Perhaps more troubling than the combination of overwhelming support towards an inexperienced candidate with nothing more than a brilliant speech writer is the people that this candidate backs. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the man who looks ugly in the face of America and is extremist without justification...on most occasions. In 2007, Barack Obama appointed Wright to his African American Religious Leadership Committee. Wright is a man who has made controversy his middle name and the press has become attacked by his former church as engaging in character assassination. Was it character assassination when the Nixon tapes came out a while after they were taped? No, the assassination was just delayed. This is the same deal with Wright, everything that makes him anything but Christian and American, has just come out later when he decided to open his mouth again.
Now let's review his resume: AIDs is a weapon of the federal government to wipe out the blacks, 9/11 was an inside job, Barack's tough moments are because of his race and gender (not his lacking resume...). That's just starting off for beginners.
"God didn't call American to do what she's doing in the world now. God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war... And we are criminals in that war. We have committed more war crimes almost than any other nation in the world and we won't stop because of our pride, our arrogance as a nation"
Somebody give him a history lesson please? Obviously he tuned out throughout high school when he was educated on Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Ho Chi Minh, Joseph Stalin...the list rolls on. BUT, the United States is the champion for war crimes because they liberated a terrorist leader who brutally murdered his own people just as we had done in Germany during World War 2. If war crimes is liberating the oppressors, should the people who released the slaves be considered dangerous? It's those kind of contradictory statements that makes one wonder in regards to the credibility of this man.
"A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years [will]... exploit them, and poor people generally, economically. And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and will have to use its military might to protect [those investments]. All of these problems are tied together"
Didn't the Republican Party house the man who wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. Now, we all know Lincoln's intentions are misconceived and overblown already, but consider that point for a second. Regardless of whether Lincoln actually cared about the slaves, he still freed them.
"Here is the true meaning and value of compassion... when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition."
Now let's consider the Reverend's wisdom. Learn from the opposition. Osama Bin Laden sent hijackers to the U.S. to take four planes; two for the World Trade Center, another for the Pentagon, and a fourth that was brought down by courageous passengers before reaching its destination of terror and murder. Saddam Hussein tested biochemical weapons on his own people and attempted to invade the major oil countries in the Middle East in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. So apparently, we will become wise and mature, according to Wright, if we start hijacking planes to kill people and test biochemical weapons on our own people.
"Our government... again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long.
It also takes great arrogance to blame AIDs on the federal government and make a series of absurd statements and accusations as if they're correct.
"God Damn America, God Damn America!"
Ladies and Gentlemen, your favorite for the next president of the United States has been in support of a minister of questionable views who declared views significantly unpatriotic in a rather reckless method, furthermore, condemning the federal government rather than offering any actual points. Part of the issue with this country is the fact that nobody can act, they just swear and curse.
"We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late."
Such as Obama giving you the boot, Rev. Wright?
Perhaps the point I am attempting to make here is the fact that Jeremiah Wright is one of questionable views. Of what relevance is this? Well perhaps the Barack Obama connection is exaggerated. But Obama has repeatedly defended the man by defending his church, his christian foundation, his morals, etc. See this quote:
"Witness the fact that Bill Clinton invited him to the White House when he was having his personal crises. This is a pillar of the community and if you go there on Easter on this Easter Sunday and you sat down there in the pew you would think this is just like any other church."
Funny you say that, because a man so bent on color, you would almost think he would denounce the Easter Bunny not because he removes attention from Christianity, but because its white.
If Barack Obama is right. If Wright's followers are right. If Wright's defenders are right. Consider these quotes from the very Holy Bible that Wright claims to follow:
"If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. "
-James 1:26
"Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."
-James 3:13-18
“Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”
-Matthew 15:11
"He who conceals his hatred has lying lips,and whoever spreads slander is a fool. "
-Proverbs 10:18
"A man who lacks judgment derides his neighbor,but a man of understanding holds his tongue."
-Proverbs 11:12
"A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control."
-Proverbs 15:1-2
"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding, but in expressing his own heart. "
-Proverbs 18:2
Moral of the story? Be what you claim to be and know what involves that claim to a suitable extent. Obama claims to have been inspired by Wright all these years and one would think after many years a man of God would learn such lessons as the dangers of a tongue. The Bible explores this in various areas, but Wright seemingly neglects.
How is this relevant to my point? Wright has no credibility in his religion and his vanity arguably diminishes Obama's ticket. Obama however, hurt himself with repeated association with the man and still defending the man despite such views that not only violate religious beliefs, but hopefully violate his personal beliefs (one would hope that a presidential candidate would not feel this way, but God only knows...)
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Heller v. D.C.: A Dangerous Fire
Heller v. D.C., the upcoming Supreme Court case regarding the gun ban in Washington D.C., is another of those cases that comes up periodically in history that will dramatically change the landscape of politics for the future. Like Chief Justice John Marshall did in Marbury v. Madison and providing judicial review, or in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee with the Supreme Court’s power over state matters, or even in McCulloch v. Maryland in the expansion of Congressional powers, Heller v. D.C. will result in another Earth-shattering decision that will rock the political landscape in several different ways. The first and most obvious effect will be in regards to the second amendment, which will be addressed once again by the Supreme Court and due to the nature of the D.C. ban, will have to finally address in specific, the right to bear arms and whether it is an individual right or not. Furthermore, it will again address the states rights. Many state constitutions provide similar measures to the second amendment providing for a right to bear arms and thus in the Supreme Court deciding, would again overthrow the States. This was not brought into light until Montana politicians presented a joint resolution stating that a ruling against the individual right would violate the compact between the state and the Union when Montana entered the union. This, in theory, if violates such a compact, would leave Montana will within their rights to secede from the Union. Although extreme and arguably unlikely, it leaves the door dramatically wide open. The Compact with the United States was approved in 1889 without argument of the second amendment concerning the States as opposed to the individual, therefore providing a conflict. Instead, it was approved and the state entered the Union. As lawmakers have observed and emphasized, a violation of such a contract could lead to dangerous consequences.
One valuable point: If the states begin jumping into the fight, it could and will get very ugly. The first point, the second amendment, is another focal point, and to understand it, it is important to understand the history of it. The roots of America concerned a rebellion against the tyranny of a leader and government that had continuously abused its power and its people, aside from neglecting various civil requests and petitions and imposing unnecessary taxes. A war, of bloodshed and violence, the American Revolution is the positive effect of revolution that European countries would struggle for (and often fail at) for the coming century. But would this insurrection against the British have been possible without the possession of firearms? More than likely, not so, as the British armies themselves had been in possession of such weapons, as well as more advanced and dangerous weapons. There’s a certain level of credit that has to be given to weapons in the founding of our country, as it enabled the revolutionaries to match the strength of their overseas government and the armies from which that occupied the colonies. Furthermore, there is also a credit given to the citizen-driven militias that were not drafted by the State, but were created and run by normal people who were aware of the presence of tyranny and oppression. This is the birth of the second amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The text of the second amendment, incorporating the two very principles discussed prior, stands as one of the major results of the revolution itself. It is not meant to be read as a whole, with implications affecting each other, but rather two separate rights featured in the identical amendment due to their source being identical: The American Revolution. There is a stunning violation of the rights at hand because of misinterpretation, intentional in a majority of the cases, regarding the true nature of the amendment. Some perceptions claim that due to the rights being featured together, the ownership of the right to bear arms is only a right of the militia, which is further described as being drafted by the State, because that is what it is meant to be serving in defense.
This is not the case. If one were to view amendments as a whole, single right with everything on relating to each other, the Constitution would be a worse entanglement of legal and political proportions than it already is. Suppose this is the case, that if rights are listed in the same amendment, that they only relate to each other. This school of thought involving interpretation would result in the reshaping of your rights to this effect:
1st Amendment: Your right to speech, press, petition, or peaceably assemble is only acceptable in religious matters, as the rights are mentioned only after Congress is denied the right to recognize an established religion as an official national religion or establish such.
