Thursday, June 29, 2006

Gaza Islamic Militants claim to have used WMD's

Michelle Malkin is reporting that Palestinian Forces claim to have launched a rocket tipped with a biological weapon, known as a WMD in common language.

GAZA (Reuters) - A spokesman for gunmen in the Gaza Strip said they had fired a rocket tipped with a chemical warhead at Israel early on Thursday.

Of course, we all know that use of WMD's are and the threat of use of such weapons is often enough to be tantamount to a declaration of war, yet the Palestinians are proudly declaring that they possess, and have used these weapons. I searched for a statement from Kofi Annan, the head of the UN, yet have heard NOTHING so far.

Human Rights Watch is chastising the Israeli Forces for targeting a Power Plant, and for scaring the civilians with Sonic Booms. Nothing in today's release about Biological Weapons or the barbarity of their use.

Human Rights Watch urges Israel to take all possible precautions to limit the impact of its military campaign in Gaza on the civilian population.

Why are we not surprised that HRW is not upset in the least at the reports of Biological Weapons being used on the Israeli citizens?

Hey Human Rights Watch, here is an idea, tell the Palestinians to stop hiding their military in the civilian Population. A real warrior would place himself between the civilians and the danger, instead of placing the civilians between himself and the danger.

Murtha Lied is now fully online

I wanted to take a moment, and welcome Murtha Lied to the online community. Affiliated with Iowa Presidential Watch PAC, the often insulted, and more often denounced (by Liberals of course) the Murtha Lied website is dedicated to seeing Jack Murtha find a new line of work, after being voted out of office.

I am happy, thrilled in fact, to be one of the first to link to Murtha Lied, before they got fully online, after watching the Demoncrats do their usual hate filled e-mail commando bit on the founders of this site. Note to Liberals, chances are that your e-mail to me would be filtered out since I have profanity and spam filtering on, and we all know you can't mumble half of a complete sentence without calling every Conservative a F*****G Nazi.

Sponsored by Vets for the Truth, a group of Veterans who are outraged at the propensity of the Democrats to constantly lie about the Troops, their honor, and the mission of the Military in today's counter terrorism world. Murtha Lied is truly a welcome site for the Conservative who truly respects and honors the Military and their sacrifice.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Jack Murtha (D) (Treason) (Lunatic)

All but one person advised the NY Times not to publish the now famous Terrorist Financial Tracking program, the one person outside of the administration who advised the NY Times to publish the information was Jack Murtha (D(Surrender)) according to an interview with Bill Keller of the NY Times.

So we see that the "Heroic" former Marine Jack Murtha actively worked with the NY Times to harm the nations ability to track, identify, and stop Terrorist attacks on the United States.

Jack Murtha, Congressman, who has been consistantly defended in the Left Wing Loony blogs, as a Leading Democrat against the war.

So now we find that one person advised the NY Times to run the story, and they did it despite requests, hell begging from the Administration, and requests from 9-11 Commission members, and the NY Times followed the advice of Anti-War Murtha, Treason lobby leader.

Friends, we need to help get Jack out of Congress before he does something even worse, like start sending help directly to the Terrorists instead of pushing the info off to the NY Times. I wonder if Murtha was a source on the story to begin with, after all he is such a Hate America first lunatic, I wouldn't be surprised.

Diana Irey is running for Congress, as a Republican, trying to take Jacks district from him, and she may have a chance. I would encourage anyone thinking of donating, to do so, we all need to help get this lunatic out of Congress and back into the home where he can take his meds regularly.

National Review calls for revokation of Press Credentials.

National Review has called on the White House to revoke the press credentials of the NY Times, LA Times, and any other News Agency that publishes classified inforamation. I originally called for this action last week.

President Bush, who said on Monday morning that the exposure “does great harm to the United States of America,” must demand that the New York Times pay a price for its costly, arrogant defiance. The administration should withdraw the newspaper’s White House press credentials because this privilege has been so egregiously abused, and an aggressive investigation should be undertaken to identify and prosecute, at a minimum, the government officials who have leaked national-defense information.

I had just completed mailing a letter to follow up the fax and email I sent demanding Tony Snow, the White House Press Secretary, take just that action before I read this, otherwise I would have printed it out and sent it along. Join me in demanding that the NY Times, and LA Times have their credentials pulled, not only at the White House, but all Government buildings.

Contacting the White House [En Español]

Mailing Address
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Phone Numbers Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
TTY/TDD Comments: 202-456-6213
Visitors Office: 202-456-2121 E-Mail
Please send your comments to Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot respond to every message. For further up-to-date information on Presidential initiatives, current events, and topics of interest to you, please continue to use the White House website.

From the White House website.

UPDATE: Times Watch has an article describing Keller, the Executive Editor of the NY Times staunch defense of the various treasonous actions by the Times.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Democrats still oppose America, are we surprised?

Despite the distaste of the American People who feel that surrender, or Cut and Run as the Democrats propose it, is the worst possible idea. Yet, Democrats who enjoy wide popularity with the online Leftwing Loony Community, are stepping up calls for just that. The Democratic propensity towards immediate, unilateral, pre-emptive surrender, is astounding.

The newest example of the Democratic Hatred of America is also one of our old Surrender Now friends, Jack Murtha, (Democrat(Surrender)) who now claims that the United States is a bigger threat to world peace than North Korea or Iran. Yes, we are a threat Congressman Murtha, we are a threat to the World Socialist movement.

Jack Murtha is a former Marine, which is supposed to somehow make his comments unasailable. Military service is an honorable thing, and I support our men and women with all my heart. I respect their service, and their sacrafice. However, that service doesn't give anyone some sort of god like credibility regarding their opinion. Lee Harvey Oswald was a former Marine, so was Charles Whitman. Eric Rudolph, Terry Nichols, and of course Timothy McVeigh were also ex Military, but that doesn't excuse their actions, any more than military service excuses Jack Murtha.

MIAMI � American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.

America is more dangerous than Iran? We are more dangerous than Kim Jong Il, and his Kim Jong Ilk? We torture people for disagreeing with the Government? We murder political dissidents?

The Liberals claim the Viet-Nam was a great victory, for peace. Of course, what they ignore is we broke our word, both to the world, and to the Democratic people of South Viet Nam. We promised that if the North broke the cease fire agreement, we would return, or at least offer support to the South in Military equipment, weapons, ammunition, etc. We didn't follow through with our promise. President Ford begged the congress, including Jack Murtha to allow us to follow our promise, and do what is right, and the Congress refused to allow us to provide even the most bare of support to those people who fought and died for freedom over the oppression of the Barbaric Communists that the left loves so much.

The chances for an enduring peace after the last American fighting man left Vietnam in 1973 rested on two publicly stated premises: first, that if necessary, the United States would help sustain the terms of the Paris accords it signed 2 years ago, and second, that the United States would provide adequate economic and military assistance to South Vietnam.

This is the Liberal great victory, for their true side, Socialism, Communism, and oppression of the people. We broke our word, and that is the high point of the Liberal history.

UPDATE: Liberals who are filled with compassion and understanding are cheering insults that are tossed at a new blogger who is campaigning to have Murtha voted out of the house. Apparently Freedom of Speech only applies if you are a left wing kook.

UPDATE: According to the Murtha Website, his quote was taken out of context, you see he was commenting on the poll in which several nations consider us a larger threat to world peace than Iran or Kim Jong Il. Jack, I just bet that if you and the rest of your treason lobby friends quit running down the nation, and started to highlight the positives, of which there are many, that opinion around the world would increase. Too bad your own nation considers you a traitor, otherwise you would be loved at home too.

People planning to raise taxes, again

In a continuation of what makes France a great nation, including the great unemployment rate of over 9% currently, down from it's high of over 10%. Of course, the reason it's down is that France has rolled back some of it's socialist ideals in favor of competition and responsibility, hardly good Socialist ideals I know.

