Wednesday, June 13, 2007

True Colors, baby

The grassroots Democratic party, hell, I'll just say it, are lunatics.

I mean, Hillary is left, there's not doubt. But Democrats at the local level are whacked out. After all, it's local democrats in San Fran who banned military recruiting. It was grassroots Democrat officials doing gay marriages all over the damn place. And now, local dems have decided that a county's emergency warning system does not belong on the same station as Limbaugh and Hannity.

It's all right by me, though. Rush has been the Early Warning system, preaching the disastrous impact of liberalism for decades. Putting their little county thing on the air with him would be, well, redundant.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Impeach Gonzales

It boggles the mind.

Renowned RINO Arlen Specter is going to vote for a "no confidence" vote for Attorney General Al Gonzales, alongside his democrat buddies in the Senate. This guy, who is by any measurement an ideological liberal, is portrayed by his supporters as being strong-willed enough to stand against the Republican establishment. The problem is that Specter, like most liberals, is spineless.

You see, here's the thing. If Gonzales had done something illegal or inappropriate, congress has a built-in remedy: impeachment. The AG serves at the will of the President, and always has. But congress has the ability to impeach the AG just as they do any of the President's cabinet. So, why this charade of a "no confidence" vote? I mean, other than the fact that Gonzales hasn't done anything wrong?

It's simple: the Dems (and Specter) feel like they're in a win-win situation. On one hand, they may get Bush either have to fire Gonzales, thus admitting that there was impropriety over at Justice. Alternatively, they will pressure Bush and he will stand by Gonzales in the face of a media who have already crucified him at least twice. In their minds, they win either way.

The problem is here that the Dems (and Specter) are being as political, or even more so, than Gonzales. If the Dems (and Specter) truly believe that Specter is not the man for the job, the only true recourse is to impeach him. The option of "Bush defends a guilty Gonzales" doesn't help the country, even if it helps the Democratic party (and Specter).

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

I told you so, Loren

I used to work with a fellow by the name of Loren. Loren was a good guy. He was good natured, had a wonderful sense of humor, and was good at his job. I even convinced him to play some D&D with Cliff, Doc, Nitz, and myself for a little while. He was even a relatively staunch conservative. Loren had one problem, though.

You see, Loren fell for the lie that was being perpetuated at the time that only stem cells from embryos could produce medical advancements that might cure Chris Reeve. I tried to tell him that only a small number of stem cells needed to be embryonic, and that regular stem cells made the research harder, but not impossible. Using stem cells from discarded embryos, at least using federal money to do it, was a violation of the religious rights of Catholics and other pro-life advocates. If I believe an embryo is life or potential life, then using my tax money to destroy that life is a severe violation of my conscience. Loren said that the research was too important. I, of course, countered that NO research is more important than any one of our freedoms. (As a point of disclaimer, I am not Catholic and I'm rather agnostic on the question of whether a frozen embryo is a person).

At any rate, the science has caught up with the ethics on this one, finally. As it turns out, you CAN do research on stem cells without destroying embryos.

So, Loren, wherever you are, I'd just like to say: thhhhppppppptt!!!!!

A Thank You

For those who have gone before us and paid the ultimate price to insure that this last, best hope for the world would not perish from the earth, I offer a humble citizen's thanks and gratitude.

May D-Day never be forgotten.

Monday, June 04, 2007

Secession

No, kids, this isn't one of professor Younce's interesting rants on the War Between the States, although there are elements here. Nope, this one is about radical anti-American activist, Thomas Naylor.

Naylor, you see, hates America. He hates Bush, and he is one of the perpetuators of the "War on Terror is a Myth" ideology. However, we happen to agree on a few things.

First, Naylor thinks that Lincoln ruled with an iron fist, and was a master political manipulator. Beyond that, Naylor suggests that Lincoln was responsible for moving us from a representative government in which the states and the people were superior to the federal government, to a federal system in which Washington is plainly superior to the individual States, and, ultimately, to the people. I tend to agree with this analysis. Before Lincoln, it was "These United States." After Lincoln, it was "The United States."

But, this isn't a rant about Lincoln. Honest, it isn't. You see, Naylor believes that the state of Vermont should secede from the union. So does Donald Livingston, another force behind the Vermont secessionist movement. In my mind, Livingston's arguments tend to be more convincing, but Naylor certainly is the more prolific of the two. At any rate, these guys argue that the citizens of the state of Vermont have the inherent right, if they so desire, to form their own government, separate from the United States, and to be an independent political entity. I also tend to agree with this.

The thing is, regardless of the implications, self-determination is one of our most sacred values. Whether we talk about it with words like independence, self-government, freedom, or whatever, as Americans we believe that human beings are meant to be able to determine for themselves what is best. The citizens of the state of Vermont have that same God-given right, just like their forefathers did when they "seceded" from England.

Yeah, a secessionist Vermont creates some headaches. Border security becomes interesting, at the very least. However, as a land-locked country, Vermont needs to do some serious begging to get the United States to allow planes to fly in, for example. There are workable ways that this sort of thing could still be managed, from the perspective of a 49-state United States.

But a secessionist Vermont does some other things. It gets rid of 3 Democratic electoral votes, more than likely. It gets rid of Bernie Sanders. If Naylor is right, it also gets rid of a lot of disillusioned leftists. Maybe even Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin might take up residence in Vermont. Hell, if they become voting citizens of Vermont, we can always revoke their citizenship and then deny them passports. Or flyover permission. How awesome would that be to have those two nutjobs landlocked for the rest of eternity? I'm thinking a Hillary Clinton presidency might be good right there in Vermont.

If Vermont wants out, I say let 'em go. From then on, when we say "love it or leave it" to some patchouli-smelling freakazoid, we can just point to the nearest Grayhound headed for Vermont.

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Chicken Farm

You have to wonder, deep down, what folks like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Rosie really wanted to happen this weekend in New York.

I mean, think about it. From all of the rhetoric of the antiwar left, we've got to believe that George W. Bush and the U.S. millitary are the terrorists, right? That 9/11 couldn't have really been caused by Islamic Fundamentalists who hate anyone who isn't an Islamic Fundamentalist, especially Americans. And so the thwarted Kennedy plot was probably just that a$$ Bush offing some innocent people who maybe pissed off his big oil buddies, right?

How can you go through things like this weekend and NOT believe that we need to be now, more than ever, involved in the global War on Terror?

Truly, though, I think we have been a little too PC in this whole thing. The "war on terror" is one method to describe the current international conflict between millitant Islamic fundamentalism and the rest of the world, especially Western Democracy. Why does millitant Islam hate Western Democracy? Well, Western Democracy is made up of two very divergent and opposed ideologies: namely, what remains of Christian Rationalism and Modernist Liberalism. Millitant islam hates Christian Rationalism because, of course, millitant Islam hates Christianity. It hates Modernist Liberalism because Modernist Liberalism is decadent.

