in our intelligence gathering efforts against the “radicals?”  Or did he say it out of ignorance?  It is hard to tell the difference.   Either way – an accommodation tactic or ignorance - it is not the truth.

The question becomes:  How do we “not offend” and tell the truth at the same time?  Especially since the Muslim version of slander isn’t our version of slander:  Lies to demean the good character of another.  The Muslim understanding of slander is anything that offends, whether it is the truth or not.  The Islamic culture will not tolerate the truth if it offends them.  They consider such truth “immoral” just as much as we (well, most of us) consider lying immoral.

So, the standard that we need to accept so that we do not offend Muslims is to avoid the truth about Islam.  This appears to be the course that most of our politicians have adopted, including much of our law enforcement.

The problems with this approach will ensure our defeat as a nation and culture.

First and foremost, it sacrifices the very core of the morality upon which our nation is founded and continues to exist:  Truth.  If we are forced to evade the truth about an enemy that seeks to destroy us, we have lost.

Which brings up the second problem -  ignoring the first rule in Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”:  Know your enemy.  More completely, it reads:

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

In a republic such as we are endowed with, if the truth about the enemy is kept from the masses, it is the same as the enemy not being known. The people, if kept in ignorance, will not be informed well enough to elect the leadership required for our survival.  The people are kept in the dark.  This is the sad consequence whether the intelligence community and political leadership know the truth or not.

The third problem is that the strategy of not offending Muslims has its roots in the mistake of considering Islam a religion.  This results in our blind defense of Muslims.    Why do we do this?  We feel that it is un-Christian, or unkind, or inappropriate to insult Muslims because we are conditioned to accept ALL religions as worthy of respect and protection.  This certainly wasn’t true concerning Warren Jeffs of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who now spends his life in jail.  What is the difference?  He based his actions on the teaching of his religion.  Here it is:  Muslims are excellent at playing victim and threatening others with litigation or intimidation of various sorts.  The rest of us are not that good at playing the victim card.

If not a religion, then what is Islam?  And what difference will it make in how we tip-toe around their “rights” and how much we feel it necessary to respect, condone, and protect their actions?

Since the majority of the verses of Islam’s sacred texts and teaching center on the infidel, how evil he is, how inferior he is, how he is to be treated, and how he is to be governed, judged, and punished, then Islam is clearly a political ideology every bit as much as Fascism and Communism are.

Once Islam is identified for what it is, an intolerant, fascist, seditious political ideology hell-bent on destroying our nation and our freedoms, then the “informants” will come out of the woodwork.  We won’t have to worry about lying – hiding the truth about Islam – so that we can attract snitches.  In my mind, when the truth becomes the predominant value, what were formerly illegitimate “snitches” become legitimate “informants.”  The morality of our battle would be raised several notches by being truthful about who our enemy is instead of being deceptive and politically correct out of expediency.

We should not encourage any aspect of Islam by believing there is a moderate Islam worthy of our respect or protection and a “radical” Islam that is the only problem.  Islam is the problem.  There may be non-practicing Muslims, those who are ignorant of or indifferent to Islamic teaching.  That does not make one a moderate Muslim.  It makes one a non-Muslim.

Here is the essence of the truth about Islam and why we cannot afford withholding the facts about it:

  • The majority of Islam’s “Holy Scriptures” describe the evils of the unbeliever, how he is to be treated, what is required of him and how the unbeliever (infidel) and unworthy Muslim shall be governed, judged, and punished.
  • This makes Islam a political ideology – an ideology that mandates the beliefs and behavior of others.
  • Many abrogating sections of the Qur’an call for the killing of Jews and other infidels.
  • This makes Islam an intolerant, supremacist fascist ideology.
  • Islam demands tolerance by the infidel while demanding intolerance toward the infidel.
  • Western culture requires tolerance of all religions and considers Islam a religion.
  • We are applying our tolerance to protect Islam so it can destroy us.

This is why Islam should NOT be considered a religion.  This is why moderation toward Islam won’t work.

Why Captains are last to abandon ship

I’ve finally discovered why ship captains have traditionally been the last to abandon ship.  It has nothing to do with responsibility or bravery or gallantry.  It is because most previous calls to abandon ship have been out at sea where there is nowhere else to go.  Drown now.  Drown later.  They prefer to remain on the ship and drown later.

However, when a ship sinks within a stone’s throw of land, why stay on the ship when you can swim or ride 1 minute to land?

