Moveon.org is an extremely radical left wing propoganda tool. It is this way because it's members and it's supporters are extremely radical left wing activists. Of course, this group supports like minded political candidates. It also controls them to a very large degree.
Politicians adore money more than anything else. And Moveon.org doles out plenty of it to radical left wing politicians. This is why . . . . . the only reason why . . . . . we will never hear a single radical left wing politician say anything against Moveon.org. No way they will repudiate that organization for it's hate-filled tactics. No way will they even express mild disappointment with this group, no matter how far they go.
These radical left wing politicians are owned and controlled by moveon.org. The thought of no longer being able to pig out at that trough scares the hell out of them.
Left wing politicians seem to have a dilemma on their hands. They seem to be having a hard time deciding who to sell out to . . . . . . Moveon.org or the Chinese government (see post below).
Like the true political scum bags they are, they chose the left wing solution. They're taking the money from both!
Monday, September 17, 2007
China = Hsu = Democrats = Clinton
Remember China gate? When the Clinton administration and the democratic party tried to sell their influence to China?
Remember Al Gore's secret meeting with Chinese Nationals to accept a large amount of money at a Buddhist temple?
Well, it looks like nothing has changed. Democrats are now scrambling to disavow any knowledge of Mr Hsu or of the huge amounts of money he gave to them. Hillary Clinton very quickly returned over $800,000.00 that her campaign took from Mr. Hsu.
No one seems to be seriously questioning where the money came from. Obviously, it wasn't Mr Hsu's money. He's just a scam artist. I haven't heard what the total amount was that he had given to democrats across the nation, but if you consider that he gave at least $800,000.00 to Hillary, the total amount must be stunning!
Why would an aging scam artist pay so much money to effect our election results? How could he possibly hope to benefit from that? Unless of course the money was supposed to benefit someone else. Like the Chinese government . . . . . again.
One would have to be seriously mentally challenged to believe that a politician isn't intimately aware of any individual who has given them up to $800,000.00 to finance their election to president. Just as one would have to be seriously mentally challenged to believe that any individual spending so much money to effect our elections, hasn't made it perfectly clear to the recipients, what is expected from them in return.
Can anyone who isn't seriously mentally challenged trust those recipients not to sell us out to the Chinese . . . or any other bidder?
Of course not.
Remember Al Gore's secret meeting with Chinese Nationals to accept a large amount of money at a Buddhist temple?
Well, it looks like nothing has changed. Democrats are now scrambling to disavow any knowledge of Mr Hsu or of the huge amounts of money he gave to them. Hillary Clinton very quickly returned over $800,000.00 that her campaign took from Mr. Hsu.
No one seems to be seriously questioning where the money came from. Obviously, it wasn't Mr Hsu's money. He's just a scam artist. I haven't heard what the total amount was that he had given to democrats across the nation, but if you consider that he gave at least $800,000.00 to Hillary, the total amount must be stunning!
Why would an aging scam artist pay so much money to effect our election results? How could he possibly hope to benefit from that? Unless of course the money was supposed to benefit someone else. Like the Chinese government . . . . . again.
One would have to be seriously mentally challenged to believe that a politician isn't intimately aware of any individual who has given them up to $800,000.00 to finance their election to president. Just as one would have to be seriously mentally challenged to believe that any individual spending so much money to effect our elections, hasn't made it perfectly clear to the recipients, what is expected from them in return.
Can anyone who isn't seriously mentally challenged trust those recipients not to sell us out to the Chinese . . . or any other bidder?
Of course not.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Politics vs Military
Today begins a series of hearings where General David Petraeus will give his first hand account of what is happening in Iraq.
Without even waiting to hear what he has to say, several left wingers are already calling him "dead wrong" (Joe Biden) and even "a liar" (moveon.org).
Joe Biden is a senator from possibly the smallest state in the country. He is a life long politician except for a brief stint as a lawyer (you decide which is worse). He has no military experience. I've tried to find out just how many hours he's spent in Iraq, but haven't been able to lock that down. Let's be generous and say . . . 48 hours. Naturally, most of that was spent eating, sleeping, and simply wasting time.
I won't waste time discussing moveon.org
General David Petraeus graduated from West Point in 1974 and began his military career. He has several degrees including a PHD. He commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the drive to Baghdad and made significant progress in his area of operations in a post war environment. In 2007, the US Senate voted 81 - 0 to confirm him as Commander of Multi-National forces in Iraq.
Now Biden, moveon.org and other liberals presume to try to convince the American people that General Petraeus shouldn't be listened to. Biden thinks he knows more about the situation on the ground in Iraq than General Petraeus does. Moveon.org wants us to believe that they have credibility but General Petraeus doesn't.
Both situations are laughable . . . . . and sickening.
Biden knows how to feed at the public trough. He knows how to lie to voters and get away with it. He knows how to garnish pork for his state. He knows absolutely nothing about military affairs.
General Petraeus is an American Military Man. He has made the military his career. Rather than living off the nation, as Biden has always done, General Petraeus has served the nation for the past 30 years.
So, the choice is to believe an aging, career bottom feeder like Biden, or a hysterical bunch of loons like moveon.org, or to believe the experienced and qualified man that congress assigned to do this job.
First Congress sent our troops to war and them abandoned them. Then they sent General Petraeus to assess the situation, and now they'll betray him as well.
That is the democratic controlled congress!
Without even waiting to hear what he has to say, several left wingers are already calling him "dead wrong" (Joe Biden) and even "a liar" (moveon.org).
Joe Biden is a senator from possibly the smallest state in the country. He is a life long politician except for a brief stint as a lawyer (you decide which is worse). He has no military experience. I've tried to find out just how many hours he's spent in Iraq, but haven't been able to lock that down. Let's be generous and say . . . 48 hours. Naturally, most of that was spent eating, sleeping, and simply wasting time.
