Monday, February 26, 2007

Titanic Nonsense......

.....About Jesus

James Cameron, the director of the movie blockbuster Titanic, and Canadian Filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici held a press conference today claiming that a burial cave discovered twenty-seven years ago near Jerusalem is the “family tomb” of Jesus. They unveiled two “ossuaries,” or bone boxes, which they claim held the remains of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and two of Jesus’s alleged sons, one of whom he supposedly sired with Mary Magdalene. Oh yes, and they also promoted their new Discovery Channel documentary, “The Lost Tomb of Christ.”

Neither Cameron nor Jacobovici are archaeologists. But Professor Amos Kloner is one, and he oversaw the work on the tomb in 1980. His reaction to the moviemakers’ claims: “…it’s impossible. It’s nonsense.” Kloner adds, “There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem.”

In 1980, when the claims were first made that the ossuaries held Jesus’ “remains,” Big Media around the world asserted that the finding challenged the very basis of Christianity. Big media was wrong then, and they are wrong now. Steven Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, was interviewed in the documentary and said the film’s hypothesis will hold little weight with most Christians. “I don’t think that Christians are going to buy into this. But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many hold dear.”

What has always been interesting to me is the delight some seem to receive in trying to debunk what billions of people consider truth. Long after James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici are dead and forgotten, the Messiah will continue to change hearts, save souls and shower on all who will listen, “Amazing Grace.”

By Gary

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

From Russia With Love

Russia is trying to sell its military technology before the stuff becomes obsolete. When the Cold War ended in 1991, Russia (then the Soviet Union) had the largest "military-industrial-complex" in the world. But that defense industry was more than the country could afford, and was one of the main reasons the Soviet Union went bust. Russia inherited most of the technology, although a lot of the actual factories ended up in parts of the Soviet Union that became new countries. Technology, even military tech, doesn't stay fresh long. So Russia kept a lot of research teams going, even if they could not afford to buy the weapons and equipment developed. At the same time, Russia broke its own long standing rules, and offered to sell their latest stuff to foreigners. Thus India and China became customers for some first class aircraft, missiles and warships. But India and China have become increasingly insistent that the technology, including manufacturing techniques, be sold as well. Russia has been trying to avoid this. As long as they controlled the technology, they maintained a significant military edge. China was a particular problem, because Russias far eastern territories are also claimed by China. These claims have not been pressed for some time, although there were some border skirmishes, and talk of a nuclear strike by the Russians, in the 1970s. India is less of a problem, never having been at war with Russia. In fact, Russia has entered into several joint development projects with India. Not so with China, which is seen as a potential enemy. Meanwhile, Russias booming economy has provided the government with sufficient revenue to buy weapons once more. Exports are still taking most of what is being produced, but more money is going into research and development as well. The Cold War may be over, but Russias fascination with high tech weapons is not.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Sunni Arab countries (everyone in the region but Iraq and Iran) are in an uproar over what is seen as an Iranian takeover of Iraq. The takeover actually occurred centuries ago, when the population became majority Shia Arab. But the Turkish empire delayed the inevitable, by submerging the Shia Arab majority in Basra province, in a Sunni sea called the Ottoman Empire. That empire disappeared in 1918, replaced by many new countries, or at least ones that had not been independent for hundreds of years. Britain created Iraq out of the majority Shia (and former Ottoman) province of Basra, the mixed, but largely Sunni, province of Baghdad, and the largely Kurd province of Mosul in the north. Sunni Arabs were only about twenty percent of the whole, but they were the wealthiest and best educated. The Sunni Arabs had run things for the Turks, had connections, and an attitude of superiority. The Sunni Arabs took over. The Sunni Arabs still have the education, connections and attitude. What they don't have is power, and some of them are desperate to get that back.

Media throughout the Sunni Arab world is getting more strident about the Iranian threat. Ancient terms for the Iranians are being revived, and past defeats at the hands of the Iranians are recounted in gory detail. The message is clear, the Shia Arab majority in Iraq cannot be allowed to control the country. For then, the Shia would control nearly 40 percent of the oil and gas in the Persian Gulf (which contains half the oil and gas in the world). The Sunni Arab nightmare has always been that the Iranians would come and take their oil. With Shia Arabs controlling Iraq, and allied with Shia Iran, that nightmare gets too close for comfort. For decades, the Sunni Arab states of the region tolerated Saddam Husseins bad behavior because Saddam had proved (during his 1980s war with Iran) that he could fight the Iranians and not lose (the war ended with a ceasefire, the Iranians are still demanding reparations.) The usual outcome of a war between Iranians and Arabs, is an Iranian victory. So Saddam was The Man, but now Saddam is gone, and the Sunni Arabs are not sure the United States can control this Shia monster it has created in Iraq.

What the United States is trying to avoid is a massacre of the Sunni Arabs. The new military operation will disarm many of the Sunni Arabs who guard Sunni Arab neighborhoods. Unless the Shia militias, and their death squads are also crippled, the Shia will kill and terrorize Sunni Arabs on a large scale. The mass media loves that sort of thing, but Western politicians back home don't. No one wants another Bosnia or Rwanda.

About half the Sunni Arabs of Iraq have been driven from their homes so far. Some 60 percent of those have left the country, while the others have taken refuge in areas where Sunni Arabs are the majority. There are far fewer "mixed" (Sunni and Shia) neighborhoods in Iraq today, and there will be a lot fewer in the future. In 2006 alone, about ten percent of the Sunni Arab population was driven from their homes, and either left the country or settled elsewhere in Iraq.

Each month, 50-100,000 Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, leave the country. There are nearly a million Iraqi refugees in Syria, about 700,000 in Jordan, nearly 100,000 in Egypt, about 40,000 in Lebanon, and about 20,000 in Turkey. Over a hundred thousand have fled further still, to Europe and the Americas. The U.S. is trying to keep Sunni Arab refugees out, as it is believed many of them would be inclined to support Sunni Arab terrorist groups like al Qaeda, and seek revenge against the United States.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Bombing Iran and Other Things

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
The infighting between
Obama and Clinton
gives me a woody....

Does being from Boulder automatically mean that you're an idiot? Sometimes I think so since my boss is from Boulder and he always says the most idiotic things. This one was about the US military. My boss just hired a new guy for the airport and I asked a little bit about this fellow since I will be working with him. Curt, my boss said he was young and ex-military. My best friend Adam (who is also an employee) said matter-of-factly that the new guy was a Bush supporter, knowing that this would get my bosses goat. Curt looked up and said, "He's a Bush supporter? That's the military for you; brainwashed. That was the reason I didn't go into the military, because they all get brainwashed." I was flabergasted and immediately jumped my bosses shit. "That was rude, Curt. No wonder the military guys are anti-liberal. You guys piss on them like that. That was the rudest thing I have ever heard." He appeared non-plussed and continued to work. I am right of course, no wonder the armed forces do not like Democrats since they have such a low opinion of guys in the military. These guys are smart enough to not support them in at the ballot box. Apparently 73% of military personnel voted Republican in the last election. With attitudes like I just saw from my Boulder-liberal boss, it's no wonder.....