This is not all that dissimilar to the conflict that occured at the nation's founding. What remained of Catholicism (i.e. France) was in conflict with the Biblical Christianity/Rationalism alliance, represented by England. Our little war of revolution was just a small part of that bigger conflict, just as Iraq, for example, is a smaller part of our larger conflict today. To miss this is to completely miss reality.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Yabba Dabba (Friggin) Do!!!

My good friend Phil believes that, if there is a Republican who can beat out Hillary, it is Fred Thompson. He thinks that Rudy's too moderate to energize the Republican base, and that Romney is still a moderate deep down as well, despite the rhetoric. McCain, well, he's just a couple deuces short of a full deck.

But Fred Thompson, more than anyone in the field, has a folksy, populist, Reagan-like appeal. Thompson presents well on TV, and Arthur Branch is embedded in many of our minds in the same way that "The Gipper" was in a former generation. Not only that, Thompson has the wherewithal to look Michael Moore in the eye, tell him he's nuts, and then blow a big puff of smoke in his face. That, my friends, is the testicular fortitude that a Republican presidential candidate needs to have.

Now, all of the big conservative radio guys have held off of a full endorsement of a particular candidate. My bet is that, as we get closer to this thing, that's going to change. Thompson is the kind of candidate that someone like a Sean Hannity or even a Rush Limbaugh can get behind, I believe.

Reagan said it once, "How can a president not be an actor?" I can see Fred saying that. Reagan also said, "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." I can see Fred saying that, too.

It is looking like Fred is finally going to declare, quite fittingly, on Independence Day. Let Freedom Ring!

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

A parting shot.

Cindy Sheehan is going home.

I've always given my support to freedom of speech, even when I disagreed with it. I have always supported Cindy Sheehan's right to get out there and display her beliefs. As long as free speech doesn't mean violence or subversion, I'm quite glad to hear that there are a variety of voices out there. Even when others say things I don't like, I see it as an opportunity to express my own views.

Now, on her way out of public life, Cindy Sheehan has exercised her freedom of speech once again to say something quite interesting:

""Goodbye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I cant make you be that country unless you want it."

You see, I've said before that antiwar folks very often just hate America. When I say something like that, everyone else gets up in arms and says "you can't question my patriotism just because we disagree!" Historically, I've backed down, because I really am not comfortable challenging someones motives. I can challenge their beliefs or actions, but motives are internal, and between them and their God.

But when someone like Cindy Sheehan puts it all out there, you've got to wonder: how many people on the left really do hate America, and feel like it has to be made into a better country through things like protest? Cindy Sheehan will do a lot more towards making America better now that she's going home, trying to mend her family ties and, one hopes, become a hard-working productive citizen.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

UNITED we stand.

I knew then, on September 15 of 2001, when I first saw the goofy liberals printing "United We Stand" bumper stickers that the waves of emotion would eventually die down and they would return to their American-hating ways. I knew they'd wind up accusing Bush of warmongering, even though war in Iraq was over a year and a half away. I kept silent, because I believed that I should have given them the benefit of the doubt.

Boy, was I wrong:



You see, the fact of the matter is that good politicians say things that are politically expedient. I know that should seem obvious, but sometimes I forget. You know, like when our country was attacked by militant Islamic fundamentalists. Does anyone out there on the left remember that?

I believed then (naively, it would seem) that just because people like John Edwards didn't agree with me on most political issues didn't mean they didn't love their country, or that they wouldn't prefer their own country to their country's enemies. But to declare how united we are in the midst of the crisis, it would seem, was just another bumper sticker for John Edwards.

O'Reily knew it then. This is one of those times I wish he'd been wrong.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Three weeks in hiding

I decided that it was time to take some time away from the political commentary scene for a bit. I was getting way too frustrated with way too many things. And, since Rosie decided to leave the View, I felt like my work was, at least for a little while, done ;)

Anyways, I've got to admit that I'm finally getting a bit excited about 2008. While my Michigan heritage wants me to support Romney for the GOP, and while my emotional knee-jerk reaction is to support Rudy for his post-9/11 spirit, I can't help but be frustrated with these guys. Romney's record is more center than it is right, and that's just frustrating. Rudy is out there somewhere near the loony left on the social issues. And McCain, well, he just seems to be out there somewhere all around. Certainly I can't vote for the guy who came up with Campaign Finance Reform. Like many conservatives in the GOP, I'm frustrated. On top of that, I'm not sure any of these guys can really beat Hillary.

But I bet this guy can. Who else in the Republican field has the audacity to blow smoke in the face of Michael Moore, other than Fred Thompson? Even Bush, for all the suggestions by his enemies that he's just a cowboy, had a relatively tame reaction to Moore's Farenheit 9/11. But this just took balls. Big ones. The kind that we need our president to have in order to stand up to radical Islam, for example. While I like Newt, and would be happy to see him as president, I think Fred Thompson may be the last, best hope for both conservatism and for the GOP.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Crap.

I'm of a mind that celebrities have the same right as anyone else to speak their piece when it comes to politics. Make no mistake; I believe that Rosie, Alec, and even Sean Penn can say whatever the hell that they want to say. (The obvious exception being that Alec can call Cheney a terrorist, but when he calls his daughter a pig his visiting rights probably ought to be limited.) At the same time, I've got the right to shut them off, to boycott their movies or shows, and to refuse to support networks that promote their views. At no point do I feel like the government needs to intervene, even when folks are spouting lies about our president and about our troops. Except in the most rare of circumstances, such as those handful of areas outlined in the United States Constitution, I don't really think that the government needs to get involved in much at all.

However, Sheryl Crow thinks that the government is needs to tell me how many squares of toilet paper I should use in one sitting. Now, without being too graphic, let me just say that my physiology makes it literally impossible to use less than 5 squares on a good day. I'm sure that Sheryl recognizes these sorts of situations must exist, so I assume that, because she doesn't "want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights," Sheryl would promote a system whereby, if I provide a notarized note from my doctor, I could be allowed a few extra squares. Of course, my TP license would have to be renewed on a regular basis, to make sure that the situation hasn't resolved itself. After all, it wouldn't be fair to everyone else if I got to keep using 5 squares.

Now, I used to have quite a bit of respect for Sheryl. She went on the USO tours, and was relatively mellow about the whole government-is-the-answer thing, preferring to take the individual responsibility route. I don't know if it's Laurie David's influence, or if she's just gone off her rocker the way that celebrities are prone to do. Truthfully, I don't much care. With this, I've lost respect for her.

