The White House rips Kennedy: "It is regrettable that Senator Kennedy has chosen Veteran's Day to continue leveling baseless and false attacks that send the wrong signal to our troops and our enemy during a time of war. It is also regrettable that Senator Kennedy has found more time to say negative things about President Bush then he ever did about Saddam Hussein."
Terror hits home, Muslim's start to denounce it!
Hugh rips one of the celebrity pundits I love to hate, Rob Reiner
Insane professors will corrupt our college students
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Torture Works
I like John McCain, mostly. And while I respect his Vietnam experience it doesn't make him the definitive oracle on whether various interrogation techniques work or not. McCain's proposed amendment to ban "stressful" interrogation techniques will in the end (as the WSJ editorial board said) make capture by the US not such an intimidating event. I have no doubt if you got a list of interrogation techniques that McCain approved of, then told them to Kennedy, Durbin, Boxer, etc. as techniques that Karl Rove suggests, they would unanimously call them torture. This is a case where people have already made up there mind...with no real research or a thoughtful analysis. It's clear to me that if we capture a bad guy, give him tea and crumpets and ask him to give up his compadres our success rate will be close to zero. However, if we make things uncomfortable, and break them down mentally there's no question the success rate will be better than the twinkie approach.
I suspect most cream puff liberals are you willing to sacrifice their family, their town or yours by insisting we employ a soft approach to interrogation. To them the notion of being righteous is more important than the discomfort of a bad guy here and there. Sorry, not me, break out the cattle prod.
I suspect most cream puff liberals are you willing to sacrifice their family, their town or yours by insisting we employ a soft approach to interrogation. To them the notion of being righteous is more important than the discomfort of a bad guy here and there. Sorry, not me, break out the cattle prod.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Iraq is not Vietnam
Pretty much since the war in Iraq started the Liberal Left has wallowed joyously in the idea that this new war is somehow tied to the Vietnam War. They still believe that the protests of the 60’s somehow ended the Vietnam War, despite the fact that the war ended long after the protesters had gone home. In fact, the protests basically ended when the threat of the draft ended (go figure). The one thing the people on the left conveniently forget is the millions of people who were killed as a direct result of America pulling out of that war. God forbid we make that mistake again. If we were to instigate an immediate pullout of Iraq like the lunatic left would like us to do, there is no doubt that the result would be the same.
I’m not the smartest kid on the block but I do know enough to study history, as does my good friend Michael Medved and he put together this extremely important comparison of the Vietnam and Iraq Wars:
With all the misguided attempts to compare our current struggle in Iraq with America's most disastrous prior war, it's crucial for informed citizens to understand the profound contrasts and distinctions between Vietnam and Iraq - and to simultaneously come to terms with the one great and essential similarity.
Herewith, a quick list of the nine essential differences between the two wars - along with the single crucial resemblance.
DIFFERENCES
1.THE ENEMY-In Vietnam, we faced more than a rag-tag guerilla band: we confronted one of the world's most formidable military machines in the nation of North Vietnam, with more than a million men under arms. What's more, these troops and their officers had been hardened by some thirty years of fighting-first against the Japanese, then against the French, and finally against the South Vietnamese and the Americans. Ho Che Minh, dictator of North Vietnam, provided a potent symbol with a clearly articulated Communist agenda. In Iraq, on the other hand, we fight no nation, no organized army, no visible or unifying leader, but a collection of shadowy terrorist bands. These gangs occupy no territory, have announced no coherent program for the future, and command no economic or territorial base to replenish their cadres. They can certainly do damage to Americans and to the troops of democratic Iraq, but they can in no sense suggest a credible alternative-hence their very limited popular support.
2.THE ENEMY'S ALLIES-During the Vietnam struggle, the North Vietnamese and their guerilla allies in the south, the Viet Cong, received virtually unlimited support from two of the three most powerful nations on earth: the Soviet Union and Communist China. The two Communist superpowers disagreed on many issues, but they united in support of their Vietnamese colleagues - providing anti-aircraft surface-to-air (SAM) missile batteries, MIG jet fighters, artillery, ordnance, military vehicles, small arms, cash, food, encouragement and diplomatic support. The Iraqi insurgents, on the other hand, receive support from no government on earth. It's true that radical segments of Arab public opinion may wish for the insurgents to bloody the U.S., but none of the Islamic governments have in any way backed the insurgency; even Syria, which definitely could do more to stop the flow of men and weapons across its border, delivers ritualistic and official condemnation of the bloody, murderous terrorists (many of them non-Iraqis) who slaughter women and children, along with American fighting men.
3.OUR ARMY--Easily the most controversial aspect of the Vietnam war - and the main spur to the anti-war movement - involved the draft of literally millions of young Americans during the '60's and '70's. While a small majority of those who actually fought "in country" in Indochina turned out to be volunteers, the involuntary nature of the draft gave rise to the "Hell No, We Won't Go Slogan," to burned draft cards, flights to Canada, and numberless fantasies of martyrdom. In our current struggle, our highly-professional and expertly trained military includes no draftees whatever. Everyone fighting in Iraq - including National Guardsmen and reservists- at one time or another enlisted voluntarily in the military. Cindy Sheehan notwithstanding, all those who sign up for the U.S. military are clever enough to understand the very real possibility that at one point you might be required to use your expensive training in actual combat.
4.CASUALTY RATES - The human cost of the war in Iraq is genuinely horrifying, with more than 1,800 of our finest young people making the ultimate sacrifice. This carnage can hardly compare, however, to Vietnam - in which 58,000 Americans gave their lives for their country. The Iraq War has been going on for two and a half years - with a killed-in-action rate of approximately 800 per year. In Vietnam, the years of principal American I involvement (1965-72) saw deaths that averaged nearly 8,000 per year - in other words, a casualty rate some 10 TIMES as high. In fact, the differential is even greater in terms of the impact on the nation: in 1970, the census showed the U.S. population at 203 million; today, it stands above 290 million. In terms of a percentage of our total population, the death rate in Vietnam exceeded the death rate in Iraq by a ratio of 14 to 1. Even if the U.S. continued to struggle in Iraq for four more years with the current rate of killing (a worst case scenario our policy makers will move heaven and earth to avoid), the deaths will total some 5,000-less than a single year of Vietnam, and less than 10% of the total losses in that war. To keep casualty figures in perspective, it's important to remember that the combined human cost of Afghanistan and Iraq, after nearly three years of overall struggle, still involves fewer deaths than on a single dark day of recent history: September 11, 2001.