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

The clerical junta that runs Iran shows no intention of halting their nuclear weapons program. Thus all one can hope for is a popular insurrection that would result in a less bellicose government. Absent that, you can go to war with Iran, and remove the religious dictatorship by force. This could lead to the breakup of the country, as about half the population is not ethnic Iranian (an Indo-European people, unlike the other half, which is largely Turkish and Arab). No good prospects here. To make matters worse, Iran threatens to close the Straits of Hormuz, and stop all (except for the ten percent that leaves via pipeline) Persian Gulf oil exports, if anyone interferes with Iranian oil exports (which are essential to the Iranian economy, and preventing a popular uprising.) Iranian president Ahmadinejad is being publicly criticized by his superiors, the senior clerics who have veto power over any government actions. The clerics appear to be trying to shift blame for the nations economic problems onto Ahmadinejad. This is quite a feat, as Ahmadinejad is one of the few honest politicians in Iran. The rest, especially the senior clergy, are notoriously corrupt, and unpopular. The current UN and American sanctions don't help the economy either, but the biggest problems are incompetence and theft by Iranians Islamic conservative leadership.

Overall the situation is deteriorating. Iran has declared war on the United States and Israel and those two nations must defend themselves, even pre-emptively. When one nation goes around saying that they will burn your country to ashes, you'd better wake up and realize they probably mean it, especially if they have been saying it since 1979 (a good track record). Lucky Iran's nuclear sites are easily within range of US aircraft.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Finally, what is amazing to me is that people oppose attacking Iran when Iran has clearly attacked them, or is saying they will. I look at the whole situation like this: it's like the laws on the books in most US states now, where if you threaten to kill your wife you automatically get sent to jail (for a cooling off period I guess). Iran too needs to be "cooled off" before they reach critical mass and put their words into action. America cannot afford to believe in the goodness of the Iranian people or government. After 911 it is clear that our continued survival as a nation demands action...

You know, the attack on the Twin Towers should have been alot worse but the 1994 attack on those buildings forced changes that saved many more lives than would have been normal. After the first attack, the Port Authority spent $250 million dollars creating security upgrades and survival options that helped people get out of the buildings more quickly. In 1994 it took people over 4 hours to get out, but with efforts like installing new emergency lighting and luminescent stripes on the floors and hand rails, that time was cut in half. While over 2,000 people lost their lives on 911 in New York, it could have been alot worse, with an estimated 10-15,000 dead without the new upgrades. The Twin Towers was a fairly hard target compared to most other buildings in the US, and next time we probably won't be so lucky as most soft targets like skyscrapers across the country have not made these upgrades mandatory....

Hatred for other religions is a cornerstone of Islamic radicalism. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the city of Poso, on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. In the late 1990s, Islamic militants from other parts of Indonesia flocked to Poso to take part in a jihad (war) against local Christians. This actually began as a Moslem attempt to grab permanent control of the local government. For decades, the Moslems and Christians had maintained the peace by having politicians from the two faiths alternate as head of the local government. Moslems in Sulawesi have long been hostile to the Christians, who comprise about half the population. The Islamic extremists saw Poso as an opportunity to recruit, and build a larger terrorist organization. Since the late 1990s, over a thousand people have died in and around Poso, out of a population of less than half a million. The government sent in thousands of additional troops and police to restore peace.

In the last year, the police believed that they had reduced the terrorists to about twenty hard core members of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), the local al Qaeda affiliate. On January 22nd, police tried to grab most of these men, after months of detective work to find out where they were. But the terrorists knew the police were closing in, and had assembled reinforcements. The subsequent battle left one policemen, and fifteen Islamic radicals, dead, and dozens more wounded. Over twenty militants were arrested, but several of the leaders got away. The Islamic militants are trying to spin this incident to their advantage, by claiming that the police (who were largely Moslem) are anti-Moslem. The dead militants are being portrayed as martyrs.

Jemaah Islamiyah needs a boost, because over a dozen major terrorist attacks in the last five years has horrified, rather than radicalized, most Indonesians. The Islamic radicals have been on the run, and most have been arrested. Poso is one of the few places where they can still operate openly without being quickly rounded up. Even less violent Islamic radicals, who do little more than harass women dressed in Western clothing, or men having a beer in a club, have become increasingly unpopular throughout Indonesia. While Indonesians support Islam in general, they are less enthusiastic in practice. But this has not prevented a small number of radicals from using terrorism against non-Moslems in an attempt to trigger an Islamic revolution. That has not worked, but it has left thousands dead, and demonstrated a common tactic among Islamic radicals the world over. In most countries where there are large Moslem and non-Moslem populations living close together, there has been this kind of violence. It's not just a pattern, it's a popular tactics. One that we will continue to see tried.

Another reminder from the "Religion of Peace"

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


How America is Great: American women revolutionized the workforce and workplace. American women broke the stranglehold of the unions in America. They were the Japanese cars of business-labor relations: better, cheaper, dependable, and they defied the rules. From Greece to the Ganges, half the world is afraid of girls and gratified by their subjugation. It is a perscription for cultural mediocrity, economic failure, and inexpressible boredom. The value added by the training and utilization of our female capital is an American secret weapon.

Battlestar Galactica: Created for the Sci-Fi Channel, all I can say is WOW. When I first heard that this classsic sci-fi series was being remade I was excited, until I heard Starbuck (one of the series lead characters) was to be a woman instead of a cigar-smoking ladies-man. I was instantly disapointed in the fact that show's best fighter pilot was to be a woman; women aren't killers, and they certainly aren't as aggressive as men in combat. However, I have been happily suprised by "Kara Thrace" as Starbuck (she still smokes cigars) and the acting overall is outstanding. Few series when they start have believable characters, mainly because most have very new actors and the poor acting shows alot. However, the acting for all the crew of the Galactica, especially from Edward James Olmos (as Commander Adama), Jamie Bamber (as Adama's son), actress Katee Sackhoff (as Starbuck), and Mary McDonnell (as President Roslyn), has left me thirsting after every new episode. A remarkably well-done science fiction series. A++

The Cylons were created by Man.
They Rebelled.
They Evolved.
They Look and Feel Human.
Some are programmed to think they are Human.
There are many copies.
And they have a Plan.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Top 10 Lists: Myths of the Iraq War

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Top 10 Myths of the Iraq War
In no particular order. There are more, but ten is a manageable number.

1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians. The Iranians wanted revenge on Saddam because of the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1980, and the eight year war that followed.

2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal. Only according to some in the UN. By that standard, the invasion of Kosovo and bombing of Serbia in 1999 was also illegal. Saddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, and was trying to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.

3-Sanctions were working. The sanctions worked for Saddam, not for Iraq. Saddam used the sanctions as an excuse to punish the Shia majority for their 1991 uprising, and help prevent a new one. The "Oil For Food" program was corrupted with the help of bribed UN officials, and mass media outlets that believed Iraqi propaganda. Saddam was waiting out the sanctions, and bribing France, Russia and China, with promises of oil contracts and debt repayments, to convince the UN to lift the sanctions.

4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran. Of course, and this was supposed to make Iran more approachable and open to negotiations. With the Iraqi "threat" gone, it was believed that Iran might lose its radical ways and behave. Iran got worse as a supporter of terrorism and developer of WMD. Irans clerical dictatorship did not want a democracy next door. The ancient struggle between the Iranians and Arabs was brought to the surface, and the UN became more active in dealing with problems caused by pro-terrorist government of Iran. As a result of this, the Iranian police state has faced more internal dissent. From inside Iran, Iraq does not look like an Iranian victory.