The first amendment, the most guarded amendment among many members of the left and Americans in general. But as described above, the interpretation of all portions of an amendment being interrelated would also have negative effects for the person delivering such an argument, because then in theory, they would not have the right to argue against the second amendment, because it is not a religious matter.
The militia concept itself, despite certain significant legal clarifications, is still argued. The earliest of which, came on the pair of Militia Acts issued just six days apart in 1792 by the Second United States Congress. The first of the two, passed on May 2, basically gave certain rights to the President. These rights include calling militias during situations such as invasions by foreign nations and violent civil disobedience. This, in theory, designates the militia as a military body, given the call by the Commander-In-Chief, the President of the United States. Six days later, the citizen eligibility for an organized militia would be defined in the second Militia Act, as any able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. The Untied States Code, ratified in 1926, would later eliminate the racial aspect to include all males and lower the minimum enlistment age by a year, to seventeen. These provisions, featured in Section 311 under Title 10, would later be modified to include women. Furthermore, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution compiled a report in 1982, known as Senate Document 2807, regarding the subject of militias. It concluded that Congress had given the right to “raise and support armies” to the National Guard, but not “Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.” This concludes the argument over militias by defining a militia as a body separate from the National Guard, therefore designating it as its own entity.
Despite Madison’s deliberate exclusion of legalities, the second amendment still comes under fire. This brings forth one of the major debates of the second amendment that is critical to both itself and the entire Constitution. It is the debate over the implications of the phrase “of the people”. Some say that it relates to the State, and specifically refers to the rights described in the second amendment as rights of the State, and not of the individual citizens. Now, if this is to be held true, then it is to be assumed that application of the first and fourth amendments as citizen rights is false, as both declare the rights described as rights “of the people”. This belief would revoke our rights, in theory, to free speech, free press, assembly, petition, and protecting from unlawful searches and seizures. But the Supreme Court itself has even specifically cited the Bill Of Rights as referring to individual rights, such as in the case of Adamson v. California. Although this case relates to the Fifth Amendment and the right to not incriminate one’s self, it is a landmark case in the Bill Of Rights and its implications. The court says this, “The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for the protection of the individual against the federal government.” The dissent then goes on to agree, with reference to the anti-federalist movement, by stating, “The first ten amendments were proposed and adopted largely because of fear that Government might unduly interfere with prized individual liberties.”
Prized INDIVIDUAL liberties. Read that and read it again; twice and three times over. Photocopy it and send it to the American Civil Liberties Union and any other extreme left wing body with a grudge against the law-abiding American citizen.
Firearms itself however, are a critical debate. Where is the line between self-defense and reckless violence? Or even suppression of dangerous oppression and elimination of opposition without justification? Either way, it is a belief, that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the individual citizens. But one question still remains. It was a question that vexed Thomas Jefferson during the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, as well as Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and was a centerpiece in the debate between ex-federalist Daniel Webster and Robert Hayne of South Carolina in 1830. The question is this: With who or where did the final authority in interpretation of the Constitution lie?
Despite any controversy involving any of these aspects of the rights described within the second amendment, there is an obligation to defend them. The second amendment is apart of certain provisions made as result of the American Revolution, the very beginning of this country. This amendment is the result of its success, to ensure we will not fail as a united force against opposition. Captain Daniel Shays, a Revolutionary War veteran, even proved the significance of the militia. When he believed the government was out of line and to some extent, tyrannical for the ignoring of his pleas following disagreements between the farmers and the government on immediate property foreclosures and tax delinquencies, he banned with local farmers from Western Massachusetts to challenge authority. Despite his failure to overpower, the objective of effect was achieved, as it struck a cord. It displayed civil power. The integrity of the firearms was sought to be defended by Ambrose Burnside, a Union Civil War General, as well as a three-time governor and a two-time senator. He took his experience and belief, with already creating one of the most significant Civil War weapons, the Burnside Carbine, to create the National Rifle Association. This organization he and several others formed was aimed at defending the right to own firearms as well as training people to proper usage.
Now given all these various provisions, the Montana argument must be reintroduced. Along with a ruling against individual rights being negligent of all the factors listed above, there is a significant risk involving the states and Montana itself. Could Montana leave the Union? Yes. Would Montana leave the Union? Possibly. It has been suggested that it could occur, although extreme, it is not impossible and it is not unforeseeable. Such an action however, would send a ripple effect throughout the country that could lead states to question the ruling in a similar manner.
The point? The Supreme Court has more on its plate then most realize. And its time for the Court to stop being like Congress and being negligent, and to come through in the clutch for the United States Constitution, which is the very foundation of this free nation.
History The Cruel
Inspired by simple and interesting question, the concept of denying history and censorship of that was brought forth. The question, “Should The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn be taught in school?” Now for those who are not familiar with the nineteenth century Mark Twain novel, it is about the story of a young boy in the American slave-owning society , who befriends a slave named Jim. Huck, has been raised in a society the permits the inhumane detainment of African Americans and the mistreatment of them. As a result, Huck blends into the society standard that “nigger” is a suitable term in describing the African-American. He does not view Jim as being inferior in a purposely spiteful and degrading manner as the adult society does, but has been raised to view the African-American as an inferior being. The question of whether the book is appropriate is the fact that Huck constantly refers to and calls African-Americans “niggers.” Now in today’s society, is known to be wrong and is scorned upon. In this period of history however, it was generally accepted. There is then a question of whether it is appropriate in this age to be taught, given its content that is now viewed as wrong. But there is a certain point where you also have to acknowledge history as whole. Literature parallels history to the effect that standards of society and the trends are reflected. So should literature have to be removed due to a fault on the part of history and the standards set at any given period of time? Should literary pinnacles be wiped away because of questionable content? At what point do you begin to acknowledge something as inappropriate?
First, it must be acknowledged that history itself is not kind. As Thomas Hobbes viewed humanity, the history it created is inherently cruel. Why? Humanity is not perfect and therefore is prone to prejudices and discrimination. Perhaps the greatest fault in the beginnings of the educational career of a student is the purposeful neglect of various facts in order to reestablish a historical character in order to create a hero. Christopher Columbus is a prime example of the abuse of history. The question stems further from this point. Should we be teaching our children misinformation that is known to be wrong? No. Columbus shouldn’t even be taught in kindergarten, period. Columbus’ cruel and inhumane treatment of the indigenous peoples to the North American content was disgusting and horrifying. But more importantly, it is history. Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, it is our history. Our entire history is like a human body riddled and overrun with plague and disease. Picture the skin of a child overridden with chicken pox. Dark points cover our entire history from head to toe. Adolf Hitler subjected everybody from homosexuals to African-Americans to the Jews to concentration camps, which was the worst of evils. The United States of America had Japanese-Americans rounded up and relocated to such camps, just under a different name, in World War 2. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft under President George Walker Bush wished to put anybody viewed as an “enemy combatant” in a concentration camp. Atomic bombs were dropped in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring a bitter end to World War 2. Saddam Hussein tested chemical agents on his own people during his reign as president of Iraq. The point? History is bitter and it is ugly; it is also cruel, negligent, and inhumane.
Returning to the point of Huck Finn itself, the mistreatment of African-Americans itself is something that occurred and cannot be denied. Furthermore, it will not become just another event of the past, barely pondered, anytime soon. Why? Because it was only a half a decade ago that we actually finally gave freedoms to those human beings who were horribly oppressed simply because of the pigment of their skin. Society itself however, always enters a state of denial that will further flush the thought from its collective mind. Whenever harm is done, it acts as if it was the fault of the person next to them, but in all truth, the fault is everybody’s as a whole. If you were not opposing, then you were supporting. The same school of thought involving denial and ignorance is what brought Adolf Hitler to power and left him there for all the years he oppressed individuals who he saw is inferior, simply because of superficial features.
