Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

What do all of the above people have in common?

(1) They all believe Geneva Convention Rights should be extended to terrorists, despite terrorists being considered unlawful enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention.

(2) They oppose domestic spying on people suspected of having connections to terrorists.

(3) They all have been in the media this week criticizing President Bush.

(4) They all want to extend Habeas Corpus rights to terrorists who are not even American citizens.

(5) They all hope the Democratic Party makes gains this November in Congress.

How do you define providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war?

Liberal Dreaming

A recent study at John F. Kennedy University in California focused on the differences in dream patterns between liberals and conservatives, with some interesting findings. The study reported that liberals are more restless in their sleep, have more bizarre and surreal dreams, and are more likely to have fantasy settings and sexual encounters in their dreeams. Not suprisingly, the sexual encounters experienced in liberal dreams are more often with strangers, as opposed to conservatives whose sexual dreams normally consist of their current spouse or an ex. Conservatives were also noted as having more mundane and realistic dreams, and less nightmares overall.

What does this study mean? Mr. Kelly Bulkeley, who conducted the study, was quoted as saying,
"While some of my colleagues think my research reinforces the stereotype of repressed, uptight conservatives, it also shows that many liberals may he hanging on the edge of mental well-being".

Ladies and Gentlemen, I could have told you that without a scientific study...

Who Wants to Fight America?

I LOVE this picture. It's a picture of members of the Iranian Air Force shouting Anti-US slogans during a prayer session last Friday. The best part about this picture is the enthusiasm, or lack there of, on the faces of these pilots.

These poor guys realize probably better than anyone else that their country is taking them down a path to war in which they will most likely be the first casualties. Allah have mercy...

Dean says He'll Mess With Texas

While Texas continues to watch it's southern border for the wave of illegal immigrants trying to get into the great republic, a greater threat slipped through it's northern border this week. Democratic Chairman Howard Dean recently gave a speech to Austin Democrats in which he outlined his plans for the great state, "We are going to take back Texas. And we're going to do it before we take back other states we've lost the last 15-20 years," Dean said during the rally.

For those of you holding the line in Texas, stand firm and REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!

The Most Overpaid People in America

As I was watching a Democratic strategist on Fox News this morning, it suddenly dawned on me that every single day, I see and listen to these Democratic strategists on the news, but have yet to hear any strategy they have for their party or for America. As far as I can gather, their strategy is to Bash Bush and claim Democrats can do a better job at everything than Republicans. Can that really be the Democratic strategy this fall?

I've spent the past few weeks searching for the Democratic strategy or platform for America. I searched their official website http://www.democrats.org and found a vague agenda that consists of broad generalities and lacks any coherent plan for achieving the goals it lays out. They say lofty things like, "We believe in real security" and "Democrats are unwaivering in their committment to keep America safe". That's all fine and dandy, but what I want to know is how do you prepose to do that? Which leads me back to my original quandry, what are Democratic strategists getting paid to do?

To be fair, I searched the Republican party website and was able to find a 92 page party platform from 2004 outlining everything from strategies in The War on Terror to Protecting the role of parents in a child's education.

The only common strategy between the two platforms is both parties believe that for America to win, we must stay on the attack. For Republicans, that means attacking terrorists where we find them around the world, for Democrats, that means attacking President Bush...

Clinton: Face to Face with his Legacy

By now you have no doubt seen former President Bill Clinton's meltdown in a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace. If you have not, check it out at http://www.foxnews.com. Was Chris Wallace out of line in his questioning? Was it a "conservative hit job" as Clinton claimed?

Make no mistake ladies and gentlemen, what Clinton is angered about is what concerns him the most, his legacy. Ever since 9/11, people have been asking the question of whether or not the attack that claimed the lives of over 3,000 American citizens could have been prevented. What they have found is that the Clinton administration dropped the ball by not taking terrorism seriously enough. Clinton is in serious risk of going down in history as the President who emboldened terrorists and paved the way to 9/11.