5-The Invasion Was a Failure. Saddam's police state was overthrown and a democracy established, which was the objective of the operation. Peace did not ensue because Saddam's supporters, the Sunni Arab minority, were not willing to deal with majority rule, and war crimes trials. A terror campaign followed. Few expected the Sunni Arabs to be so stupid. There's a lesson to be learned there.

6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda. Compared to what? Al Qaeda was a growing movement before 2003, and before 2001. But after the Iraq invasion, and especially the Sunni Arab terrorism, al Qaeda fell in popularity throughout the Moslem world. Arab countries cracked down on al Qaeda operations more than ever before. Without the Iraq invasion, al Qaeda would still have safe havens all over the Arab world.

7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War. Then so was Britain when the IRA was active, and so is Spain today because ETA is still active. Both IRA and ETA are terrorist organizations based on ethnic identity. India also has tribal separatist rebels who are quite active. That's not considered a civil war. This is all about partisans playing with labels for political ends, not accurately describing a terror campaign.

8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam. Most Iraqis disagree. Check election results and opinion polls. Reporters tend to ask Iraqi Sunni Arabs this question, but they were the only ones who benefited from Saddams rule.

9-The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe. The Moslem unrest in Europe was there before 2001, and 2003. Interviews of Islamic radicals in Europe reveals that the hatred is not motivated by Iraq, but by daily encounters with hostile natives. Blaming Islamic terrorism on Iraq is another attempt to avoid dealing with a homegrown problem.

10- The War in Iraq is Lost. By what measure? Saddam and his Baath party are out of power. There is a democratically elected government. Part of the Sunni Arab minority continues to support terror attacks, in an attempt to restore the Sunni Arab dictatorship. In response, extremist Shia Arabs formed vigilante death squads to expel all Sunni Arabs. Given the history of democracy in the Middle East, Iraq is working through its problems. Otherwise, one is to believe that the Arabs are incapable of democracy and only a tyrant like Saddam can make Iraqi "work." If democracy were easy, the Arab states would all have it. There are problems, and solutions have to be found and implemented. That takes time, but Americans have, since the 18th century, grown weary of wars after three years. If the war goes on longer, the politicians have to scramble to survive the bad press and opinion polls. Opposition politicians take advantage of the situation, but this has nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with local politics in the United States.

So long Saddam, we'll won't miss yah!

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Ice Age or Global Warming (your choice)

Do you remember the 1970s? We had terrible, brutal winters and all the scientists and media and even some government officials were saying we were heading into a new Ice Age, that the Earth was getting colder, we were all going to freeze to death and die? I recall this vividly because I was living in Boise, Idaho at the time and remembered thinking how I didn't want to move closer to the Equator (and Mexico) because I didn't want to be a Mexican (I was 7 ;). Well, all this "we are all going to die because the Earth is getting warmer" doesn't appeal to me. I am a total skeptic when it comes to man-made global warming. As a matter of fact I am a die-hard astronomy fan and for years astrophysicists and astronomers have noted that the Sun has entered a period of increased solar activity, and that solar radiation and luminosity is accounting for at least 60% of todays global warming.

Not believing in man-made global warming is threatening to lots of people's livelihoods. The environmental movement raises most of its funds through direct mail, paid advertising, and news coverage. For all three, a steady supply of peril is essential fuel. H. L. Mencken said: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed--and heance clamorous to be led to safety--by meanacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

While we were threatened by lots of scares in the past: acid rain, Ice Age, low sperm counts, nuclear power, etc. the biggest scare now is global warming. Here, too, the activists (and media) tell only part of the story. It made headlines when 1,600 scientists signed a letter warning of the "devastating consequences" of global warming. But I bet you never heard that seventeen thousand (17,000) scientists signed a petition saying there's no convincing evidence that greenhouse gases will disrupt the Earth's climate. That was less "exciting" news. There is no doubt that there's been a slight warming, about one degree in the past hundred years, and it looks kind of scary if you isolate that.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

But when you get some historical perspective, you see it is not such a big deal. In fact, over the past 10,000 years, there have been big cycles of warming and cooling, and for most of those years to Earth was warmer than it is today.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

THIS is the real trend we need to worry about.....

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Giulinani the Winner!

In my opinion Giuliani wil be a huge winner in the 2008 election cycle. Looking at the political map it is very clear he will clean up in a general election. In fact his consistent record as a taxcutter and crime buster as well as his appointing strict constructionists as judges will let him win both the liberal and conservatives. He will easily win the more liberal Republican states in the Northeast, which are critical to winning the Presidency. He take Pennsylvania and New Jersey, as well as New York (all in red below), crushing Hillary in her own liberal backyard.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

As a liberal Republican he will win many "middle ground" voters and his successful term as mayor and baptism in fire in NYC after 911 make many people trust him implicitly. He will automatically win the South and West as those regions vote consistently Republican and few out here in the West would even consider another 4 or 8 years of a Clinton, male or female. Looking at the nationwide electoral map, the only states that Hillary is sure to win are Massachussets, California, and Wisconsin. As a moderate, Rudy could easily win the moderate Democrat states of Washington and Oregon (I have lived in both states) and I predict that if Giuliani is nominated as the Republican President in 2008 that he will crush Hillary Clinton in the election by over electoral 200 points. It will be a huge crushing blow. The Dems on the other side see that as well, as they are terrified of a Giuliani nomination. And Rudy is not a polarizing figure like Hillary is. That is one of her biggest pieces of baggage; she gets people motivated on the Right to use strenuous efforts to oppose her.

And another note on Hillary.....

After watching the Democratic debates in Nevada on CSPAN this week, hosted by George Stephanopolous, it is clear that Hillary is hugely favored within the Democratic party; she is a shoe-in for the nomination. However, she cannot win in the general election, especially if we as Republicans do what is right and nominate a winner like Giuliani. And I would also like Newt Gingrich (a real conservative Republican) to play a much larger part in reviving the conservative base of the Republican party, maybe he could be the RNC? A great idea if I do say so myself....

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Why I am for Giuliani, and not Obama

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Why I am for Rudy

Well, the field of Republican Presidential candidates for 2008 is a pretty ugly field and I have decided that if we are conservatives are to elect someone that doesn't suit the party base, then we might as well have a winner, and that's why I am throwing my hat in for Rudy Giuliani (cheers). Watching Giuliani's interview on Larry King I was again happily surprised on just how articulate Rudy is, what his record is as a multi-term mayor of America's largest city, and how tough he is. Of all the Republicans vying for the nomination, I believe that Rudy is the one man (besides Newt) that could take on Hillary and win. He isn't afraid of confronting a woman and is used to New York political fighting. If he can win in heavily Democratic New York then he can win anywhere and he is exactly what the Republican Party needs right now: a person with experience and backbone that can take on Hillary Clinton and win. We cannot afford to lose all three of the branches of government and losing the Presidency during the War on Terror would bring about a catastrophic surrender by America, with the Democrats cheerfully leading the way. Again, if we are faced with a severaly limited field of Republican candidates, I say let's vote for the one who will fight the War on Terror (Giuliani totally will) and one who can win against Clinton. I personally wasn't for Rudy since he represented few of the things that I hold sacred; ownership of guns, no abortion, etc. but I had to weigh the fact that winning the War on Terror is far more important than my personal values, as an American.

*Why I am NOT for Obama (more here)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

*Italian Prime Minister Prodi forced to resign.