5.THE MEDIA - On the surface, the mainstream media (TV networks, newsmagazines, prestige newspapers) seem to offer the same perspective on two very different wars: emphasizing bad news, and downplaying every sing of progress. The difference in media coverage remains profound, however, since the emergence of new media (talk radio, Fox News, the Internet and the blogosphere) have changed the media landscape completely. When Walter Cronkite of CBS announced his disillusionment with the war in a special broadcast in 1968, no prominent media voices rose to contradict him: the public had to choose between believing "Uncle Walter" (the Most Trusted Man in America, according to polls) or Lyndon Johnson. Today, we enjoy far more diverse sources of information, and persuasive (sometimes raucous) voices on the right arise immediately to contradict all the TV network distortions and to provide perspective and balance.
6.POLITICS - Despite recent polls suggesting an Iraq-related decline in the President's popularity, the balance of power in Washington bears no resemblance to the situation in the Vietnam era. In the '60's and '70?s, the Democrats remained the dominant party in the nation, enjoying uninterrupted control of both houses of Congress during both decades, despite two terms of the Nixon presidency. By 1970, that dominant party, the Democrats, had turned radically, overwhelmingly against the war, with "peace candidate" George McGovern nominated for president in 1972. Today, by contrast, the Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress (and the majority of state governorships) and Republicans remain almost unanimously behind Bush. In the most recent Gallup poll, the President's "approval rating" among self-described Republicans reached a reassuring 88%. It's Democrats - not Republicans - who show their divisions, with the "Move On"-Michael Moore-Howard Dean wing of the party favoring immediate withdrawal, while the Joe Lieberman-Joe Biden-Hillary Clinton mainstream seems to understand the importance of finishing our work in Iraq. During Vietnam, a long series of majority Congressional votes (including the infamous McGovern-Hatfield Senate resolution cutting off our military) served to undermine the U.S. war effort. In Iraq, no comparable "surrender" resolution has drawn even 20% of either house of Congress.
7.SCANDAL - In the last analysis, it wasn't public opinion turning against the war that doomed our Vietnam policy: it was, rather, the self-destruction of the Nixon administration in the most devastating scandal in U.S. political history. After a triumphant re-election in 1972, both Vice President Agnew and President Nixon resigned their offices leaving a fatally weak chief executive (Gerald Ford) who had never even run for national office. In the Watergate-stained election of 1974, the Democrats added crushing weight to their already lop-sided majorities (gaining 49 seats in the House, 5 in the Senate) and preventing President Ford from re-supplying our South Vietnamese allies when the North broke its agreements under the Paris Accords and launched a massive invasion. Without the Watergate scandal, driving Nixon from office and temporarily emasculating the Republican Party, our government almost surely would have maintained the commitments made to resist Northern aggression. However seriously one takes the currently hysterical Democratic efforts to magnify the controversy surrounding the public identification of CIA desk-jockey Valerie Plame, no sane observer believes that the scandal will follow the Watergate example and lead to the resignation or impeachment of President Bush.
8.THE PAST -For millions of Vietnamese, the war against the United States represented the culmination of several centuries of struggle against colonialism and foreign domination, and followed by a mere twenty years their successful efforts to throw off the yoke of bumbling French imperialism. Iraq has experienced no comparable history of colonialism: for nearly 400 years (1533-1916) it functioned as part of the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire. The period of British "protectorate" lasted a mere sixteen years (from World War I occupation in 1916 to independence under Prime Minister Nuri-el Said in 1932), with only a brief English re-occupation (1941-45) during the height of World War II. Under thirty years of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, Iraq drew some support from the west but functioned for the most part as a military and economic client of the Soviet Union. Unlike Vietnam, where Communists could claim that they represented a nationalist reaction to French (and then American) colonialism, the population of Iraq maintains clear memories of the rabidly anti-American Hussein regime which brought about the nation's economic and cultural ruin.
9.THE STAKE - The best argument of the peace movement during the Vietnam war involved its insistence that even American defeat would bring little pain to most Americans. The anti-war forces argued (with considerable persuasiveness) that the Vietnamese only wanted to control Vietnam: they would never send their minions to invade California or Florida. America might lose prestige, might sacrifice credibility, to give up ground to the Soviets in the titanic and fateful Cold War struggle, but no one expected that our citizens here at home would sleep less soundly in their beds if the U.S. cleared out of Vietnam, on the other side of the world from our homeland. Today, however, we don't have to tax our imaginations to visualize Middle Eastern enemies invading our shores and massacring American civilians: we already experienced that nightmare on September 11, with Islamic fanatics killing more of us in that one day than the Iraqi insurgents have managed to kill in two and a half years. America's stake in defeating a ruthless enemy in Iraq isn't abstract or nebulous: it's real, immediate, urgent and palpable. Anti-war extremists may downplay the every day dangers of Islamic terrorism, but most Americans understand that it still represents a significant menace to both our lives and our way of life.
And this recognition brings me to the one great SIMILARITY in the two wars. In both conflicts, the American people understand the horrific dangers of unilateral, precipitous, unconditional withdrawal. By 1972, most voters had developed deep doubts about the struggle in Vietnam and yet when George McGovern gave them the chance to vote for immediate withdrawal (under the campaign slogan, "Come Home, America!"), a received an unprecedented shellacking. McGovern, the "Peace Candidate," lost 49 of 50 states, carrying only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, carrying a feeble 38% of the popular vote and trailing Richard Nixon by an astonishing 23%. The general public might not like the Vietnam war, with its truly appalling casualty figures, but they liked the option of ignominious surrender even less.