Enter Ben Stein, the former Reagan Official, whom Democrats would rather die than quote normally, unless the person says something they agree with wholeheartedly, who is calling for a tax increase.

Ben thinks that the answer to the budget woes is to increase the income via increasing taxes, presumably on the poor and elderly like Bill Clinton. I really don't have a problem with that, after all the Poor just aren't paying their fair share of taxes.

As shown in these pie charts, from Rush Limbaugh, the poor just aren't paying their fair share. The bottom 50% of wage earners are paying less than 4% of the federal taxes, and that is an outrage.

Seriously, can we be honest for a moment, something the Democrats are probably a little uncomfortable with, but let's try shall we? I will start off by saying that the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats in their addiction to Federal Budget spending. That said, we should expect our Government to run as our households are run. If you approach your employer, and tell him that you can't vacation in Europe twice a year on what you are earning with him, and demand additional money, you will be lucky if you aren't fired, or sent to get your head examined. For some reason, the Elected officials in Washington, far too many of them anyway, do just that, demand more money from their bosses, the people who elected them.

Governments could take a page from the Business world however, and learn what efficiency means. Efficiency means that you don't employ people who don't do anything but take up space. We should look at every program, not with a "aren't they wonderful" mindset, but a "are they accomplishing anything" attitude. That by the way would pretty much destroy the National Endowment for the Arts. Pork is one of the biggest wastes of money you can imagine. According to the Heartland Institute, $426 Billion was dished out to local and lower Government offices last year. That by the way is almost the amount of money that was collected by the Government in 1980. The Government collected $517 Billion in 1980.

It is not time to raise taxes, it is time to reduce spending. It is time to consider every program that is funded by the US Government, and decide if that program is operating as efficiently as possible. It is time to cut funding and reduce as needed. We never cut any program, despite what the Liberals claim, and we seriously could. Tell every department that you want to see their budgets for the next year with a 3% reduction across the boards. You could save 3% by not buying new cars for the czarist prince mentality bureaucrats who dash about all day. You could save 3% by turning the lights off when you leave a room, and bumping the AC up one lousy degree in the summer time.

I resent those who claim we must have a tax increase. I resent them because I am the one working, sweating, busting my back to earn the money I get. I provide a service to my employers, and am compensated. I just like a vast majority of you out there, work my ass off, to earn what I get. What do we get for our tax dollars? We get corruption, government employees spilling the beans on classified projects. We get to support those news organizations with desks and offices paid for by the taxpayer, so they can betray the American people.

I don't see the National Endowment for the Arts folks doing much for the employers, or should I say Taxpayer. I don't see a need for the multiple levels of redundant bureaucracy each of which does nothing but check the paperwork of the level below, and file another report to the level above. That is an asinine waste of money, and we should have banned it years ago, but the Republicans go soft when they reach the Beltway, and we have more spending in that fashion, instead of less.

Don't expect the Democrats to do anything about it either, remember the Democrats were the ones who wanted to make sure the Federal Baggage screeners enjoyed full Federal Employee benefits and couldn't be fired for incompetence.

For any aspiring politician out there, considering a run on Congress, if you want a campaign platform you will win on, here is one small part of it. Congress doesn't have to abide by, or obey many of the laws they pass for you. They aren't part of Social Security, they don't have EEO standards in their offices, they don't have to obey many of the laws that you and I do. Challenge your opponent to swear that he will join you in pushing for legislation that requires Congress to abide by, and live by, the same laws as you and I, ending the special priveleges for the Elected officials, and watch them squirm.

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Liberal Lies on raising children

In another post on our continuing trend of disproving Liberal Lies on social norms, we now turn our attention to raising children.

Lie number one, we must never spank children, it teaches them nothing positive. This theory is an extention of the "Pain doesn't teach" theory of raising children. This theory is that pain is bad, and we should never do anything bad to the children, as it only causes resentment.

Friends, this line of theories is easily disproven, and obviously flawed. These theories lead to serious juvenile crime problems, and tragic situations where young adults are sentenced to death for crimes.

First, to disprove the "pain doesn't teach" theory of the Liberals. If pain teaches a child nothing, explain why the child doesn't touch the hot stove more than once? The child learns that the stove is hot, and if the child willingly touches the stove repeatedly, we may have a child in need of special help. Pain teaches, it is the most effective teaching tool of Nature. In History's long documentation, nothing has taught a child faster than pain. We all know Cactus have sharp needles, why do we know this? We know because we touched that thing sooner or later in life, and got poked. After that, we respected that plant, because it taught us that it can hurt if we touch it.

Before you suggest I am a lunatic and advocate daily beatings, burnings, and needle torture for children, nuts. I am saying that Pain can teach, not that it should be a daily part of anyone's life.

By spanking the child, after scolding the child to insure that the child knows what they did wrong, the lesson is seared into the minds of the child. If I climb up on the counter to get at the cookies, I get spanked if I am caught. After a while, the "if I am caught" is dropped when the child learns that Mom and Dad always are around, and always know.

We all have heard stories of children who run away from home, and walk around the block continuously, because they aren't allowed to cross the street. These children, while adorable, have been taught to obey, and even when in frank disobedience, obey the rules that have been pounded home by good parents.

What you are in the process of teaching the child, is that rules mean something, and breaking those rules means suffering the consequences. Only when the consequences are worth the gain from breaking the rules, will the child do the bad thing. As the child grows, minor infractions will continue, and the parent will continue to dole out punishments, the parent must dole out punishments, to insure that the lesson takes hold, violations of rules, laws, has consequences.

Take our juvenile crime situation above. A youth of 11 steals some candy from the store. He is caught, scolded, and released. Same youth then commits other crimes, theft, robbery, and nothing happens to punish the child. Instead, people make excuses, quote long studies about how it's society that is really at fault, and the child's criminal activity keeps getting worse and worse. Then after his, or her, 18th Birthday, we find the child had killed someone while robbing them. We then decide the man is truly bad, and sentence the man to death. The current Justice System has decided that children should be treated as adults if the crime is bad enough. This again is a serious issue, certainly the child shouldn't be forgiven for murder, rape, or other violent crimes. However isn't there something wrong with a system that allows a juvenile to become such a violent criminal without clear warning signs?

The Man grew up knowing that any punishment for his wrong action would be slight at the worst. We set that boy up for failure, by not punishing him in a far more severe manner, so that he would understand that rules are not made to be ignored, or broken, but obeyed unless you are willing to risk the punishment. St. Augustine proposed that an unjust law is no law, is an unjust system which does nothing to correct the problem also problematic?

The term Juvenile Delinquent is a lie. Juvenile means child, or youth, but not adult. Delinquent means failure to meet the requirements of duty. A youth can have no duty, since Duty is inherently an adult responsibility to begin with. It is a social term created to diminish the problem. Where there is a Juvenile criminal, there is a delinquent adult somewhere.

Evolutionist declares debate closed on topic.

In another of our continuing thread of proving that Liberals are psudo-erudite and their theories are flawed, we move along to a writer who claims his book closes the door on the Evolution Theory (I must give him credit for admitting that Evolution is a theory) and Intelligent Design Theory debate.

While claiming to close the door on the debate, in fact, he doesn't even open the door for debate. Instead of taking a long and considered look at Darwinism, and it's all too obvious flaws, and complete lack of evidence supporting it, he announces that his work is in fact, demonstrably true because, well he says it is and you should too unless you want him to categorize you as a Theocratic nut who wants Armageddon. His technique in chapter one is simple, use akido and conflict resolution to deal with problems, if you fight, you automatically lose. He states that akido is the best system because it takes no energy to defend yourself and defeat the enemy. He also whips out the tired old lie that the pen is mightier than the sword. Akido is a fairly effective martial art, unless it is faced with another martial artist with roughly equal training. It should also be noted that other Martial Arts, from the same societies that spawned Akido, do use more aggressive and I would argue effective techniques than Akido does. I won't get into a debate on the most effective, or best art. Suffice to say that a Master of any art, be it Hapkido, Shotokan, Jujitsu, or even Tai-Chi is someone you don't want to bother if you have the opportunity to avoid the situation. (I could spend some time demonstrating how this type of training belies the claim from Liberals about "dangerous weapons" and proves the point of "dangerous people" but why bother confusing Libs?)