According to Bin-Laden himself, it wasn't until Americans pulled out of Somalia after 18 US servicemembers were killed that he realized America was a so-called "Paper Tiger". Bin-Laden concluded that he could indeed influence American foreign policy by striking hard enough and embarked on a mission to do so with the following results:

1996 - Khobar Towers bombed killing 19 US Servicemembers
1998 - Bombings of two East African Embassies, killing 224 people, including 12 Americans
2000 - Bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 US Sailors
2001 - Hijackers destroy the World Trade Center Towers, killing over 3,000 Americans

With the first three plots executed during Clinton's watch, did he do enough to try to curb the rise in terrorism against US citizens? In the interview with Chris Wallace, Clinton defends himself saying that "At least I tried" and "I worked hard to try to kill him...", meaning Bin-Laden. Bill Clinton knows that his response to this growing threat was too little too late. Clinton, whose legacy has already been through the ringer with his impeachment in the House, has already admitted to letting Bin-Laden slip through his fingers when the Sudanese government offered to hand him over to us, "At the time, 1996, [Bin-Laden] had committed no crime against America, so I did not want to bring him here because we had no basis to hold him. Though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America". That was 1996, the same year Bin-Laden issued a "Declaration of War" against the United States. Two years later in 1998, Clinton's Justice Department indicted Bin-Laden for conspiracy to commit murder on U.S. citizens. Which leads us to Clinton's true legacy in the years leading up to the War on Terror.

If anything, the decade prior to 9/11 showed us the folly of seeking a legal or police style response to terrorism. When 9/11 happened, President Bush decided to fight this threat as a war. Al-Qaeda has been on the run ever since. The American military has overthrown two murderous and tyrannical regimes in the last four years, bringing the oppotunities of freedom to over 58 million people. It has shifted the battlefield from American Cities to the Middle East. Win or lose in Iraq, when history looks back at Bush's Presidency, they will see a man determined to do something about terrorism. When they look back at Bill Clinton's Presidency, they will see retreat and a dissolution of American resolve in the face of common thugs. If I was Bill Clinton, I wouldn't spend my time being angry, I'd spend it being ashamed...

A MUST READ

Follow this link to an extraordinary article on the state of Islam: Allah is Dead, By Dr. Jack Wheeler
http://www.tothepointnews.com/

BOYCOTT CITGO

With Hugo Chavez snuggling up to members of the Axis of Evil and ranting and raving against the United States, the opportunity has come for the American people to remove Chavez from power. Since Chavez's insulting speech to the United Nations this week, followed by his trip through Harlem, the media has been toying with the idea of a boycott against Citgo, America's #1 supplier of Venezuelan oil. Should Americans boycott Citgo? ABSOLUTELY!!

Revenue from oil exports (80% of all exports) in Venezuela represent a third of their total GDP. Their number one customer, you guessed it, the United States. By boycotting this oil, we put Hugo Chavez in the hotseat with his own people three months before National elections which could drive Chavez out of power. The situation is already bleak for Chavez, whose country's unemployment rate is over 12% and over 47% of the total population living below the poverty line. Venezuela is more dependent on America than America is on Venezuela. By cutting off our support for this tyrannical regime, we may give the Venezuelan people the boost they need to vote Chavez out this December. Once Chavez is out, we can resume business with the Country.

Boycotting Citgo is not only in the best interest of every American, it is in the best interest of the Venezuelan people. If they are not willing to remove Chavez by elections this December, it's time we hit them economically until the country implodes. The choice is ultimately theirs, but our boycott may be the catalyst they need for change.

Hugo's Call For Democracy

As everyone focused on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's fiery rhetoric about George Bush yesterday, the media has failed to properly explain the rest of what Chavez was advocating for the United Nations. Aside from his anti-Bush ravings, the focus of Chavez's speech was a call to the United Nations to be more democratic. Chavez advocated the removal of the veto power of permanent members of the UN security council, saying such power by the five permanent members is undemocratic. He wants to eventually see all countries within the United Nations as having equal footing, with an equal vote on par with even the World's largest superpowers. Sounds like Democracy to me. So why can't the United Nations become a truly Democratic system for the World to discuss and set policy? Because Democracy can be extremely dangerous.