Today, a very similar mood prevails throughout most of the United States. Our citizens worry about the war, and long for our troops to come home, but only a very small percentage (about 20%, according to most polls) want us to run up the white flag, abandon our Iraqi allies, and strangle an infant democracy in its cradle. It took nearly ten bitter years (from the major U.S. escalation in the summer of '65 to the final North Vietnamese victory of April, 1975) of devastating sacrifice and nearly ceaseless protest before our exhausted nation felt ready to abandon the cause to which we had committed ourselves in Vietnam. With that time table in mind, even with the vastly lower casualty rates from Iraq, it would take us till 2013 before we betrayed our current efforts to establish democratic values in the heart of the Middle East. Long before that grim eventuality, we will see a constitutional republic (imperfect, like virtually all nation states) operating in place of the kleptocratic, genocidal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and contributing significantly to the safety and security of all Americans.
I’m not the smartest kid on the block but I do know enough to study history, as does my good friend Michael Medved and he put together this extremely important comparison of the Vietnam and Iraq Wars:
With all the misguided attempts to compare our current struggle in Iraq with America's most disastrous prior war, it's crucial for informed citizens to understand the profound contrasts and distinctions between Vietnam and Iraq - and to simultaneously come to terms with the one great and essential similarity.
Herewith, a quick list of the nine essential differences between the two wars - along with the single crucial resemblance.
DIFFERENCES
1.THE ENEMY-In Vietnam, we faced more than a rag-tag guerilla band: we confronted one of the world's most formidable military machines in the nation of North Vietnam, with more than a million men under arms. What's more, these troops and their officers had been hardened by some thirty years of fighting-first against the Japanese, then against the French, and finally against the South Vietnamese and the Americans. Ho Che Minh, dictator of North Vietnam, provided a potent symbol with a clearly articulated Communist agenda. In Iraq, on the other hand, we fight no nation, no organized army, no visible or unifying leader, but a collection of shadowy terrorist bands. These gangs occupy no territory, have announced no coherent program for the future, and command no economic or territorial base to replenish their cadres. They can certainly do damage to Americans and to the troops of democratic Iraq, but they can in no sense suggest a credible alternative-hence their very limited popular support.
2.THE ENEMY'S ALLIES-During the Vietnam struggle, the North Vietnamese and their guerilla allies in the south, the Viet Cong, received virtually unlimited support from two of the three most powerful nations on earth: the Soviet Union and Communist China. The two Communist superpowers disagreed on many issues, but they united in support of their Vietnamese colleagues - providing anti-aircraft surface-to-air (SAM) missile batteries, MIG jet fighters, artillery, ordnance, military vehicles, small arms, cash, food, encouragement and diplomatic support. The Iraqi insurgents, on the other hand, receive support from no government on earth. It's true that radical segments of Arab public opinion may wish for the insurgents to bloody the U.S., but none of the Islamic governments have in any way backed the insurgency; even Syria, which definitely could do more to stop the flow of men and weapons across its border, delivers ritualistic and official condemnation of the bloody, murderous terrorists (many of them non-Iraqis) who slaughter women and children, along with American fighting men.
3.OUR ARMY--Easily the most controversial aspect of the Vietnam war - and the main spur to the anti-war movement - involved the draft of literally millions of young Americans during the '60's and '70's. While a small majority of those who actually fought "in country" in Indochina turned out to be volunteers, the involuntary nature of the draft gave rise to the "Hell No, We Won't Go Slogan," to burned draft cards, flights to Canada, and numberless fantasies of martyrdom. In our current struggle, our highly-professional and expertly trained military includes no draftees whatever. Everyone fighting in Iraq - including National Guardsmen and reservists- at one time or another enlisted voluntarily in the military. Cindy Sheehan notwithstanding, all those who sign up for the U.S. military are clever enough to understand the very real possibility that at one point you might be required to use your expensive training in actual combat.
4.CASUALTY RATES - The human cost of the war in Iraq is genuinely horrifying, with more than 1,800 of our finest young people making the ultimate sacrifice. This carnage can hardly compare, however, to Vietnam - in which 58,000 Americans gave their lives for their country. The Iraq War has been going on for two and a half years - with a killed-in-action rate of approximately 800 per year. In Vietnam, the years of principal American I involvement (1965-72) saw deaths that averaged nearly 8,000 per year - in other words, a casualty rate some 10 TIMES as high. In fact, the differential is even greater in terms of the impact on the nation: in 1970, the census showed the U.S. population at 203 million; today, it stands above 290 million. In terms of a percentage of our total population, the death rate in Vietnam exceeded the death rate in Iraq by a ratio of 14 to 1. Even if the U.S. continued to struggle in Iraq for four more years with the current rate of killing (a worst case scenario our policy makers will move heaven and earth to avoid), the deaths will total some 5,000-less than a single year of Vietnam, and less than 10% of the total losses in that war. To keep casualty figures in perspective, it's important to remember that the combined human cost of Afghanistan and Iraq, after nearly three years of overall struggle, still involves fewer deaths than on a single dark day of recent history: September 11, 2001.
5.THE MEDIA - On the surface, the mainstream media (TV networks, newsmagazines, prestige newspapers) seem to offer the same perspective on two very different wars: emphasizing bad news, and downplaying every sing of progress. The difference in media coverage remains profound, however, since the emergence of new media (talk radio, Fox News, the Internet and the blogosphere) have changed the media landscape completely. When Walter Cronkite of CBS announced his disillusionment with the war in a special broadcast in 1968, no prominent media voices rose to contradict him: the public had to choose between believing "Uncle Walter" (the Most Trusted Man in America, according to polls) or Lyndon Johnson. Today, we enjoy far more diverse sources of information, and persuasive (sometimes raucous) voices on the right arise immediately to contradict all the TV network distortions and to provide perspective and balance.
6.POLITICS - Despite recent polls suggesting an Iraq-related decline in the President's popularity, the balance of power in Washington bears no resemblance to the situation in the Vietnam era. In the '60's and '70?s, the Democrats remained the dominant party in the nation, enjoying uninterrupted control of both houses of Congress during both decades, despite two terms of the Nixon presidency. By 1970, that dominant party, the Democrats, had turned radically, overwhelmingly against the war, with "peace candidate" George McGovern nominated for president in 1972. Today, by contrast, the Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress (and the majority of state governorships) and Republicans remain almost unanimously behind Bush. In the most recent Gallup poll, the President's "approval rating" among self-described Republicans reached a reassuring 88%. It's Democrats - not Republicans - who show their divisions, with the "Move On"-Michael Moore-Howard Dean wing of the party favoring immediate withdrawal, while the Joe Lieberman-Joe Biden-Hillary Clinton mainstream seems to understand the importance of finishing our work in Iraq. During Vietnam, a long series of majority Congressional votes (including the infamous McGovern-Hatfield Senate resolution cutting off our military) served to undermine the U.S. war effort. In Iraq, no comparable "surrender" resolution has drawn even 20% of either house of Congress.