I say tired old lie because the pen isn't mightier than the sword, it's the authority of the pen. For example, in the Evolution Theory versus the Intelligent Design Theory, it wasn't a debate, with points scored based upon scientific proof, and evidence that "settled the debate" but the order of a Judge. The Judge ordered that the debate was settled, and so our children are taught one theory, as gospel, and never mind the complete absence of evidence supporting Evolution. The Police enforce the Judges orders, as required by law, with the sword. It is the pen that controls the sword that is mightier than the single sword, or single pen.

Our dear Ezra mixes theories on his plate like he is picking his favorite dishes off of a buffet line. Taking the idea that Giraffes have long necks to reach the food, there must have been at some time in History Giraffes that had short necks, and Evolution weeded them out. OK, where are the short neck Giraffe fossils? Don't have any? Oh well, no worries, I am sure your theory doesn't need proof, it just sounds good.

Ezra, the author of this piece is purportedly an Engineer by training, if not predisposition. Yet, he ignores the mathematical in favor of his belief. Sir Fred Hoyle, the Cambridge astrophysicist ran the numbers, and determined that the mathematical probability of the basic enzymes of life arising by random process to be miniscule. The odds of the correct combination were 1 to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros. To put this probability in context, the odds of winning the "Mega Millions" lottery are 1:175,711,536. In other words, you would be more likely to win the Lottery half a million times in a row than the random collection of enzymes would combine to create life by accident. I won't even try and guess at the huge improbability that would exist to take us from single celled organisms to complex multicultural organism. Let's for the sake of argument agree that it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1:Infinity-1 I find it astounding that the proponents of Darwinism would ignore the huge mathematical improbability of this of no interest, yet they don't hear it. Like children, they jam their fingers in their ears, and chant until you go away and then file a lawsuit to make sure you don't ever say anything like that again.

Now, despite the complete absence of fossil evidence of any evolution existing, our author believes in it more strictly than even the most Fundamental Christian believes in Creation. What does our author say about discussing this issue, about a true debate? From his page on "permission to quote me" he says " If you quote me with the specific intent to undermine my efforts, make me look bad, and/or mislead your audience to my intentions, I reserve the right to sue the life out of you.

Ezra seems to be ignorant of the fact that even Darwin could not explain how a complex organisms like the eye came into being. Ezra seems even more ignorant about the complete lack of fossilized evidence, or scientific evidence, to support Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's own standard of disproving his theory has been met, yet Evolutionists refuse to admit the theory is flawed in the slightest. Darwin stated "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organisms existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would abolutely break down".

Yet despite all the evidence from among other things, Microbiology, that complex oranisims within the body could not possibly have evolved one small step at a time, Evolutionists still demand that we worship at the alter of Darwin and his asinine theory.

I am not saying that the Bible is literally correct, I haven't taken a stand on anything except that Darwinism is wrong. Yet, when the Liberals read this, you can rest assured that they will inevitably declare that I am some sort of Religious nut, who wants a theocracy, and believes in a flat earth. To those folks I have one response, would my beliefs have any effect on the complete lack of evidence to support any assertion by Darwin?

Friday, June 23, 2006

Liberal Media once again sides with the enemy

Good news for America, 7 Terrorists were captured before they could get past the planning stages for an attack on our citizens. Of course, that is bad news for the Liberals, because we stopped the slaughter of American Citizens by barbaric terrorists.

Of course, the biggest news is how we tracked them. It seems we tracked money from overseas sources to suspected terrorists abroad. Tracking the International Banking methods is a nice twist, and frankly, I applaud the Government for doing it. It's big news because despite desperate requests from the Government begging the Newspapers to keep this quiet, the NY Times and LA Times decided that they had a duty and sworn constitutional requirement to let the Terrorists know we are tracking their money. Yes, give a Liberal a chance to be patriotic, and they will side with the enemy every single time. Giving us more proof that the Liberals have a Culture of Treason.

Friendly Boggers across the nation, Conservatives, Patriots, are outraged that this has happened. Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit, and Iowa Voice are enraged that the Liberals are once again defying the common sense approach to tracking terrorists, and turning their backs on the nation. Michelle also has contact information for the NY Times and the LA Times.

Join with me in writing the White House and demanding that the Government revoke the Press Credentials of the NY Times and the LA Times. Let them publish their treason from another location, not subsidized by the American Taxpayer. Send the Media a message, if you insist on helping our enemies, then you aren't welcome in the Peoples House.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Oscar Heck, Determined to be delusional

My friends, when someone reads truth, and absolutely refuses to deal with the fact, what can you do? When several sources show that truth, and the subject refuses to believe it, what do you do then? If your answer is laugh at the left wing loony, then we are on the same sheet of music.

Oscar Heck, the subject of my most recent blog entry, is back, swinging for the fences again.

After viewing the Wikipedia entry, the Iraq Veterans against the War, The original DD214 and the comments from the real ex military folks out there, Oscar has decided that everyone is still lying. Delusional by the way is used properly in the title. Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

Oscar has decided that despite all the evidence, including the DD214, that Jesse is telling the truth. That qualifies as delusional, and frankly Oscar, I hope you get the help you apparently need so very desperately. If I am ridiculed for believing that 'Jesse the Fraud' is not a fraud, so be it ... I have a very difficult time believing certain things, especially with regard to the US military. I do not believe what I have read so far about 'Jesse the Fraud' being a fraud ... just as I don't believe half of what CNN or the US government says. Do you?

Oscar has a hard time believing that a vast majority of the military men and women are honorable and dedicated patriots, who don't intentionally slaughter civillians. Yet, he has no trouble believing the obvious lies of a troubled youth. Did I imply that the US military is a criminal organization that assassinates innocent women and children? If I did imply this, regardless of the validity of the video, I did not mean it as an insult ... I meant it as fact!

You have to wonder about people like Oscar, no matter what the facts are, they are going to be even more determined than ever to shout about the "truth" as they see it.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

You can't keep a good lie down.

The liberals are always so excited when they find a good anti war poster child that they don't even take the trouble to find out if he may be telling the truth, or may be lying. One of my first posts as a blogger was on Jesse Macbeth, and so far nothing has changed, except that new Liberals keep hyping his lies, while pretending not to know he is lying. I expect an indepth interview with him on 20/20 any time now.

Oscar Heck, another Hate America First Liberal, is now claiming that Jesse's claims are new. Google video has a flurry of reposted Jesse videos.

Look libs, when you are such a well known liar that Wikipedia has an article about your lies, you shouldn't act surprised about it.

From Wiki: Macbeth's form DD-214, "Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty" record shows he entered U.S. Army service May 1, 2003 and separated from the Army June 13, 2003, without completing basic training, and with no authorization for decorations, medals, badges, citations or campaign ribbons.[9]

Iraq Veterans against the war has disowned Jesse, and blames him for destroying the credibility of their message. MacBeth�s false statements unfortunately have played into the hands of those who would deny that any atrocities whatsoever are occurring in Iraq.

Now Libs, I want you all to keep posting his video, keep pointing to him as the poster child of the anti war movement. Much as you did with John Kerry during Viet-Nam, the lies are obvious, and do everything to prove your side of the argument is flawed to say the least. Later, you will demand that the Conservatives forget what lies you told, and pretend you never said it. Predictable.