That was likely the thinking of Captain Francesco Schettino of the Costa Concordia.  He took it even one step further with his “what, me worry” attitude after he refused an order to get back to the ship to lead the rescue.

Here is more about the Captain’s refusal to get back on his sinking ship.

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Sunday, January 15, 2012


Criticism of Romney’s “firing” comment is yet another troubling sign of our stifling political correctness, aversion to blunt frankness on issues, and wanton distortion of sincere words spoken.

For those of you who missed the context of his “I like being able to fire people” comment, here it is:

"I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

Some suggest Romney shouldn’t have used the word “fire”, that it was too harsh.  Or that he should have known that word would be used against him – perhaps thinking “what kind of naïve politician is he anyway?”

I would rather have a slightly naïve politician than a slick politician any day.

But there was no naiveté in what Romney said.  None.  He spoke the bare truth.

Public relations consultants and ad men are the spokesmen for Romney’s Republican opponents.  They were put off by Romney’s bluntness.  They saw it as an opportunity to go after his “evil” capitalist experience.   They led the charge of snarkiness against Romney’s comments.  Romney’s bluntness is upsetting to public relations and advertising types who are especially practiced in their use of verbal nuances and psychological manipulation via words.  They use words every day to skillfully influence folks into buying products or services or doing things that they might not otherwise buy or do.  It must be unsettling for them to hear a candidate use words like “fire” in such a blunt way.   “Fire” omagosh, he used the word “fire!” 

I love bluntness when “blunt” is the truth.  And not just the truth, but expressive of the feelings we all share.  Who doesn’t love the ability (if not the act) to fire those who are doing a crummy job, who are wasting our time or ripping us off?

Along the same lines as Romney’s bluntness, we have the words of the Mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, whose video is making the rounds on the net.  What responsible father would not love his speech on behalf of responsible behavior?  He is not being politically correct.  In fact, much of the black community is probably critical of what he is saying.  Start at 9:20

Nutter using blunt, truthful words–not politically correct at all.

I am bored and disgusted with the political correctness of carefully chosen words that avoid the truth.  There is little difference between such political correctness and a huckster peddling swamp land in Florida, or an ad man crafting a slick infomercial for a product of marginal utility or those who tip-toe around the truth of fascist Islam.  The words may sound plausible but they miss the truth just enough to be deceptive lies.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Asymmetric anger from Karzai

You’ve heard of asymmetric warfare where one side spends $10 on a bomb and the other side spends $1,000,000 defending against the bomb.

Well, Hamid Karzai is expressing asymmetric anger at the US for an indiscretion of  several US Marines.  We sacrifice thousands of US troops to prop up his lousy Islamist government, and he rages at peeing on 3 dead Taliban. Quoting Diana West from this weeks syndicated column:

Rather than calm passions, Karzai stokes them: “The government of Afghanistan is deeply disturbed by a video that shows American soldiers desecrating dead bodies of three Afghans.”

Afghans, Taliban – no distinction.

I have to ask:  What the hell are we doing in that lousy place, with our pathetic butt-kissing military leadership and even more pathetic President?  We are peeing on ourselves in reaction to Karzai’s asymmetric anger.

Here is Diana West’s column.  Please bookmark her site at  She is definitely worthwhile tracking.

Granted, it’s not civil, palace etiquette, or, more important, U.S. military doctrine to urinate on battle-killed enemy fighters – in this case, three dead Taliban in Afghanistan. But could we just move on?

That’ll be the day. Get set for Abu Ghraib 2, a national wallow in a wholly manufactured and inflated evil, the kind of masochistic frolic our twisted elites, safe on their sound stages, find so extremely pleasurable. Get set for the exclusion of any and all context related to heat-of-battle conditions, battle fatigue or Taliban depredations. We have met the enemy and he is us, again – and thank God. Or is that thank Allah?

Most distressing is watching the International Security Assistance Force’s PR machinery crank up. The desecration of Taliban bodies – killed according to ISAF orders and assorted United Nations-NATO-focus-group preferences – is of immeasurably greater concern than the recent cold-blooded murder of a 20-year-old U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, shot in the head while playing volleyball by an Afghan army member. (Three other Americans were wounded.) By my unofficial count, this makes Kill No. 43 of NATO forces by Afghan security forces inside the wire over the past two years.