7.SCANDAL - In the last analysis, it wasn't public opinion turning against the war that doomed our Vietnam policy: it was, rather, the self-destruction of the Nixon administration in the most devastating scandal in U.S. political history. After a triumphant re-election in 1972, both Vice President Agnew and President Nixon resigned their offices leaving a fatally weak chief executive (Gerald Ford) who had never even run for national office. In the Watergate-stained election of 1974, the Democrats added crushing weight to their already lop-sided majorities (gaining 49 seats in the House, 5 in the Senate) and preventing President Ford from re-supplying our South Vietnamese allies when the North broke its agreements under the Paris Accords and launched a massive invasion. Without the Watergate scandal, driving Nixon from office and temporarily emasculating the Republican Party, our government almost surely would have maintained the commitments made to resist Northern aggression. However seriously one takes the currently hysterical Democratic efforts to magnify the controversy surrounding the public identification of CIA desk-jockey Valerie Plame, no sane observer believes that the scandal will follow the Watergate example and lead to the resignation or impeachment of President Bush.
8.THE PAST -For millions of Vietnamese, the war against the United States represented the culmination of several centuries of struggle against colonialism and foreign domination, and followed by a mere twenty years their successful efforts to throw off the yoke of bumbling French imperialism. Iraq has experienced no comparable history of colonialism: for nearly 400 years (1533-1916) it functioned as part of the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire. The period of British "protectorate" lasted a mere sixteen years (from World War I occupation in 1916 to independence under Prime Minister Nuri-el Said in 1932), with only a brief English re-occupation (1941-45) during the height of World War II. Under thirty years of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, Iraq drew some support from the west but functioned for the most part as a military and economic client of the Soviet Union. Unlike Vietnam, where Communists could claim that they represented a nationalist reaction to French (and then American) colonialism, the population of Iraq maintains clear memories of the rabidly anti-American Hussein regime which brought about the nation's economic and cultural ruin.
9.THE STAKE - The best argument of the peace movement during the Vietnam war involved its insistence that even American defeat would bring little pain to most Americans. The anti-war forces argued (with considerable persuasiveness) that the Vietnamese only wanted to control Vietnam: they would never send their minions to invade California or Florida. America might lose prestige, might sacrifice credibility, to give up ground to the Soviets in the titanic and fateful Cold War struggle, but no one expected that our citizens here at home would sleep less soundly in their beds if the U.S. cleared out of Vietnam, on the other side of the world from our homeland. Today, however, we don't have to tax our imaginations to visualize Middle Eastern enemies invading our shores and massacring American civilians: we already experienced that nightmare on September 11, with Islamic fanatics killing more of us in that one day than the Iraqi insurgents have managed to kill in two and a half years. America's stake in defeating a ruthless enemy in Iraq isn't abstract or nebulous: it's real, immediate, urgent and palpable. Anti-war extremists may downplay the every day dangers of Islamic terrorism, but most Americans understand that it still represents a significant menace to both our lives and our way of life.
And this recognition brings me to the one great SIMILARITY in the two wars. In both conflicts, the American people understand the horrific dangers of unilateral, precipitous, unconditional withdrawal. By 1972, most voters had developed deep doubts about the struggle in Vietnam and yet when George McGovern gave them the chance to vote for immediate withdrawal (under the campaign slogan, "Come Home, America!"), a received an unprecedented shellacking. McGovern, the "Peace Candidate," lost 49 of 50 states, carrying only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, carrying a feeble 38% of the popular vote and trailing Richard Nixon by an astonishing 23%. The general public might not like the Vietnam war, with its truly appalling casualty figures, but they liked the option of ignominious surrender even less.
Today, a very similar mood prevails throughout most of the United States. Our citizens worry about the war, and long for our troops to come home, but only a very small percentage (about 20%, according to most polls) want us to run up the white flag, abandon our Iraqi allies, and strangle an infant democracy in its cradle. It took nearly ten bitter years (from the major U.S. escalation in the summer of '65 to the final North Vietnamese victory of April, 1975) of devastating sacrifice and nearly ceaseless protest before our exhausted nation felt ready to abandon the cause to which we had committed ourselves in Vietnam. With that time table in mind, even with the vastly lower casualty rates from Iraq, it would take us till 2013 before we betrayed our current efforts to establish democratic values in the heart of the Middle East. Long before that grim eventuality, we will see a constitutional republic (imperfect, like virtually all nation states) operating in place of the kleptocratic, genocidal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and contributing significantly to the safety and security of all Americans.
Who is the liar?
Edward "don't let him drive you home" Kennedy and his moonbat wacko friends that's who! Bush finally comes out swinging on the constant charge that the administration manipulated intelligence to make the go to war case. Kennedy wasted no time saying yet again in response to Bush's speech today. If you, or someone you know, doesn't have the facts showing who the real liars are on this issue here's the best summary you'll find on the topic! Who is lying about Iraq?
Update: Monday, Nov. 14.....I guess the WSJ liked Norman Podhoretz's piece that I linked to above as they put it in today journal!
Update: Monday, Nov. 14.....I guess the WSJ liked Norman Podhoretz's piece that I linked to above as they put it in today journal!
Now hold on just a darn minute!
I thought global warming was man made? I thought the idea of cyclic warming or weather patterns that produce extreme weather was just a myth promoted by the planet hating oil companies, and money grubbing land developers who have no respect for the spotted owl or the Karner blue caterpillar! Or is this University of Florida study just another scheme by Karl Rove?
We honor all who have, and do, serve!