I need to give a great big Hat Tip to Hot Air for this one.

UPDATE Iowa Voice has spoken truth to the loons, and been told that the proven truth is a lie.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Delusional Underground and their attempts at logic

The Delusional Underground folks are trying to learn how to think using logic and facts, while their logic is demonstrably false and flawed, it's nice to see them try linear thinking.

The specific ideals put forth by this insane attempt at logic and rational thought are asinine to begin with. This post is called "Five Questions that rock the conservative world" and I wish I was making this up. As an assist to my Delusional Underground lunatics, I am going to help you all out, and answer these questions.


1. What do you think it is going to take to move from a oil based consumer culture to a renewable energy based one?

The answer to this one is simple, for the Renewable energy to be as dependable, and as financially affordable as the "fossil fuel" economy. While there has been some progress in this area, it's simply put, not dependable, nor feasible, at this time, to depend on renewable energy sources. Solar for example, only works during daylight. Wind, well besides being opposed near the Kennedy Compound, is opposed by Environmentalists who denounce the dangers posed to birds. When you environmental friendly folks get on the same page about some of this, come back and discuss the matter some more.

I will admit to a number of questions about the so called energy independence desire of Liberals. Why don't they ever embrace Nuclear energy? It is dependable, safe, and produces no atmospheric pollution, yet it is universally opposed by Liberals.

2. Do you honestly believe that continued war in the Middle East going to move us forward to that goal? Explain.

This flawed argument presumes that we are fighting the War on Terror for oil. If that was the case, we could have easily declared war on Mexico, or Canada, as both have oil, and are much closer. The presumtion of this argument is that the only reason for the War on Terror is the oil located in the region. Yet, we support Israel, despite the hatred of Israel by those who have the Oil. If our only motivation was the Oil, wouldn't it have been logical to throw Israel overboard, and instead focus our diplomatic efforts on friendship with the other Arab states?

Your argument on this point is obviously flawed, and demonstrates how delusional your side of this discussion truly is. It assumes that Halliburtion and Exxon are the only motivating factor for the War on Terror, and ignores the three generations of history that have clearly shown ignored Terrorism getting more audacious, and more violent. From the 1960's to today, Terrorism has been growing, to the situation we face today, where we must fight to guarantee the future of our way of life in the face of a steadily growing threat. We are not fighting for oil, again, Canada and Mexico are much closer, despite the hysterical screams from the left claiming we are.

3. Do you think our current consumer based culture is a path to energy independence? Explain. (this is very interesting and can go yes or no I have found.)

Yes, as necessity is the mother of invention, and the future is bright. We are looking at the ability to create Nuclear Fusion devices, which will offer tremendous amounts of energy, in the next Generation or two. We are looking at breakthroughs on Wind Power, despite the Kennedy opposition to the plan, and more efficient solar systems, most of which as you know operate at less than 12% efficiency ratings. As the systems become more efficient, and more economical, the demand for those systems will reduce the demand on oil, instead looking towards other systems for dependable energy needs.

As a historical let's consider shipping. At the end of the last century, the most abundant power system for the shipping industry was Wind. Second was coal powered steam ships. Coal powered was efficient and the standard until oil fired steam creation was created, and standardized. It was more efficient to use Oil fired boilers to get the steam needed to power the ships. Diesel started to make inroads, and now Diesel turbines are the power system of choice for large ships which require large amounts of power to drive them. Large Naval vessels are powered by Nuclear Reactors, replacing the oil fired boilers with nuclear powered boilers.

Each system was more efficient and dependable than the one before, and each one replaced the one before. Unless you ignore the obvious evolution of these power systems, then it is possible to claim no progress has been made. Today, experimentation is underway to look at fuel cells, and while it is interesting, it's not more efficient or dependable than the current methods. When it is, and only when it is, will it be accepted by the world as the preferred method of powering ships on the seas.

4. What tools will you give your children and their children to enable them to live and survive in a world that is running out of oil?

I am teaching them that Abortion is a good thing, because the Liberals are more likely to Abort children than Conservatives, and with luck we can see the end of Liberalism in the next few Generations. That by the way is a joke. Only partly a joke, because some of those aborted children could have grown up to be brilliant scientists who solved many of the problems facing us, but were denied the opportunity.

Seriously, the question is asinine. It assumes that in ten years the world is going to grind to a halt. Commerce will stop, the lights will go out, and anarchy will rule the day. Education at good private schools, which are the last bastion of true education, where children are actually taught information that is useful, is the real hope, as it has always been. Instead of dependence upon failing public schools, which are frankly a failure. Children can't find their own state on a map, can't find their own nation on a map, and can't perform even the most basic required skills like reading comprehension, and the answer from the left is defend the public schools. If a Business operated like that, producing nothing, it would be bankrupt in days, not months.

5. Do you think it is important to teach children about peace and love?

Certainly, to an extent. To love your fellow being is important. However it's also important to understand that the old lie of "Violence never solved anything" is problematic here.

If I am to save a people from extermination by another group, I must use violence.

Look at the Military Operations in the Middle East. Our military personnel are placing themselves between innocents and the threats from Terrorists. They risk their own lives to move women and children from the area, often weeping over the victims of the Terrorists. They love the innocent so much that they are willing to risk their own lives to protect the non combatants often with their own lives. By comparison, the Terrorists hide behind civilians, using them as shields, to protect their own lives. The Terrorists then claim, and you folks on the left carry the water for them, that the Americans slaughtered innocents when returning fire at the barbarians.

Which is the greater love? The willingness and attempts to save innocents, or the attempts to murder them? Judging from the willingness of the Left to abandon innocents to barbarities, and abandon innocents to sub human existence, we know who loves more. Peace is not an absence of war, Peace is an absence of threat. If someone is holding a gun to your head, you are not at peace, even though you are not being physically harmed by the gun just pointing at you. You are being the victim of violence. The difference between you and I is pretty simple, I would seek to remove the person holding the gun to your head, while you wouldn't do the same for me. If I act, you may die, you may be wounded, you may be unharmed physically. If you do what you say we should, I would be dead, because you want to understand the person holding the gun, and show him the error of his ways through compassion and tenderness.

You don't negotiate with barbarians like that, you kill them. You keep killing the rabid animals until there are no more rabid animals. Otherwise more are infected with the Rabies. You eliminate the rattlesnakes from your yard, because they are a threat. I should say if you want to live, you eliminate the rabid animals and the rattlesnakes. You do this because that is what survival demands.

That is a major difference between the ideas of Conservatives and Liberals, we believe in eliminating the threat, while you strive to eliminate the war.

Al Qaeda prepared another attack on NYC

Time Magazine is now reporting in an exclusive article, that Al Qaeda planned and prepared to launch a chemical weapons attack, which is a Weapon of Mass Destruction for those who don't know, on New York City subways.

Conventional wisdom has long held that the U.S. has no human intelligence assets inside al Qaeda. "That is not true," writes Suskind. Over the previous six months, U.S. agents had been receiving accurate tips from a man the writer identifies simply as "Ali," a management-level al-Qaeda operative who believed his leaders had erred in attacking the U.S. directly. "The group was now dispersed," writes Suskind. "A few of its leaders and many foot soldiers were captured or dead.

The CIA discovered the plans on a captured Al Qaeda terrorists laptop computer. The CIA then built the device according to the specifications and instructions included in the Laptop. The device worked.

For reasons known only to Al Qaeda the prepared attack did not take place, it was called off 45 days before the scheduled attack date. We can all debate and offer our own reasons, and as this is my blog, I will offer my own reason.

The reason that the attack did not take place is that Al Qaeda is already being hunted like rabid animals around the world, and the chemical attack would further enrage the United States. The Al Qaeda leaders assumed that America would cut and run, surrender, and hide after being hit, it was after all their experience in Somalia.