I won't waste time discussing moveon.org
General David Petraeus graduated from West Point in 1974 and began his military career. He has several degrees including a PHD. He commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the drive to Baghdad and made significant progress in his area of operations in a post war environment. In 2007, the US Senate voted 81 - 0 to confirm him as Commander of Multi-National forces in Iraq.
Now Biden, moveon.org and other liberals presume to try to convince the American people that General Petraeus shouldn't be listened to. Biden thinks he knows more about the situation on the ground in Iraq than General Petraeus does. Moveon.org wants us to believe that they have credibility but General Petraeus doesn't.
Both situations are laughable . . . . . and sickening.
Biden knows how to feed at the public trough. He knows how to lie to voters and get away with it. He knows how to garnish pork for his state. He knows absolutely nothing about military affairs.
General Petraeus is an American Military Man. He has made the military his career. Rather than living off the nation, as Biden has always done, General Petraeus has served the nation for the past 30 years.
So, the choice is to believe an aging, career bottom feeder like Biden, or a hysterical bunch of loons like moveon.org, or to believe the experienced and qualified man that congress assigned to do this job.
First Congress sent our troops to war and them abandoned them. Then they sent General Petraeus to assess the situation, and now they'll betray him as well.
That is the democratic controlled congress!
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Hillary’s socialist streak is showing
I saw a picture today of Hillary Clinton with a large banner on the wall behind her that proclaims “Shared Prosperity”.
During her speech under that banner, she proudly proclaimed that she “would help the nation overcome economic disparities”.
I view these and other statements by her as additional indications of Hillary Clinton’s desire for a socialist state. Her socialist goals at one time seemed to be limited to socialized medicine. Now it seems equally clear that she endorses the re-distribution of wealth as well.
How else to overcome economic disparities?
Hillary believes (or at least she thinks it will get her elected if she makes people “think” she believes) that everyone should make the same amount of money. Since there is no way that billions of people will do what it takes to “earn” the same amount of money, the only possible way to achieve her goal is to take it from those who earn it, and give it to those who don’t. Redistribution of wealth.
Hillary apparently believes that wealth is a bad thing . . . . unless everyone can be wealthy. Socialism resolves this dilemma by insuring that no one can become wealthy. The historical exception to this rule is those in power who decide how wealth should be distributed.
The redistribution of wealth can be accomplished in a couple of ways:
The Government decides how much wealth individuals or families or groups can earn.
The Government redistributes money from earners to non-earners through subsidized government run programs that only the earners contribute to and only the non-earners benefit from.
Socialism doesn’t work. Anyone who gives 5 minutes of unprejudiced thought to the concept can see that. If a hard worker can only earn as much as a non-worker, what will the outcome be? Will the non-worker start working harder? Hell no. Eventually the hard worker will decide to stop being the fool and will slow down to match the efforts of the non-worker! Production goes down, and entrepreneurial efforts become non existent.
The overall result is that the economic disparity gets eliminated. Everyone becomes equally poor. Except those who control the governments power!
Of course, Hillary and other socialists ignore the plain, simple fact that economic disparity is a good thing. It proves that those who are willing to work for it, and to do the things that are required (like getting an education, working hard, working smart, and making the right choices), can excel. This opportunity to excel is what drives productivity, creativity and . . . . . the American dream!
During her speech under that banner, she proudly proclaimed that she “would help the nation overcome economic disparities”.
I view these and other statements by her as additional indications of Hillary Clinton’s desire for a socialist state. Her socialist goals at one time seemed to be limited to socialized medicine. Now it seems equally clear that she endorses the re-distribution of wealth as well.
How else to overcome economic disparities?
Hillary believes (or at least she thinks it will get her elected if she makes people “think” she believes) that everyone should make the same amount of money. Since there is no way that billions of people will do what it takes to “earn” the same amount of money, the only possible way to achieve her goal is to take it from those who earn it, and give it to those who don’t. Redistribution of wealth.
Hillary apparently believes that wealth is a bad thing . . . . unless everyone can be wealthy. Socialism resolves this dilemma by insuring that no one can become wealthy. The historical exception to this rule is those in power who decide how wealth should be distributed.
The redistribution of wealth can be accomplished in a couple of ways:
The Government decides how much wealth individuals or families or groups can earn.
The Government redistributes money from earners to non-earners through subsidized government run programs that only the earners contribute to and only the non-earners benefit from.
Socialism doesn’t work. Anyone who gives 5 minutes of unprejudiced thought to the concept can see that. If a hard worker can only earn as much as a non-worker, what will the outcome be? Will the non-worker start working harder? Hell no. Eventually the hard worker will decide to stop being the fool and will slow down to match the efforts of the non-worker! Production goes down, and entrepreneurial efforts become non existent.
The overall result is that the economic disparity gets eliminated. Everyone becomes equally poor. Except those who control the governments power!
Of course, Hillary and other socialists ignore the plain, simple fact that economic disparity is a good thing. It proves that those who are willing to work for it, and to do the things that are required (like getting an education, working hard, working smart, and making the right choices), can excel. This opportunity to excel is what drives productivity, creativity and . . . . . the American dream!
Monday, June 25, 2007
Jimmy Carter - Still a Buffoon!
In Ireland last week, Jimmy Carter, the professional ex-president, showed the world that he is still an incompetent ass. During an address, Carter called “criminal” Americas decision to withhold funding from the murderous terrorists called hamas. He bad mouthed the U.S. and the E.U. for supporting the Abbas regime over this well known terrorist group. He made these moronic statements just after the world watched how Hamas murdered unarmed fellow Palestinians “execution style” in the Streets of Gaza.