Do we neglect all of this at the risk of offending another? What if a student is offended by Darwinism because he has been raised as a devout Christian, does this student get a free ticket out of Biology class for whatever span of classes covers the contradicting theory of humanity? History is offensive. The present is offensive. The time is not to turn a blind eye. We live in a society that permits the abortion of unborn children, right or wrong, the methods of doing such is inhumane in itself. Abuse is rampant as far as both children and elderly go, as well as each other in society as a whole. There is still mass genocide that occurs in Africa and poverty haunts much of the world still. Society allows for these things to happen. You condone such acts by refusing to do something about the future. Negligence is a problem because it involves turning a head when things go straight to hell. The U.S. did it conveniently when Hitler was raging across Europe and rounding up people viewed as inferior to be thrown in concentration camps and did it under Saddam Hussein for years. The problem of history is the problem of the future, as one must change the future, as the future eventually becomes history and that history is just another growth in the progression of such offensive events.
We learn from these events. Through teaching our children at an appropriate and mature age that the use of the words “nigger” and “chink” are wrong, as well as the cruel taunting and torture of others, we show them what outcomes it has. Outcomes in history include the extended length of harbored slavery and racism in a supposedly free world, as well as in other portions of the world. We show them that while war is at times necessary, violence is not always the alternative. First shots at violence and lead to immeasurable amounts of unnecessary violence, most of which is preventable. Books like Huck Finn were written for the purpose of not being some random derogatory white supremacist book in the obscure end of a book shop, but to illustrate the hate that haunted specific groups of individuals for years. Just as Schindler’s List wasn’t created to advocate the holocaust, concentration camps, or the cruel racism involved with such, but rather to illustrate the negative reality and how an act of severely wrongful and inhumane act on the part of the Nazi regime of Germany.
Slashing books that have been long held as apart of the highpoints in literature is also degrading the integrity of history, as it reflects a certain negligence of our heritage, negative or not. When the wiping of various historical events occurs, the censorship that leads to the weakening of democracy and the freedom it permits that results. Countries such as Cuba and China have strict laws of censorship, which for various reasons are created because they view it as a way of protecting the nation. But humanity must be allowed to act as a whole. If we fail as a whole, we shall learn as a whole. And where from and what we learn as a nation is derived from our past, in history. The very basis of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself was based off of various usurpations of power and certain abuses they had been subjected to. If, instead of neglecting our past, we could learn as our founding fathers did from history that has already arrived, we can change the future in order to ensure that the eventual history and past shall be cleansed of such repetitive disasters in human rights.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
War: Iraq and Beyond
The most common words heard spoken throughout the Campaign Train is situation in Iraq. Now, ideally, the question stems back to the beginning of the war. Iraq came after Afghanistan was essentially thrown on the back burner. This came after the invasion of Afghanistan, in order to liberate the Taliban and shut down Al Qaeda, following the attacks on September 11th, 2001. Ever since, the floodgates of questions have come forth. Economic repercussions? Moral? Political? Ideal? It depends on which side of the spectrum you dance on. It depends if you have a certain connection, such as family in the military. A son. A daughter. A father. A mother.
There is, however, genuine distortion is the facts. War. Is it good? The Democratic Party has been famous for saying that war is unsuccessful, violence is not required, diplomacy solves everything...the whole nine yards. Well, let's assess some things for you.
The Civil War. Democrats refused to release the slaves and give Africans the freedom they never should've been denied in the beginning. As a result, the first Republican president in Abraham Lincoln brought the measures both as a senator and president to provide a conclusion to slavery and a providing for freedom. Equality, the supposed founding principle of this country, all though it took us this long to give it to people who are the same as the whites, just have a different skin color. As a result of President Lincoln's attempt to push forth his measures, the Civil War drew out of the southern states withdrawing from the Union. Not only was the sovereignty of the United States of America threatened (another thing that seems to be fading these days, with amnesty for every illegal immigrant and ideas of a North American Union), but the integrity of the Monroe Doctrine was at risk. The U.S. at the time was ideally, the only thing standing in the way of British influence in the west, and if they were fallen, then recolonization could occur. Tyranny had prevailed in removing themselves from the Union so they could facilitate the inhumane and abusive acts of slavery for their benefit of economy. Economy. The only reason the left refused to give up slavery in the Civil War. And it's worth noting, that this internal war has resulted in the most American casualties in any war. In fact, the Civil War had over approximately eighty times the deaths thus far in Iraq by the U.S. military. And for what? Over a Civil War.
Civil Wars aren't supposed to be fought, according to the left. If that's the case, should we have abandoned the cause of salvaging the union and suppressing the south's inhuman acts? Well, they would've liked that. Because their economy would have flourished at the expense of another race of people perceived as inferior. The splitting of families, the unlawful and inhumane treatment of people. Sounds a lot like Adolf Hitler.
Look at a dangerous scenario. If the U.S. had never regained its status as a united country, there would've been frequent warring still...here. Instability would conquer and reign just between the Confederacy and the Union. Our victories in assisting the allies in the two World Wars would've never came, because we'd have enemies right in our back yard trying to kill us at every move.
World War 1 and Germany's refusal to suppress unrestricted submarine warfare. The war called the "War To End All Wars" was really the precursor to a twentieth century of a new bitter reality: isolationism is obsolete and violence will inevitably reign foreign policy. This war would be the adaption of the United States to a world of changing way of international politics. The means of diplomacy were regrettably becoming inferior with time. World War 2 introduced a stronger problem with Adolf Hitler's rise to power through providing for a new nationalist feeling throughout Germany. The result? A tyrant who began rounding up Jews, Blacks, minorities, homosexuals, disabled individuals, among others, in effort to cleanse the world of what he saw as inferior. In concentration camps, death and torture joined the severely inhumane living conditions the people were subjected to within. Simultaneously, Hitler was engaging in an increasingly imperialistic mood by invading Europe. Then Japan was involved and they pulled the last straw by bombing Pearl Harbor. The United States was attacked. They acted. Then they came to the defense of the Allies in Europe.
Korean War was with the objectives of the Cold War: suppressing the tainted and bastardized form of communism that was overcoming the world. A twisted and manipulated form of communism, more fascist and autocratic then anything, was prominent with the Soviet Union and was attempting to spread in a growing influence war between the U.S. and the Soviets. Korea was the liberation of such a regime in the south. Why is liberation of tyranny important? Evil spreads one step at a time. If you let it spread, then like a cancer, it shall eventually overcome, as the numbers rise.
The Persian Gulf War, one of the most successful, if the not the most successful, military campaign and war in history, was to remove Iraq from Kuwait. The ideal response was to first come to the defense of Saudi Arabia and then storm into Kuwait. If Iraq had decided to storm Saudi Arabia, they would have seized much of the world's major oil production sources and thus placing a tight control on the industry. Saddam Hussein in control of oil, the world's greatest addiction and dependency? Bad news, easily. The U.S. in the second Gulf War was perceived to be in it for the oil. If the U.S. always wanted oil from Iraq, they would've went in after taking back Kuwait, because after the Iraqi military was pulverized by the bulldozer military, the U.S. could've easily walked in and taken control. This didn't happen. Instead, the U.S. entered to defend an ally and remove unlawful invaders from another ally.
George Orwell, a writer of many famous books including Animal Farm and 1984, once had an important quote regarding war: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Let me remind you, without war, we would be serving the British right now.
The bitter truth is the fact that violence and sacrifice in this world is required to defend and promote peace. People will die. But the media does not acknowledge this. Death is a statistic. In fact, the media's disgusting obsession with using people dying as a method for attention is reminiscent to a quote by tyrannical dictator Joseph Stalin: "A single death is a tragedy, are million deaths is a statistic." This is true. For people who talk about soldiers dying while neglecting those alive and fighting for them. Death is just merely a statistic. The politicians have a lack for care for the troops and this is why they wish to withdraw, undoing all that has been done. A failure in Iraq defends their interests. Iraq is winnable and the surge is successful. February was the third lowest month since occupation began, of troop casualties. This is apart of a declining death rate and a rising security.