The hypocrisy of the left on the issue of the environment has been covered elsewhere, but let me just point out that there are a hell of a lot of ways that Sheryl could reduce her carbon footprint, apart from restricting my use of TP, starting with the crap she needs for a tour. Hell, I'm not even calling for the government to force her to do anything. I'd like to see her announce that she's dropping 1 if not 2 busses. I'd like to see the plan for using all of that food and drink she demands, without having any go to waste. Nope, that would be too difficult. Better to have the government force Bob Younce use 1 square of TP than to disappoint her bass player.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Father of the Year

I'm not saying I'm the best father in the world. To be sure, I try to be. I make sure that my kids have a roof over their heads and food on the table. I take an active role in their education. I try to encourage their skills and their interests, and I try to look after their health concerns. I love my kids.

Yeah, I can be grumpy. Moody, even, my wife would say. There have been times, as a parent, that I've used harsher words than what fit the situation. In fact, if I have one major weakness as a parent, this is probably it. So, please believe me when I say up front that I really do know what it is like to overreact, and to say things that you don't entirely mean to your kids.

But Alec Baldwin is out of his freaking mind. On top of that, he is a self-important jackass whose parental rights need to be, at the very least, reexamined. Part of his two-minute tirade on his daughter's voicemail goes like this:

“I don't give a damn that you're 12 years old or 11 years old, or a child,
or that your mother is a thoughtless pain in the ass who doesn't care about what
you do.”

Hear the audio here.

Now, if Imus deserved to be fired for saying "nappy-headed ho's," NBC had best be dropping 30 Rock like a bad habit. This jackass threatened his own daughter, at least two different times telling her he'd "straighten her out."

I don't know what Baldwin's problem is. I don't know if it's drugs, mental illness, or if he's just evil. Part of me thinks that whatever it is about Baldwin that makes him do this is responsible, at least in part, for his out-there political views. At this point, however, I don't really give a damn what his problem is. I'd just like to see him face the consequences of his actions in court, and to lose his public soapbox.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Blinded by Ideology

We are less than 24 hours after the massacre at Virginia Tech.

Memorial service plans haven't even been finalized for the 32 victims of a derranged murderer.

Yet liberals are foaming at the mouth about gun control.

Now, I know us conservatives aren't supposed to have a heart, especially during a crisis. I know that that we've all got ice in our veins. I know we want to oppress women, starve old people, and make sure that minorities suffer. Hell, we're more often behind a crisis than not. I think I even remember seeing Cho at one of our super-secret meetings where we try to figure out how to keep stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

Still, I've noticed something about my comrades in the vast right-wing conspiracy: none of us are turning the tragedy in Virginia into a political issue. We're not calling for immigration reform, educational reform, or loosening of gun control. Nope, we're just sad, like most Americans, as we mourn the loss of our countrymen.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Hillary and the Common Good

Sometimes, we have to be reminded. Hillary Clinton is a socialist, tried and true. While Bill may have been more pragmatic, Hillary really believes in the cause. And there is nothing more dangerous than a true believer in socialism.

Now, I have nothing, in a personal way, against socialists. It's just that our Constitution expressly embodies the opposite of socialism. The founders were all about limited government. Hell, even the so-called "Bill of Rights" was, by many of the time, seen more accurately as a "Bill of Prohibitions" - against the federal government. "Congress shall make no law..." is a pretty explicit phrase in regard to what it's trying to do. And, if there were any question, the ninth and tenth amendments spell it out: if the constitution doesn't specically proscribe a particular power, that power belongs to the states, and to the people.

The problem is that, by and large, even the conservative politicians don't tend to see the Constitution as sacred any longer. Politicians of both parties invoke the phrases they like the most, and that most fit their particular situation. But at the end of the day, even the most simple-minded gradeschooler can tell you that socialism and the U.S. Constitution are mutually exclusive.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Stop the Crackpot

Please.

Everyone else has blogged it, so you don't need me to. But the fact of the matter is that whack-job conspiracy theorists like this, while I support fully their freedom to speak, need to not be paid to spew their crap on TV.

Fire can't melt steel.

Radical Christians are MORE dangerous than Radical Muslims.

This woman is from another fricking planet. She needs to be kicked to the curb. I can't believe there are people who fall for this crap! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Thursday, April 05, 2007

The real problem with Pelosi's trip to Syria

Nancy Pelosi is at it again.

Pelosi has traveled to the middle east, met with Israeli leaders, and supposedly carried a message to Syria. She's convinced that she's played an integral part in the middle east peast process. Good for her. Except, there is a problem.

Now, the rest of the conservatives today are, of course, talking about how she's screwed up. That there was no message. That she's a complete novice when it comes to diplomacy. That she's so far out there, even Jimmy Carter supports her trip. But I have to be honest, that's not my concern.

No, my concern is this: Nancy Pelosi, by inserting herself into a diplomatic role, is attempting to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers, much as she has done with this nasty business about setting a withdrawal date for Iraq. Advise and Consent, that phrase so used by Republican and Democratic congresses alike, does not mean circumvent. It also doesn't mean that congress should fund the millitary only if a withdrawal date is set. They are to either fund it or not. If they want, they can vote to end the entire war on terror by simply cutting the purse strings. However, Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution expressly gives the President full authority in matters of foreign relations (with the exception of trade law, which does rest with congress) as well as in millitary questions, such as a withdrawal date.

This cavalier approach to our Country's most sacred of documents makes my physically ill.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Conspiracy

I spent some time this past weekend at Wrestlemania with my good friend, Doc.

Doc was, actually, the first of my little circle of friends in high school to start listening to Rush, back in 1989. Back then, Rush was just as edgy, feisty, and revolutionary as ever. He was taking the country by storm, filling the vacuum for conservative thought that left when Reagan left office. At the time, I was apolitical at best, and a populist at the worst. My intellectual rebirth wouldn't occur for another three years, and while Rush was entertaining, most of what he said just sort of passed over me.

Well, the last 20 years or so haven't been the kindest years to Doc. He's been through quite a bit, and has come out the other end a survivor who's ready to move forward. On balance, he doesn't seem too worse for the wear. He looked healthier this weekend than I've seen him in close to a decade. He's talking about going back to college, and about quitting drinking. He's being an extremely responsible father to his little guy. However, something has gone horribly awry.

Doc has become a liberal.

Now, something you need to know about Doc is that he's always liked to live close to the edge. He likes to say things that make people squirm, at least a little bit. He's always joked about conspiracy theories, such as the Catholic church being responsible for Kennedy's assassination. The more outrageous, the more he liked to talk about it. I always thought it was a joke.