Money quote: "Once again, the radical left brought him down," political analyst Franco Pavoncello at John Cabot University in Rome
said of Prodi. (Maybe we'll get Berlusconi back ;)

*Suicide Bomber Enters Afghan Hospital Pretending to Be Doctor (Memo, make sure your doctor IS your doctor).

*Australia rules out Iraq troop withdrawal (Good, at least the Aussies are sticking by the USA)

*HIV may one day be able to be filtered from human blood saving the lives of millions of people (we can only hope)

*Iran War Games As US Carrier Moves In To Gulf Region (Iran gets ready to get the crap beaten out of it....)

*Teen 'sport killings' of homeless on the rise (Sick! These b*stards should be locked away for life. This is what you get when you raise up godless children).

*Eating cows will kill us all (apparently)

Clearly Global Warming is a panacea for a whole raft of causes. From anti-capitalism to third world development to animal rights activist and vegetarians. Everybody wants in on the act. As with Rachel Carson, the consequences of the hysteria are likely to be significant and unpredicted. The first casualty appears to be civil discourse, closely followed by scientific discourse and soon political discourse. What is one to do when one is equated to a holocaust denier? Socrates and Galileo are soon going to have some 21st Century peers.

Bumper sticker I recently saw....

Save the planet
Kill yourself

That about sum's it up. The left is a culture of death. (I say save the a cow!)

*Democratic Presidential hopeful (and dumbsh*t) John Edwards thinks that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. Really? Israel is the biggest threat? Not Ahmedinijad? Not al-Qaeda? Not a coup attempt in Pakistan? Not a complete breakdown in Iraq drawing in the Saudis, Turks, and Iranians?

Female Pakistani minister shot dead for 'breaking Islamic dress code'. The assassin from the religion of peace said, “I have no regrets. I just obeyed Allah’s commandment." (Speaks for itself)

*Google continues anti-America push (I am about ready to use another search engine anyways)

*OK, the Russians are just insane. Czech and Poland are interested in hosting US anti-missile defenses and the Russkies are in a tiff about it. Here is a quote from a top Russian General this week: "If the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic take such a step ... the Strategic Missile Forces will be capable of targeting these facilities if a relevant decision is made." The stark threat, by missile forces chief Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, was one of the most bellicose comments yet by Russian officials on the issue, which 10 days ago led President Vladimir Putin to warn of a "new Cold War" in a speech in Munich that shocked Western governments. Analysts said the angry words reflect the growing climate of suspicion between Moscow and the West. Slawomir Debski, at the Warsaw-based of the Polish Institute of International Affairs, said Moscow's reaction "means that the Russian Federation see the U.S., Poland and the Czech Republic as enemy nations."

Money quote from Debski: "The reaction shows that the rationale behind Poland's and Czech Republic's ties with the U.S. are correct," Debski said. "It proves this is the right alliance and that we need it because Russia is threatening us with nuclear weapons."

*Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch Bush ally who has sent troops to Iraq and faces his own re-election bid later this year, said Obama's proposals would spell disaster for the Middle East. "I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Howard said on Nine Network television.

Money quote from Howard: "If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

IRAN: America Goes on the Offensive
In the last month, Iran has become aware that the U.S. is deliberately hunting down Iranian agents inside Iraq. For most of the last year, Iran believed that it's high ranking contacts in the Iraqi government gave its men immunity. Certainly the Iraqi police would not touch them (the head of the national police, and Interior Ministry, was a pro-Iranian Iraqi Shia). But the Americans simply brush aside any Iraqi troops or police who get in the way, and grab Iranians. This is being done without much publicity at all. It's as if the Americans were just collecting evidence and building a case. A case for what? Russia announced that it had delivered another shipment of Tor-M1 short range anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. These systems have a maximum range of 12 kilometers, and a max altitude of about 20,000 feet. They are used to defend specific targets, like nuclear research facilities and air bases. About a dozen Tor-M1 systems have been delivered so far, with another 17 to come. The U.S. is sending another Patriot missile battalion to the Persian Gulf. The only thing this battalion could be used for, is stopping Iranian warplanes and missiles. The U.S. confirmed that this was the idea. Iran admitted that it's nuclear program was behind schedule, and that its centrifuge effort, needed to produce radioactive material for power plants (or bombs) was encountering problems. Even with that, Iran appears to have no real obstacles to having nuclear weapons within five years. At that point, the reasoning goes, the Iranians can bully the Gulf Arabs without fear of American interference. After a rather blunt threat from Iran, the UAE ( United Arab Emirates) said it would not cooperate with the U.S. in spying on Iran. The UAE knows that Iran's main targets in the area are Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The smaller states along the west coast of the Persian Gulf have long survived by being nice to the local bullies and being an inconspicuous as possible. The smaller states hope that Iran and Saudi Arabia will fight it out, and, as has been the case for centuries, leave the little guys alone. The UN sanctions imposed last December were considered pretty weak. However, they are having a chilling effect on foreign investment in Iran. That's because, combined with the more vigorous moves by the U.S. against Iranian use of the international banking system, and the threat of more sanctions, or even war, foreign investors are backing away from Iran. In response, the Iranian government is trying to reassure potential investors. But this is difficult when Iranian president Ahmadinejad, and other hard liners, keep spouting off about destruction and making war.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Friday, February 16, 2007

Israeli Nuclear Strike Against Iran Turned Back

Commentary from Damon
*According to news sources, a Israeli nuclear strike against Iran was turned back on January 7th of this year. Read this article for more info.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Click here for a bigger map.

*Many people say that America lost the Vietnam War, but I say the political Left won the Vietnam War.

*The Left hates the War on Terror, not just the war in Iraq. They have to see a defeat in foreign policy not just to "get Bush" but to cripple the Republican Party, whose dominance in foreign policy has to be ended so that the left in America can rule again. When dealing with foreign policy issues, Americans trust Republicans far more than Democrats, so this must be removed from being a successful Republican area.

*This non-binding resolution is nothing but an effort to embarass President Bush, but it will have the secondary effort of humiliating the troops.

*In 1993, the half-hearted support of the American public over the US intervention into Somalia caused military forces to withdraw from that country and to this day muslim extremists rule that country, giving safe-haven to Al Qaeda and other muslim fundamentalists groups. Do we really want Iraq to look like Somalia?

Bringing democracy to Iraq has forced the Islamic world to confront the terrorism monster they have created. Before Saddam was taken down, the Gulf Arabs depended on Saddam, as loathsome as he was, to keep Iran busy. Since 1979, Shia radicals have been running Iran, and supporting Islamic terrorism. But most Islamic terrorists are Sunnis who, as a matter of pride and principle, despise Shias, and Iranians. But with Saddam gone, the Iranians have gotten more ambitious. With the Shia majority in Iraq now running the country, the Arabs now have to confront Iran directly. And that they are doing. Saudi Arabia is supporting the Palestinian Fatah organization against the Iranian supported Hamas. Saudi Arabia is also using its money to support Sunni Arab, and Christian, factions in Lebanon, against Hizbollah, the Shia minority and its Iranian backers. Saudi Arabia is also giving support to the Sunni Arab majority in Syria. For decades, the Saudis tolerated the Shia minority that ran Syria. No more. The situation has changed, especially with Iran gaining speed in its effort to build nuclear weapons. The Saudis are even, secretly, cooperating with the Israelis. Iran has always been seen as a greater danger to Israel than the surrounding Sunni Arab nations. Hizbollah, which is a Lebanese Shia organization, made a name for itself during its disastrous attack on Israel last Summer. Although Hizbollah lost by every measure, they won in the arena of public opinion. Both the Israelis and Saudi Arabs (and Sunni Arabs in general) hated that. The removal of Saddam has already crippled al Qaeda throughout the Islamic world. The sight of American troops in Iraq enraged al Qaeda, and Islamic radicals in general. This was the one thing these maniacs could not tolerate. They all flocked to Iraq, began killing lots of Moslems, and after a year or so of that, plummeted in the popularity ratings throughout the Moslem world. Now the Saudis are mobilizing against that other terrorist backer; Iran. The Saudis are committing over $100 billion to this battle, and doing it out of the purest of motives; self interest.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Click here for a bigger map.