I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled,

Osama had promised his troops we would cut and run, we haven't. Osama promised his troops we couldn't stomach a real fight, we are beating them, they know it.

The last enemy who attacked us in a sneak attack was cautious after the attack. In fact, Admiral Yamamoto is quoted as saying "After an attack on the United States, I can run wild for six months. After that, I have no expectation for success". Admiral Yamamoto is popularly thought to have also said "I fear that all I have done is waken a sleeping Giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve." It is unknown if he actually said that, however, it does in concise manner, reflect many misgivings that Admiral Yamamoto had concerning the wisdom of attacking the United States. Admiral Yamamoto understood his enemy, and that is always a good thing in a military leader. Osama bin Laden obviously misjudged American Rage at the attacks of 9-11, he assumed we were all Senator Kerry, or Senator Kennedy. He assumed the majority of us were Liberal Democrats, now he knows we are Conservatives, and we are in the fight and aren't running like he expected.

Perhaps he felt that nothing was to be gained in further enraging the United States, perhaps someone had found a History Book, and mentioned to Osama that the term Pearl Harbor refers to a sneak attack, and the result of that attack was Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Perhaps Osama has learned that the paper tiger has claws after all.

Allahpundit has a post on Hot Air on this one.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

How Ditzy can the Chicks get?

he Dixie Chicks are in the news again, this time wondering why people think it's "Patriotic" to avoid going to the Dixie Chicks Concerts.

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country� I don't see why people care about patriotism."

Wow, just when you thought she couldn't get any more foot in that mouth, she has friends help her push that foot in farther.

The Dixie Chicks have been pulled from another radio station, because they canceled their Memphis stop on the Empty Auditorium tour. It seems that their fans are tired of being insulted, wow, who could have seen that coming? I know what you are thinking, everyone saw that coming.

Of course, the avoidance of the Dixie Chicks is quite upsetting to the lefties. They immediately equate the average citizens desire not to buy the album, and not to go to the concert, to McCarthyism.

"It was the bullying and the scare factor," shudders banjo and guitar player Robison. "It was like the McCarthy days, and it was almost like the country was unrecognisable."

She shudders after feeling the cruel lash of McCarthyism. Joe McCarthy didn't avoid buying your album if you were a communist, Joe called you out and called you a Communist to your face ladies.

While the Ditzy Chicks have started the inevitable slide down the record charts, inevitable because by now all the Liberals have their copy of the Dixie Chicks record singing songs that Americans hate, and they are canceling tour dates, the Ditzy Chicks don't understand what is going on. They are astounded even shocked, by the outrage of the people. The ones she called Rednecks in a previous interview. Liberals don't get it, never have, and never will.

Hot Air has a blurb on this, as does Michelle Malkin.

UPDATE: Coalition of the Swilling is credited by Michelle as the lead on this one, so I must join in the nod to them.

UPDATE: Monday's Hot Air V-log is a nice review of the Ditzy Chicks history.

New election, same old Socialist hype.

The Democrats having studied the tea leaves, consulted the blog base, and without any reality being interjected, have come up with yet another way to try and sell the same old Socialist agenda for America. Higher taxes, more regulation, more social programs, more of everything that has handicapped us in the past.

The one thing that jumps out at you is the complete lack of mention on the war on terror. Apparently security from attack, invasion, and future terrorist attack is unimportant to the Democrats. Of course, we know that, since they just this week voted that victory in the war on terror isn't their agenda.

Cut and run is the Democratic Agenda, and frankly, I'm disappointed in the GOP because their response doesn't point out the Democratic Party plan to cut and run in the War on Terror. I'm astounded that the Republicans haven't keyed to this fact, not opinion, fact, of the Democratic Party's position to work against America in the war on terror. All the social programs in the world aren't worth a plugged nickel if your citizens are dead. It ignores the reality of life, again.

One teacher I had in High School asked us what the most important thing in our lives was. We answered family, friends, future, all the usual trite answers. This teacher stood there, looking smug, self satisfied, and answered that we were all wrong. The most important thing in the world to us was the next breath of air. To prove his assertion, he offered us this test, cover our mouths and nose, and allow no air to move past. In a minute, his point was proven. Without life, all the other concerns are irrelevant. Without the life of this nation, all other ideals are merely fluff on the floor of history.

The Democrats aren't interested in the life of this nation. I wonder if the Democrats want this nation, and it's ideals, to survive for the next 200 years. Of course, we already know, they want America defeated and punished in the War on Terror. We have only one conclusion that can be reached, they want to destroy our nation from within. To quote Ann Coulter, Al Queda doesn't hate America as much as the Liberals do, Al Queda doesn't have the energy it would take to hate America that much.

UPDATE: Captain Ed has a write up on the Democratic Plan.

Friday, June 16, 2006

Democrats vote for American Defeat in the War on Terror

House Democrats voted in favor of American Defeat in the War on Terror. The Resolution was worded in as bi-partisan a manner as possible.

2d Session
H. RES. 861
Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
June 12, 2006
Mr. HYDE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;
Whereas for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States;
Whereas it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance;
Whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists failed to stop free elections in Afghanistan and the first popularly-elected President in that nation's history has taken office;
Whereas the continued determination of Afghanistan, the United States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be required to sustain a sovereign, free, and secure Afghanistan;
Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions;
Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors;
Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;
Whereas the Iraqi people, with the help of the United States and other Coalition partners, have formed a permanent, representative government under a newly ratified constitution;
Whereas the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East;
Whereas United States Armed Forces, in coordination with Iraqi security forces and Coalition and other friendly forces, have scored impressive victories in Iraq including finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi;
Whereas Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq;
Whereas the United States and Coalition servicemembers and civilians and the members of the Iraqi security forces and those assisting them who have made the ultimate sacrifice or been wounded in Iraq have done so nobly, in the cause of freedom; and
Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;
(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;
(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;
(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and
(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

156 members of the House voted against that. Amazing as it may seem, the Democrats were opposed to victory in the War on Terror.

They couldn't afford to vote in favor of war, so they placated the lunatic base by voting against the war on Terror. If you vote against American Victory in the War on Terror, you are voting in favor of American Defeat.

At least we have the Democrats on record as being opposed to the War on Terror, and in favor of American Defeat.

Iraqi Amnesty and the real world

In 1863, President Lincoln issued an executive order that would grant Amnesty for all Confederate Soldiers who fought for the south. In 1865, President Johnson issued a very similar Amnesty Order and that order was passed into law in 1972.

What all this means is once the fighting is over, and all sides agree to a peace, we try and become friends. It is the political version of two kids fighting, and becoming friends once they respect each other. It is not such a strange idea, it has been practiced after every conflict. We helped put Germany back together, and they became friends. We helped put Italy and Japan back together, and they became friends. We later supported Germans in Berlin by accomplishing the impossible with the Berlin Airlift. At some point, the victors of a war must offer to end hostilities, and allow all sides to go home, wiser, older, and alive. What the controversial offer from the Iraqi President tells me is that they are convinced that the Iraqi Forces and the United States are winning, and it's time to start thinking about how to end this conflict. We have defeated the Terrorists, they are beaten, and most importantly they know they are beaten.

Senator Schumer is wrong, demanding justice for all dead Americans. They aren't fighting for Justice, but a Democratic Government, a government of, by, and for the PEOPLE OF IRAQ, to turn an enemy into a friend. We are fighting to end Terrorism, extremist Islamic lunatics who feel comfortable slaughtering innocents. They know they are beaten, it's time to see if they want peace, or the inevitable end which may come any day.

Captain Ed, Hot Air, and many others too numerous to list have links up about this subject. Their views are interesting, and most importantly realize that this decision from the Iraqi President is for and about Iraqis who want to end the violence and live peacefully from now on.