Democracy is not for everyone. Don't get me wrong, I believe that it is by far the greatest form of government that exists today, but it's survival greatly depends on the character of it's people. I believe in freedom for all people, but I know that freedom for some people would lead to the oppression of others. The founders of our country knew well that their republic would always run the risk of becoming a vehicle of oppression. The greatest debates by the founding fathers over our Constitution was how to delicately balance power to prevent this. That is why the Legislature, even though the most Democratic branch of our government, does not hold all of the power. The framers feared the tyranny of the majority as much as they did oppression from a King. Robert Heinlein once wrote that political authority is in it's barest form force. The converse of authority being responsibility. Responsibility when using political force is what is required by the people in order for Democracy to flourish. The individuals must place the welfare of the group ahead of their own welfare. Which leads us back to the United Nations. Can we trust the United Nations and it's member states to practice responsibility when wielding the political force of Democracy? The majority of the United Nations members are not even from Democratically elected governments. To expect them to want Democracy for anything other than to increase their own power in the World body is naive. To give it to them, would be irresponsible of us...

In a Nutshell

Given the fact that I've been on vacation for the last week, I wanted to share a few tidbits of this week's thoughts instead of writing a seperate post for each idea.

Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Warner have come out declaring that the Geneva Convention rules governing prisoners of war should apply to captured terrorists. Thomas Sowell said it best, "If you go into a boxing ring with an opponent who has agreed to the same set of rules for the fight that you do, you should follow those rules. If a guy attacks you in a dark alley from behind, you fight him anyway you have to in order to save yourself". Mark my words, all three of these men will take a shot at the Presidency in 2008. Lets hope the grab the middle ground strategy does not work in 2008.

The San Diego City Council this week held a hearing to try and block Wal-Mart from developing Superstores in the county. Why are Democrats so against Wal-Mart? John Kerry said it was "symptomatic of everything that is wrong with America". Wal-Mart is the biggest job creator in this country's history. It also accounted for "13% of America's productivity gains in the second half of the 1990's", according to a recent article by George Will. Not to mention that it saves shoppers over $200 billion a year. Perhaps the reason they hate Wal-Mart is because it's more effective than their massive government dependency programs...

The Pope is in the hotseat this week after quoting an Emperor from the 14th century who said, "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". Islam's response to this: WORLDWIDE violent protests, firebombing of Christian (not just Catholic) churches, calls for the Popes execution, and a 66 year old nun shot dead in Somalia. Apparently, Islam is as morally corrupt, degenerate, violent, and evil in the 21st century as it was in the 14th...

Ted Turner was quoted in the media as saying the "Iraq War is the dumbest move in history", putting it right up there with the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Nazi invasion of Russia. Absent from the list of "dumb moves" was Jane Fonda's posing for a picture on top of an anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American pilots in Vietnam. Go figure...

Survivor by Race

In case you missed it, last Thursday the 13th season of the hit reality show Survivor kicked off amid controversy in the media over the ways producers decided to divide the tribes this year. In the past, the tribes have been divided by everything from gender to age. This year, however, they are divided by race. The four tribes: Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American, each consist of five people of the same race.

Not only do I like the idea, but I think it is brilliant. I have no doubt that the ratings will soar. I have not watched a season of Survivor since season one, but I fully intend to watch this one. Why? Because I am interested to see how the different races perceive not only themselves, but the other races as well. It's like watching a sociology experiment. I still do not see what all of the critics are afraid of. When conservative talk show host, Rick Roberts in San Diego asked his listeners what they thought about it, I was shocked at their calls. Caller after caller talked about how the Black tribe would win all of the athletic challenges and the Asian tribes would win all of the mental challenges. By the time Rick was done taking callers, it was apparent to me why this was such a good idea.

Let’s face it, what people are worried about is that America is going to sit down and individuals will end up rooting for their race over the others. This is natural and will most likely happen, at first. People will always support those with whom they have things in common. The interesting twist is that as the show goes on, people will inevitably find that they have more in common with some members of the other races than those from their own. As we get to know the different personalities, race becomes less and less of a factor. It may help America to come to terms with the stereotypes, conscious and unconscious, that they have about race. As the tribes grow smaller and begin to integrate, I think most Americans may be surprised to find that the person they're rooting for in the end isn't the person they were rooting for at the beginning.

All in all, whether you learn something about yourself or about race in America from this season's Survivor, it will still be entertaining, and that's reason enough for this guy to watch!

Going on Vacation

I won't be writing for a few days while on vacation in Ocean City, Maryland. I'm extremely excited about the trip because I will be meeting two nieces and one nephew for the first time. They were all born this year while I was on deployment. So while you are at work downing coffee and browsing ebay, I'll be surfing and collecting sun!

To all you football fans, get your fantasy teams set up and be sure not to miss the Manning Brothers duel on Sunday!! My money is on the Giants, you just can't keep Tiki Barber down! To my loyal readers, I shall return!