January 10, 2007: While the current fighting in Somalia has been described as a war, it's actually more of a peacekeeping operation. Ethiopia apparently sent in only about 5,000 troops. As is often the case in peacekeeping missions, these trained soldiers quickly dispersed the untrained militias of the Islamic Courts. Dispersed, but not destroyed. Now comes the hard part. Ethiopia does not want to keep its soldiers in Somalia, if only because it's expensive, and Somalis don't like Ethiopians (who are a traditional enemy, as well as largely Christian.) Meanwhile, Kenya has sent a few thousand more troops to its 650 kilometer border with Somalia, to try and prevent Islamic radicals from getting in. The Kenyans have already made several dozen arrests, but most of the refugees so far are women and children, apparently the families of Islamic Courts leaders, being sent away for safekeeping. The Islamic Courts proved to be more talk than action during December, when they enthusiastically trash-talked the Ethiopians, then quickly folded when pressed. Now the Islamic Courts leadership has been advised, by al Qaeda, to launch a guerilla war against the Transitional Government. In light of this, few countries are willing to send peacekeepers in. Even Uganda, which had been eager before to send a thousand troops, is having second thoughts.

Without peacekeepers, or perhaps even with them, Somalia seems likely to slide back into its constant, centuries old, cycle of clan feuds and anarchy. This makes al Qaeda inspired guerilla war redundant. And the neighbors know that, and don't want any part of it. Looks like Somalia is going to have to supply its own peacekeepers, or slide back into chaos. In this respect, they may be aided by U.S. Special Forces. These fellows are from a counter-terrorism task force that has been operating up north (in Djibouti) for five years. The American commandos have regularly been sending small teams into Somalia, and using some hired locals as well. Coming out of the shadows now may be possible because the Transitional Government is temporarily in control of the entire country (less the breakaway regions of Puntland and Somaliland). The U.S. already has more Special Forces and CIA people in Somalia, trying to round up, or kill, Islamic terrorists who had taken up residence. They are becoming visible to the mass media, and may just be turned into peacekeepers to keep the wild gossip in check.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

China has managed to come down hard on drug dealers, and has kept drug addiction from becoming a major problem. But the kids found another way to get high. It seems that about two million Chinese teenagers are Internet addicts, and the number is growing. The kids spend all their time online, mainly playing games. A similar affliction has been noted in South Korea and Japan. What's worse about the situation in China is that there are only about 18 million teenage Internet users (about 14 percent of all Chinese Internet users). Young men will steal to pay for access to the Internet (at the thousands of Internet cafes found throughout the country.) Thus teenage crime has risen 68 percent in the last five years. Laws have been passed that force Internet Cafe owners to restrict access to you young men, but this is not always enforced. The money is too good, and it's not a good idea to aggravate young Internet junkies who need their fix. The government notes that these addicts tend to be some of the most talented young men, and their addiction is a great loss to the country, and especially the military. Young fellows with Internet skills are much in demand for military Cyber War units. Overall, however, the police say crime is under control. This is because the Chinese have made a special effort to go after organized crime. Last year, the police broke up 1,347 gangs by arresting members, and prosecuted 296 gangs (as criminal conspiracies). China still has the death penalty, and uses it liberally, and in public, against gangsters.

PEACEKEEPING: Too Damn Dangerous

The UN took a look at the fighting in western Sudan (Darfur), that is spreading into Chad and the Central African Republic (CAR). The UN decided that it was too dangerous for UN peacekeepers. The problem is that, in these border areas, it has become so dangerous (with various armed gangs wandering around), that UN aid workers could not go into many areas where there were refugees in need of help. Demands for protection led to the UN study, and conclusion that the region was too chaotic for even peacekeepers. This all the result of the Sudanese tactic of subsidizing tribal militias to do the dirty work (chasing away tribes that support rebel movements, now being extended to dissident groups in Chad and CAR. The problem is, the Sudanese government has little control over these gangs. If UN peacekeepers were sent in, they would be at war with the border gangs from Chad and CAR, with no government to appeal to. In Chad and CAR, Sudan has created monsters over which it has no control. But many UN members find this unacceptable, and demand that something be done. However, the same nations that are risk-averse, or unwilling to criticize a fellow Arab government, are blocking any action.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Thursday, February 15, 2007

To hate or not to hate (gays)


Okay, so two big gay issues came out in the media this week, John Amaeche declaring he is gay and Tim Hardaway's interview stating that he "hates gays". Let's take Hardaway's interview first. Here is specifically what he said:

“You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don’t like gay people and I don’t like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don’t like it. It shouldn’t be in the world or in the United States.”

Now I don't have any problem whatsoever with somebody hating someone else. As a human being, we all have good and bad feelings, good and bad beliefs. It's one of the things that defines us as humans and shows that we have good and bad sides; that we aren't truely perfect. Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." And she was right. Hardaway can hate gays all he wants and as long as their is no violence involved, I don't care. Hatred is everywhere in this world, and it's not just over your sexuality; hispanics hate blacks, blacks hate whites, Crips hate Bloods, etc. I personally hate drug users, and criminals, and most blacks, and illegal aliens. Does this somehow make me a criminal or a bad person? You have the right to feel however you choose to feel, and if you choose to feel hatred towards one group or people or not, that's up to you. Why is it okay to hate individuals but not groups? Is it somehow more unfair to hate a group of people compared to your neighbor who won't shut up his stupid barking dog at 3AM? The really scary thought is that "hate" is going to be outlawed, which is absolutely ludicrious. Scarier still is that "group think" is what is in, is being promoted by law, and soon you will be forced by the Thought Police to think and act in certain ways otherwise you will go to jail (and I am not kidding). Two Christians in Australia have been indicted for criticizing Islam, and another for criticizing Zionism. A filmmaker has been threatened with arrest for using the word "homosexual" rather than "gay." Now a German priest faces jail time for publicly criticizing abortionists, and in Holland, "fornicators" and "adulterers" are protected classes and cannot be criticized. All courtesy of the concept of federal "hate crimes" legislation, which unless defeated soon could be mandatory in the United States. The H.R. 254 bill is to "prevent and respond to alleged violations," meaning "the government does not even have to wait until a hate crime has been committed but may act pre-emptively to 'prevent' crime." This is a shocking piece of legislation and the beginning of mandatory group think in that if you think or speak in a way that offends gays or other groups, you could be fined or got to jail (which has happened already in Canada). This is reverse discrimination against groups and individuals who do not believe in gays, gay marriage, and other extreme left social issues. Already in the United States, Catholic Charities of Boston halted all adoption operations in the state after being told under Massachusetts' pro-'gay' nondiscrimination law, only agencies that placed children in homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state. "Judges will establish legal precedents – precedents that protect groups such as homosexuals not only from physical bias-motivated violence but also from 'verbal violence,'" Ted Pike warned. "This will include the 'hate speech' of Bible-believing evangelical Christians." Other people have noted that in "post-Christian England," the government even has set out to prosecute "homophobic" speech.