Thursday, November 10, 2005
And yet more French bashing
Well, aside from the French this is also continued bashing of the media. Apparently media types who ignore "we report, you decide" and believe "we decide for you" is a global cancer. You gotta love the cojones of this French TV boss who just comes out and says he trying to control the political landscape. The examples of liberals (domestic and foreign) who attempt to subvert the people from deciding on appropriate political change at the expense of life, liberty and economy is endless.
Take that you Bâtards français
To snub our noses at the French, who have been so critical of us in recent years, Chicago proposes an ordinance to ban foie gras! Take that you snobby elitist lovers of cream, butter, cheese and goose livers! Oh, wait....my mistake....this is the work of folks like Farm Sanctuary who are ok with us cutting the head off of the goose to get its liver, they just want us to treat the fowl with a country club lifestyle before doing so...IDIOTS!
French acquiescence
While I was encouraged when I heard France was going to immediately deport what the press calls "detained" people involved in the violence and destruction. But, that all changed when France suspended eight officers for what is very likely just tough and proper on the street, in the middle of a riot, police handling of thugs participating...oh, oops...I mean the beating of a "young man" in Paris.
Side note....the F'ing press takes illegals involved in burning cars and buildings and potentially put people in danger who have been arrested and call them "detained" people! They take an adult who is on the street, in the middle of the riot, probably resisting or throwing something at the police who is taken into custody by force....and call is "the beating of a young man". And note how the press says the "unrest eases"! Are you kidding me....482 cars burned compared to 617 the previous night is an easing? If this was happening in the US there's is zero chances that would be given a label that sounded like progress.
This feels to me like Spain's acquiescence to the terrorist train bombings!
Side note....the F'ing press takes illegals involved in burning cars and buildings and potentially put people in danger who have been arrested and call them "detained" people! They take an adult who is on the street, in the middle of the riot, probably resisting or throwing something at the police who is taken into custody by force....and call is "the beating of a young man". And note how the press says the "unrest eases"! Are you kidding me....482 cars burned compared to 617 the previous night is an easing? If this was happening in the US there's is zero chances that would be given a label that sounded like progress.
This feels to me like Spain's acquiescence to the terrorist train bombings!
It's Time For A Third Party!
Bush has been a disappointment with, quite frankly, most of his actions not being those we would associate with the traditional notion of what being a Republican is suppose to be. And now the GOP leadership has completed their transition, with their caving on arctic drilling, to redefining the current day Republican party for what it is...Democrat! At this point what we have are Democrats who call themselves Republicans and leftist radicals who call themselves Democrats. It's time we had a third party who is ACTUALLY conservative and puts a stop to the namby-pamby politics as usual and kid glove treatment to every environmental, socialist, miss guided wacko!
Update: My daily driver gets (not kidding) 9 mpg on average so I feel the price of gas in a big way. Do we live in a socialist economy? What the hell are those two faced hypocrite senators (namely Boxer) asking oil company execs about "huge" profits and bonuses for? Are they not businesses? Did they break any law (like price gouging)? If not, shut the hell up...roughly a 10% profit isn't HUGE or WINDFALL for a well run company and their bonuses are set by the board you morons. I think it was Boxer who put up display showing the executive bonuses next to something like the average US household income. WHAT? Ok, lets look at all the income of every f'ing senator and house member and ask why they don't give it all back to help those only making $23k a year pay their heating oil bill this winter?
Update: My daily driver gets (not kidding) 9 mpg on average so I feel the price of gas in a big way. Do we live in a socialist economy? What the hell are those two faced hypocrite senators (namely Boxer) asking oil company execs about "huge" profits and bonuses for? Are they not businesses? Did they break any law (like price gouging)? If not, shut the hell up...roughly a 10% profit isn't HUGE or WINDFALL for a well run company and their bonuses are set by the board you morons. I think it was Boxer who put up display showing the executive bonuses next to something like the average US household income. WHAT? Ok, lets look at all the income of every f'ing senator and house member and ask why they don't give it all back to help those only making $23k a year pay their heating oil bill this winter?
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
John Howard is the MAN!
Hat tip to my dad who got an email with this story from a friend about Australia's tough and appropriate stance with Muslims who aren't going to fly right! The government is saying that Australia is a secular state and that “If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you,”...see the story here on of all places the Daily Times in Pakistan back in August! Did you ever hear about this? A search on Google for this story using (australia, muslim, sharia, canberra) had ZERO hits...found it via Yahoo though....how did this get ignored? Why the hell can't we send the exact same message? BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY WITH LIBERALS, THE ACLU, BERKELEY, BARBARA BOXER, blah, blah, blah...ARGH!!!!!
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Scientology, a wack job cult religion!
I admit I pay a little attention to popular culture. Tom Cruise or someone with a few degrees of separation seems to be in the news constantly and therefore constantly reminds me of Scientology. What is surprising is how few people seem to know what a complete wack job cult religion Scientology is. I suppose it might speak to the power if its well known star power members and the medias fear of pissing them off. You might have seen, or heard about, Tom Cruise's appearance on NBC's today show where he went off on Matt Lauer..."you don't know the history of Psychiatry, I know the history of Psychiatry". Cruise contends the use of any drugs in Psychiatry is quackery and that any mental affliction being a chemical imbalance you can fix with drugs utterly false. Frankly there is no measured proof of that, true enough...however the use of medication has worked for millions even if as a placebo. But that's not my topic...why Tom thinks he knows the history of Psychiatry and the bizarre story that the members of Scientology believe is. More tomorrow when I complete the story.
The rest of the bizarre story: In giving my version of what Scientology is I'm not attempting to be accurate on dates, timeline, or being blow by blow accurate. Those details are not important as evidence that the entire existence of Scientology is one man's creation with no proof for what it purports to be true. Sure, you could make a similar claim about many religions but I think the actual history of any religion can make its own case and Scientology's case is non-existent!
I did all of my homework online, and got a lot out of the comprehensive site on the topic called Operation Clambake, Undressing the Church of Scientology since 1996. The site also gives links to those who don't agree which is refreshing. I'm going to be brief in making my case since. Like I said, the gory details of when L. Ron Hubbard did this or that, or his actual words, or how much it costs to get something from the church don't matter...the overall story is what is truly shocking to me...shocking that people would be so gullible, so easily conned!