Democrats Change Their Minds on Censorship

Right now you are probably wondering what that stack of paper is? Give up? It's the first run of 120,000 petitions to censor the ABC production, "Path to 9/11". Before the special has even aired, Clinton Democrats are coming out of the woodwork to attempt to stop ABC from doing so. The fact that the special admits to "dramatization" of certain events is not only undisputed, but is stated in a disclaimer the mini-series makes in the opening credits.

Now, I agree that people should not take this mini-series at face value. If they want an in-depth study of the events and circumstances which led to the 9/11 attacks, they need to read the 9/11 commission's report. I think that there will be a lot of factual content incorporated into the mini-series. Even though the Chairman of the 9/11 commission worked with the director of the mni-series as an advisor, it would be irresponsible to take the mini-series at face value. So what are the Clinton democrats worried about? They are worried about more than certain scenes in the movie being dramatized, they are worried that the movie will show the fact that the Clinton Administration dropped the ball on Bin Laden and encouraged, through their policies, the terrorist attack on 9/11. It is all in the 9/11 Commission's report.

The Head of the Clinton Foundation, Bruce Lindsey, and one-time Clinton advisor Doug Band stated, "The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known". Where were these protectors of truth when the factually challenged Michael Moore released his "documentary" on 9/11? Perhaps Clinton's minions didn't feel the need to fight Michael Moore's baseless shockumentary because they were on his payroll. Clinton spin-specialists Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani, dubbed the "Masters of Disaster" for their ability to spin their way out of anything, were hired by Moore to fight off critics of the film. Also on Moore's payroll was prominant decmocrat Mario Cuomo, who was hired to fight the 'R' rating so more young people would see the movie.

These calls to censor the ABC special are not attempts to protect the public from deceit. The mini-series is not a documentary and has neverproclaimed to be such, unlike Moore's movie. What the Clinton aides are worried about is the same thing Clinton himself has been worried about for the past 14 years, his legacy...

Iranian Technology Boom

With all of the news attention being given to Irans developement of nuclear technology, the world has paid little attention to the wave of Iranian technological breakthroughs that have come about in the last few weeks. In the last two weeks alone, Iran has claimed three breakthroughs to their people on their state-run television network.

The first breakthrough is that Iran has apparently developed a "new way of tracking aircraft, independent of radar", according to the Iranian Defense Minister. Wow, such technology might make it risky for the US to send in their expensive but elusive B-2 stealth bomber and F-117 stealth fighters to take out their nuclear facilities. Better think twice about air strikes...

Their second new breakthrough is that they have recently debuted their first ever indiginously built fighter jet. Supposedly, this new fighter is "similar to the American F-18 but stronger", according, again, to the Iranian Defense Minister. The good news, the Iranian fighter looks a heck of a lot like a dolled up F-5E Tiger II (which we sold them years ago), the same fighter that our American pilots fly against at Top Gun! Isn't it ironic?

The third advancement, unveiled at a time when the United Nations is considering sanctions against Iran, is on the medical front. Iran claims to have developed a drug for AIDS containment that can also be applied in cases of weak immune systems. This is quite the breakthrough for a country whose last "breakthrough" on the AIDS front was when they began passing out condoms and syringes to inmates in their prisons only a few years ago. The traditional Iranian response to AIDS has been public shaming and in the cases of unmarried women (even as young as 16), public hanging if pre-marital sex is suspected. Of course, the sharing of this new advance might be in jeopardy if sanctions are enforced on the country.

All of these advances show the fragile situation that Iranian President Ahmadinejad finds himself in. His lies about his "new technological advances" are intended more for his own people than for the World. The Iranian President knows that he is about to find himself between a rock and a hard place over his domestic nuclear program. Sanctions against his country could prove to erode the stability of the Iranian regime. The regime is already making moves at home to silence liberals and moderates. Iran's President urged students yesterday to purge their Universities of liberal and secular teachers in an attempt to shore-up his Islamic fundamental base.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad continues to call for a debate with U.S. President George W. Bush. So far, the best response to this call can be found from political cartoonist Michael Remirez:

Democrats Go to War

As President Bush today outlined the current and future status of the War on Terrorism, democrats were busy planning their next strike in what has become the focus of their efforts over the last year, the War on Bush. With the November elections coming up fast, democratic leaders are preparing their November 8th offensive. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) was quoted by the Washington Post as saying she would launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House's first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, "You never know where it leads to." Democratic Congressman and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, John Conyers, has been reported to have recently hosted a meeting of lawyers and legal scholars to discuss impeachment of President Bush.