Members who commented on a blog expressed alarm.

"This lays the groundwork for the 'thought police,'" said "onlymom," while "curveboy" said, "the implications of such a bill would put dissent of the government under hate speech and (offenders could) be arrested and thrown into detention camps... hate bill legislations needs to be dealt with in a fine line. once crossed there won't be any freedom of speech...."

"Citrine89" was more terse, "Scary stuff." And "Mochamoma" said, "Hurt someone's feelings? Shall we arrest the 6th graders now or later?"

"H.R. 254 would make certain types of speech a federal offense. So-called 'hate crimes' legislation is dangerous for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the blatant unconstitutionality of such laws. 'Hate crime' laws would allow federal 'thought police' to interfere in the law enforcement authority of states and localities - something our founders were clear was not to be allowed," Mary Starett said. "H.R. 254 would require every state to pass and enforce 'anti-hate' laws. It would outlaw stating a 'bias' against certain 'federally protected' groups such as homosexuals," she said. Jim Clymer, national chairman of the Constitutional party, has warned such legislation "could mean the Bible would be considered 'hate literature'' and preaching from it would be 'hate speech' because of references to religious teachings on homosexuality or other behaviors. The Orwellian implications of these types of laws mean Bible-believing Christians could become criminals simply because they spoke out about their beliefs." Starrett noted in Canada and some European countries, it already is a crime to use the Internet to criticize "federally protected" groups such as homosexuals and Muslims. "In England, two men who called Islam 'wicked' were indicted … and now face seven years in prison."

In my opinion, this is nothing but a power play by leftists to control peoples way of thinking, acting, and talking: a truely scary end of our Republic. I personally am all for free speach and freedom of thought. I will fight this sort of thing and hopefully others will fight for their very basic and fundamental rights as well.

Now on to John Amaeche. I watched his inteview on CNN (yes I watch that trash news show from time to time) and was grateful for his sincerity. However, he is not a hero that many people are making him out to be. Why did he come out so late (after he had retired from the NBA)? He could have helped gay rights and individuals while he was in the NBA if he had came out then. However, faced with a potential loss of income if he was "discovered", Amaeche remained tightly closeted and has only now come out of the closet, writing a book and seeking more money because he is the first NBA player to come out as gay. I find it highly hypocritical of him to do this now. The obvious reason he came out was to promote his book, him being gay would be controversial and he would get higher book sales from all the media attention. A truely disapointing ploy from a man would could have done so much more for the gay community as a whole, and not just his pocketbook. You know, at least Hardaway is being honest about how he feels. Amaechi isn't being honest about who he is, he is now because money is involved. I feel a little.....cheated.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

From Gary

Sudden Jihad Syndrome?

Were five people killed in Salt Lake City this week because of Islamofascism? Don’t count on Big Media to answer that question. Here is what we know as of now. According to witnesses, an 18-year-old gunman calmly walked into a Utah shopping mall and started randomly killing customers. Thankfully, an off-duty police officer was able to slow him down, and the assailant was eventually killed in a shoot-out with Salt Lake City police. Early press reports only gave his age, but no name. ABC reported the story last night, but repeatedly said little was known about the shooter. Today, several Utah papers are reporting that the killer’s name was Sulejmen Talovic, and he was a Bosnian Muslim refugee.

Don’t expect to hear much more. Big Media has no interest in pursuing these sorts of cases. When a Muslim man intentionally mows people down in San Francisco with his SUV, the headline is: “SUV Driver Kills Pedestrians.” When a Muslim assailant bursts into a Jewish community center in Seattle and brutally murdered a Jewish woman and wounded five more, he is described as “sick,” and the story vanishes. When an Iranian college student tried to turn a rented SUV into a weapon of mass destruction, the media reported, “9 Injured by SUV at UNC-Chapel Hill.” We deserve to know whether Sulejmen Talovic was another example of “Sudden Jihad Syndrome,” but don’t hold your breath waiting for the facts.

More Random Stuff

Just a friendly reminder from your Muslim neighbors.....

The Saudis have an enormous problem. The strategic interests of Middle Eastern states like Saudi Arabia and Iran sharply diverge, to say the least. These two main Islamic powers have dramatically different interests. Saudi Arabia -- an Arab and primarily Sunni kingdom -- is rich but militarily weak. The government's reliance on outside help for national defense generates intense opposition within the kingdom. Desert Storm, which established a basing arrangement for Western troops within Saudi Arabia, was one of the driving forces behind the creation of al Qaeda. Iran -- a predominantly Persian and Shiite power -- is not nearly as rich as Saudi Arabia but militarily much more powerful. Iran seeks to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf -- out of both its need to defend itself against aggression, and for controlling and exploiting the oil wealth of the region.

Putting the split between Sunni and Shiite aside for the moment, there is tremendous geopolitical asymmetry between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia wants to limit Iranian power, while keeping its own dependence on foreign powers at a minimum. That means that, though keeping energy prices high might make financial sense for the kingdom, the fact that high energy prices also strengthen the Iranians actually can be a more important consideration, depending on circumstances. There is some evidence that recent declines in oil prices are linked to decisions in Riyadh that are aimed at increasing production, reducing prices and hurting the Iranians.

This creates a problem for Saudi Arabia. As a major oil producer, the Sauds get most of their money from oil revenues. The Saudis, moreover, need the Iranians strategically blocked -- but without going so far as to permit foreign troops to be based in Saudi Arabia itself. In other words, they want to see the United States remain in Iraq, since the Americans serve as the perfect shield against the Iranians so long as they remain there. Putin's criticisms of the United States, as delivered in Munich, would have been applauded by Saudi Arabia prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But in 2007, the results of that invasion are exactly what the Saudis feared -- a collapsed Iraq and a relatively powerful Iran. The Saudis now need the Americans to stay put in the region.

The interests of Russia and Iran align more closely, but there are points of divergence there as well. Both benefit from having the United States tied up (militarily and politically) in wars, but Tehran would be delighted to see a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq that leaves a power vacuum for Iran to fill. The Russians would rather not see this outcome. First, they are quite happy to have the United States bogged down in Iraq and would prefer that to having the U.S. military freed for operations elsewhere. Second, they are interested in a relationship with Iran but are not eager to drive the United States and Saudi Arabia into closer relations. Third, the Russians do not want to see Iran become the dominant power in the region. They want to use Iran, but within certain manageable limits.

Meanwhile, there are energy matters: The Russians, as we have said, are interested in working with Iran to manage world oil prices. But at the same time, they would not be averse to a U.S. attack that takes Iran's oil off the market, spikes prices and enriches Russia.

Finally, it must be remembered that behind this complex relationship with Iran, there historically has been animosity and rivalry between the Riyadh and Tehran. Iraq has become their battleground. So long as both states are relatively weak, the buffer will maintain itself. When Saudi and Iranian territories border each other, the two powers are rarely at peace. So the real problem is that to hinder Iranian power, Saudi Arabia must try and get oil prices lower, which hurts Riyadh as well. An endgame that the House of Saud is unwilling to promote but one it MUST promote to keep Iran from dominating the Middle East. The duel between Saudi Arabia and Iran seems manageable. But as time goes on, Putin's Soviet predecessors learned, the Middle East is a graveyard of ambitions -- and not just American ones.