Also distressing is the fact that such deadly Afghan assaults against the very nations that shore up Hamid Karzai’s crummy government don’t get a rise out of the Afghan leader. This freak videotaped incident, however, does. Years of all-too-faithful sacrifice by U.S. and allied forces to end the jihad in Afghanistan count for nothing; years of restrictive rules of engagement designed to save Afghan lives at the expense of Western lives are disregarded. And forget about the billions of dollars spent by the West to build an Afghanistan of unimaginable grandiosity. Karzai has.

Rather than calm passions, Karzai stokes them: “The government of Afghanistan is deeply disturbed by a video that shows American soldiers desecrating dead bodies of three Afghans.”

Afghans, Taliban – no distinction.

Karzai continued: “This act by American soldiers is simply inhuman and condemnable in the strongest possible terms. We expressly ask the U.S. government to urgently investigate the video and apply the most severe punishment to anyone found guilty in this crime.”

But don’t mention the frequent Afghan shootings of U.S. and other infidel soldiers. Their wounds and deaths (not indignity after death) are not worth condemning. Or noticing. They’re just what happens in war (“counterinsurgency”); what happens on the battlefield (volleyball court); what happens to men who break down in battle under stressful conditions (watching a volleyball game).

The four American service members videotaped somewhere on patrol, quite possibly after a harrowing firefight, however, are “inexplicable” monsters. ISAF said as much in language that, for an official press release, verges on the hysterical. “ISAF Denounces Deplorable Act Portrayed in Video” is the headline. The release says:

“A video recently posted on a public website appears to show U.S. military personnel committing an inappropriate act with enemy corpses.

“This disrespectful act is inexplicable and not in keeping with the high moral standards we expect of coalition forces. ISAF strongly condemns the actions depicted in the video, which appear to have been conducted by a small group of U.S. individuals, who apparently are no longer serving in Afghanistan.

“Nevertheless, this behavior dishonors the sacrifices and core values of every service member representing the 50 nations of the coalition.”

I strenuously object to this grotesque inflation of such an incident to the magnitude of dishonoring all ISAF forces, up to and including their immense “sacrifices” – nearly 3,000 dead and tens of thousands more wounded and damaged. It doesn’t dishonor their “core values,” either. In fact, it has nothing to do with such values, which beat the Taliban’s every time, from child rape (sanctioned by polygamous “marriage”), to normalized pederasty (dancing boys), beheadings, Islamic male supremacism and zero freedom of conscience. I would bet that these Taliban values – shared, by the way, by average Afghans – played some role in the videotaped act of contempt.

The ISAF reaction, however, is to grovel. In so doing, it does more to weaken the morale and safety of troops than anything I can imagine. Except, of course, making a global disciplinary example of these haplessly outed military personnel.

I’m afraid that’s coming. The ISAF release concludes: “Therefore, a United States Criminal Investigatory agency has launched an investigation. It will be thorough, and any individuals with confirmed involvement will be held fully accountable.”

Look out. Incoming fire from ourselves.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Mid-campaign assessment of candidates

Here is my mid-campaign assessment of presidential candidates thus far – after the New Hampshire primary and prior to the South Carolina primary.

First off, I intend to contribute to and work for any Republican nominee before I will face the cold day in hell that I would vote for Obama, the great destroyer of our heritage and our future.

Next up:  Jon Huntsman.  I cannot seriously consider Mr. Huntsman.  His credentials of serving in the Clinton regime and being an ambassador to China would be ok if he were a Democratic candidate.  He is the most liberal and RHINO of any of the candidates.  His third place showing in New Hampshire reflects both the liberal social (don’t care if he’s Mormon) and political bias of that New England state.  I expect him to poll near the bottom in South Carolina.  He may or may not stick around for the Florida primary.

Rick Perry’s record on illegal immigration remains a deal killer for me.  And his inability to express himself effectively under pressure will be a problem in debates with Obama and in his role as President.  Finally, and this may seem nit-picky, but is a real concern nonetheless:  Perry is too similar to Bush in his mannerisms, accent, and attitudes.  He is somewhat “cowboy-esque” which will garner disdain by too much of the nation’s electorate.  Coming in a distant last in the New Hampshire primary has probably sealed his fate.  I would expect his withdrawal from the race after South Carolina.

Ron Paul is considered by many to be the best remaining candidate on fiscal and economic matters.  Some believe his desire to eliminate the fed is a bit extreme, but I am not concerned about that.  We can certainly use some extreme fiscal reform.  But Paul represents two deal killers for me. 