In the 1950's L. Ron Hubbard (LRH) talked about creating a church as a better way to make millions as opposed to writing for a living. LRH creates a method of regression therapy from other existing psychotherapy methods that exist. Why regress someone? That's coming. He writes about this regression therapy method in a book called Dianetics. LRH, wanting to of course make more dough takes his own advice and creates the tax loophole religion called the Church of Scientology (COS). Again being brief, and only focusing on the bizarre.
Ok, a brief side editorial. Frankly one really bizarre, bad, or evil characteristic about a person, an organization, a group is enough to completely right them off. Not every time, but lets take an example. Lets say there is a religion that is clean cut, promotes doing good and having what are obviously to most high moral standards, they try to spread there message to others. Then lets say you find out that they absolutely disallow members to celebrate someone's birthday! To the point where you could be ostracized or removed for participating in a cake and candles willingly. They believe God dislikes birthdays! Why, well they believe if the bible doesn't mention something God dislikes it. They believe if the bible has a story about evil doers doing something common (like say celebrating something) that's God's way of saying he dislikes that something even though by itself that something isn't inherently evil. This religion is the Jehovah's Witnesses. Again, I'm being general here...don't go correcting me on this...the fact is the point I'm making is on track! But I digress!
Back to COS, the church has a story of how we got here on earth and why some of us are bad, or evil, or not at peace and so on. The church claims you need to go thru auditing (what they call the psychotherapy they employ). They are trying to help you reach some spiritual truth, to cleanse your being all of which is done over a period of time thru "levels" members progress through...largely triggered by your paying for this progression! And fees have been reported from thousands to hundreds of thousands per level. Paying is required while the church claims it isn't, plenty who have left the church have provided evidence and experience that you must pay to play....doesn't sound like a friendly, we-just-want-to-help-people religion does it?
Ok, now for the good part. After you have reached an "advanced" level and at this point your for the most part brainwashed into thinking this church and the people in it are so enlightened. You are told the big secret! That man got to earth millions of years ago because an alien named Xenu gathered up criminal and over populated beings of this galaxy and dropped them on earth. He put them next to volcanoes and then detonated hydrogen bombs (as if a alien millions of years ago would use an explosive technique we use today!). The COS believes in reincarnation and since some of these beings would survive the bombs Xenu employed psychiatrists of his time to re-program the minds of the living and dead so as to not know their origin. According to COS they programmed the notion of the historic religions (Catholicism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.) practiced on earth and thus they are false. These psychiatrists and Xenu were evil! COS says that the souls of all these murdered beings infest the body of everyone today. They call these souls "body thetans" and at advanced levels in COS a member of the church "audits out" the body thetans telepathically. The COS and its members believe all our bad thoughts, our miss-steps, unhappiness, etc. is due to these body thetans. Given the COS believes we are all descendents from murdered beings brainwashed by evil psychiatrists is why Tom Cruise thinks he knows the history of psychiatry!
The COS easily fits the definition of a cult. It is very telling that the COS has gone to great efforts to try and stop those spreading these details about the church. It is also telling that they do not tell their members about Xenu, and these basic premises of the church, until they have spent a long period of time and money with the church. Having this element of secrecy and a lack of trust to all members of the COS says it all. There are lots of other details about the COS, but I think this bizarre central tenet on how we got on this planet is all I need to label this a wack job cult religion.
The rest of the bizarre story: In giving my version of what Scientology is I'm not attempting to be accurate on dates, timeline, or being blow by blow accurate. Those details are not important as evidence that the entire existence of Scientology is one man's creation with no proof for what it purports to be true. Sure, you could make a similar claim about many religions but I think the actual history of any religion can make its own case and Scientology's case is non-existent!
I did all of my homework online, and got a lot out of the comprehensive site on the topic called Operation Clambake, Undressing the Church of Scientology since 1996. The site also gives links to those who don't agree which is refreshing. I'm going to be brief in making my case since. Like I said, the gory details of when L. Ron Hubbard did this or that, or his actual words, or how much it costs to get something from the church don't matter...the overall story is what is truly shocking to me...shocking that people would be so gullible, so easily conned!
In the 1950's L. Ron Hubbard (LRH) talked about creating a church as a better way to make millions as opposed to writing for a living. LRH creates a method of regression therapy from other existing psychotherapy methods that exist. Why regress someone? That's coming. He writes about this regression therapy method in a book called Dianetics. LRH, wanting to of course make more dough takes his own advice and creates the tax loophole religion called the Church of Scientology (COS). Again being brief, and only focusing on the bizarre.
Ok, a brief side editorial. Frankly one really bizarre, bad, or evil characteristic about a person, an organization, a group is enough to completely right them off. Not every time, but lets take an example. Lets say there is a religion that is clean cut, promotes doing good and having what are obviously to most high moral standards, they try to spread there message to others. Then lets say you find out that they absolutely disallow members to celebrate someone's birthday! To the point where you could be ostracized or removed for participating in a cake and candles willingly. They believe God dislikes birthdays! Why, well they believe if the bible doesn't mention something God dislikes it. They believe if the bible has a story about evil doers doing something common (like say celebrating something) that's God's way of saying he dislikes that something even though by itself that something isn't inherently evil. This religion is the Jehovah's Witnesses. Again, I'm being general here...don't go correcting me on this...the fact is the point I'm making is on track! But I digress!
Back to COS, the church has a story of how we got here on earth and why some of us are bad, or evil, or not at peace and so on. The church claims you need to go thru auditing (what they call the psychotherapy they employ). They are trying to help you reach some spiritual truth, to cleanse your being all of which is done over a period of time thru "levels" members progress through...largely triggered by your paying for this progression! And fees have been reported from thousands to hundreds of thousands per level. Paying is required while the church claims it isn't, plenty who have left the church have provided evidence and experience that you must pay to play....doesn't sound like a friendly, we-just-want-to-help-people religion does it?