I’m not sure which actions illustrate the worst kind of sickness; the cold blooded execution of those who don’t agree with your terrorist tactics, or the mindless support given to these murderers by an ineffective, gutless and irrelevant ex-president.
Jimmy Carter presided over the most ineffective administration in history. The defining moment of his presidency happened when radical Iranian university students stormed the U.S. embassy and took over 50 American hostages. Carter did nothing. For 444 days, Carter did nothing. (The only exception was a failed rescue attempt that was aborted while the participants were still in the dessert. Eight Americans died in a tragic accident after the mission was aborted). Now, one of the leaders of the radical students who held those hostages and faced down Carter, is the president of Iran. He regularly calls for the annihilation of Israel and is diligently producing Nuclear capabilities. Under this man’s leadership, Iran is now the biggest threat this world knows.
And true to form, Jimmy Carter apparently still advocates placating terrorists.
I’m not sure which actions illustrate the worst kind of sickness; the cold blooded execution of those who don’t agree with your terrorist tactics, or the mindless support given to these murderers by an ineffective, gutless and irrelevant ex-president.
Jimmy Carter presided over the most ineffective administration in history. The defining moment of his presidency happened when radical Iranian university students stormed the U.S. embassy and took over 50 American hostages. Carter did nothing. For 444 days, Carter did nothing. (The only exception was a failed rescue attempt that was aborted while the participants were still in the dessert. Eight Americans died in a tragic accident after the mission was aborted). Now, one of the leaders of the radical students who held those hostages and faced down Carter, is the president of Iran. He regularly calls for the annihilation of Israel and is diligently producing Nuclear capabilities. Under this man’s leadership, Iran is now the biggest threat this world knows.
And true to form, Jimmy Carter apparently still advocates placating terrorists.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Democrats and the war in Iraq
Its the beginning of Memorial Day weekend. The democrats in congress just caved into Bush's demand for funding with no outside interference attached to it. While I'm sure it was a humbling experience for the dems initially, their overwhelming arrogance quickly took over again.
The dems are now vowing to continue to interfere by holding constant votes against Bush and against our efforts in Iraq. Just like the immature little punks these people really are, they will continue to be obstructionists, and continue to undermine our efforts, all the while continuing to falsely proclaim support for the troops.
This Memorial Day its time to get honest! These people DO NOT support our troops. They have simply swarmed over a "cause celeb" like a pile of maggots and they intend to milk it for all they can. By claiming to believe that their actions do not harm our troops or our their efforts, they are clearly showing how stupid and ignorant they think the American voters are.
In truth, they know exactly how damaging their actions are to the troops and to their efforts. They simply don't give a damn because they are convinced that the voters are unable to think beyond the lies they feed them.
Unfortunately, they're probably right to a large degree.
I'm gonna spend Memorial Day with some REAL Americans. Veterans, and active duty personnel. At the same time, I'll avoid thinking of these phony Americans in congress as much as possible.
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!
The dems are now vowing to continue to interfere by holding constant votes against Bush and against our efforts in Iraq. Just like the immature little punks these people really are, they will continue to be obstructionists, and continue to undermine our efforts, all the while continuing to falsely proclaim support for the troops.
This Memorial Day its time to get honest! These people DO NOT support our troops. They have simply swarmed over a "cause celeb" like a pile of maggots and they intend to milk it for all they can. By claiming to believe that their actions do not harm our troops or our their efforts, they are clearly showing how stupid and ignorant they think the American voters are.
In truth, they know exactly how damaging their actions are to the troops and to their efforts. They simply don't give a damn because they are convinced that the voters are unable to think beyond the lies they feed them.
Unfortunately, they're probably right to a large degree.
I'm gonna spend Memorial Day with some REAL Americans. Veterans, and active duty personnel. At the same time, I'll avoid thinking of these phony Americans in congress as much as possible.
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!
Monday, May 7, 2007
Monkey - no, Activist - no, Monkey!
A Vienna Based animal rights group (Association against Animal Factories) has petitioned the courts in Austria to have a chimpanzee declared a “person”.
While I am convinced that this 26 year old chimp (named Hiasl) is probably a lot more intelligent than the morons who are promoting this absurdity, to the rest of us non-chimps this is an extreme example of the unlimited absurdity of which man is capable.
Supposedly the reason for this request is so that the chimp may legally receive financial gifts, which in Vienna, is a right apparently reserved for human beings. Apparently the shelter where Hiasl currently resides may go bankrupt. As is typical with most professional “activists”, they act emotionally . . . . . stupidly, and they don’t consider alternative or logical scenarios.
Hiasl will never live on his own (he really isn’t human – he’s a chimp). If he enjoys the standard chimp life span, he’ll spend the next 30 years or so in this, or some other shelter. So, there is absolutely no need for direct, personal financial gifts to Hiasl. If someone wants to support this chimp, they would donate to the shelter . . . . not to the chimp. Just like they have been doing for Hiasl since 1982!
If that isn't good enough . . . . . go ahead and contribute illegally! How bad can the punishment be for illegal monkey donating?
But being professional “activists”, these people(?) want the monkey to be declared a “person”. As if that is a simple (let alone sane) thing to do! Presumably as a “person”, the monkey would have all of the rights and responsibilities of a “person”:
He would have the right to live free . . . on his own, wherever he wished or could afford.
He could drive any car he can afford to buy with all the charitable gifts he’d be eligible to receive. He would have control over how those gifts are used.
He could marry another “person” (although I would seriously question whether his “mate” should qualify for that distinction either).
He could be arrested for defecating (and tossing) in public (if that sort of thing is against the law in Vienna).
He would serve jury duty, receive welfare, declare the “M” word as being politically incorrect, and sue any employer who required clothing for discrimination.