One side has been defeated, as the Confederacy was during the American Civil War. If they are willing to stop fighting, offer information, and then go home, never to make war again, we should seriously consider this chance to turn enemies into friends. If they do make war against us again, future offers of Amnesty will be quite different. We saw what an honorable man can do, with a quote that is historical and truthful. Chief Joseph said "I will fight no more forever" and ended another conflict between his nation and the United States.

We should learn from history, and if our enemy decides like Chief Joseph to fight no more forever, we should consider it.

As a final thought, our approach to this should be wise as well. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust, but Verify" in regards to an enemy becoming a friend.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Professor George Lakoff revisited

In an earlier post, I visited some of the theories espoused in articles by Professor George Lakoff, under the assumption that I had disproved the foundation for his beliefs, I had moved on to other things that interested me. It seems I was wrong, because a comment from a reader brings us back, and the response could be short, and to Conservatives, prove the point, instead I am going to go long, and demonstrate to those with an open mind.

I find it laughable that you compare adequate healthcare, or shelter, or opportunity to work comparable to a certificate for a race. To use a more concrete example, give a homeless person a place to stay, think they'd "throw it away" because they didn't earn it?Of course many successful people didn't cheat, but again it's laughable to think they earned what they did without the help of our country's infrastructure: the banking system, the roads, the environmental policies that kept him or her from dying from lead paint or dioxin, the internet. These were all provided by the government and paid for by taxes. Shouldn't the rich pay for what they used to make their money?And it is laughable that you think providing people with the basic human necessities is somehow immoral.

Give a homeless shelter, and see if they throw it away. On another Blog, I advised a liberal pundit not to prove the point he is arguing against, to this reader, I offer the same advice.

The Homeless do throw the shelters away. The only time that Homeless shelters are full, with emergency shelters opening, is when it's extremely cold, or the holidays (Thanksgiving and Christmas) are upon us. Otherwise, they operate at about half capacity. Call your local shelter, ask if they have space available, then ask how much space. You will see that they do have space available, and we are left with one of two logical explanations. Either the Homeless cease to be homeless until the next cold snap, or Holiday, or they refrain from going to the shelters until they have a pressing need.

This brings us to the discussion of Value, and our reader is using the Marxist theory that all work is of equal value. Marx argued that value of an item could be determined by the time of labor that went into the creation of the item, and that a true value could be attached. If all people are equal, then their value must be equal to society, and thus, their contribution is equal.

This idea of equality of value is demonstrably false. Perform this test at home if you like, it was first suggested by Robert Heinlein, and I will take his example, because it is easy for our friends on the left to understand, well we hope.

Take two people and give both of them the ingredients needed to make Apple Pie. One is a Master Chef, the other is a cook of mediocre ability. One will make a confection that is worth much more than the sum of the parts. One may make a dish that is edible.

Value is relative, there is nothing universal in regards to value. The Master chef combines the ingredients using all his education, skill, experience, and his inate aptitude being part of the mix as well, and brings forth a dish of indescribable flavor.

Anyone can read and follow directions, what sets the skills of the Master Chef apart from the mediocre cook in our example? A touch of genius certainly, and a touch of inspiration. A dish of food is so often of greater value than the sum of it's parts, or the time to create them.

As a personal aside, I love Pizza, as many Americans do certainly. My personal favorite is Papa Johns Pizza, but there is no Papa Johns in my town. I pass two Domino's between my home and work, yet never stop at one. I don't like Dominos as much as I do Papa Johns, and while this certainly isn't intended to speak ill of Domino's, certainly you are welcome to which ever YOU like, and enjoy with my blessings. I don't like Domino's and when I had gotten it in the past, was always left wanting at the end of the meal. In short, I wanted the Papa Johns. I do occasionally go for a Papa Johns pizza, the closest store being located 40 minutes driving time from my home, and it being worth it on occasion to me.

Value is determined by what you have done for it, and what you must do for it. If you feel a Mercedes is the only choice you are willing to make, then it's worth the expense for the car in your opinion, and thus has value for you. The same goes for anything we have in life, is it worth the trouble we must endure to get it.

In the comment that started this, the question was posed and answered, would a homeless person reject shelter. The answer as demonstrated was YES. Even free shelter was too expensive for the homeless people in our, and most probably your town, unless the need for it increased, by cold weather, or the desirability of an exceptionally good meal, Holidays.

Because some won't rejoin society, either through choice, or by fate, should we demolish society in favor of those few? By fate I mean those who are psychologically unable to endure even a modicum of responsibility. Should we round up these people and force them to take the shelter offered? Do we hold people at gun point to insure they take the shelter offered them?

Value is relative, in anyway you choose to look at the issue. While a half empty homeless shelter is of little value to the average homeless person in the summer, it is indescribable valuable on a cold winters night. Just as the value of the dessert from the Master Chef is greater than the apple pie from our mediocre cook.

Take a look around you my Liberal Friends, don't assume that your ideals are just better, demonstrate them with logic and with common sense. Challenge your own beliefs and look to prove them or disprove them with logic and common sense.

Take any Liberal position, and it demonstrably flawed as a policy decision. That is why the Liberals are less palatable than the Conservatives, the principals they espouse are demonstrably flawed.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Liberals on Suicide Watch across America

Liberals across the nation are demoralized after this last week. First Busby lost in the CA 50, Then the Iraqi and American forces killed the Barbaric Al Zaqwari. Today is what may push them over the edge, it's just too much. Bush goes to Iraq, and visits the troops.

If that wasn't enough, they suffered two major setbacks in their plans for the future. The hope for a good "Fitzmas" were dashed, and they are furious about it. Now if that wasn't enough to send our beloved Liberal friends over the edge, the final straw may have been reached now.

Michelle Malkin is reporting that a San Francisco Judge has overturned the City wide gun ban that they just passed.

I am concerned for the Liberals, with all these setbacks one after another, each one reducing the hope that they have for the future. Liberals must be desperate, we know they are demoralized, with November looming, and few if any scandals left to run on, they are left running on nothing but tax increases and punishing success.

Good days for Americans, bad days for Liberals.

Monday, June 12, 2006

What is wrong with being Patriotic?

Patriotic, defined by is " Feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one's country".

Patriotic means much more than that however, it denotes a sense of loyalty to that country. It also denotes a bit of selfishness, my country comes first, then we can consider other nations. Selfishness is not normally a positive trait, however in the discussion of Patriotic, you are applying your conscience, your loyalty, your devotion, to the larger community, the nation.

I ask the question, what is wrong with being patriotic? A Patriot supports the nation first, hardly a bad thing is it? When President Clinton was in office, I was in the Army. I did not like that man, didn't trust him. However, I was a Soldier, and a Sergeant. My duty, my sworn duty, and my loyalty was to the Commander in Chief. I obeyed the orders of those appointed above me, even when I personally disagreed with them, honestly, I gave more effort to accomplishing those orders I didn't like, because that was my duty as well.

The worst ass chewing I gave to a subordinate was when President Clinton had issued the now famous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't pursue" in regards to Homosexuals in the Military. One of my subordinates said he wasn't going to do that, he was going to ask if a guy was "Queer" if he wanted to.

I took that soldier aside, and chewed him up one side and down the other, pointing out that his enlistment oath didn't allow him to follow orders he "liked" or approved of. If this soldier ever again spoke of disobeying the Commander in Chief, I would take him out, and after beating him senseless, bring him up on charges. We serve to defend democracy, not to place it in practice you see. I should point out, I had listened to Rush Limbaugh at lunch, and personally did not agree with the President's instructions, but that wasn't the point. Bill Clinton was the President, duly elected, sworn, and serving in that position. I didn't have to like the President, but by God I was sworn to obey him. For the Record, I served in the Military until 1997, when I was Honorably Discharged. During my service I found many of the Orders I received questionable as to their wisdom, however I obeyed, because that is what I said I would do.