Ok, now for the good part. After you have reached an "advanced" level and at this point your for the most part brainwashed into thinking this church and the people in it are so enlightened. You are told the big secret! That man got to earth millions of years ago because an alien named Xenu gathered up criminal and over populated beings of this galaxy and dropped them on earth. He put them next to volcanoes and then detonated hydrogen bombs (as if a alien millions of years ago would use an explosive technique we use today!). The COS believes in reincarnation and since some of these beings would survive the bombs Xenu employed psychiatrists of his time to re-program the minds of the living and dead so as to not know their origin. According to COS they programmed the notion of the historic religions (Catholicism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.) practiced on earth and thus they are false. These psychiatrists and Xenu were evil! COS says that the souls of all these murdered beings infest the body of everyone today. They call these souls "body thetans" and at advanced levels in COS a member of the church "audits out" the body thetans telepathically. The COS and its members believe all our bad thoughts, our miss-steps, unhappiness, etc. is due to these body thetans. Given the COS believes we are all descendents from murdered beings brainwashed by evil psychiatrists is why Tom Cruise thinks he knows the history of psychiatry!
The COS easily fits the definition of a cult. It is very telling that the COS has gone to great efforts to try and stop those spreading these details about the church. It is also telling that they do not tell their members about Xenu, and these basic premises of the church, until they have spent a long period of time and money with the church. Having this element of secrecy and a lack of trust to all members of the COS says it all. There are lots of other details about the COS, but I think this bizarre central tenet on how we got on this planet is all I need to label this a wack job cult religion.
Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover
I can't believe that I agree with one of the NBA's most hoodlum looking tattoo ladened player Allen Iverson. I agree with his response to the NBA's commissioner's (Stern) new dress code that tries to help with the image (a mostly accurate one I might add) which is that the players are largely aloof, rebellious, prone to violence or criminal behavior. The do-rags, baggy pants, bling, etc. are sending a message my son won't be allowed to admire or follow. Iverson's response to Stern's new dress code which amounts to wearing sport coat attire (no hats or sun glasses) when representing the team or league was "You can put a murderer in a suit and he's still a murderer." Well I agree....while I don't blame Stern for this business decision a sport coat won't change what's in the hears and minds of these players who while making millions pretend they're still just like the homey's they left behind. There's more to values, your moral code, your respect for others and the law then what you wear....but I guess it's a start.
A real CIA leak
I noted in my post last Friday of non-stories that we might have secrete prisons somewhere wasn't the story but that finding and punishing the leakers was....well it looks like that is in fact what will happen...this should be interesting. A nice round up on this on PowerLine...check it out.
Islamic Scourge
For quite some time now many conservatives have called for profiling Muslim followers of Islam (Muhammad). Aside from the words in the Koran (Quran or Alcoran) themselves the world wide evidence of evil, hatred and desire to target the innocent that has played out over the past several years is undeniable. And while the socialist and weak immigration situation along with hypocritical treatment of immigrants have setup the situation in France the fact remains that Islam is at the root of this as well. To that point Michel Gurfinkiel, the editor of the Paris based journal Valeurs Actuelles via the New York Sun asks:
Update: To contrast another viewpoint check out this Blogger in France. I disagree with his hypothesis of this being similar to both the racial and Viet Nam riots and protests of the 60's and 70's. The participants in those examples were not galvanized by a hateful religious doctrine. We also didn't have examples of protests in other parts of the world with a tie in like religion. And of course there is the glaring difference in the hatred, violence and pure evil of today's examples that have the Islamic link that didn't exist even on a small scale in the 60's and 70's.
Update: And yet another viewpoint more to my thinking again that my dad shot my way via the Washington Times.
How ethnic is the present violence in France? Liberal commentators, both in France and abroad, tend to say that poverty and unemployment, rather than race or religion, are the driving force behind the riots. Mr. Villepin himself tends to share this view, at least in part. He said yesterday on TV that he is earmarking enormous credits for housing rehabilitation, education, and state-supported jobs in the areas where the unrest has developed. But the fact remains that only ethnic youths are rioting, that most of them explicitly pledge allegiance to Islam and such Muslim heroes as Osama bin Laden, that the Islamic motto - Allahu Akbar - is usually their war cry, and that they submit only to archconservative or radical imams.
The fact also remains, according to many witnesses, that the rioters torch only "white" cars, meaning white owned cars, and spare "Islamic" or "black" ones. One way to discriminate between them is to look for ethnic signs like a sticker with Koranic verses or a picture of the Kaaba in Mekka or a stylized map of Africa. Further evidence of the animating influence in the riots lies with the French rap music to which the perpetrators listen. Such music obsessively describes White France as a sexual prey.
Update: To contrast another viewpoint check out this Blogger in France. I disagree with his hypothesis of this being similar to both the racial and Viet Nam riots and protests of the 60's and 70's. The participants in those examples were not galvanized by a hateful religious doctrine. We also didn't have examples of protests in other parts of the world with a tie in like religion. And of course there is the glaring difference in the hatred, violence and pure evil of today's examples that have the Islamic link that didn't exist even on a small scale in the 60's and 70's.
Update: And yet another viewpoint more to my thinking again that my dad shot my way via the Washington Times.
Monday, November 07, 2005
President Kerry?
In Taranto's WSJ blog he used a quote from a speech he made at Tufts University to point out his obvious elitism, Kerry said "All politics is a reaction to felt needs. You need to get people to feel the need. Our job is to make sure the right felt need is taken into consideration." The Daily Collegian quotes Kerry several times in their story (linked above) and while I don't think Bush has done a great job its scary to think Kerry could have become president. Kerry relieves his almost presidency like a 40 yr old who still re-lives that game winning touchdown pass he dropped in high school.
Kerry began by highlighting the strong points of the presidential election in 2004 and stated a strong confidence in winning the Senate elections in 2006. "I won 10 million more votes than any Democratic presidential nominee ever," he said in regards to the 2004 presidential election versus current President George W. Bush.And it was sad to read this next bit from the article:
He was met with applause when he mentioned, "It's a sad time for our country," in reference to President Bush's policies.Applause? Proof that being on a university campus has nothing to do with your intellect and also an example one of the most disgusting characteristics of liberals....they rejoice in the idea that something under the watch of a republican may (may since I'm not sure why this time is universally sad for our country) not be going well. Was this applause for American's killed in Iraq? For a Whitehouse staffer being indicted? For Cindy Sheehan's hair style? For rent-a-mob socialist and communist protesters in South America?