So, imagine my chagrin when we were discussing the Iranian hostage situation and he said, "well, the British shouldn't have been in Iranian waters. They knew what they were doing, they deserve whatever the Iranians do to them."

I asked, of course, what he thought of the GPS data that showed that the Brits were in Iraqi waters. He said, "What makes you think we can believe that? Who put out those numbers? The British government, who are trying to cover their asses. I don't blame the Iranians one bit, after everything we've done to their neighbors in the last couple of years."

I knew the conversation was about over. I asked, plainly, "so, you believe that there is a British conspiracy to hide their soldiers' true activity?" A "yes" answer later, I knew that there was no reasoning with him on this one, and that it was time to talk about Wrestlemania.

I've found you just can't argue with someone who is dedicated to a pet conspiracy theory, no matter how many facts you throw at them.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Pelosi's Rhetoric

It is like the Democrats have no understanding of the English language. Or, perhaps, their command of the language is far greater than mine. In a matter of two sentences, Nancy Pelosi extends a "hand of friendship" while simultaneously extending a middle finger.

Maybe Pelosi recognizes, as have many politicians before her, that words can often be used not as a conveyance for reality, for ideas, or for truth, but rather words in context can be made to communicate something that would otherwise be inherently irrational. "There's a new congress in town" is provocative. It stirs up images of the Old West mythology, of Wyatt Earp riding into town, giving notice to the Cowboys that Tombstone was no longer their private pervue. Yet Pelosi wants us to think she's offering friendship.

Nancy Pelosi is no more offering friendship to President Bush than Earp did to Ike Clanton. And I have full faith in the American people that they won't fall for it, if they just listen to the words that she is using.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Resistance and Agitation in the Birthplace of Freedom

Philly has a problem.

Like the leaders in most major metropolitain areas, the leaders of Philadelphia have decided that it should be against the law to smoke in a resturaunt. Motivated by millitant anti-smokers, backed up by doctors who have been politically radicalized, and leftists whose sole motivation is to concentrate government power, these bans have gone off in way too many places around the country.

Now, by way of disclosure, let me tell you that I used to be a smoker. I didn't start smoking until I was in my 20s, and I've quit and restarted a couple of times. I'm not smoking now, and have no intention of starting again. Any time someone cordially asked me to put out a cigarette, I did so with a smile. Anytime someone was nasty to me about it, I blew smoke in their face. Sometimes, being polite is really all you need to do to get your way.

But here's the thing: smoking is an individual choice. If I don't want to be around smoke, I don't go around smoke. If I don't want to eat in a resturaunt that has smoke, I don't go to that resturaunt. It is as simple as that. In this regard, I vote with my feet.

But this isn't good enough for some. No, they "look forward to the day when we can just say 'it's all smokefree, why bother?'"

I'll tell you why bother. Because this is America. This is a country that was founded on the freedom of individuals to do as they please. This is a country that prides itself on the liberty of its citizens to make sometimes stupid and irrational decisions.

The good news is that, just like those boys down the road in Boston who decided to make a big stink over some tea a while back, there are those in Philly who have the fortitude to stick it to the man, say "screw you, hippie, I'm letting people smoke in my four walls if I want to, you Nazi leftist pig!"

May their spirit, and the spirit of Edgar Friendly, wash over us all.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

What the Brits Don't Get

Tony Blair has suffered major political fallout for his willingness to stand up against Sadaam's regime of terror. As such, we know that the UK is pulling troops out of Iraq, and won't be there much longer at all. In the minds and words of many liberal anti-war activists, being in Iraq only makes the UK a target for terror. So, if the UK pulls its troops from Iraq, terrorists will not target the Brits.

But the don't get it. Radical fundamentalist Islam is, at the end of the day, a movement that attacks based not on a demonstration of strength, but a demonstration of weakness. The Iranians capturing British soldiers, detaining them, and, one assumes trying them and eventually killing them (if London doesn't do something drastic). No, this move to take troops away from the War on Terror only makes the UK look more vulnerable.

The same thing happened with the train bombings in Madrid. It was obvious that Spain was on the edge about whether or not it would stand up against these thugs and murderers. Radical Muslim extremists blow up a train and the next thing you know Spain is out, AND they have a new shiny socialist government.

It's the same thing that Bin Laden figured would happen on 9/11. It's been well publicised that Bin Laden saw the U.S. as a "paper tiger" that would fold under pressure. But, the opposite happened, at least initially. And thank God for George W. Bush's steadfastness in the war on terror, too.

Of course, now the Democrats in the house are trying to fulfill Bin Laden's prediction, if a bit late. They are demanding we get out of Iraq, and are, like much of the rest of the world, demanding that a millitary solution to Iran's nuclear crisis be taken off of the table.

Look, appeasement didn't work when we tried it with Hitler. It didn't work with Stalin, either. These maniacs don't respond to guestures of kindness; they only respond to a show of force. If we back out of Iraq and refuse to disarm Iran of its' nuclear program, that will send a clear signal to the terrorist organizations, as well as rogue states, that we don't have the will to see it through. We will have many more 9/11's, and eventually one of them will be nuclear.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

We taught the Dems a lesson

And that lesson is this: under oath, everyone is eventually going to say something that isn't true. When that happens, they are toast.

This thing with the U.S. attorney firings is laughable. I've read the supposedly damaging portions of the documents being bantered about. There is nothing in any of them that is any different from any other Washington memo. The democrats know that there is no way in hell that they are going to convict Al Gonzales or anyone else in the Bush administration on these firings. Nothing illegal was done, and it is starting to look like nothing particularly immoral was done, either.

No, the Democrats are not issuing subpoenas to get to the bottom of the firings, regarless of what Leahy the Leaker says. They want Karl Rove's head on a platter, and the lesson of Scooter Libby is that, eventually, you're bound to flub something, whether intentional or not, under oath. Doesn't matter if it is even related to the case.

Not that it hasn't happened to the Dems before. After all, lying under oath is what impeachment was all about. Still, Clinton's lie was, very obviously, a self-serving and bold-faced lie directed at the American people. Libby's perjury was, at worst, a goof on some factual details. Clinton stared directly into the camera and told the American people the same damned lie that he told under oath. Getting facts out of order is a hell of a lot different.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Nazis, art, and flags

I am a Northerner. I was born and raised in Michigan, and I have lived in just two states: Michigan and Indiana. I've spent maybe a total of 60 days in my life in the South, mostly in Florida and Georgia. When the Younces arrived from Germany in South Carolina in the 1780s, they came without much of anything at all, and they certainly didn't own slaves. As a matter of fact, they were Brethren ministers opposed to the slave trade. Many from the second generation, including my forefathers, moved North to Ohio. I married a Hoosier whose family history does dip down into a border state, Kentucky, before her mother was born. In terms of pedigree, with the exception of the Northern colonial descendants, I'm as pedigree a Yank as there are.