And of course, it wouldn’t just be Hiasl. Any such declaration would include all chimps. Since forced imprisonment of “persons” is probably against the law in Vienna, all chimps would be set free immediately.
In the end, I’d like to see a compromise. Set the chimps free but put animal rights activists in cages.
While I am convinced that this 26 year old chimp (named Hiasl) is probably a lot more intelligent than the morons who are promoting this absurdity, to the rest of us non-chimps this is an extreme example of the unlimited absurdity of which man is capable.
Supposedly the reason for this request is so that the chimp may legally receive financial gifts, which in Vienna, is a right apparently reserved for human beings. Apparently the shelter where Hiasl currently resides may go bankrupt. As is typical with most professional “activists”, they act emotionally . . . . . stupidly, and they don’t consider alternative or logical scenarios.
Hiasl will never live on his own (he really isn’t human – he’s a chimp). If he enjoys the standard chimp life span, he’ll spend the next 30 years or so in this, or some other shelter. So, there is absolutely no need for direct, personal financial gifts to Hiasl. If someone wants to support this chimp, they would donate to the shelter . . . . not to the chimp. Just like they have been doing for Hiasl since 1982!
If that isn't good enough . . . . . go ahead and contribute illegally! How bad can the punishment be for illegal monkey donating?
But being professional “activists”, these people(?) want the monkey to be declared a “person”. As if that is a simple (let alone sane) thing to do! Presumably as a “person”, the monkey would have all of the rights and responsibilities of a “person”:
He would have the right to live free . . . on his own, wherever he wished or could afford.
He could drive any car he can afford to buy with all the charitable gifts he’d be eligible to receive. He would have control over how those gifts are used.
He could marry another “person” (although I would seriously question whether his “mate” should qualify for that distinction either).
He could be arrested for defecating (and tossing) in public (if that sort of thing is against the law in Vienna).
He would serve jury duty, receive welfare, declare the “M” word as being politically incorrect, and sue any employer who required clothing for discrimination.
And of course, it wouldn’t just be Hiasl. Any such declaration would include all chimps. Since forced imprisonment of “persons” is probably against the law in Vienna, all chimps would be set free immediately.
In the end, I’d like to see a compromise. Set the chimps free but put animal rights activists in cages.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Career Politicians. Do we need 'em?
Regardless of which party you are generally affiliated with, wouldn’t it be great if we could weed out all the scum bags? All political parties have them. Typically, they are the career politicians. The ones who have been around so long that they think they answer to no one. These are the professional liars, the accomplished thieves, the elite egomaniacs, the gluttonous power mongers, and those who believe that their family’s wealth makes them special.
Why do we keep voting these parasites into office?
One reason is that the longer we keep these slobs in Washington, the more powerful they become. This often translates into more pork spending in their home states/districts. So, in the current environment, it may actually be in the people’s best interest to keep sending the most dishonorable and selfish individual they can dig up to congress.
A good friend of mine recently suggested that I should stop just complaining about things on this blog and to offer my suggested solution(s) to the problem as well. Okay, here goes . . .
The answer: . . . . . . . . term limits!
Congress likes to talk about how important they are. Whenever they feel that their relevance is being questioned or tested, they turn absolutely rabid. Just like the President, and for the same reasons, members of congress should be subject to term limits. Their positions are simply too important, and too subject to abuse, not to impose mandatory term limits.
With term limits, no congressman or senator would be around long enough to become quite so self-important and corrupt.
With term limits, voters won’t be so anxious to elect the least honorable candidate.
With term limits, there will never again be an “old boys” network controlling Washington.
Of course, it’s not your state, or my state that elects these scum bags. Term limits will protect the rest of us from the slovenly apathy of those states that do.
One sure way of identifying the truly dishonorable members of congress is to ask them about term limits. Those who vehemently disagree with term limits “because it’s not good for the people of their state/district” . . . . . are the worst of the lot and need to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
Think Term Limits!
Why do we keep voting these parasites into office?
One reason is that the longer we keep these slobs in Washington, the more powerful they become. This often translates into more pork spending in their home states/districts. So, in the current environment, it may actually be in the people’s best interest to keep sending the most dishonorable and selfish individual they can dig up to congress.
A good friend of mine recently suggested that I should stop just complaining about things on this blog and to offer my suggested solution(s) to the problem as well. Okay, here goes . . .
The answer: . . . . . . . . term limits!
Congress likes to talk about how important they are. Whenever they feel that their relevance is being questioned or tested, they turn absolutely rabid. Just like the President, and for the same reasons, members of congress should be subject to term limits. Their positions are simply too important, and too subject to abuse, not to impose mandatory term limits.
With term limits, no congressman or senator would be around long enough to become quite so self-important and corrupt.
With term limits, voters won’t be so anxious to elect the least honorable candidate.
With term limits, there will never again be an “old boys” network controlling Washington.
Of course, it’s not your state, or my state that elects these scum bags. Term limits will protect the rest of us from the slovenly apathy of those states that do.
One sure way of identifying the truly dishonorable members of congress is to ask them about term limits. Those who vehemently disagree with term limits “because it’s not good for the people of their state/district” . . . . . are the worst of the lot and need to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
Think Term Limits!
Monday, April 30, 2007
The Military vs. the Democratic Congress
Okay, so the Dem’s have officially done it. They have clearly demonstrated that they are willing to send our troops into harms way, and to support them only for as long as they are comfortable with doing so. When it becomes politically expedient to do so, they will kind of say “never mind” and just call the whole thing off, regardless of the lives lost, the sacrifices made, and regardless of the dire consequences of failure.
Until the next time.
How many times can the liberals in congress do this to our military and still have a military that we can depend on? How will congress ever be able to justify sending troops into harms way . . . anywhere in the world . . . for any reason . . . ever again?
Why should our military ever trust these career politicians to support them and their mission?