The big one is his ignorance of Islam related to his misinformed foreign policy.  He mimics Obama’s mantra that the United States is to blame for provoking Muslims into seeking revenge for our meddling in their affairs.  This ignorance is akin to keeping police in their squad cars for fear of pissing off the criminals.  Paul is advised by socialist Muslim sympathizers who ignore Islam’s centuries of intolerant, supremacist, warring behavior perpetually seeking conquest – centuries before the US existed to ruffle their over-sensitive feathers.  HERE is an insight into the Islamist sympathizers Paul gets his information from about Islam.  He is fatally naïve in the area of national security and foreign policy.

The other negative is his non-presidential persona.  He comes across as excessively whiney, snarky, and Ross Perot-ish (weasly in demeanor), even though I favored Ross over his competition.  But we have better choices now.   Virtually every other candidate is superior in this quality.

Rick Santorum is the most socially conservative of the remaining candidates.  And he and Gingrich have the best understanding of the threat of political Islam.  But he is criticized for taking some un-conservative stands in his political career.  Is he electable?  Of course his supporters say he is.  But most of the rest of us think he is not.  He will do a lot better in South Carolina than his next to last place showing in New Hampshire.  But I expect his undoing will be Florida after which he will secede from the race.

Newt Gingrich did poorly in New Hampshire with his distant 4th place showing.  I don’t expect he will do much better in South Carolina where he will be bested by both Romney and Santorum.  He has garnered a “love him” or “hate him” reputation, especially among conservatives.  It is difficult for me, and maybe the average voter, to know what to believe about Gingrich.  I don’t think I would enjoy the First Lady for four years.  But Gingrich does have among the best understanding of the threat of Islam and national security challenges of any of the candidates.  He would make a good president and probably has as good a chance of beating Obama as Romney does.

Mitt Romney is considered outside the Tea Party fold, but he is endorsed by several notable Tea Party leaders such as South Carolina’s Nikki Haley and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.  He has said some ignorant things about Islam, such as Jihadism has nothing to do with Islam.  On the other hand, among his band of foreign policy advisors is Walid Phares, a well-versed and respected expert on the Middle East and Islam.   However, Phares suffers from wishful thinking about how the Arab Spring will turn out.  He predicts there will be a secular backlash against the Muslim Brotherhood’s recent victories, but he doesn’t say in which century.

Romney is criticized for raising taxes and fees in Massachusetts.  Condemnation of Romney for that is totally without merit.  He was Governor in the most liberal state in the Union, with a legislature that was several notches to the left of him.  The governor does not have absolute control over the state legislature or the will of the proliferation of liberals who control the votes in that state.  To the contrary, Romney’s Massachusetts experience endows him with the experience to overcome the minority liberal tendencies in this nation.  He has shown that he is one to advocate on behalf of the will of the people as opposed to promoting the self-serving liberal agenda of the minority as Obama has been doing. 

Romney distinguishes Massachusetts health care from nationwide Obama care based on states rights.  He is clear that if states don’t want it, they shouldn’t be forced by an over-reaching federal government to have it.

With Herman Cain’s departure, Romney is the one remaining candidate with extensive business experience.  Some of it is being used against him – by those who twist the meaning of the word “fire” Romney used to describe the ability of individuals to choose their preferred insurance companies.  Both Republicans and Democrats have taken his words out of context to slander his private sector experience.

His runaway first place showing in relatively liberal New Hampshire is not as significant as the outcome will be in South Carolina and Florida .  Conservative South Carolina will be a big test of how the Bible Belt will react to Romney’s religion this second time around.

Other pluses for Romney:  He appears to have no moral baggage, he is a social conservative, he has an idyllic family, and he does indeed appear presidential.  He is not a bad debater, either.

Here are the results of the New Hampshire primary:

Mitt Romney | New Hampshire primary Mitt Romney
Ron Paul | New Hampshire primary Ron Paul
Jon Huntsman | New Hampshire primary Jon Huntsman
Newt Gingrich | New Hampshire primary Newt Gingrich
Rick Santorum | New Hampshire primary Rick Santorum
Rick Perry | New Hampshire primary Rick Perry

Monday, January 09, 2012

Tebow, Goldwater, and moderation

You’ve heard the expression “all things in moderation...”

And someone saying  “That was ‘over the top’” when they are critical of another’s emotion?

“All things in moderation” is a familiar and right sounding truism for life, right?  Bull pucky!  It’s really rather stupid when you think about what it really is saying.  “All things” presumes that everything is equally good and fulfilling.  And that nothing is worth actions or emotion beyond moderation.  That sounds rather lukewarm and milk-toastish to me.