In terms of racism, it is a somewhat difficult thing to talk about one's own record. It always comes across as so defensive, so forced. But, I'll say it clearly anyways: I'm no racist. It's cliche, but I've "had several black friends" and any one of them would tell you that I'm not racist. I've done volunteer work at a camp for troubled African-American boys, I've spent a week at a time on "home missions" trips repairing houses in predominantly African-American neighborhoods, and my denomination was one of the most anti-slavery churches of its day. I'll go toe-to-toe with anyone who suggests that I am somehow racist.

But, I am still offended when someone desecrates the Confederate Battle Flag.

I understand some of the outrage among portions of the African-American community over the Confederate flag. To some degree, you could compare it to how the German Jews must have felt under the Nazi flag. Still, I don't believe that this is a good comparison. The Confederate flag, in one form or another, only flew between secession and the end of the Civil War. It doesn't represent the oppression of the African-American under slavery, any more than the U.S. flag represents slavery - after all, slavery was implicitly recognized by the Constitution. (I'm fully aware that there are radicalized elements in the African-American community that would like to do away with the U.S. flag for that reason, but these voices are, thankfully, few and far between).

The confederate battle flag, rather, represents, in the eyes of the South, the oppression of the South by the Federal government, and the struggle of the South against that oppression. As such, it is no coincidence that Hillary wants the Confederate flag removed from the South Carolina statehouse: more federal oppression.

Yeah, slavery was wrong. It was a moral evil that was, thankfully, wiped from our nation's landscape. But the way that it happened was through Federal oppression of the Southern states, and that was just as wrong. Tying the ideals of the Confederacy only to slavery, or suggesting that the Confederate battle flag should somehow be lynched, is to distort history. It is to miss the one remaining lesson of the Civil War that still faces us today: the Federal government does not have the right to citizens to states how they run their own lives. Of course the liberals want us to connect the Confederate flag with slavery; to connect it with government oppression would only reveal their true agenda.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Why the Party is hanging Al Gonzales out to dry

I think I've figured it out. It's starting to make sense.

It's the same reason that Nixon didn't dispute the election in 1960 and Gore did 40 years later. It's the same reason that Nixon resigned and Clinton didn't. (That's an intentional comparison, by the way, for you liberal readers. I know you guys hate being compared unfavorably to Nixon).

It's the same reason that Republicans always seem to balk at defending their own from wrongdoing. And here it is: Conservatives are morally superior to liberals.

Now, I know. The liberals always lambaste conservatives for claiming to be, or feeling, morally superior. Yeah, it has a negative connotation. But, I don't think that it has to be all that bad. I think that it is all right to have a higher moral standard. I think that it is OK to call a spade a bloody shovel. If someone does something wrong, liberal or conservative, a conservative should be able to stay true to conscience and say, "you did something wrong."

Does this mean that conservatives don't have moral failings? Nope. Does this mean that they don't have just as many moral failings as liberals? Not at all. But it does mean that they have a sense of guilt. They have a sense that behaving badly is not all right, even when they do it themselves.

Just because Newt was having an affair at the same time as Clinton doesn't mean that Newt was right to do it and Clinton wasn't. Both were abhorrent. But, eight years on and Newt has said, "my affair was a moral failing on my part. It's something I've had to repent of and make up for." Bill's wife is still talking about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" who outed her husband's affair. Clinton has done nothing that would suggest contrition. Newt has.

Does contrition make it right? Again, no, it doesn't. Nothing makes it right, that's the point. Just like firing judges on a purely political basis, if that's what Al Gonzales did, was not right. No, it's not as bad as firing all 93 judges, including one who was investigating your business dealings. But the conservatives have this moral compass that tells them that corruption is corruption regardless of who commits it. Liberals don't.

Now, is it premature for Sununu to call for Gonzales to resign? Yeah, it is. The facts aren't all in yet. There is no reason that he should see Gonzales as red meat, at least not yet. That's at least as political and reprehensible as firing judges on political grounds.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

I would love to blog about something other than Hillary

But when she declares that she'd keep troops in Iraq just weeks after telling Bush he'd better get the troops out of Iraq before he leaves office, I can't let it go.

One of two things is going on here: Either Hillary just says whatever the hell she feels like saying depending on her audience or the direction the wind is blowing, keeping her real agendas secret, or maybe 2 + 2 really does equal 5, as long as Hillary says so. In the end, the logic of her position demands it..

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Hillary is Nucking Futs.

The woman has lost it. Again.

She's declaring another "vast Right-wing conspiracy". This time, however, the conspiracy isn't out to make it look like her husband had sex with an intern. No, this one is to make sure that black people don't get to vote.

Becuase, as we know, that conspiracy was so successful that it actually got Bill Clinton to have sex (sorry, oral counts in my book) with Monica Lewinsky.

I suppose it's a vast Right-wing conspiracy that prompted Hillary to criticize Alberto Gonzales when he fired 8 U.S. attorneys, as opposed to the 93 that her husband fired.

Ron Paul in '08 is our only hope.

By training, if not by trade, I am an historian.

Now, I'm not claiming to be James McPherson or even David McCullough. Heck, I'm not even claiming to be my late history professor Glenn Martin, or even my most recent favorite professor Jennifer Green. Still, I am, by training, an historian. Just because I am not one by trade does not invalidate my credentials.

Having said that, as an historian, I am able to look at the movie 300 without trying to dissect the historical inaccuracies. You see, I'm also a fanboy. So, I know that 300 is not intended in any way to be historically accurate. It is intended to represent a graphic novel, a comic book.

I suppose, though, what disturbs me about Professor Lytle's review is that it doesn't focus as much on the true historical details, but it contains phrases like "brutal apartheid state" and words like pedastry.

Now, I know the conservative bloggers and commentators have been all over "revisionism" in history for years. As an historian, I don't have a problem with the ideas behind revision. I fully believe that our stories need to be retold and reinterpreted if they are to be meaningful to each generation.

However, in practice, revision becomes a bad thing when it is only done a certain way. In other words, today's historical revisionism is based around the "holy trinity" of historiography: race, class, and gender. But, by revising only along these lines, we miss much of what history has to say to us.

In this way, Frank Miller may have been a better historian than professor Lytle. Miller tells us that, sometimes, you can beat the odds. That sacrifice can have rewards. That war doesn't have to be meaningless. These are the lessons of history, not whether "to spartanize" used to mean "to bugger."