Why shouldn’t our military act like congress and think of themselves rather than thinking of our nation?
Maybe the military should require that members of congress sign a contract, swearing to support them 100% to the end, before agreeing to fighting their next war for them. Such a contract would need to include severe personal financial repercussions for failing to meet these terms.
At the very least, why shouldn’t our military men and women, who are infinitely better, smarter, and more honorable human beings than those in congress, demand the same pay and pension – or even more – than the failures who sit in congress?
Better yet, why don’t we the people of America, show the military that we support THEM, not congress. We can do that by voting these scum bags out of office. We can show the military that they can count on us for a change. We can show them that we won’t tolerate politicians who abuse them and who put their political agenda above our military and above our nation’s best interest.
Until the next time.
How many times can the liberals in congress do this to our military and still have a military that we can depend on? How will congress ever be able to justify sending troops into harms way . . . anywhere in the world . . . for any reason . . . ever again?
Why should our military ever trust these career politicians to support them and their mission?
Why shouldn’t our military act like congress and think of themselves rather than thinking of our nation?
Maybe the military should require that members of congress sign a contract, swearing to support them 100% to the end, before agreeing to fighting their next war for them. Such a contract would need to include severe personal financial repercussions for failing to meet these terms.
At the very least, why shouldn’t our military men and women, who are infinitely better, smarter, and more honorable human beings than those in congress, demand the same pay and pension – or even more – than the failures who sit in congress?
Better yet, why don’t we the people of America, show the military that we support THEM, not congress. We can do that by voting these scum bags out of office. We can show the military that they can count on us for a change. We can show them that we won’t tolerate politicians who abuse them and who put their political agenda above our military and above our nation’s best interest.
The Darfur Dilemma
One can’t help but feel terribly sorry for the people of the Darfur region. Their current situation is bleak at best, and their future seems even darker. I’m at a loss however to understand the goals and objectives of the various Darfur related protests around the country.
There was one in Philadelphia this past weekend that drew a couple hundred people. A few protestors got their picture in the local paper, they tied up traffic for some time while marching, many got to show off the latest fashion in picket signs. But I have yet to read anything that explains just what these folks want done about Darfur? What was the purpose of the protest? To do what?
If the only answer to this is “to raise awareness”, then the protest was an apparent failure. I doubt that anyone heard about the Darfur tragedy for the first time because of this (or any other) protest. Many people protest in order to feel good about themselves. One protestor was quoted as saying “I look forward to these marches,” she said. “they make me feel better as a human, as a global citizen.” If any of the protestors was helped in this way, then good for you. At least something was achieved.
Aside from that, I just can’t see what it is these folks expect to be done. They say they want the suffering stopped, but they never suggest how . . . . . except those who claim that turning money over to them is the answer! How do these people propose stopping all of this suffering? Apparently, the targets of their message are us Americans. More specifically, Philadelphians! So what do they expect us Americans/Philadelphians to do? Maybe they just want everyone to protest. Maybe they think that protests are the way to stop the genocide that occurs everyday in Darfur. Maybe the protestors think those mass murderers have a conscience!
The plain truth is that these murderers will be stopped only one way, by force. I know that and so do most (if not all) of the protestors. They desperately want this to happen. They just don’t have the nerve to say it, because these are many of the same people who protest our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference here is that Darfur is “their cause.” But of course, they would prefer to send troops there from other nations. That way it won’t be our spouses and children who get killed. And as sure as the sun rises in the east, they would be protesting again to pull our troops out of Darfur . . . . . just as soon as an appropriate number was killed.
So I suggest leading by example instead of by your mouths. You know what has to be done in order to stop the terror in Darfur. Go do it.
There was one in Philadelphia this past weekend that drew a couple hundred people. A few protestors got their picture in the local paper, they tied up traffic for some time while marching, many got to show off the latest fashion in picket signs. But I have yet to read anything that explains just what these folks want done about Darfur? What was the purpose of the protest? To do what?
If the only answer to this is “to raise awareness”, then the protest was an apparent failure. I doubt that anyone heard about the Darfur tragedy for the first time because of this (or any other) protest. Many people protest in order to feel good about themselves. One protestor was quoted as saying “I look forward to these marches,” she said. “they make me feel better as a human, as a global citizen.” If any of the protestors was helped in this way, then good for you. At least something was achieved.
Aside from that, I just can’t see what it is these folks expect to be done. They say they want the suffering stopped, but they never suggest how . . . . . except those who claim that turning money over to them is the answer! How do these people propose stopping all of this suffering? Apparently, the targets of their message are us Americans. More specifically, Philadelphians! So what do they expect us Americans/Philadelphians to do? Maybe they just want everyone to protest. Maybe they think that protests are the way to stop the genocide that occurs everyday in Darfur. Maybe the protestors think those mass murderers have a conscience!
The plain truth is that these murderers will be stopped only one way, by force. I know that and so do most (if not all) of the protestors. They desperately want this to happen. They just don’t have the nerve to say it, because these are many of the same people who protest our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference here is that Darfur is “their cause.” But of course, they would prefer to send troops there from other nations. That way it won’t be our spouses and children who get killed. And as sure as the sun rises in the east, they would be protesting again to pull our troops out of Darfur . . . . . just as soon as an appropriate number was killed.
So I suggest leading by example instead of by your mouths. You know what has to be done in order to stop the terror in Darfur. Go do it.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
US Army Cpl. Pat Tillman – A Hero with a Sad and Confusing Legacy
Pat Tillman was an inspiring American hero. This brave young man walked away from a professional football career in order to serve his country and countrymen in the wake of 9/11.