Upstate New York
One of my best friends lives in Mexico....New York. Hehe. Apparently it is getting pounded by lake effect snow. After looking at this map I am sure glad I didn't live there for long (I stayed in Syracuse for a few weeks).


It is now my firm opinion that the people on the left of the spectrum in this country cannot allow the US military to win in Iraq. After watching some of the debate within Congress on CSPAN, I began to realize that Democrats are on a path to destroy or at the very least demoralize the armed forces of the United States. Why would they do such a thing you ask? Because after Vietnam, the US military was horribly demoralized and crippled for more than 10 years and leftists are intent on making sure that happens again. The troops cannot be allowed to have a victory and the reason why is clear: leftists cannot take over a country until they either decapitate or sideline the armed forces of that nation, and that's exactly what leftists are doing today in the US government. They have a "plan" for America, and it isn't democratic, it's utopian and totalitarian. Their primary goal is to seize permanent power of the United States, keeping themselves in power so that they will not have to face any more "bothersome" elections by the people, people who clearly don't know what they are doings ince they elected George Bush into office twice. That is one reason why they will pull out all the stops to have a Democrat President elected in 2008; so that they will have control of the US military as the president is Commander in Chief. America now faces an all-out civil war, the first shots of which were fired in the 2004 election when Democrats sabotaged efforts by Republicans to "get out the vote" by slashing tires on rental cars, trying to assassinate Katherine Harris during her run for Congress, firing guns into Republican headquarters, stealing computers with GOP plans on them, etc. Personally, almost every Democrat I have had the misfortune of talking to with has become so extremely rabid and militant; many want to out and out kill Republicans and President Bush in particular. That sicko bitch from hell Cindy Sheehan actually said she wanted to go back in time and kill George Bush when he was a child, something that a friend of mine pointed out that she did to avoid being arrested for endorsing assassinating President Bush today. Leftists around the world know they cannot defeat the US military head-on, so they must take down from within. That is their goal, period. Don't doubt it. As for a civil war within America, leftists world-wide would encourage it as it would diminish US power projection. If a permanent split of the United States should occur, a ploy that Democrats were endorsing when they lost the last election cycle of 2004, the US would be split into at least 2 or 3 different nations. Democrats want their own nation, formed out of the Northeast, while leftists in California, Washington, and Oregon want their own left coast. I spoke about this to someone I know here in Denver and he said he wanted such an outcome because "Democrats cannot get elected". I then told him, quite angrily actually, that such a move would destroy the US as a superpower (he wanted such an outcome) and that Republicans were heavily armed and we would fight to keep the United States united. Also when I mentioned the fact that Republicans owned most of the guns in this country he shut up. So what we are facing today is a catastrophic split within the country, and the US military is at the forefront of the fight. That is why we cannot allow the Democrats in Congress to defund the armed forces or even vote a "symbolic vote of condemnation" of Iraqi involvement. Their efforts are very transparent, if you were once a hard core leftist like I was.

A house divided cannot stand. Jesus of Nazareth

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

From Gary

Out Of Touch Elites

A few stories in the news recently demonstrate how out of touch our elites have become on illegal immigration. Yesterday, the mayor of Nashville vetoed a bill that would have made English the city’s official language, and he reportedly called the measure “unconstitutional, unnecessary, and mean-spirited.” The mayor’s comments were reminiscent of the ugly outburst last year by the Senate Democrat Leader who called a bill to make English our official language “racist.” Opponents of the Nashville measure suggested that it would hurt Nashville’s image as “Music City, USA.” I wonder how many of those songs in “Music City, USA” are in foreign languages? But according to demographic researchers, Nashville’s immigrant population has exploded 350% since 1990. That’s fine, but to succeed in America, immigrants need to learn English, and it should be the policy of our local, state and federal governments to encourage them to do so, rather than accommodating those who do not speak English. By the way, polling on this issue is overwhelming. According to one poll last year, as many as 77% of Hispanics support English as our official language. Why don’t our political elites get it?

While politicians are prone to politically correct thinking, the PC mindset has evidently infected the National Football League. I was stunned recently when Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified before Congress that his department had attempted to purchase a print ad in the official 2007 Super Bowl program, but it was rejected by the NFL based on its content. So, what could have been so offensive to the NFL? Evidently, the department wanted to run a recruitment ad for the Border Patrol that mentioned the agency’s important frontline role in the fight against terrorism. Still don’t get it? According to a spokesman for the NFL, the ad “was specific to border patrol and mentioned terrorists. The game was in Miami, where [immigration] is a sensitive political issue...[it] made us a little bit uncomfortable.” Presumably, immigrants in Miami don’t want to get blown up by terrorists, so why is this such a “sensitive political issue”? The fact is, we don’t know who is coming across our borders illegally, and it would be utter folly to assume that everyone who is trying to enter our country illegally is doing so in the search for better employment opportunities. Most Americans understand that in a post-September 11th world illegal immigration is a homeland security issue, and I’m glad to know that at least the folks at the DHS recruitment department “get it.”

Unfortunately, corporate America doesn’t. Two banks are proving it by actively courting illegal aliens as customers, and they appear to be breaking the law in the process. Desert Schools Credit Union in Arizona is marketing savings accounts to illegal aliens. To apply for one of the credit union’s “interest-bearing immigrant-savings accounts” all you have to do is sign a statement acknowledging that you are in the country “temporarily” (illegally). According to a spokesman for the credit union, “We’re not going to be required to notify an agency if we find out they’re undocumented. We’re not required by law to do that.” Oh, really? Well, if you or I tried to open a bank account, one of the first pieces of information we would be asked to provide is a Social Security number, because the bank is legally obligated to report any income you earn on an interest bearing account to the IRS. Not wanting to lose its share of the booming illegal alien market, Bank of America has just announced that it is launching a nationwide expansion of a program that offers credit cards to illegal aliens, again with no Social Security number or credit history. We are a nation at war against an enemy that uses subterfuge and stealth to strike at us from the shadows. These policies, while perhaps well-intentioned, could be easily exploited by terrorists. We should be raising standards at a time of war to make sure money isn’t being laundered.

My friends, we’re supposed to be a nation of laws, of individuals working together to discourage law breaking. But when it comes to illegal immigration, we’re doing the exact opposite. We are accommodating, in some case actually rewarding, illegal behavior. Every citizen has to pay their taxes; we don’t get the option of paying some years and not others. It’s a good deal if you can get it, but so far only illegal aliens have gotten that offer. If your son or daughter wants to attend college in a different state, you have to pay higher “out of state” tuition rates. Illegal aliens, however, can qualify for reduced “in state” tuition rates. If we ask immigrants to learn the language we were taught in school, the language of the country they have chosen to come to, we are accused of “racism” by leading politicians. In 1986, we were told a massive amnesty bill would solve the problem of illegal immigration. Twenty years later we being told that another massive amnesty plan will solve the problem. That sounds like the definition of insanity to me, and our elites still don’t get it.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Presidential Contenders (the Republicans)

Presidential Contenders (the Republicans)