But make no mistake, occupation is still required. Unlike the fault-ridden immediate withdrawal plans acknowledge, the Iraqis are still in not a condition to properly maintain their country independently. Recently, protesters by the thousands stormed Basra Police Headquarters demanding better protection. This came after the British handed off sole control and responsibility of the Iraqi province to the Iraqis. Now if the police are failing to hold up. Why? They're no ready. Further transitioning of power is required. Further training is required.
And look at it this way, they have the right to protest now. Ten years ago, they would've been executed for such an act. Instead, their leader would be testing chemical weapons on his own citizens.
War is ugly. War is hideous. But war is at times, it is required. Self-defense and suppression of tyranny is only sufficient if you can match the opposition and overcome it. What else can you do when the enemy won't be reasonable and come to the table?
There is, however, genuine distortion is the facts. War. Is it good? The Democratic Party has been famous for saying that war is unsuccessful, violence is not required, diplomacy solves everything...the whole nine yards. Well, let's assess some things for you.
The Civil War. Democrats refused to release the slaves and give Africans the freedom they never should've been denied in the beginning. As a result, the first Republican president in Abraham Lincoln brought the measures both as a senator and president to provide a conclusion to slavery and a providing for freedom. Equality, the supposed founding principle of this country, all though it took us this long to give it to people who are the same as the whites, just have a different skin color. As a result of President Lincoln's attempt to push forth his measures, the Civil War drew out of the southern states withdrawing from the Union. Not only was the sovereignty of the United States of America threatened (another thing that seems to be fading these days, with amnesty for every illegal immigrant and ideas of a North American Union), but the integrity of the Monroe Doctrine was at risk. The U.S. at the time was ideally, the only thing standing in the way of British influence in the west, and if they were fallen, then recolonization could occur. Tyranny had prevailed in removing themselves from the Union so they could facilitate the inhumane and abusive acts of slavery for their benefit of economy. Economy. The only reason the left refused to give up slavery in the Civil War. And it's worth noting, that this internal war has resulted in the most American casualties in any war. In fact, the Civil War had over approximately eighty times the deaths thus far in Iraq by the U.S. military. And for what? Over a Civil War.
Civil Wars aren't supposed to be fought, according to the left. If that's the case, should we have abandoned the cause of salvaging the union and suppressing the south's inhuman acts? Well, they would've liked that. Because their economy would have flourished at the expense of another race of people perceived as inferior. The splitting of families, the unlawful and inhumane treatment of people. Sounds a lot like Adolf Hitler.
Look at a dangerous scenario. If the U.S. had never regained its status as a united country, there would've been frequent warring still...here. Instability would conquer and reign just between the Confederacy and the Union. Our victories in assisting the allies in the two World Wars would've never came, because we'd have enemies right in our back yard trying to kill us at every move.
World War 1 and Germany's refusal to suppress unrestricted submarine warfare. The war called the "War To End All Wars" was really the precursor to a twentieth century of a new bitter reality: isolationism is obsolete and violence will inevitably reign foreign policy. This war would be the adaption of the United States to a world of changing way of international politics. The means of diplomacy were regrettably becoming inferior with time. World War 2 introduced a stronger problem with Adolf Hitler's rise to power through providing for a new nationalist feeling throughout Germany. The result? A tyrant who began rounding up Jews, Blacks, minorities, homosexuals, disabled individuals, among others, in effort to cleanse the world of what he saw as inferior. In concentration camps, death and torture joined the severely inhumane living conditions the people were subjected to within. Simultaneously, Hitler was engaging in an increasingly imperialistic mood by invading Europe. Then Japan was involved and they pulled the last straw by bombing Pearl Harbor. The United States was attacked. They acted. Then they came to the defense of the Allies in Europe.
Korean War was with the objectives of the Cold War: suppressing the tainted and bastardized form of communism that was overcoming the world. A twisted and manipulated form of communism, more fascist and autocratic then anything, was prominent with the Soviet Union and was attempting to spread in a growing influence war between the U.S. and the Soviets. Korea was the liberation of such a regime in the south. Why is liberation of tyranny important? Evil spreads one step at a time. If you let it spread, then like a cancer, it shall eventually overcome, as the numbers rise.
The Persian Gulf War, one of the most successful, if the not the most successful, military campaign and war in history, was to remove Iraq from Kuwait. The ideal response was to first come to the defense of Saudi Arabia and then storm into Kuwait. If Iraq had decided to storm Saudi Arabia, they would have seized much of the world's major oil production sources and thus placing a tight control on the industry. Saddam Hussein in control of oil, the world's greatest addiction and dependency? Bad news, easily. The U.S. in the second Gulf War was perceived to be in it for the oil. If the U.S. always wanted oil from Iraq, they would've went in after taking back Kuwait, because after the Iraqi military was pulverized by the bulldozer military, the U.S. could've easily walked in and taken control. This didn't happen. Instead, the U.S. entered to defend an ally and remove unlawful invaders from another ally.
George Orwell, a writer of many famous books including Animal Farm and 1984, once had an important quote regarding war: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Let me remind you, without war, we would be serving the British right now.
The bitter truth is the fact that violence and sacrifice in this world is required to defend and promote peace. People will die. But the media does not acknowledge this. Death is a statistic. In fact, the media's disgusting obsession with using people dying as a method for attention is reminiscent to a quote by tyrannical dictator Joseph Stalin: "A single death is a tragedy, are million deaths is a statistic." This is true. For people who talk about soldiers dying while neglecting those alive and fighting for them. Death is just merely a statistic. The politicians have a lack for care for the troops and this is why they wish to withdraw, undoing all that has been done. A failure in Iraq defends their interests. Iraq is winnable and the surge is successful. February was the third lowest month since occupation began, of troop casualties. This is apart of a declining death rate and a rising security.
But make no mistake, occupation is still required. Unlike the fault-ridden immediate withdrawal plans acknowledge, the Iraqis are still in not a condition to properly maintain their country independently. Recently, protesters by the thousands stormed Basra Police Headquarters demanding better protection. This came after the British handed off sole control and responsibility of the Iraqi province to the Iraqis. Now if the police are failing to hold up. Why? They're no ready. Further transitioning of power is required. Further training is required.
And look at it this way, they have the right to protest now. Ten years ago, they would've been executed for such an act. Instead, their leader would be testing chemical weapons on his own citizens.
War is ugly. War is hideous. But war is at times, it is required. Self-defense and suppression of tyranny is only sufficient if you can match the opposition and overcome it. What else can you do when the enemy won't be reasonable and come to the table?
Drained Patriotism
It's like a growing epidemic, the decreasing amounts of patriotism still in tack within America. The concept was foreign as it was in America prior, where as it was there, but it wasn't as huge as it was, say, September 12th 2001-one day after, and the months to come, following the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington D.C.
Moveon.org is probably the biggest ringing example of how rotten things have gotten. First off, they can't even get their facts straight. When the U.S. Senate, rightfully, distances themselves from the left wing extremist site by signing a bill that would denounce any connection, they throw up a banner on their site saying they were condemned. It's liberal crusades such this, that love to manipulate the words of others in order to increase the gain.