Kerry hopes a Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate will help the country to "make sense of the despair and frustration" the nation now has.What? Gee, how about one of you no-life-experience-as-of-yet all knowing students ask Mr. Kerry exactly what despair and frustration he's talking about? I think he's talking about the Democrat base who still can't accept that Bush won! The Democrats can't win people over with their ideas or an actual platform that's different...so they will keep telling you that you have despair (not me), that it's a sad time for our country (why?), that our economy isn't strong (lie), that deadly and costly anomalous weather is Republican caused global warming (hahaha), that just like Bush knew Iraq had no more WMD's he also alone knew New Orleans was below sea level (since apparently the locals don't)!
Angry, Disaffected, Wanting Respect and Jobs? WRONG
CNN and many others of the MSM will tell you that the war (yep, I think that's an accurate description) spreading throughout France for nearly 2 weeks is just "youths" who are disaffected, wanting respect and jobs and so have become angry. This is the biggest kid glove treatment I have ever seen. Firstly what a joke France is. Let's look at the facts. Since Oct. 27 a large number of African immigrants (likely 2nd generation immigrants) who are Muslim have been at war with France (France meaning those who aren't African immigrants who are Muslim and their property). 4700, and counting, cars have been burned. 274 towns and now possibly neighboring countries are effected.
The French, while constantly stepping up the number of police involved have: had meetings! used rubber bullets, not used military, having more meetings, thought about curfews, making insignificant arrests. We have only heard of 1 death, but there are numerous injured in critical condition including a 12 month old girl who was just ridding on a bus that was destroyed by these insurgent terrorists in a rock throwing attack. This is a war, and one that would be dealt with here very differently. This is also why personal gun ownership is useful!
Now I know why France (aside from its participation in oil-for-food kick back money to Saddam) didn't want us to go to Iraq. To them, dealing with combatants, terrorists, hateful wild mobs is not possible...they cannot see how you can actually win. The evidence of their ineptitude to deal with an enemy combatant is playing out for all to see. France and other EU countries had better stop the kid glove descriptions and more importantly the treatment of these criminals else they could see what even the MSM will call a war. The Muslim religion, by its history and modern day example, is not a religion of peace and an Islamic cancer plays a role in what's happening in France. Taranto of the WSJ has a good piece in his blog today called The French Conflagration making that case.
The French, while constantly stepping up the number of police involved have: had meetings! used rubber bullets, not used military, having more meetings, thought about curfews, making insignificant arrests. We have only heard of 1 death, but there are numerous injured in critical condition including a 12 month old girl who was just ridding on a bus that was destroyed by these insurgent terrorists in a rock throwing attack. This is a war, and one that would be dealt with here very differently. This is also why personal gun ownership is useful!
Now I know why France (aside from its participation in oil-for-food kick back money to Saddam) didn't want us to go to Iraq. To them, dealing with combatants, terrorists, hateful wild mobs is not possible...they cannot see how you can actually win. The evidence of their ineptitude to deal with an enemy combatant is playing out for all to see. France and other EU countries had better stop the kid glove descriptions and more importantly the treatment of these criminals else they could see what even the MSM will call a war. The Muslim religion, by its history and modern day example, is not a religion of peace and an Islamic cancer plays a role in what's happening in France. Taranto of the WSJ has a good piece in his blog today called The French Conflagration making that case.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
CI?A
Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, has a great summary of the Plame issue in this weekend WSJ. I agree with her assessment that "The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft. It is up to Congress to decide which." It's short, to the point and sounds right to me.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Fake Summit Protest
Just watch how much coverage the protestors in Argentina get as Bush visits the Summit of the America's. It's apparently well known that many protest organizers parachute in from all over the world to make sure they have a nice turnout and have good photo opps. Not only does the outside renta-mob organizers make this fake but you see no real message, no gripe or coherent call for action related to Bush, or the US anyway. Take for example Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who led thousands of protestors saying Bush a "fascist" and a "terrorist." Also leading protests was Evo Morales, the Socialist, and Indian, front-runner in the Bolivian presidential election set for next month. And Argentina's Adolfo Perez Esquivel, a human rights activist and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1980. The leftist crowd wore t-shirts saying "Stop Bush," or had portraits of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. Examples of great freedom loving men. A few sporting the portrait of Osama bin Laden were also spotted. This was reported by Agencia EFE.
The US press, I'm sure, will use many of the images from Argentina in countless stories where the story will also include words like "at a time when Bush's poll numbers are at an all time low....". And they will call it anti-free trade and globalization protests and they will show an abundance of anti-Bush visuals. Unlikely they will show Guevara, Castro or bin Laden supporters were in force!
The US press, I'm sure, will use many of the images from Argentina in countless stories where the story will also include words like "at a time when Bush's poll numbers are at an all time low....". And they will call it anti-free trade and globalization protests and they will show an abundance of anti-Bush visuals. Unlikely they will show Guevara, Castro or bin Laden supporters were in force!
Who let these women out of the house?
We are use to hearing vitriolic fatuity from the man-women of the Senate (and you know who they are), and now the women (or so they claim to be) of the House are joining the Borg of the Senate. From today's WSJ blog by Taranto we see a collection of white man hating skirts shows us their brilliance with their reasoning behind their lack of support for Alito's nomination as a justice on the SCOTUS. Ok, put on your thinking cap...listen real carefully...you know like when your listening to a scientist or something you have to really concentrate to understand them.
Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) said she was disappointed that President Bush nominated a white male to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "The president has failed to nominate a woman or a Latino," Solis said, a decision that constituted "a betrayal of the legacy of the trailblazing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Alito would not represent all Americans.
"Who will Judge Alito represent? He will represent white males who can afford to keep their wives at home while they work," Woolsey charged.
YES! Don't you love it...I'm not sure if Solis is insulting Sandra Day O'Connor or Latino's! Sandra is Latino? Or Latino men understand women better than other men? Or Latino men are in fact just like women? Hahahahaha
And Woosley apparently doesn't represent all Americans since as Taranto points out she's a white divorced women so she leaves a lot of her disctrict in divorce happy CA unrepresented...not to mention that apparently stay at home moms/wives are appropriately represented by even those she cares little for.
This kills me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)