Pat Tillman subsequently died in Afghanistan in April of 2004. The army notified the family about 5 weeks later that his death was a result of friendly fire. The loss of a brave American military man or woman in combat is always heartbreaking. The thought that some die as a result of friendly fire is particularly difficult to understand and to deal with.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the Tillman family. They must be special people to raise someone like Pat Tillman. I cannot begin to understand the level of their grief. To make this situation even more tragic, as I understand it, the army fumbled a couple of attempts to investigate this incident and may have even lied to the family about how their hero died. How much can a family take?
Now the army has completed an in-depth investigation and has concluded one thing:
1. Pat Tillman’s death was a horrible, tragic accident that resulted from the “fog of war”.
What I don’t currently understand is the Tillman family’s continued refusal to accept these findings. The family today said; "The briefing we just received was shamefully unacceptable," the family said in a statement issued from their home in San Jose, where Pat Tillman grew up. "Our family is therefore compelled to continue our (pursuit of) the full truth about the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death and the so-called 'missteps' and 'deficiencies' of Pat's unit, the Army, the Department of Defense, and this administration."
What is it that the family wants to hear? What is the apparently only explanation that they will accept? What if the truth is something different? Does the family think this was something other than a tragic accident?
As someone with combat experience, the “fog of war” premise is so absolutely understandable that it is hard for me to imagine why someone might question it. Combat is the most confusing situation that a human being will ever find themselves in. And just as things get as out-of-hand as they possibly can get, that is when instantaneous life and death decisions and actions are most critical. Those decisions and actions always include rifle fire, grenades, mortars, machine gun fire, close air support, artillery and armor. It is with good reason that the final stage of a desperate defense is known as the “mad moment”.
Through it all, people are moving. Some move on orders, some move on their own. Some fail to move, even when ordered. Keeping track of where everyone is can be impossible. Add to all this the fear and excitement, the adrenaline rush and the different ways these factors affect different people, and it’s a wonder that it doesn’t happen more often than it does.
As I understand it, Pat Tillman’s platoon split into two units to accomplish some task. One part of the unit came across the other part and mistook them for enemy troops. Pat Tillman happened to be in a position with an Afghanistan soldier. Pat Tillman was killed by small arms fire, possibly while trying to signal his friends that he was one of them. How tragic is that! Tragic for Pat Tillman, tragic for his family, tragic for those who mistook him for an enemy combatant, and tragic for our nation because we need men like Pat Tillman.
The investigation just completed deals only with the events surrounding Pat Tillman’s death. It does not address the many blunders and possible cover-up that took place afterwards. So what is it that the Tillman family finds “shamefully unacceptable”?
As I see it, the army is guilty of covering up this tragic accident. The question is why? I can only imagine that it was to save the family from the additional grief of knowing that Pat Tillman was the victim of an accident. The army apparently went so far as to promote him and to award him the silver star, rather than tell the family the truly heartbreaking details of his death.
It’s hard for me to get truly angry at anyone over this situation. That apparently isn’t so for Pat Tillman’s family though and they are sure to find willing participants in congress who will take advantage of this tragedy to soak in the spotlight for a time.
Pat Tillman subsequently died in Afghanistan in April of 2004. The army notified the family about 5 weeks later that his death was a result of friendly fire. The loss of a brave American military man or woman in combat is always heartbreaking. The thought that some die as a result of friendly fire is particularly difficult to understand and to deal with.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the Tillman family. They must be special people to raise someone like Pat Tillman. I cannot begin to understand the level of their grief. To make this situation even more tragic, as I understand it, the army fumbled a couple of attempts to investigate this incident and may have even lied to the family about how their hero died. How much can a family take?
Now the army has completed an in-depth investigation and has concluded one thing:
1. Pat Tillman’s death was a horrible, tragic accident that resulted from the “fog of war”.
What I don’t currently understand is the Tillman family’s continued refusal to accept these findings. The family today said; "The briefing we just received was shamefully unacceptable," the family said in a statement issued from their home in San Jose, where Pat Tillman grew up. "Our family is therefore compelled to continue our (pursuit of) the full truth about the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death and the so-called 'missteps' and 'deficiencies' of Pat's unit, the Army, the Department of Defense, and this administration."
What is it that the family wants to hear? What is the apparently only explanation that they will accept? What if the truth is something different? Does the family think this was something other than a tragic accident?
As someone with combat experience, the “fog of war” premise is so absolutely understandable that it is hard for me to imagine why someone might question it. Combat is the most confusing situation that a human being will ever find themselves in. And just as things get as out-of-hand as they possibly can get, that is when instantaneous life and death decisions and actions are most critical. Those decisions and actions always include rifle fire, grenades, mortars, machine gun fire, close air support, artillery and armor. It is with good reason that the final stage of a desperate defense is known as the “mad moment”.
Through it all, people are moving. Some move on orders, some move on their own. Some fail to move, even when ordered. Keeping track of where everyone is can be impossible. Add to all this the fear and excitement, the adrenaline rush and the different ways these factors affect different people, and it’s a wonder that it doesn’t happen more often than it does.
As I understand it, Pat Tillman’s platoon split into two units to accomplish some task. One part of the unit came across the other part and mistook them for enemy troops. Pat Tillman happened to be in a position with an Afghanistan soldier. Pat Tillman was killed by small arms fire, possibly while trying to signal his friends that he was one of them. How tragic is that! Tragic for Pat Tillman, tragic for his family, tragic for those who mistook him for an enemy combatant, and tragic for our nation because we need men like Pat Tillman.
The investigation just completed deals only with the events surrounding Pat Tillman’s death. It does not address the many blunders and possible cover-up that took place afterwards. So what is it that the Tillman family finds “shamefully unacceptable”?
As I see it, the army is guilty of covering up this tragic accident. The question is why? I can only imagine that it was to save the family from the additional grief of knowing that Pat Tillman was the victim of an accident. The army apparently went so far as to promote him and to award him the silver star, rather than tell the family the truly heartbreaking details of his death.