I'm reminded of John Kerry. Kerry botched a joke to have the words come out sounding as if he was declaring our hard working men and women overseas fighting, were uneducated and illiterate. Well, we've all botched a joke or two in our life. But to say that it was a botched joke aimed at the president as justification? You don't have to endorse his views, but you should support him. He's your commander in chief, and your leader. ELECTED leader. If he's really bad enough not to support, than that should be bad enough to impeach, correct? Well, no impeachment ever came. Is that because Congress has had a tendency in recent years to sit there and complain about the current state of things without doing anything, or because Bush really is not guilty of any impeachable offense? Well, it could be a little of both. Let's face it, senators and representatives are supposed to be elected officials who represent the people. But do these people listen to their people and carry out their wishes? Obviously not, if Bush's approval rating is sinking at a continuous rate. So what does that say about our Congress? Why does Bush keep getting attacked, while Congress, who has the ability to do something, has done nothing?
John Edwards, ex-running mate of John Kerry in the 2004 elections is now campaigning for president's seat. He himself has made a splash, when he described the war with a comparison to a bumper sticker. The war is a bumper sticker? You call it a gimmick to the people? Our neighbors, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, friends, sacrificing their lives to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and suppressing oppression in Iraq, is a gimmick? Listen, there are some things wrong with that picture. Al Qaeda committed acts of violence against the United States on September 11, 2001. Afghanistan was justified, as it was avenging the deaths of people who were murdered just because of the land they were born in. Iraq? The timing may not have been the best, but it, never the less, was justifiable. You have a mad man, a mass murderer, an inhumane and grossly sadistic monster who is complete, total control of a country. He tested chemical weapons on his own people, using them as guinea pigs. Somehow, stopping that, is unjustified and just a gimmick. People go on to attack the U.S. for not going to places like Africa who are experiencing the same level of terror. Well, look at this way. After America went into Iraq, people attacked them for going too fast, being imperialistic, etc. So now that we've listened to the people, they want us to speed up. What sense does that make?
Back to Moveon.org, who seems to be the self-proclaimed source of "Democracy in Action." Democratic and disgusting. Their ad attacking General Petraeus was just one horrifying campaign. Petraeus or Betray Us? You can't tell me that a group of comfortably safe liberals has more knowledge of the battlefield and the situation than the people who are fighting so they can sit there and complain without being disturbed by threats of terror. Moveon.org claims that most of America wants us out of Iraq. Well, cite your sources, buddy. Find a legitimate poll that has no target demographic and accurately reflects the consensus of American thought. The president doesn't have more interest in political attacks. But thanks, by the way, for pointing that out. But thanks Eli Pariser, that proves you care more about political attacks than our soldiers. Because by attacking Petraeus, the top commander over our troops, you are essentially attacking the United States Military. There is not a greater source of anti-patriotism, than attacking those brave men and women who are making constant sacrifices over seas. They left their families, husbands, wives, and friends to go fight the people who wish to degrade humanity and reduce all that we've done. Pariser, Moveon.org, they've made sacrifices so you can sit there and attack them.
AND, you accuse the president and Patraeus of cherry-picking data? Try looking at all those biased polls that the democrats have been relying on to show that their friends want us out of Iraq, while not targeting those they know who wouldn't. Nobody is perfect. But Pariser and his internet posse make it sound like it's a new tactic invented by Bush. Not the case.
But want more anti-patriotism? Try the senator and presidential candidate Hilary Clinton, who is the wife of former president Bill Clinton. While the Senate passed the resolution to distance themselves from Moveon.org, who practices disgusting acts of anti-patriotism, Senator Clinton voted against the resolution. Another senator who is in for the presidential bid, Barack Obama, didn't even vote. So what does this say about the people who preach about change and a better country? Obama can't crawl out of a neutral hole and Clinton would rather pair up with the black holes of anti-patriotism that currently is increasingly engulfing this country.
The bottom line is this: For America to again operate properly, some changes need to be made. First, the members of Congress need not to keep turning everything into a game of politics. People like Nancy Pelosi continuously preach about this, when in all truth, they are guilty of it as well. Hypocrisy doesn't stand well either. Then, this country needs to unite behind the president. If he hasn't been impeached, then he hasn't done anything extraordinarily wrong. If you believe other wise, then you should rethink the people you elect to represent you. But until then, you must stand behind the man you elected. Because while you may not agree with everything, and you might not want to endorse him, you still should support him. George Bush is faced with a difficult job and nobody is perfect. This country needs to unite as a whole again. This country needs patriotism again. Unite.
Moveon.org is probably the biggest ringing example of how rotten things have gotten. First off, they can't even get their facts straight. When the U.S. Senate, rightfully, distances themselves from the left wing extremist site by signing a bill that would denounce any connection, they throw up a banner on their site saying they were condemned. It's liberal crusades such this, that love to manipulate the words of others in order to increase the gain.
I'm reminded of John Kerry. Kerry botched a joke to have the words come out sounding as if he was declaring our hard working men and women overseas fighting, were uneducated and illiterate. Well, we've all botched a joke or two in our life. But to say that it was a botched joke aimed at the president as justification? You don't have to endorse his views, but you should support him. He's your commander in chief, and your leader. ELECTED leader. If he's really bad enough not to support, than that should be bad enough to impeach, correct? Well, no impeachment ever came. Is that because Congress has had a tendency in recent years to sit there and complain about the current state of things without doing anything, or because Bush really is not guilty of any impeachable offense? Well, it could be a little of both. Let's face it, senators and representatives are supposed to be elected officials who represent the people. But do these people listen to their people and carry out their wishes? Obviously not, if Bush's approval rating is sinking at a continuous rate. So what does that say about our Congress? Why does Bush keep getting attacked, while Congress, who has the ability to do something, has done nothing?
John Edwards, ex-running mate of John Kerry in the 2004 elections is now campaigning for president's seat. He himself has made a splash, when he described the war with a comparison to a bumper sticker. The war is a bumper sticker? You call it a gimmick to the people? Our neighbors, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, friends, sacrificing their lives to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and suppressing oppression in Iraq, is a gimmick? Listen, there are some things wrong with that picture. Al Qaeda committed acts of violence against the United States on September 11, 2001. Afghanistan was justified, as it was avenging the deaths of people who were murdered just because of the land they were born in. Iraq? The timing may not have been the best, but it, never the less, was justifiable. You have a mad man, a mass murderer, an inhumane and grossly sadistic monster who is complete, total control of a country. He tested chemical weapons on his own people, using them as guinea pigs. Somehow, stopping that, is unjustified and just a gimmick. People go on to attack the U.S. for not going to places like Africa who are experiencing the same level of terror. Well, look at this way. After America went into Iraq, people attacked them for going too fast, being imperialistic, etc. So now that we've listened to the people, they want us to speed up. What sense does that make?
Back to Moveon.org, who seems to be the self-proclaimed source of "Democracy in Action." Democratic and disgusting. Their ad attacking General Petraeus was just one horrifying campaign. Petraeus or Betray Us? You can't tell me that a group of comfortably safe liberals has more knowledge of the battlefield and the situation than the people who are fighting so they can sit there and complain without being disturbed by threats of terror. Moveon.org claims that most of America wants us out of Iraq. Well, cite your sources, buddy. Find a legitimate poll that has no target demographic and accurately reflects the consensus of American thought. The president doesn't have more interest in political attacks. But thanks, by the way, for pointing that out. But thanks Eli Pariser, that proves you care more about political attacks than our soldiers. Because by attacking Petraeus, the top commander over our troops, you are essentially attacking the United States Military. There is not a greater source of anti-patriotism, than attacking those brave men and women who are making constant sacrifices over seas. They left their families, husbands, wives, and friends to go fight the people who wish to degrade humanity and reduce all that we've done. Pariser, Moveon.org, they've made sacrifices so you can sit there and attack them.
AND, you accuse the president and Patraeus of cherry-picking data? Try looking at all those biased polls that the democrats have been relying on to show that their friends want us out of Iraq, while not targeting those they know who wouldn't. Nobody is perfect. But Pariser and his internet posse make it sound like it's a new tactic invented by Bush. Not the case.