Monday, March 12, 2007

Manufacturing Dissent

The AP has an interesting piece today on a documentary film made about liberal filmmaker (redundant, I know) Michael Moore. Among the more interesting nuggets:

  • Roger Smith, then-CEO of General Motors and the focus of Moore's debut Roger & Me, actually met with Moore, not once, but twice.
  • These meetings were not reported in the media until three years after Roger & Me was made.
  • Michael Moore proved even more elusive than Roger Smith, with the two documentary makers making multiple attempts to interview Moore with no success.
  • The two documentary makers are both self-proclaimed liberals who are, as a result of making this film, disappointed and disillusioned with Moore.

The most amazing part about this to me? That anyone could be "disappointed and disillusioned" with Moore in the first place, as it implies some sort of admiration to begin with. Most sane liberals abandoned Moore after Farenheit 9/11.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

The Lunatic Fringe

From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

Now, I don't know who the editors are at the Las Vegas Review Journal, but it is nice to see that someone else out there gets it. I mean, for crying out loud, if Republicans had sworn off every left-leaning media outlet, there would be no White House press corps.

What is it that these nutjobs at Moveon.org are afraid of? They claim that Fox News is not a legitimate media outlet, yet the bureaucratic mouthpieces of NPR and PBS are somehow direly needed. Moveon.org claims to want NPR and PBS to be free of "partisan meddling," but they just don't get it: ANY outlet that is controlled by government is, by its very nature, partisan.

It's like the same loonies that think that funding elections publicly will remove corruption from the process. Hello? Is there any government-funded program that is not inherently prone to corruption? These dingbats disparage our Armed Forces during a time of war, and seek to defund our mission in Iraq.

Look, I'm all about liberty. Really, I am. I believe that we get the government that we deserve. But the fact of the matter is that there are a hell of a lot of really, really stupid people out there on the left, and they've got a much sexier message than those of us on the right.

After all, what sells better to the working class: "We want to raise your wages through the force of law," or "if you work harder to improve your station in life you can?"

The truth isn't always easy, and it isn't always popular, but it is still the truth.

Friday, March 09, 2007

The Daily Kosmonaut

I'd just like to see liberals live by their own rules for once. They can say "faggot" but Ann Coulter cannot. They can create fake polution offsets and burn more electricity than anyone, but God forbid I run my furnace above 68 degrees.

Liberalism is the embodiment of hypocrisy.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Why the Dems want a timetable

Democrats want us out of Iraq. That's not news. A millitary withdrawal would make for the ultimate black eye on any administration. Just ask LBJ's ghost, he can tell you all about that.

But, this timetable thing is especially interesting. Hillary, of course, previously said that Bush shouldn't leave Iraq for his successor to clean up. That would mean, then, that we should be out of Iraq by January of 2009, right? Nope. The Democrat timetable for the pullout of Iraq is August, 2008. Why?

It is simple. The Dems don't want the war on terror to be an issue in the 2008 campaign. The fact of the matter is that, unless Lieberman decides to run for prez as a Dem, they don't have one candidate on the block that is strong on defense. And the Republicans are overflowing with them. And, while I don't personally like McCain because of his encroachment on free speech (which was initiated and executed by the Democrat Feingold, by the way), you damn well better believe I'd rather have him at the helm during war than Barry or Hillary.

The Democrats know it. Even if support for the war is at an all time low, none of their candidates can get elected if we've got troops deployed in an active conflict zone.

This is also, by the way, the same reason the Dems want to negotiate with a guy who denies the holocaust ever took place. God forbid that we should be in active conflict with Iran in August of '08, just three months before the presidential elections.

The web is not perfect

I'm not sure why I didn't find this sooner:

A response to Annie Defranco from 1993.

Could not have said it any better myself.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Soviet-Era Video Games

Sometimes, you just need a good laugh. Check out OMGLMAO's blog feature today:

http://omglmao.blogspot.com/2007/03/comunist-mario.html

Tremendous, my friends.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Sometimes, you gotta roll a hard six. Or, maybe three of 'em.

You have got to love public education.

If "separation of church and state" is to be applied in an absolute sense to public education, we've only hit the tip of the iceberg. If a woman can be fired because she is "enticing students to practice witchcraft" by letting them read Harry Potter, things have truly hit the fan. Soon, teachers who believe in Marxism will be fired for trying to teach that religion.

You see, there's no good answer here. All that has happened in New York is that a principal, who is probably a Christian, recognizes that he's not allowed to integrate his faith into his job. He then takes the approach (which I think may be correct) that "if I can't do it, neither can she."

The only way we will ever get past this is to defund and defunct public education. No, it can't happen overnight. Any true market reforms, whether concerning education or industry, must happen gradually, with transitional institutions, like vouchers and charter schools.

So, what do you think? Is it reasonable to think that public education will ever be free of the Church/State conflict?

Monday, March 05, 2007

What's wrong with this country is what's right with this country

So, the other night, I was writing a blog post on some nutbag professor who seems to be guilty of treason. My wife, who conveniently sits at the computer next to mine, was doing something else. Just as I finished my post, she turned to me and said, "Well, they finally buried Anna Nicole Smith."

I stared blankly in the pretentious way I'm known to do and I said, without thinking "You know, you are what is wrong with this country. We're in the middle of a war, and our college professors are giving training manuals to our enemies. But somehow, it still matters to you where some dead celebrity is buried!"

Just this morning, she started speaking to me again.

I've had a lot of time to think about things while I was getting the silent treatment, and I think I've figured something out. Maybe, just maybe, it's not all that bad to be concerned with Anna Nicole, or with Paris, or Britney, or TomKat or whatever the flavor of the day is. Even in a time of war. These kinds of distractions are, in some way, a nice little fanciful escape from the cold hard reality that surrounds us. It may well be that we need these kinds of stories to keep us sane at times.

Add something else into the mix. America is the one place in the world where you don't, for the most part, have to worry about the Government running your life. Sure, there are incursions that we strive to beat back every day. But we still enjoy a relative amount of liberty in the United States. Our obsession with Anna Nicole, while a sign of our decadence to the parts of the world that hate us, is in some ways a representation of our freedoms. We have a right in the United States to escape from the serious issues every now and again, or even to not give a flying crap about the serious issues.

However, I have to agree with Drew: it's not news. It's fark.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Defining Censorship

Bill Maher who, by the way, is no Dennis Miller, thinks that Dick Cheney's death would mean that other lives would be saved.

Maher's invective, in my opinion, is over the line. Should he have a right to say it? Sure. But, should HBO have the right to fire him if they want? Abso-fracking-lutely.

Censorship is not, you see, a company or a person telling someone else to shut up; it is when the government tells someone to shut up.