The democratic War on Bush is doing nothing to promote civil discourse on issues surrounding the War on Terror. It is indicative of a democratic Party that has been hijacked by extremists who worship the Michael Moores and the botox loaded Hollywood nitwits who have taken up politics to pass the time. They have alienated and driven out moderates of their own party such as Joseph Lieberman to energize a Bush Hating base. By stoking the "hatred" of President Bush, the democrats are determined to take back both the House as well as the Senate. This hatred can be seen by visiting the democratic parties official website, http://www.democrats.org. The first page says it all folks...

For those of you interested in the Bush Administration's UNCLASSIFIED plan to conduct the War on Terrorism, you can download a copy or view it on http://www.whitehouse.gov. I consider it required reading, along with the 9/11 report, in order to speak intelligently on the War on Terrorism.

When hitting the polls this November, make sure you know which war your Congressman or Senator is fighting first and foremost, The War on Terrorism, or The War on Bush.

Illegal Scholars

Hold on to your tax dollars, there's a new motion from the left coast sitting on the desk of time travelling cyborg assassin turned California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The law would allow illegal aliens to apply for and recieve government funded financial aid for college!

This is nothing new to California. The disease that attacks and eventually kills common sense has been sweeping across Southern California since the first cases broke out in San Francisco 40 years ago. The growing question of immigration has been a source of contention in the Southwest for many years. Everything from granting amnesty for every illegal immigrant in California to allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. Right here in San Diego, the ACLU brought a suit against Border Patrol Agents in 2004 for racial profiling for illegal aliens. Those crazy Border Patrol Agents conducted a sweep of Southern California looking for illegal immigrants. The Border Patrol, meanwhile, vigorously denied conducting the search based on race. What was the search criteria then?!? If you are looking for illegal Mexican immigrants, shouldn't you check those people who look Mexican?

The problem with the immigration situation in the Southwest United States is twofold. First, we have no control of our border, which is allowing ANYONE who wants to cross to do so relatively easily. When a Nation can no longer control it's own borders, those borders will eventually erode, and pose a grave national security threat. We already have whole towns in the U.S. where the official language is Spanish and immigration laws have been erradicated by a town government made up of, you guessed it, illegal immigrants. The second problem is now that there are so many Mexicans in Southern California, lawmakers are too afraid for their political careers to get tough on border issues. It's a losing issue for any California politician and is quickly becoming a political hot-potato for national lawmakers who are looking to the fastest growing minority population in the US for votes.

Immigration has always been a part of The United States heritage. The strength of America has always been it's ability to bring together people of all races, ethnicities, and religions under the guiding light of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The American dream we offer is one of freedom to carve out a life for yourself, free of unwarranted persecution. The answer is not to seal off the border to Mexicans looking to make a future for themselves, the answer is to control our Southern border and make sure that those coming across are not only doing so legally, but are being checked to make sure they do not pose a threat to our security. In the meantime, lets not spend our tax dollars to subsidize those who don't even pay taxes.

Islamofascism: A Fair Title?

When Republican lawmakers started throwing around the word Islamofascism over the last few weeks (a term coined by radio host Michael Savage), it didn't take long for Muslim groups and the media to pull out the PC card. Many liberals find that combining the word Islam with Fascism and likening modern day terrorists to Hitler's brownshirts is an unfair comparison. Moderate Muslims have come out of the woodwork to claim that Islam is really a religion of peace and should not be judged based on the actions of "a few extremists".

To be fair to Islam, I agree that we should not judge an entire religion based on extremists who belong to that religion. Every religion has it's extremists. Christianity had the branch Davidians. Recent fugitive Warren Jeffs was the leader of an extreme branch of Mormonism. To judge these religions based on the misguided perceptions of a portion of it's followers would be short sighted of us. The question however, remains, what should we judge these religions on? The answer is the texts that define these religions. For us to accurately judge whether or not the Islamofascist label is a fair label, lets take a look at the Koran. What does the Koran have to say to it's followers? Here are a few of my favorite passages from the supposed religion of peace:

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

[9.73] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

Doesn't sound much like a religion of peace. These texts are used to incite millions of Muslims to take up their holy duty of Jihad, fighting against any religion other than Islam. Many people have said that the true meaning of Jihad, literally meaning "struggle", does not imply holy war. The Koran, however, is full of parts inciting Muslims to take up arms against non-Muslims:

[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

[8.55] Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.