Well, time for a round-up on Republican Presidential contenders for 2008. But first, it has always bothered me that the Republican party hasn't really groomed anyone to replace George Bush as President in 2008. The party should have been promoting a single Republican leader a year ago so that name recognition with the public could occur. We as a party are in serious danger of losing the White House, mainly because Republican leaders seem to be resting on their laurels. This loss would put Democrats in charge of the entire government of the United States, a disaster in this time of war against radical Islam. Republicans just don't seem to want to win in elections anymore, and I don't know why. In fact something that someone once told me about Republicans seems to make sense; that they seem politics as a country club thing, something you do when you have finally earned all the money you wanted too and want to move onto something else. I am deeply disapointed that the Republicans lost the last elections, allowing the Democrats to take over power in the Congress. This loss didn't have to happen. In fact , just one or two events could have prevented the loss of the Congress: raising the minimum wage and building the border fence. Both were wildly popular with the average joe; hell the minimum wage hadn't been raised in ten years! How utterly stupid of the Republicans not to promote things that the "little people" wanted. In fact in Washington state where my mother lives the state minimum wage is already at $7.75 and the food prices there are far lower than here in Denver, Colorado, where the minimum wage is a pathetic $5.15 an hour. Hell if they had built the wall with Mexico I would have gladly got out and promoted the Republicans to my fellow neighbors. Denver is being massively overrun with illegal aliens and you now cannot work in the following positions if you are white: fast food, housekeeping, lawn care, and construction. Illegals are unfairly taking away Americans jobs, jobs that pay high in other states where unemployment is low. Hell in my home state of Idaho the unofficial minimum wage is over $7 an hour and employers are desperate to keep their employees as levels of unemployment dropped below 2%. Republicans need to wake up and realize that it is the people that put them in office, and they will keep them there if they meet the peoples' needs. Now, onto the bigger issue. Potential Republican Presidential runners for 2008 are, in my opinion, a very unappealing bunch. I will list the ones I like and don't like, and why:

John McCain: Well, he is a "Rhino" for one, and he wouldn't build the fence along the Mexican-American border. And McCain-Feingold badly damaged political efforts by indivduals in this country. And he is as mean as a snake too boot. I'll take a pass on this guy....

Mitt Romney: He's a Mormon, and that is not Christian. I grew up Mormon and I know what I am talking about. If you want a guy who believes that Jesus is the brother of Satan and that you and I can become Gods, then he is your man. He is the best Presidential nominee to legalize polygamy, if you are into that sort of thing. And he is nominally pro-life as well. He did seem to do well as governor of Massachussetts during the "Big Dig" (a phenominal waste of taxpayers money, $15 billion at last count) so that has to be counted against him on some level. Pass as well....

Newt Gingrich: Utterly brilliant but utterly unelectable. The damage by the Clinton political machine still reminds people ten years later that he is the "Grinch": a fatal flaw in a President. I want this guy to win, but he won't. Grrrr....

Rudy Guiliani: Crushed crime in New York City and if he promoted the same all across the country I would probably vote for him, even though he is pro-gay, pro-gun control, pro-abortion, and pro-taxation. When Guiliani came into office as Mayor of NYC the murder rate was nearly 1,000 people a year, but less than a year later it was crushed to less than 500 a year; a huge change and a worth while one. Rudy is my second choice, after Newt.....

*Internet users transformed into news reporters (Bloggers rule!)
*France doomed to anti-semitism (What's new? Haters....)
*Cosmic rays blamed for global warming (Time for Big Blotto!)
*Global war to start in Asia (Written about in Revelation)
*Newt's new Contract With America (Loved the first one, I'll take seconds)
*Australian PM defends attack on Obama (Obama sucks, go Australia!)
*Czech PM thinks Gore is crazy (He is)
*Iran's Obsession with the Jews (Hey Jesus was a Jew, leave them alone!)

My Boss is From Boulder

My Boss is "From Boulder". You know, looney-left extremely stick-your-head-in-the-sand uber-liberal Boulder, Colorado? Yeah, when I first got hired by my boss (Curt) I noticed he had anti-Bush post-its and calendars scattered all over his office; a very bad sign indeed. Of course I am a Bush supporter and I found my boss and his wife's hatred of Bush rather amusing, in a way a parent overlooks their child's bad nose-picking (and booger-eating) habit. However my boss floored me last month by saying he would rather have China running the world (or any other country really) other than America. I was blown away by his stupid statement and rebuked him immediately. "China?! Are you joking?! The world's most totalitarian regime, the nation whose government sells body parts from exceuted political prisoners?! The country who forces women to have abortions on demand by state decree?! That China?!" Listening to his response, I realized in a creepy and irritating sort of way that I was now standing next to a loathsome form of life: a totalitarian lover. His hatred of the United States was truely bizzare to me; I thought the USA was a great country, but apparently he did not think the same way. It deeply bothered me. So I began asking questions and realized after about an hour there was no rationale thinking in a Boulder Liberals' mind. He was slightly different than most radical liberals I have ran into in that he wanted isolationism, and was willing to pay for a higher defense budget to see that happen. Weirdly, he thought everyone in Africa should die from whatever disease that they contracted (AIDS, West Nile) and that we in America shouldn't help them, even if we are able. Unfortunately, he also hates Bush far more than Osama and for some weird reason dispises American nationalism while I think our nation is a great country (and I love it). I do not understand the Left's deep and abiding hatred of George W. Bush, I really don't. In many ways Bush is a moderate Republican: he hasn't destroyed the environmental laws in the country, has not repealed all abortion laws, hasn't made Christianity the law of the land, nor cut back Social Security, nor bashed gays or people with AIDS, nor declared war on blacks or any other minority group. On the contrary, he appointed an openly gay man to the national Office of AIDS within the Health Department, spent millions more than Clinton on getting AIDS medicine to people in Africa (boosting the number of people who receive the medicine from 50,000 to over 800,000), and increased spending on schools and teachers. President Bush won't even build the border fence that over 70% of Americans want constructed. So in many ways he isn't a strong conservative, but in the mind of a Leftist, if you don't fully embrace their thinking then you are the enemy. Their looney-left thinking includes being anti-Christian (but pro-Muslim), pro-affirmative action, pro-black, pro-Union, pro-Democrat, pro-gay, pro-abortion, and anti-military. If you don't meet all of these standards, then you are the enemy. Look at Pim Fortyn, the assassinated political leader in the Netherlands: he was openly gay, supported social tolerance, and equal rights but the media in Holland called him a "far right-winger" but Pim wasn't a right-winger, he just wasn't consistently left-wing. What Pim did was he questioned one article of the modern-liberal political creed: he suggested that muslim immigration be diminished because muslim political culture was an intolerant one (imagine that!). And then he was killed. So if you don't support all the leftist creed, you are anathema and you can be killed with a small side note in the papers that you were a "rigth winger" and for that reason deserved your fate. How sad. And my boss is like this in his thinking as well for I am sure he views me as some loathsome lower form of life, maybe from the underpinnings of Hell itself, hehe. However, I do not hate Democrats and leftists as much and as strongly as my Boss from Boulder hates Republicans in general and Bush in particular. It's almost pathological, and I don't know what to say to try and change his mind that George Bush is not as bad/evil as Osama bin Laden. He continues to believe this and I find it very sick that people today rabidly hate their neighbors just because of their politcal beliefs. I grew up in an America that was findamentally different than that, where people didn't hate you because you "marked the wrong part" in the election booth. Maybe one day we can get back to the political tolerance that we as Americans once had, but I believe that the olive branch will not be offered up by the Left side of the politcal spectrum, it will be from the Right.

Boulder, CO (someone please nuke this town!)