That is the point, even though most of the Soldiers were not big supporters of Bill Clinton, we would serve the President as loyally as humanly possible. In my example above, my Platoon Sergeant pulled me aside later, to insure I had communicated to that Soldier his duty to obey orders. I assured the Platoon Sergeant that information was engraved in that soldiers brain.

Patriotism means supporting the office, the man isn't as important as the office. I didn't vote for President Clinton, but he was still "My President" even when I got out of the Army. He was my President until George W. Bush swore the oath, and took over the duties of President. He was my President because he was the American President, and I was an American. That was enough for me, I never stopped being an American.

That is the difference between Patriotic and Unpatriotic. The Patriot supports an administration he personally disagrees with, because the system demands a willingness to accept the decision of the majority. I don't have to agree with the decision for it to be the decision, numerous Supreme Court cases prove that beyond any doubt.

So someone tell me, what is wrong with being Patriotic? If the new standard is "I didn't vote for him, he isn't MY President" then half the nation will be leaderless until the next Election. Granted, less than half, after all the Liberals don't make up nearly the majority they like to think, but that is another aside. I am just trying to understand how they can claim to be just as Patriotic, when they denounce the elected President as illegitimate? Is that the future of our nation? In 2008, will Republicans denounce a Democratic President as Illegitimate? (OK, granted I took a large leap and pretended that a Democrat could win)

Sunday, June 11, 2006

George Lakoff, old school leftist

Hot Air introduced me to Professor George Lakoff. Although I am certain I have heard of him, I was unable to place it. I read the piece on Hot Air, and then did a Yahoo Search for him. I found his website, and read several, meaning more than three articles on "framing the discussion" which near as I can tell, are about spinning Progressive (read Liberal) failed policy into moral crusades.

I am joking to some extent, but only to a small extent. However it's also the situation within Liberalism. They couch the Abortion debate as "Choice" yet never will discuss Gun Control as "Choice" as in being Pro Choice on guns. They aren't Pro Choice on Smoking, Pro Choice on food, automobiles, or anything else that the left feels needs to be regulated. The term Choice is an example of the lefts framing of an argument, to use the Professor's term, yet he doesn't see it that way.

The Professor is correct when he indicates we see things differently, Conservatives see Government as part of the problem, not part of the solution to most of lifes issues. We don't see salvation in Beurocratic departments. We don't see the answer as being more beurocratic red tape.

For examples, I am going to address a couple of his ideas as stated, and describe why they are flawed. I readily admit I'm not lettered, but if the theory doesn't pass either the test of logic, or the test of common sense, then it is flawed.

From Professor Lakoff's commentary on the State of the Union. Now consider social programs. In the strict father framework, they are immoral; they give people things they don't earn and lead them to become undisciplined, dependent, and incapable of moral behavior. Cutting taxes to produce a huge deficit rewards good -- successful -- people, and in addition takes away money from immoral social programs, which are referred to as "wasteful spending."

The obvious problem is how do you define wasteful spending? For a Liberal, any money spent on Defense, for example Missile Defense, is wasted. What they want is more social and really wealth redistribution programs, you see the Rich don't deserve to be Rich. Professor Lakoff states that under his view of Conservative Principal, the good get rewarded, thus rich, while the bad morally wanting people get punished, thus poor. Take another case. In the strict father framework, massive tax reductions are rewards for those good people, the wealthy, whose discipline has made them self-reliant and deserving. But an equally important goal is to eliminate the funding for social programs.

Professor, please forgive this, but phooey. Professor, by the same analogy, the Progressives, which you can read to mean Liberals, see Rich as evil, having done something wrong, underhanded, cheating, to become rich. They built a better mousetrap, as most of the wealthy in this nation are self made. They earned it in short, and I don't look at life with envy towards those who have a more expensive house, car, or whatever. I will admit that a fraction of the rich used some underhanded method to gain wealth, certainly. However by fraction I mean fraction of one percent (.XX%) for those of you with math skills.

From the Bush perspective, it is thus a moral obligation to eliminate social programs that lead to dependence. He calls it "reform" -- Social Security reform, Medicare reform, education reform, and so on. If the reform is moral, those who oppose it are immoral and opponents of progress:

Professor, here we have a different definition of Morality. We should celebrate those social programs based upon how many no longer need it, because they have moved themselves and their families up the ladder, into contributing members of society. There is an old saying, "If you give a man a fish, you have fed him for a day. If you teach that man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime." The problem with those programs is that they never teach anyone to fish, to put it bluntly. Welfare was intended to get people the substance they needed to survive, while they looked for work, seeking employment. In short, these programs were meant to help the person while they learned how to fish. Instead of a Safety Net, to keep people from hitting bottom, they became a hammock, allowing people to remain with no effort. We Conservatives believe that these programs exist now for the sake of existence. Instead of celebrating the numbers of people who have moved up, moved on in life to where they no longer need that assistance, Progressives chastise those who encourage this movement.

I will offer another idea Professor. In neighborhoods where people own their homes, we don't see the destruction we often see in Public Housing. Instead we see people who do minor repairs around the home, keeping their home up, because it is THEIRS. They OWN it, or are paying for it if you like.

If I printed and gave you a certificate that stated you won the Olympic 100 meter dash, Gold Medal Winner, you would crumple it and toss it away. It would be meaningless, because it was given to you. There is no pride in something received free, something which you had no hand in getting. On the other hand, if you had run that race, and come in third, you would proudly hold up the certificate that stated you had come in third, knowing you had earned that document. It meant something, reflected the effort, skill, and training you had put forth in an effort to perform the best you possibly could. That is what earned is, it has value. Value is relative Professor, because something you earned is more cherished than something given. That is the Conservative message, that you should want to earn what you get.

No Conservative ever suggested that flipping burgers would provide satisfactory monetary compensation to provide a comfortable existence to you and your family. We never said you could survive on what you make flipping burgers, or any other minimum wage job. We tell people that this job, flipping burgers (which I did) is an entry level job, to give you the work history and reputation needed for other higher paying jobs. That job isn't the end of your job search, it's merely the beginning. Very few stay with that job, satisfied with their compensation, satisfied with the situation they are in. A vast majority of people move on, taking those skills, and moving on to other higher paying jobs, and in the mean time gaining skills needed to become skilled labor, or schooling to become management, or technical labor, or in your case Professor, a lettered man of learning.

Professor, your theories may be entertaining, but they aren't accurate. They don't accurately describe the logic and truth behind the principals that Conservatives hold dear. While you state it's moral to believe in progressive ideals, it really isn't moral. Morality is learned, and moral means you do the right thing, and keeping a class of people perpetually dependent on barest of subsistence as the best they can do is immoral no matter how you look at it. Dooming Humanity to this lowest possible standard of living is not moral, it is unimaginable. It is even the definition of evil, and if you doubt me, spend some time talking, and listening to people from the housing projects. You will find something missing after a time, that thing that is missing is realistic hope for the future. Other than Lottery winnings, the people have no hope for a better future, and that is the most depressing fact of all. I say give those people hope, give them training for a skill, and get them out of that neighborhood. Get them into owning their own home, and watch the pride take effect, pride in their own accomplishments. The same pride you feel when you are introduced with your academic achievements.

I said I was going to address several, but only really got to one, and could spend the next month explaining over and over again, using different examples, logic, common sense, this one commentary of his. What I don't understand is how a supposedly educated individual can so mis-understand Conservative Principals so badly while trying at the same time to make failed Progressive (Liberal) programs sound better by using different terms and "framing" the discussion to their advantage is beyond me.

Hughes for America a progressive site with no logic.