Meanwhile, I'm confused when someone compares wishing death on the Vice President to calling John Edwards a faggot. Yeah, I think Ann Coulter's comments were over the top. But, implying that our Vice President should be dead is not just bad manners; it borders on treason. As much as I despised Clinton (even before Monica) I never wished him dead. He was our president. (Plus, it would have meant Al Gore would have become commander-in-chief). Calling someone what was just ten years ago an acceptable playground slur, while immature at best, is a heck of a lot different.

Thursday, March 01, 2007

You've GOT to be kidding me.

Mike Adams has an interesting piece at TownHall.com today.

It amazes me what goes on in the name of intellectual freedom. Like I said before, there ought to be few limits on the freedom of speech. It comes down to the issues of relatively minor violations of the law (in the case of libel) or relatively major ones (in the case of treason).

So, would you think that someone who provides training manuals and videos to our enemies would be guilty of treason? Apparently not in Ohio. There, they let you teach at Kent State.

This guy needs to be arrested publicly (not in the middle of the night, like the Taliban would do), given a fair trial (unlike what would have occured under Saddam), and given a death sentence (Via a relatively painless lethal injection, unlike Nick Berg's death sentence) if convicted of giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

Can anyone honestly defend this guy? I'd love to hear anyone try it. Please. Five bucks (via Paypal) to anyone with even a slightly reasonable argument.

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Hail to the King (baby)

When with the gorram socialists figure out that the way to get rid of something is not to ban it?

Look, I pity Charles, I really do. In the whole DI-Charles split thing, I was with him all the way. I know, I know. Not a popular thing to do.

Hell, I felt bad for him with the whole Camilla thing, too. He should be able to remarry at this point without a lot of garbage.

Yet, here's something Charles and the other socialists don't realize, or aren't willing to admit: forbidding remarriage and forbidding McDonald's aren't that much different. The point with both is government interference in personal choices. Both are wrong. Both are over-extensions of government power.

Makes you glad our forefathers could stand to live without tea for a little while. Otherwise, Charles might be our king with this woman as queen.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

This NEVER gets old

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the left is just one of the fun things about my job. The rather lengthy excerpt below is from Drudge today. Enjoy it. Revel in it. Bask in it's globally-warmed goodness:

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

Nashville Electric Service/Gore House
2006
High 22619 kWh Aug – Sept Low 12541 kWh Jan - FebAverage: 18,414 kWh per month
2005
High 20532 Sept - OctoberLow 12955 Feb - MarchAverage: 16,200 kWh per month
Bill amounts
2006 – $895.60 (low) $1738.52 (high) $1359 (average)2005 – $853.91 (low) $1461 (high)
Nashville Gas Company
Main House2006 – $990(high) $170 (low) $536 (average)2005 – $1080 (high) $200 (low) $640 (average)
Guest House/Pool House
2006 – $820 (high) $70 (low) $544 (average)2005 – $1025 (high) $25 (low) $525 (average)

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

For Further Information, Contact: Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431 editor@tennesseepolicy.org

Monday, February 26, 2007

What the Liberal Media isn't Telling You - Part 1

Among other things...

Not everyone hates George W. Bush, especially not all Republicans.

DDT is not as dangerous as malaria.

Phil Gramm behind him.

Democrats pander to the evangelical block as much as Republicans.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Al Sharpton and Strom Thurmond

Interesting.

As I understand it, then, we have a guy who was a racist in 1948 and ran for president on the one hand, and a guy who is a racist and ran for president in 2004 on the other hand. Let's compare:

"White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." - Al Sharpton, 1994.

"We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights." - Strom Thurmond, 1948.

Now, several things strike me initially:

  • Both are full of crap
  • Both were products of their age (although one renounced racism later in life)
  • One of the two seems to be talking about philosophical principles
  • One of the two seems to be homophobic
  • One of the two has really bad grammar
  • Both assume their race is better than the other race.
  • Both were Democrats when they ran for president (Dixiecrat was a democratic party offshoot, remember)

So, bitter irony that the two are connected on more than just one level?

I have to say, it would really have been fitting had Sharpton's ancestors been slaves of Robert Byrd's ancestors.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

New Oscar Category

I can only assume there's a new Oscar category entitled "largest pile of crap."

Hollywood doesn't lean to the left, oh, no it doesn't.

Jimmy Carter needs to shut the frack up, and go back to building houses.

I am so fracking tired of Jimmy Carter.

I was four when he was elected president. I still remember sitting in line for over an hour for gas at the height of his presidency. A seven year-old in a 1974 Buick in the middle of summer with no AC is an unhappy seven year-old. I was tired of Jimmy Carter by the age of eight.

I don't remember the hostage crisis, per se. I do remember them getting off the plane after being released, though, and someone saying how great it was that Reagan got these folks home (the conventional wisdom holds this to be true; Iran was afraid of the incoming administration, who they believed would have used force to get the hostages. And they were right to do so.)

Carter's recent book was, of course, more than a little bit of a fiasco. The moment you start comparing Israel to Apartheid-era South Africa, you've gone down a bad road. People are going to get sick of that really really quick.

But here's what is sticking in my craw today. Carter has never believed in the long-standing tradition of ex-presidents shutting the frack up, and once again he's decided that he needs to criticize the current administration. This time his invective is aimed at Dick Cheney (my hero, by the way; he shoots from the hip, political future be damned. He can be honest politically, because he just doesn't care to be elected to anything ever again).

And, just for the record, the Camp David Accords were not Carter's doing. They were a combination of the groudwork laid by Kissinger and Sadat's trust of Kissinger. What's especially telling here is that Kissinger got his nobel peace prize in 1973, and Sadat and Begin in 1978. Carter's was awareded twenty four years AFTER Sadat and Begin.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Freedom of Speech, again

""I pointed out to [the teacher] there's a limitation … to free speech," Butte said."

I recognize the logical limitations on freedom of speech. You can say I am purple, for example. If I am not purple, I can take you to court with a slander suit, and the court can (and should) tell you not to tell people I am purple. Here, though, my being purple is not open to opinion. It is a verifiable subject.

I happen to agree with the whole shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre as well. If my words are false and lead to injury, I should be held accountable. Having a fire or not is also an objective fact, although the law should (and does) allow for some room for error in the event of a mistake. If I am actively subverting the government (which is what Holmes was convicting someone of in the famous theatre quote), I should also be held accountable. I should redress my grievances lawfully.

However, here is where it ends for me. Don't lie. Don't deceive people intentionally. Don't try to overthrow the government. That makes sense to me.