[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.

What happens to the unbelievers they fight against?

[8.54] In the manner of the people of Firon and those before them; they rejected the communications of their Lord, therefore We destroyed them on account of their faults and We drowned Firon's people, and they were all unjust


Although the Koran is an invaluable source of knowledge to discern the true nature of Islam, perhaps the best is in the careful evaluation of the life and times of Islam's prophet, Muhammad. Not only did he lead armies, he was a brutal egomaniac who did everything from ordering the stoning of women to ordering the assassinations and murder of his former tribesmen and political enemies. The most telling book on this subject is by A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, 1955.

Is the term Islamofascist appropriate? Merriam-Websters defines fascism as: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Not only is it a fair assessment of what true Islam is all about, but it highlights the dangers of leaving this oppressive and violent religion unchallenged in a world of nuclear proliferation.

We'll Miss you Steve

The world famous Crocodile Hunter, Steve Irwin, is dead at the age of 44. The popular TV personality died while filming a special called "Ocean's Deadliest" off of Australia's Great Barrier Reef. The Crocodile Hunter was killed by a stingray's sharp, poisonous barbed tail when he swam too close to it. John Stainton, a friend and collegue of the Crocodile Hunter who was on the boat when Steve died was quoted as saying, "He came on top of the stingray and the stingray's barb went up and into his chest and put a hole into his heart."

What made the Crocodile Hunter so successful in his life was the passion and love he had for his work. For those of us who grew up watching the Crocodile Hunter, he will be missed.

Clean, Free, Endless Energy?

Imagine emission free, cost free, and endless energy. Never having to recharge your cell phone or gas up your car. The actual creation of energy in defiance of what we hold to be one of the fundamental tenets of physics, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Sounds like science fiction, but that is exactly what one Irish based company is promising on it's website, www.steorn.net. Steorn recently placed an add in the Economist calling on physicists to verify their research.

Steorn is making three claims for its technology:

1. The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.
2. The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.
3. There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature).

Still think it's science fiction? Check out their website and decide for yourself.

Democrats Lack Offense

With football season fast approaching, I've spent countless hours pouring over who my fantasy picks will be this year. My first priority, of course, is picking a Running Back. A good running game is essential to winning ballgames. By running the football, you control the tempo of the game. It allows you to wear down the opposing defense and keep the ball on the enemies side of the 50 yard line. Don't get me wrong, I like the "Shock and Awe" of a Peyton Manning style air attack as much as the next guy. Throwing the ball allows you to pick apart the opposing defense and score quick points, but as soon as the dust settles, your back on the defensive.

With the 5th year anniversary of September 11th fast approaching, the talking heads will be busy giving the American people their assessment on how we're doing in the War on Terror. The Democrats, especially those who voted for War in Iraq, will tell the American people that the War was a mistake and that the Bush administration is failing the US in the War on Terror. They will tell you everything that they think the Bush Administration has fumbled in the last five years, but what they will not offer you is a solution.

In the last five years, the United States has driven the ball across the enemies 50 yard line and kept THEM on the defensive. We've controlled the tempo for the War on Terror for the last 5 years, not the terrorists! We've done this by putting our troops on the ground there and fighting for every yard. The enemy counted on a Clinton style surgical airstrike against selected targets. They weren't ready for the running game, and we took the initiative. When listening to the talking heads next week, recognize one thing. The Democrats don't have an Offensive plan for the War on Terror!! We are only two quarters into this war and the ball is on the terrorist 40 yard line. The Democrats want to punt the ball and play Defense until 2008. Lets support our troops, stay on the offensive, and put one in the endzone!

Welcome to my Blog

Welcome to my blog, From the Military Ranks. I started this blog on the advice of my older brother Jon who grew tired of listening to my rantings and ravings. This blog is intended to provoke intelligent conversation by sharing my thoughts regarding events around the world as well as right here at home. Although I don't believe in censorship, I ask that we keep the conversations civil and agree to disagree, as hard as that can be.