But want more anti-patriotism? Try the senator and presidential candidate Hilary Clinton, who is the wife of former president Bill Clinton. While the Senate passed the resolution to distance themselves from Moveon.org, who practices disgusting acts of anti-patriotism, Senator Clinton voted against the resolution. Another senator who is in for the presidential bid, Barack Obama, didn't even vote. So what does this say about the people who preach about change and a better country? Obama can't crawl out of a neutral hole and Clinton would rather pair up with the black holes of anti-patriotism that currently is increasingly engulfing this country.
The bottom line is this: For America to again operate properly, some changes need to be made. First, the members of Congress need not to keep turning everything into a game of politics. People like Nancy Pelosi continuously preach about this, when in all truth, they are guilty of it as well. Hypocrisy doesn't stand well either. Then, this country needs to unite behind the president. If he hasn't been impeached, then he hasn't done anything extraordinarily wrong. If you believe other wise, then you should rethink the people you elect to represent you. But until then, you must stand behind the man you elected. Because while you may not agree with everything, and you might not want to endorse him, you still should support him. George Bush is faced with a difficult job and nobody is perfect. This country needs to unite as a whole again. This country needs patriotism again. Unite.
False Discrimination
Perhaps one of the more troubling aspects of society is not that discrimination still exists, but the fact that false discrimination exists. What's false discrimination, you ask? It was a term coined in the last five minutes...as far as I know. But it basically embodies the belief that something is out of discrimination, when in all logic and truth, it is not.
It was just wrong to read an article on ESPN.com about the situation with Rick Ankiel and HGH, and comparing it to Barry Bonds. For a little back drop for those of you who aren't sports nuts, Barry Bonds is the new home run king who just passed Henry "Hank" Aaron on the alltime home run list. He is also the walking, living, breathing human target of all non-San Francisco natives in the sports world. aside from his reputation for being arrogant and snobby, he has been often connected to the steroid scandal involving Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO). Freak muscle growth, HGH, testosterone, whatever. The people had their mind up about this guy early enough because he liked throwing words at everybody because apparently the media and the government were apart of some partnered conspiracy to diminish and otherwise overthrow his image.
Rick Ankiel was a pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals who went down in flames and disappeared to never be heard from again. He began to reemerge in the Minor Leagues as a power hitting outfielder. When an injury came mid-way this season, the call to the majors for Ankiel was here. He came up, and out of the blue, he was hitting home runs. Multi-homer games, grand slams, it was all glory. Then several days ago, a report got out that he received Human Growth Hormone in 2004. The feel-good story that was supposed to hear a sport long distraught from the steroid controversy, was shattered, ironically, by steroids.
Barry Bonds is black. Rick Ankiel is white.
Now apparently, if you don't like a man who is arrogant and self-righteous, and provokes much of his problems (this man just happens to be black as well), but you don't hate the nice man who really has been quietly helping his team without a traveling circus (this man just happens to be white), then you're racist. I'm sorry, that's just wrong. Racism is still at large, a major issue in this country, of course, but this is not one of those cases. It's almost as disgusting to hear people say that the opposition against Michael Vick, the dogfighting NFL player, is because of his race. They say that if he was white, it would some how be ok. Again, that is extremely absurd. People don't dislike Vick because he's black. People dislike him because he hung, electrocuted, drowned, and otherwise inhumanely murdered dogs while pitting others in fights to the death. As far as the consensus is concerned, he should be burning in hell right now, without the Jesus he claims he found. And THAT is not because he is black.
It seems that nowadays in America, if you dislike or do anything towards a minority, you're racist, sexist, etc. Now I'm in no way saying this doesn't exist either. This is an extremely rampant problem in society today, but it's inevitable, because as humans, we're prone to our own prejudices and biases, which in many people, are as shallow as skin color and sexual orientation. But these days, minorities have a certain power to scream "discrimination" like it's a free card out of jail. False proclamations like these will diminish a society.
It's like in court rooms. In a rape case, where a man is accused of raping a woman, what's going to be the preconceived notion? The man did rape the woman. He is the bearer of shame, the true embodiment of a demon, sick, demented, twisted, and otherwise perverted. But what happens if the tables are turned and a woman is accused of raping a man? The man looks like a fool. And this all goes back to the notion that women and feminists are trying to defeat nowadays: that women are weaker than men. So essentially, it's a series of discriminatory stereotypes going around in a circle taking it's punches where it sees fit.
The point is this: it is alright to accuse and seek punishment for discrimination. Discrimination is wrong. But there has to be reasonable grounds first. You can't punch somebody, then when you get punished, cry "hate crime" and declare that as a minority, you are being singled out. It just doesn't work that way...well, it shouldn't, anyway.
It was just wrong to read an article on ESPN.com about the situation with Rick Ankiel and HGH, and comparing it to Barry Bonds. For a little back drop for those of you who aren't sports nuts, Barry Bonds is the new home run king who just passed Henry "Hank" Aaron on the alltime home run list. He is also the walking, living, breathing human target of all non-San Francisco natives in the sports world. aside from his reputation for being arrogant and snobby, he has been often connected to the steroid scandal involving Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO). Freak muscle growth, HGH, testosterone, whatever. The people had their mind up about this guy early enough because he liked throwing words at everybody because apparently the media and the government were apart of some partnered conspiracy to diminish and otherwise overthrow his image.
Rick Ankiel was a pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals who went down in flames and disappeared to never be heard from again. He began to reemerge in the Minor Leagues as a power hitting outfielder. When an injury came mid-way this season, the call to the majors for Ankiel was here. He came up, and out of the blue, he was hitting home runs. Multi-homer games, grand slams, it was all glory. Then several days ago, a report got out that he received Human Growth Hormone in 2004. The feel-good story that was supposed to hear a sport long distraught from the steroid controversy, was shattered, ironically, by steroids.
Barry Bonds is black. Rick Ankiel is white.
Now apparently, if you don't like a man who is arrogant and self-righteous, and provokes much of his problems (this man just happens to be black as well), but you don't hate the nice man who really has been quietly helping his team without a traveling circus (this man just happens to be white), then you're racist. I'm sorry, that's just wrong. Racism is still at large, a major issue in this country, of course, but this is not one of those cases. It's almost as disgusting to hear people say that the opposition against Michael Vick, the dogfighting NFL player, is because of his race. They say that if he was white, it would some how be ok. Again, that is extremely absurd. People don't dislike Vick because he's black. People dislike him because he hung, electrocuted, drowned, and otherwise inhumanely murdered dogs while pitting others in fights to the death. As far as the consensus is concerned, he should be burning in hell right now, without the Jesus he claims he found. And THAT is not because he is black.
It seems that nowadays in America, if you dislike or do anything towards a minority, you're racist, sexist, etc. Now I'm in no way saying this doesn't exist either. This is an extremely rampant problem in society today, but it's inevitable, because as humans, we're prone to our own prejudices and biases, which in many people, are as shallow as skin color and sexual orientation. But these days, minorities have a certain power to scream "discrimination" like it's a free card out of jail. False proclamations like these will diminish a society.
It's like in court rooms. In a rape case, where a man is accused of raping a woman, what's going to be the preconceived notion? The man did rape the woman. He is the bearer of shame, the true embodiment of a demon, sick, demented, twisted, and otherwise perverted. But what happens if the tables are turned and a woman is accused of raping a man? The man looks like a fool. And this all goes back to the notion that women and feminists are trying to defeat nowadays: that women are weaker than men. So essentially, it's a series of discriminatory stereotypes going around in a circle taking it's punches where it sees fit.
The point is this: it is alright to accuse and seek punishment for discrimination. Discrimination is wrong. But there has to be reasonable grounds first. You can't punch somebody, then when you get punished, cry "hate crime" and declare that as a minority, you are being singled out. It just doesn't work that way...well, it shouldn't, anyway.