Hughes for America, a website that appears to be as far left as you can go without falling off the plane into the abyss of Anarchy, has popped up on my Radar. By claiming that Republicans and Conservatives only argue in the gutter, he avoids the necessity to argue beyond the normal and usual denunciation of Conservatives as stupid, mean, homophobic, and of course racist.

In each of his missives, Hughes launches into diatribes of brilliance which of course, prove the very case that Ann Coulter is making, that the Democrats use spokesperson with "unassailable" qualifications. For example, in the case of the death of Terrorist Leader Al Zaqwari, an event that led to dancing in the streets in Iraq, where many of his victims once lived, and died under his hand and orders, Mr. Hughes proves the point of Coulter brilliantly.
Michael Berg on al-Zarqawi's death
Notice how Michael Berg, whose son was personally beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, deftly
discusses today's news and shames not only Soledad O'Brien, but also the president:

By pointing out the personal loss of Mr. Berg, he places Michael on a platform in which only the most heartless and cruel people would dare to disagree with his obviously enlightened opinion. The left constantly does that, refuse to acknowledge reality instead pointing to the spokesperson and demand you adhere to that persons ideals because the spokesperson is the only one who really knows and anyone who disagrees is dirt or scum.

Hughes is off the ranch, the reservation, and the planet on so many topics it would take months to list them all. He lionizes each of the people mentioned in Godless as perfect examples of this trend, previously mentioned in my post reminding everyone of the situation with Max Cleland former Senator from Georgia. The left loves Cindy Sheehan, and in an absolute proof of what Coulter says the left is doing, puts out a how dare they rant on people who disagree with dear Mother Sheehan. Of course, the fact that the people who disagree with Mother Sheehan include the Sheehan family.

As you know, Cindy Sheehan whose son Casey died in Iraq � is gathering peacefully near President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch. She's been there for a few days and wants simply to meet with the president to tell him to stop using people like her son as fodder and to ask him why her son died in Iraq � and for what noble cause.

You know Hughes, if you are going to denounce the message of Ann Coulter, you really shouldn't demonstrate her point.

I will give Hughes credit for being half right on immigration, enforcement on the employer of the illegals is also important, but not as a substitute to securing the boarders. If Hughes for America wanted to meet me halfway, I would agree to seriously stiff penalties (I already suggested $100,000 per day per illegalial employee in letters to both Senators and my Representative) for employers if he would agree to walls, fences, and stricter enforcement of immigration related crimes.

It would almost be Bi-Partisan, he would agree with me, and that is my definition of bi-partisan.

Since we know Hughes would never agree to stricter enforcement on Illegalals, after all someone on his side might think him a racist elitist, I am going to assume that compromiseise is impossible.

UPDATE: Joseph commented on Hughes in the following manner:
It would help if while you are denouncing Ann's assertions, if you didn't prove her point with many of your posts.
Posted by:
Max Conservative 06/11/2006 at 03:33 PM
Oh, please, from the guy whose blog includes such gems as:
"Hot Air and Byron York are busy this weekend doing what I wouldn't have the stomach for, enduring the close (and normally pungent) interaction of liberal left wing loonies at Yearly Kos.
According to reports, the hygene and dress are up to normal Western Standards, and instruction seems centered on how to appear normal"

And her point is what? That those with a stake in things shouldn't be able to comment? You've got NOTHING, my friend. All your side does is fume that you can't attack them personally WHILE you're attacking them personally. You're forgetting that you can disagree with someone without calling them "harpies" or "whores".
Have I let myself fall prey to name calling and insults? Sure, who among us hasn't? But am I Ann Coulter? Am I given as much prominence as she is? This is where your logic fails.
I find it quite telling that the right can't stomach what some are saying and feel it personally necessary to whine to whomever would listen about how you can't criticise them? No one has ever said you couldn't criticise them. But there's a difference between honest criticism and sniping at someone from the gutter. That's what you've been doing. Criticize them on the merits of their argument and you won't see any outrage. Disagreement, sure, but disagreement is American.

I do love it when the Liberals demonstrate something again and again. As you have no doubt noticed, above I offered to agree with the obviously Liberal site Hughes for America in regards to Immigration and employment enforcement, if he would agree with me on Walls and Fences. Absolutely ignoring all the points made above, Joseph jumped down five posts, and used my comments on the reported dress and behavior of the Liberals at YearlyKos as proof of my hatred. I added a link to his comments to the proper post for those who might be interested.

I guess I can declare victory over this site anyway.

Democrats universal in anti-Coulter screed

Just about every Democrat blogger, poster, and lunatic are agreed that Ann Coulter is evil, and should be silenced immediately. This by the way is not the first time they have demanded that Ann Coulter be silenced, or have those few publications that do publish her pressured into dropping her weekly commentary.

Further, Ann's Career is pretty much marked by annual demands that she be dropped by whatever publication is currently publishing her weekly commentary pieces. At the moment, Human Events is pretty much alone in it's publication of her, and kudos to them for the courage to publish someone that the left detests so much.

Why does Ann cause the left to go into such spasmodic fits? Often, just the mention of her name will be enough to get the spittle flying from the mouth of a Liberal.

Some of us will remember the last huge blow up in regards to Ann Coulter. It had to do with the Democratic Party claim that in 2003, Georgians bought into anti-Max Cleland propaganda and voted to out a decorated and maimed war hero in favor of chicken hawks who love war. Ann's first column on the subject, Cleland drops a political grenade, mentioned the loss of Max Cleland in that special way she has.

From her article: Former Sen. Max Cleland is the Democrats' designated hysteric about George Bush's National Guard service. A triple amputee and Vietnam veteran, Cleland is making the rounds on talk TV, basking in the affection of liberals who have suddenly become jock-sniffers for war veterans and working himself into a lather about President Bush's military service. Citing such renowned military experts as Molly Ivins, Cleland indignantly demands further investigation into Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard.

As I live in Georgia, and participated in the 2002 election, I can tell you why I voted Max Cleland out of office. He was elected from a Conservative State, where Democrats are labeled "Dixiecrats" by the "enlightened" Democrats from around the nation. 2002 is where the Democratic party put the War on Terrorism as the main focus of the election, and lost big time. For those of you with a modicum of honesty, which pretty much rules out Liberals, you will remember that election, it was only four years ago after all. You can't run as a Conservative, and then spend time in Washington being liberal, and come home expecting to be re-elected. You just can't do it, because we who voted you into office, will vote you right back out at the next chance.

After the howls of outrage at Ann's first piece, Ann followed up the following week with her next article.

The liberals hate Ann Coulter, because she doesn't play nice like most of the Republicans. If you doubt me, watch any round table discussion where Republicans and Democrats are going to participate. The Republican will inevitably use his opening statement to describe the great respect and esteem he feels for his friend from across the isle. After lauding great platitudes upon the Democrat, the Republican will stay mute while the Democrat announces that once the Republican (possibly homophobic, racist, sexist, or generally filled with hatred) apologizes for being (the aforementioned traits) then the real discussions can begin. That by the way is the introduction of the Democrat.

Ann Coulter doesn't apologize, and in proving her point, they ignore the substance of her comments while denouncing the manner in which it is said. If she could only apologize, and then find a kinder and gentler manner of pointing out the Democratic Party has no argument and uses front people who are never to be questioned to put forth asinine arguments, then and only then can we discuss your reconciliation with the rest of America.

To Hell with that, I don't think that I want to get along with people who blame America for deranged people hating it.
US Gulag: "HUNDREDS of Men have been Held for YEARS Without Charge"!!!
Think about that ameriKans! These people have been kidnapped and held hostage by the USA for YEARS!!U.S.: 3 Gitmo inmates hanged themselves

This is so shameful of our country
I offer tears at the suicides. No charges, no trials, just histrionics of a rabid war environment.

Personally, I figure it's a more economical decision to give the detainees sheets and other items to commit suicide with. A dead terrorist can't hurt anyone ever again.

Hit Counter