It’s hard for me to get truly angry at anyone over this situation. That apparently isn’t so for Pat Tillman’s family though and they are sure to find willing participants in congress who will take advantage of this tragedy to soak in the spotlight for a time.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Support the Troops - But Not the Mission???
This weekend (the 4th anniversary of the war) saw several demonstrations against the war in Iraq. Amazingly, many of those participating in these events express support for our troops. Does that make sense?
None at all.
Any action that might embolden our enemies while our troops are in harms way cannot logically be portrayed as “support” for the troops. Clearly, the opposite is true. Such actions support our enemies and endanger our troops as well as endangering the mission they are tasked with accomplishing.
Why should terrorists not be emboldened when they can see our resolve crumbling? When they can see that our citizens have no will to win? When they can see that we are ready to chalk up the sacrifices of thousands?
The demonstrations were very small. About 3,000 in San Francisco where one might expect tens or hundreds of thousands to attend. New York gathered about 1,000 if you include the professional demonstrators like Rev. Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition and others. Even the Washington DC demonstration was small. The purpose of a demonstration is to show through numbers the resolve of the people. The numbers involved in these demonstrations clearly show that the demonstrators do not have the backing of the people. Yet the media made the typical left wing circus out of it, playing it up for much more than it was worth. The result was two fold:
1. Our troops got to see an inflated version of these demonstrations showing a lack of support for them and their mission.
2. The enemy that is trying to kill our troops saw a grossly inflated version of how little support our troops have for their mission.
I wonder what those demonstrators will do when the terrorists they are now supporting (whether by design or out of ignorance) have the chance to renew their attacks on U.S. soil? Who will they call on then for help? Who will they call on to wreak revenge for them? Who will they call on to go after the perpetrators?
Will they again promise to support the troops and their mission?
Why should our troops listen . . . . . ever?
None at all.
Any action that might embolden our enemies while our troops are in harms way cannot logically be portrayed as “support” for the troops. Clearly, the opposite is true. Such actions support our enemies and endanger our troops as well as endangering the mission they are tasked with accomplishing.
Why should terrorists not be emboldened when they can see our resolve crumbling? When they can see that our citizens have no will to win? When they can see that we are ready to chalk up the sacrifices of thousands?
The demonstrations were very small. About 3,000 in San Francisco where one might expect tens or hundreds of thousands to attend. New York gathered about 1,000 if you include the professional demonstrators like Rev. Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition and others. Even the Washington DC demonstration was small. The purpose of a demonstration is to show through numbers the resolve of the people. The numbers involved in these demonstrations clearly show that the demonstrators do not have the backing of the people. Yet the media made the typical left wing circus out of it, playing it up for much more than it was worth. The result was two fold:
1. Our troops got to see an inflated version of these demonstrations showing a lack of support for them and their mission.
2. The enemy that is trying to kill our troops saw a grossly inflated version of how little support our troops have for their mission.
I wonder what those demonstrators will do when the terrorists they are now supporting (whether by design or out of ignorance) have the chance to renew their attacks on U.S. soil? Who will they call on then for help? Who will they call on to wreak revenge for them? Who will they call on to go after the perpetrators?
Will they again promise to support the troops and their mission?
Why should our troops listen . . . . . ever?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Are Americans Losers . . . . or Just Congress???
Today the congress is seeking a vote to set firm dates for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. While this is a democrat issue, there are sure to be some republicans who vote for it as well.
To be clear, this is not a plan for victory. This is not a plan to achieve what might be needed for Iraq. It is not a plan to succeed. It is not a plan to achieve anything at all! In fact, it isn't a plan at all. It is simply a way to insure that we lose in Iraq.
This disgraceful political move will destroy our status as a world leader. Who would be stupid enough to follow us into anything after we disgracefully cut and run (and hide) from this? What about our staunch allies who are already supporting our efforts in Iraq? We will be abandoning them as well!
Our enemies will think that the cowardness and selfishness of congress is indicative of us as a nation. They will be greatly emboldened to take action against us, knowing for sure that we don't have the will to fight back.
Perhaps the greatest price we'll pay for this gutless congress will be the damage that it does to our military. If the congressional dems succeed with this, why would/should our young men and women ever again trust congress to support them after commiting them to harms way? This action would make it clear that congress is willing to send our troops into harms way, but not willing to spend the political capital to let them succeed. It shows that the dems in congress are perfectly willing to send the troops into combat, get thousands killed, and then say "never mind"!
I can't think of a clearer or more dispicable way to show our military just how little they are valued!
Democratic incumbents are responsible for this. They came up with it and they are pushing it. They are 100% responsible for the results. Others who go along with them are certainly no better. They're probably worse!
To be clear, this is not a plan for victory. This is not a plan to achieve what might be needed for Iraq. It is not a plan to succeed. It is not a plan to achieve anything at all! In fact, it isn't a plan at all. It is simply a way to insure that we lose in Iraq.
This disgraceful political move will destroy our status as a world leader. Who would be stupid enough to follow us into anything after we disgracefully cut and run (and hide) from this? What about our staunch allies who are already supporting our efforts in Iraq? We will be abandoning them as well!
Our enemies will think that the cowardness and selfishness of congress is indicative of us as a nation. They will be greatly emboldened to take action against us, knowing for sure that we don't have the will to fight back.
Perhaps the greatest price we'll pay for this gutless congress will be the damage that it does to our military. If the congressional dems succeed with this, why would/should our young men and women ever again trust congress to support them after commiting them to harms way? This action would make it clear that congress is willing to send our troops into harms way, but not willing to spend the political capital to let them succeed. It shows that the dems in congress are perfectly willing to send the troops into combat, get thousands killed, and then say "never mind"!