The State Of National Sanity
Perhaps some of you caught my bitter, angered response to this country's own response to the hearing in Congress with the top U.S. commander from Iraq. It was disgusting to hear some of the things that have been said about Patraeus and even more so, how the United States Congress treated him. I only caught clips on the news and flipped to CSPAN for a matter of thirty seconds to see how he was treated. Basically, the Pelosi team of cocky democrats lit the grill and put it on high. They treated him like a bloodthirsty, selfish warmonger who didn't care one way or another how many people died as long as the mission was accomplished. I admire that man, as he came to his own defense, and declared that there is not one individual in that room who did not understand the situation in Iraq more than he did, who has witnessed many people die. While he's there actually doing something, we have a bunch of selfish politicians whining like three year olds and getting paid more to piss and moan than any real dignified human being on the face of this Earth.
People question the situation in Iraq. They say we're there for oil. How? If the U.S. was on a Middle Eastern conquest for oil, they would not have gone to Iraq. We'd be in Saudi Arabia, who is the leading exporter of oil and the bearer of the OPEC crown. Much less, why aren't we drilling yet? We've been there for years.
No justification to attack Saddam? Let's see one for starters, Saddam Hussein was a ruthless, genocidal maniac who was bent on the worst treatment of his people. Sounds like Adolf Hitler, who somehow we were all justified to attack and assist those who overthrew him. Now tell me, what did he do to the U.S.? Ah, the same thing as Hussein, make verbal threats and voice intentions to bring the U.S. to its knees. You can't discredit Hussein and justify Hitler.
People are dying over there. Whether they agree or not with the current president or not, they're still fighting. With dignity, with pride, and with their lives on the lines. You've got pricks like the Westboro Baptist Church, who as far as I'm concerned, are deranged satanists. They show up at the funerals of decease soldiers, who served more of an existence than these pitiful monsters, and protest with signs such as "God Hates Fags." You know, if you want to jump on the topic of religion and theology, it's not hard to see these guys are wrong. The Bible clearly states that God hates no one. He dislikes the sin, but God is not capable for hate, as hate is a sin. In fact, it is mentioned that hating somebody truly in your heart is like committing murder, much like lusting someone is considered adultery. So in conclusion, while the Bible defines homosexuality as a sin, but God does not hate the sinner.
I hate people like the current democrat candidates. John Kerry, "botching a joke" and calling our hard working troops illiterate. He thinks that botching a joke about the president justifies his ignorance? How does this man, one of the many people on capital hill who complain about the state of the nation, expect things to get better if you can't reunite as a whole? You can't reunite if you can't stand as one under your president. You don't have to agree, you just have to support. Then you have John Edwards, who compared this war to the likes of a bumper sticker. Well here's one thing. This man's credibility as a dignified politician and a presidential hopeful looks about as good as a rusted over, dirty old Oldsmobile from the Ice Age that, that bumper sticker is on. Don't even get me started about Barack Obama, the most inexperienced candidate up there, and as one talk show host said on the news once, the most laughable candidate in history. He talks like he knows the show. George Bush, the man him and Hilary waste their entire campaigns whining about, was a grown man before this man learned his ABCs. Clinton? She's as numb as her husband. And if you don't agree with my point on Billy Boy, read my assessment of that man's horrid presidency in the previous entry.
And if there's one more thing I'd like to say to other people: This IS a different war. It's not like World War 1, where we have the Germans. It's not like World War 2, where we have the Germans and Japanese. It's not like the Cold War where you have the Soviet Union. This is the War On Terror, War In The Middle East, whatever you want to call it. But we're not fighting a nation. We're fighting an organization of ruthless, bloodthirsty terrorists who will stop at nothing to bring the world to blood and tears, falsely, in the name of God. People go on to complain how we still haven't caught Osama Bin Laden yet. Well, odds are intelligence is correct and Bin Laden is hiding in the Pakistani mountain regions on the Pakistani/Afghan border, where it's a tribal range with no jurisdiction or control by the Pakistani Government. There, a new wave of Al Qaeda is being incubated. For what purpose? Murder. Cold blooded murder. Why haven't we gone in there? Well, the same people who attack Bush mindlessly, demand we play nice. Well no we're playing nice. We're acknowledging the Pakistani Government's request to step back and let them build up their military so they can defend themselves as well as assist.
This country is not the only thing at heart. The rest of the world denounces the U.S. as if their perfect. They say we have no business being there. You know what's odd? Our best allies aren't sitting comfortably in their exclusive members-only club called the European Union. They're in the Middle East, experiencing the hell first hand. Countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, for starters, know exactly what it's like there, and they back us up.
The liberal media doesn't like that. God forbid CNN and their famous liberals such as whiney Lou Dobbs acknowledge that.
This country is as arrogant as it is ignorant. It's a disgrace. Let me tell you about something. This is not the first time in history that war as occurred. We are not the first to attack on somehow questionable terms. We are just the thousandth in an ever extending line of historical casualties.
Before you proclaim that the president be impeached, realize certain things. If he could've, justifiably, it would've happened. If you question his authority, then question Congress' as well. Congress is well within their rights to challenge the President and, what a concept, IMPEACH, him. But they didn't. They were slow and lazy. Now more than ever, that the disaster machine's pilot is now Nancy Pelosi.
Smarten up, America.
People question the situation in Iraq. They say we're there for oil. How? If the U.S. was on a Middle Eastern conquest for oil, they would not have gone to Iraq. We'd be in Saudi Arabia, who is the leading exporter of oil and the bearer of the OPEC crown. Much less, why aren't we drilling yet? We've been there for years.
No justification to attack Saddam? Let's see one for starters, Saddam Hussein was a ruthless, genocidal maniac who was bent on the worst treatment of his people. Sounds like Adolf Hitler, who somehow we were all justified to attack and assist those who overthrew him. Now tell me, what did he do to the U.S.? Ah, the same thing as Hussein, make verbal threats and voice intentions to bring the U.S. to its knees. You can't discredit Hussein and justify Hitler.
People are dying over there. Whether they agree or not with the current president or not, they're still fighting. With dignity, with pride, and with their lives on the lines. You've got pricks like the Westboro Baptist Church, who as far as I'm concerned, are deranged satanists. They show up at the funerals of decease soldiers, who served more of an existence than these pitiful monsters, and protest with signs such as "God Hates Fags." You know, if you want to jump on the topic of religion and theology, it's not hard to see these guys are wrong. The Bible clearly states that God hates no one. He dislikes the sin, but God is not capable for hate, as hate is a sin. In fact, it is mentioned that hating somebody truly in your heart is like committing murder, much like lusting someone is considered adultery. So in conclusion, while the Bible defines homosexuality as a sin, but God does not hate the sinner.
I hate people like the current democrat candidates. John Kerry, "botching a joke" and calling our hard working troops illiterate. He thinks that botching a joke about the president justifies his ignorance? How does this man, one of the many people on capital hill who complain about the state of the nation, expect things to get better if you can't reunite as a whole? You can't reunite if you can't stand as one under your president. You don't have to agree, you just have to support. Then you have John Edwards, who compared this war to the likes of a bumper sticker. Well here's one thing. This man's credibility as a dignified politician and a presidential hopeful looks about as good as a rusted over, dirty old Oldsmobile from the Ice Age that, that bumper sticker is on. Don't even get me started about Barack Obama, the most inexperienced candidate up there, and as one talk show host said on the news once, the most laughable candidate in history. He talks like he knows the show. George Bush, the man him and Hilary waste their entire campaigns whining about, was a grown man before this man learned his ABCs. Clinton? She's as numb as her husband. And if you don't agree with my point on Billy Boy, read my assessment of that man's horrid presidency in the previous entry.