In reality some things are absolutely worth avoiding at all cost.  Death and murder are good to avoid.  We aren’t encouraged to murder in moderation.  So, obviously, "all things in moderation" cannot be taken literally.  And “moderation.”  There are many things that are worth doing well beyond “in moderation.”    Can you imagine a great musician practicing in moderation?  Or a football coach urging his team to “go out there, but whatever you do, go out in moderation!”  And he better say that without sounding “over the top.”

A more valuable motto would be "moderation in things worth doing; and energy and great enthusiasm in doing things that are most worthwhile." 

Tim Tebow is mocked for being “over the top” with his prayer of thanks after games.  Really, too much prayer?  At the wrong place and time?  I don’t know how that is really possible. 

I can think of a number of things I would be “over the top” about:  defending my family, defending my neighbors and my country, and blogging.

“Over the top” is used in the same manner as racist, homophobe, and bigot.  These expressions are thoughtlessly used against anyone with whom you disagree.

Barry Goldwater was a victim of the cult of moderation when he was condemned for saying: 

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

I really liked Barry Goldwater.  And Tim Tebow is right there with him.

Sunday, January 08, 2012

US Israel buildup: Routine, counter-Iran, or political Obama?

The US is sending thousands of troops into Israel for joint exercises.  See also HERE.   Similar exercises have been conducted in the past, but the timing of this buildup warrants enhanced speculation.

Here are the major options of what we can expect:

1.  Routine exercise:  Apparently every few years we conduct joint exercises with Israel to sharpen our ability to coordinate with Israeli defense systems - to test and practice integration of our military plans and systems, especially rocket defense systems.  This has the added benefit of sending a message to hostile nations about our resolve to defend Israel and to encourage Iran to stand down with its nuclear program.

2. Not routine, but urgent:  This build-up may in fact be preparatory to legitimate joint military action against Iran. There has been additional credible evidence that Iran now has the capability to assemble nuclear bombs and the ability to deliver them throughout the region as well as for terrorist purposes overseas, including to the US and elsewhere via a variety of platforms – missile, freighter-missile, freighter-truck, or cross-border transit. 

3. Illegitimate action:  There has been speculation over the past year that Obama will initiate some dramatic event to take the focus off the election to benefit the odds of his being elected to a second term.  This could be that event. Military action against Iran may be considered by some to be legitimate, but may not be in reality.

The second justification for suspicion about such action has broader, trans-Obama implications in the minds of some.  This suspicion is based on the economic theory that we need go to war to bolster our economy and we have a pretext to do so regarding Iran, whether they actually have the will and means to produce and deliver a nuke or not.

I will stand with option 2: This is a necessary action.  We have been hearing from international experts for years that Iran’s nuclear weapons capability is 3 years, 2 years, 1 year away.  Their Islamist rantings expressing hatred toward Jews and calling for the annihilation of Israel show clear intent.   The three criteria for carrying out a crime are  Means, Motive, and Opportunity.  Do we wait for the execution of a crime that could kill 10’s of thousands of residents of one of our best allies before we act?

And no, I don’t think preemptive action against Iran will improve Obama’s ability to be re-elected.  It will demonstrate his failed foreign policy of sucking up to our enemies, not acknowledging their hatred and intent, and emboldening them to the point that we are forced into taking last-resort action of military confrontation.

Sunday, January 01, 2012

“Ask not…” John Kennedy omitted the best option

President Kennedy’s famous “ask not” quote is canonized by the media as one of the most stirring statements since Roosevelt’s “…a date which will live in infamy” proclamation given after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Here it is, as the liberal media would like it to appear following the Book of Revelation in the New Testament:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

What we have here are two socialist choices:

1.  Asking what our country can do for us:  Demanding government services and entitlements, or

2. Asking our fellow citizens to do more for country/government:  pay more taxes; support more programs, urge bigger government.

Both of these options beg for more and bigger government.  Both of these options ignore asking the people to do things for themselves.  The spirit of self-determination, self-sufficiency and independence are what made our country great prior to its decline of the last 50 years propelled by socialist tendencies.

The third, ignored but better, option is this:

Ask not what not what your country can do for you; ask not what you can do for your country; but ask what you can do for yourself and for your neighbors.

This best represents and promotes the enlightened self-interest that enabled the success of our nation and our liberties. 

Leave “country” (synonymous with “government”) out of it.  Those are both socialist options.  The freedom option is the one that emphasizes individual responsibility for our own needs, not the “needs” of the country that, in the end, just lead to bigger government and smaller freedoms.