I can't think of a clearer or more dispicable way to show our military just how little they are valued!
Democratic incumbents are responsible for this. They came up with it and they are pushing it. They are 100% responsible for the results. Others who go along with them are certainly no better. They're probably worse!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Non-binding Resolution Against the Iraq War
Just what was this resolution supposed to accomplish? Was this a meaningful, worthwhile effort on the part of our elected officials? Or, was it yet another example of self serving “politics as usual”? Let’s examine the results:
Did it stop the war in Iraq? NO!
Did it show support for our troops in harms way? NO!
Did it demonstrate America’s lack of resolve? YES!
Did it make America safer? NO!
Did it help our allies? NO!
Did it bolster terrorists all over the world? YES!
Did it support the President in time of war? NO!
Well, I can’t see a single result of this resolution that was good for America. Nor can I see any logical reason why a reasonably intelligent human being should have expected anything positive from this folly.
Unless they are simply “stupid”, members of congress who voted for this resolution (from both parties) absolutely knew that such a useless resolution could ONLY be harmful to the nation. So why did they do it?
Sure they got to embarrass the President, but are they really that petty and immature? Did they not care that they also embarrassed every other thinking American? Or was it just that they felt that this would be a vote getter for them in the future? Would they really be willing to put their own interests in front of our nation’s? Could they be so low?
The last one was a rhetorical question. If the results outlined above are true (how can they be disputed?), and if we presume that so many members of congress are not quite stupid enough to think that a different result could come from their actions, then yes, members of congress could be so low.
Did it stop the war in Iraq? NO!
Did it show support for our troops in harms way? NO!
Did it demonstrate America’s lack of resolve? YES!
Did it make America safer? NO!
Did it help our allies? NO!
Did it bolster terrorists all over the world? YES!
Did it support the President in time of war? NO!
Well, I can’t see a single result of this resolution that was good for America. Nor can I see any logical reason why a reasonably intelligent human being should have expected anything positive from this folly.
Unless they are simply “stupid”, members of congress who voted for this resolution (from both parties) absolutely knew that such a useless resolution could ONLY be harmful to the nation. So why did they do it?
Sure they got to embarrass the President, but are they really that petty and immature? Did they not care that they also embarrassed every other thinking American? Or was it just that they felt that this would be a vote getter for them in the future? Would they really be willing to put their own interests in front of our nation’s? Could they be so low?
The last one was a rhetorical question. If the results outlined above are true (how can they be disputed?), and if we presume that so many members of congress are not quite stupid enough to think that a different result could come from their actions, then yes, members of congress could be so low.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The New Democratic Controlled Congress
Congressional democrats are riding high, and they should be. They now have control of both the house and senate. The question is, will they do anything useful with this new found power? I doubt it.
I say this because in my opinion, they don't understand (nor do they want to) how they achieved this grand success. They feel that they "kicked republican butt" because the voters are finally starting to get it. We're finally coming around to their way of thinking. We've finally pulled our heads out of the sand and starting to pay attention. They suddenly feel vindicated. They feel they've been right all along and we voters were just "slow" to grasp their wisdom. I think they're wrong about that. I believe that the democrats won majorities in both houses for two reasons:
1. The law of averages. It was bound to happen. They had failed for so long that, as expected, the voters "forgot" what they were like. We forgot why we had dumped them in the first place. In short, this is an expected cyclicle outcome. But the house dem's will never admit that! They would rather wallow in their "success" than to face any inconvenient facts.
2. The republicans who got dumped were dumped by republican voters, because they (republican voters) were tired of the liars, thieves and weaklings who were holding office (Curt Weldon of PA being a prime example of a republican being dumped by republicans). Republicans weren't dumped by democratic voters. In short, these scum bags deserved to get dumped, and republican voters met that need. This was not a shining triumph for democratic politicians.
Democratic politicians refused to believe anything was wrong when they lost control of the house and senate. They refused to believe that anything was wrong when they lost the white house, election after election. Now that they are back in control of congress, they naturally refuse to believe that it was due to anything other than their own superiority. It is this continuing arrogance that will stop them from making necessary changes to their platform and their party.
And of course, in the end, they'll fail again. But they'll refuse again to admit that anything is wrong . . . . . except on the part of the voting public.
Oh well!
I say this because in my opinion, they don't understand (nor do they want to) how they achieved this grand success. They feel that they "kicked republican butt" because the voters are finally starting to get it. We're finally coming around to their way of thinking. We've finally pulled our heads out of the sand and starting to pay attention. They suddenly feel vindicated. They feel they've been right all along and we voters were just "slow" to grasp their wisdom. I think they're wrong about that. I believe that the democrats won majorities in both houses for two reasons:
1. The law of averages. It was bound to happen. They had failed for so long that, as expected, the voters "forgot" what they were like. We forgot why we had dumped them in the first place. In short, this is an expected cyclicle outcome. But the house dem's will never admit that! They would rather wallow in their "success" than to face any inconvenient facts.
2. The republicans who got dumped were dumped by republican voters, because they (republican voters) were tired of the liars, thieves and weaklings who were holding office (Curt Weldon of PA being a prime example of a republican being dumped by republicans). Republicans weren't dumped by democratic voters. In short, these scum bags deserved to get dumped, and republican voters met that need. This was not a shining triumph for democratic politicians.
Democratic politicians refused to believe anything was wrong when they lost control of the house and senate. They refused to believe that anything was wrong when they lost the white house, election after election. Now that they are back in control of congress, they naturally refuse to believe that it was due to anything other than their own superiority. It is this continuing arrogance that will stop them from making necessary changes to their platform and their party.
And of course, in the end, they'll fail again. But they'll refuse again to admit that anything is wrong . . . . . except on the part of the voting public.
Oh well!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)