And if there's one more thing I'd like to say to other people: This IS a different war. It's not like World War 1, where we have the Germans. It's not like World War 2, where we have the Germans and Japanese. It's not like the Cold War where you have the Soviet Union. This is the War On Terror, War In The Middle East, whatever you want to call it. But we're not fighting a nation. We're fighting an organization of ruthless, bloodthirsty terrorists who will stop at nothing to bring the world to blood and tears, falsely, in the name of God. People go on to complain how we still haven't caught Osama Bin Laden yet. Well, odds are intelligence is correct and Bin Laden is hiding in the Pakistani mountain regions on the Pakistani/Afghan border, where it's a tribal range with no jurisdiction or control by the Pakistani Government. There, a new wave of Al Qaeda is being incubated. For what purpose? Murder. Cold blooded murder. Why haven't we gone in there? Well, the same people who attack Bush mindlessly, demand we play nice. Well no we're playing nice. We're acknowledging the Pakistani Government's request to step back and let them build up their military so they can defend themselves as well as assist.
This country is not the only thing at heart. The rest of the world denounces the U.S. as if their perfect. They say we have no business being there. You know what's odd? Our best allies aren't sitting comfortably in their exclusive members-only club called the European Union. They're in the Middle East, experiencing the hell first hand. Countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, for starters, know exactly what it's like there, and they back us up.
The liberal media doesn't like that. God forbid CNN and their famous liberals such as whiney Lou Dobbs acknowledge that.
This country is as arrogant as it is ignorant. It's a disgrace. Let me tell you about something. This is not the first time in history that war as occurred. We are not the first to attack on somehow questionable terms. We are just the thousandth in an ever extending line of historical casualties.
Before you proclaim that the president be impeached, realize certain things. If he could've, justifiably, it would've happened. If you question his authority, then question Congress' as well. Congress is well within their rights to challenge the President and, what a concept, IMPEACH, him. But they didn't. They were slow and lazy. Now more than ever, that the disaster machine's pilot is now Nancy Pelosi.
Smarten up, America.
Bill Clinton: Overrated "Pacifism"
William J. Clinton, former president of the United States, is often regarded as a relief following the "Bush: Part One" years and an economic savior. He is credited by fans as being intelligent for supposedly backing off the Middle East and remaining pacifistic and wise.
Wrong.
As most of you know, Bill Clinton was impeached. His impeachment followed a series of events that began starting in 1994, when a lawsuit was filed against the president. The funny thing is the lawsuit was dismissed and thrown out by the same U.S. District Judge that played in favor of Clinton during the Kenneth Starr Investigation into the president. Then came the Monica Lewinski disaster. Both Lewinski and Clinton denied any sexual relationship, yet Lewinski friend and secretary Linda Tripp cared to disagree. In fact, tapes of conversations between Lewinski and Tripp over the topic were sent to Kenneth Starr, the independent investigator looking into Clinton specifically on the Whitewater controversy. These tapes were sent on the same day Lewinski's lawyer handed in a sworn affidavit claiming that there were no sexual relations between herself and the president.
Starr expanded investigation and included more charges which included the Lewinski scandal and then perjury under the Paula Jones scandal. Lewinski would later sellout the president after being granted immunity, when she admitted that there was a sexual relationship, but intercourse did not occur.Then the president would later admit it during the proceedings, that there was a relationship at hand.
We can't forget the earlier scandal popularly referred to as "Travelgate", where the Clinton clan fired seven long-time White House travel office employees and replaced them with hometown friend from Arkansas.
The significance of this? Well, the funny thing is the timing of Operation Desert Fox, a four day bombing of Iraq in retaliation for their resistance of the United Nations security council. Even funnier, it came at the climax of the Clinton saga when the impeachment voting went under way right about this time. Trying to distract the media, much?
Three days after Clinton was called to testify in the Monica Lewinski case, Operation Infinite Reach went underway, which was a bombing of two suspected terrorist bases in Afghanistan and Sudan.
Now let me ask you, would a four day bombing and a three day bombing do much damage? Nope. In fact, by ignoring the people you bomb after a short cherry bomb drop, that allows time to rearm and recover. So that off the bat proves that not only did Clinton support a regime change in Iraq by signing the Iraq Liberation Act, he also supported it by launching an attack-in effort to distract the American public and its media from the ongoing investigation into his own personal disaster.
If you want to know further on why the impeachment should have been impeached, think about this. While liberals boast about how George W. Bush attacked Iraq on false pretenses, Clinton attacked Iraq for the pure sake of saving his own back end from sharp scrutiny from his entire nation.
Clinton's justification? Intelligence speaking on the topic for him claimed that Desert Fox successfully eliminated the Iraqi WMDs, but it was not verified until the 2003 invasion under George W. Bush. But the report submitted by Charles Duelfer, popularly known as the "Duelfer Report," stated that Hussein's nuclear strength had significantly and progressively deteriorated starting in 1991, as a result of the Persian Gulf War.
Should I mention that Clinton also allowed an attack on Iraq in 1996, "Operation Desert Strike"?
The bottom line? Bill Clinton is a liar. His presidency is a semi-crock and should not be glorified because of his economic success. He was hypocritical, and is now, more than ever, in his attacks on Bush.
Wrong.
As most of you know, Bill Clinton was impeached. His impeachment followed a series of events that began starting in 1994, when a lawsuit was filed against the president. The funny thing is the lawsuit was dismissed and thrown out by the same U.S. District Judge that played in favor of Clinton during the Kenneth Starr Investigation into the president. Then came the Monica Lewinski disaster. Both Lewinski and Clinton denied any sexual relationship, yet Lewinski friend and secretary Linda Tripp cared to disagree. In fact, tapes of conversations between Lewinski and Tripp over the topic were sent to Kenneth Starr, the independent investigator looking into Clinton specifically on the Whitewater controversy. These tapes were sent on the same day Lewinski's lawyer handed in a sworn affidavit claiming that there were no sexual relations between herself and the president.
Starr expanded investigation and included more charges which included the Lewinski scandal and then perjury under the Paula Jones scandal. Lewinski would later sellout the president after being granted immunity, when she admitted that there was a sexual relationship, but intercourse did not occur.Then the president would later admit it during the proceedings, that there was a relationship at hand.
We can't forget the earlier scandal popularly referred to as "Travelgate", where the Clinton clan fired seven long-time White House travel office employees and replaced them with hometown friend from Arkansas.
The significance of this? Well, the funny thing is the timing of Operation Desert Fox, a four day bombing of Iraq in retaliation for their resistance of the United Nations security council. Even funnier, it came at the climax of the Clinton saga when the impeachment voting went under way right about this time. Trying to distract the media, much?
Three days after Clinton was called to testify in the Monica Lewinski case, Operation Infinite Reach went underway, which was a bombing of two suspected terrorist bases in Afghanistan and Sudan.
Now let me ask you, would a four day bombing and a three day bombing do much damage? Nope. In fact, by ignoring the people you bomb after a short cherry bomb drop, that allows time to rearm and recover. So that off the bat proves that not only did Clinton support a regime change in Iraq by signing the Iraq Liberation Act, he also supported it by launching an attack-in effort to distract the American public and its media from the ongoing investigation into his own personal disaster.
If you want to know further on why the impeachment should have been impeached, think about this. While liberals boast about how George W. Bush attacked Iraq on false pretenses, Clinton attacked Iraq for the pure sake of saving his own back end from sharp scrutiny from his entire nation.
Clinton's justification? Intelligence speaking on the topic for him claimed that Desert Fox successfully eliminated the Iraqi WMDs, but it was not verified until the 2003 invasion under George W. Bush. But the report submitted by Charles Duelfer, popularly known as the "Duelfer Report," stated that Hussein's nuclear strength had significantly and progressively deteriorated starting in 1991, as a result of the Persian Gulf War.
Should I mention that Clinton also allowed an attack on Iraq in 1996, "Operation Desert Strike"?
The bottom line? Bill Clinton is a liar. His presidency is a semi-crock and should not be glorified because of his economic success. He was hypocritical, and is now, more than ever, in his attacks on Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)