But here's my problem. When did arguing a religious or political opinion fall out of the realm of freedom of speech? How can we pretend to be an open and tolerant society if we prevent certain groups from expressing their opinions? I'm as offended by the KKK as I am by most of what Al Sharpton says, but by God I want them both to be able to speak openly in a free society under the protection of the Constitution.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Not Voltaire, but still profound.

Since when should any particular diplomatic option be off the table?

It amazes me, truly. What exactly is it that Blair and the democrats (minus Lieberman) in the US think that it is that will stop Amacrazynutjob? Sadaam, for all of his bravado, was more dedicated to Lenin than to Allah. If UN threats couldn't move him, they won't move Iran. Especially if there is no threat of force.

TR would have invaded Iran by now. Actually, if TR had had nukes, there probably wouldn't have been an invasion, but instead the newly liberated Iraq would have a brand new parking lot, albeit a glowing one.

Reagan bombed Lybia (Qadaffi, actually, was the target) for blowing up ONE disco. Lybia now has no problem cooperating with UN rules about WMDs.

We know now that the Iranian millitary has been supplying bombs to terrorists in Iraq on many occasions. Why is Ahmadinejad still alive? I want to see pictures of this clown on my TV either inside of a pine box, or at least with a bruise above his left eye and a blood-soaked turban on his head, just like Qadaffi in 1984.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

It's getting scary.

According to some poll, Americans would like to see either Clint Eastwood or Oprah as president.

Dirty Harry (no, not THAT one) I can see, although his radical Libertarianism (Angie would love him!) goes too far, and he's been opposed to the war on terror (Iraq theatre). But Oprah? Say it isn't so.

However, those things pale compared to one little tidbit that goes by almost unnoticed:

Apparently, 27% of people think Hollywood is, politically, neutral. OK, fair enough, a quarter of people are morons. I get it. 42% of people recognize the truth: Hollywood is decidedly left-wing. But here's the really scary thing today: 5% (that's one in twenty for you other humanities majors) of respondants said that most hollywood films lean conservative. Who are these people, and which movies have they been watching?

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

The vast majority of Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq based on the "faulty" WMD intel. Now, of course, they tell us they were duped by the President, that they never would have voted for the war if they had known that there were no WMDs.

Meanwhile, today, Iranian president Akillinfidelsismyjob admits that Iran is pursuing NUCLEAR (not chemical, not biological, but freakin' NUCLEAR) capabilities. Iran is run by kooks who are far more radical than Sadaam, and probably guilty of even more crimes against humanity than he was.

OK, the question for the day for all of my liberal friends is this:

If democrats supported the invasion of Iraq because of suspicion of WMDs in the light of Sadaam's thumbing his nose at the UN Security Council resolutions, why are they so anxious to prevent any action against Iran?

What do YOU think? Yes or no? Should we give Iran the full-court press, up to and including an invasion?

I want to move to Texas.

I want to live in a place where they have a newspaper called the Liberty Post.

Where signs that read "we don't call 911" hang in convenience stores.

The state that used to be it's own frackin' country.

Home of Willie Nelson, George W. Bush, and the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders.

Final resting place of Davy Frickin' Crocket.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Tony Blair is an interesting figure.

On the one hand, he is as left as they come in terms of British politics. As leader of Labour, he's going to naturally be to the left of most Democrats in the United States on social issues as well as economics. Yet, he has been a staunch ally of the United States and President Bush in the war on terror.

Until now.

I can't fault the man for falling to political pressure. The fact of the matter is that, if a Democrat in the US had faced the same kind of opposition that Blair has faced in the UK, we'd have been out of Iraq before you could say "fat bloated bastard."

I guess it speaks to the testicular fortitude of George W. Bush that we haven't announced a timetable.

Hillary, however, has.

If you haven't got 'em, you just haven't got 'em.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Hillary wants the Confederate flag removed from the South Carolina statehouse grounds. Something bothers me about this.

OK, I know, I know. I've heard it. The Confederate flag, even if it doesn't represent slavery or racism to Bo and Luke Duke, it does represent slavery or racism or something to Jesse Jackson and his friends, so it's offensive. It's about reception as well as intention. Fine, fine. I disagree, but I'm tired of this particular argument for a while. We can revisit it another time.

I'm not even upset at the hypocrisy of Hillary. She never suggested removing the Confederate star from the Arkansas state flag, or pulling down the "lone star" Republic of Texas flag down off of the Texas Statehouse grounds. (Although, that would be a fun one to watch. Can you imagine the hell that Hillary would catch?)

And, honestly, the "support the troops from South Carolina by removing the Confederate flag, yet let's demand Bush bring them home without victory" argument is, by any logical estimation, flawed at best. But, that's not new, we've seen it a lot from Hillary. And I'm sure we'll see a hell of a lot more. That doesn't especially bother me today.

Nope. My big problem is this:

Hillary Clinton is a Senator. From New York. She thinks she needs to dictate to another State, South Carolina, what it should and should not do with its flags.

Hillary Clinton wants to be President. Of the United States. As which she, we should assume, would actually think she had the power to dictate to a state, like South Carolina, what it should do with its flags. Now, that is scary, my friends.

OK, so... as I understand it, it goes like this:


  1. Boy likes to watch Band of Brothers.
  2. Parents throw WWII-themed birthday party
  3. Other parents throw a hissy fit, declare it inappropriate.

I played toy guns, toy swords, toy anything when I was a kid. I'm not particularly a violent person. Statistically speaking, most guys my age played with toy guns. We watched Rambo at 13 years old or younger. Yet we're not yearning for war.

But, if our nation is attacked, we believe it ought to be defended. And, if the whole world believes that a nation whose leaders sympathize with those that attacked us has WMDs, we believe it ought to be put out of business, whether or not we find the WMDs (after all, Iraq is a desert the size of California - there are lots of places to bury things).

And, it's endemic. The fact of the matter is that, at one time not that long ago, roughly 3/4 of Americans believed we were doing the right thing in Iraq. Now, that's more like 1/3 or a little more. People have just plain been worn down by the liberal media's anti-war agenda. I'm sorry, but when more people believe Michael Moore than Don Rumsfeld, something is seriously wrong.
Meanwhile, my congressman is worried about further regulating peanut butter manufacturer, and saying that salmonella in a few batches of PB means that our security is at risk.

On top of that, Nancy Pelosi is appointing bribe-taking congressman to the house homeland security committee. Oh, and she's also declared the War Powers Act invalid, all by herself.

She is third in line for the presidency.

If we aren't bombed to the fracking stone age by Iran in 20 years, I will be thoroughly surprised.

I think maybe I get it now. The Democrats and liberals are so set on this global warming thing that they're just going to get us all blown up to save us from the disasterous effects of global warming.

Maybe Bush will have the guts to just nuke the moon on his last day in office before Hillary takes over.