The Unvarnished Truth

In case you missed it last week, CNN shocked viewers when they played a terrorist "snuff" film showing the murder of a US serviceman in Iraq. The video, taken by Iraqi insurgents, shows a sniper shooting an American serviceman in the head from a hidden vehicle before driving off to escape. Despite violating several standards of ethics in journalism, CNN producer David Doss defended the decision to air the video saying, "Whether or not you agree with us in this case, our goal, as always, is to present the unvarnished truth as best we can."

What truth is being presented in the video? The fact that there are US servicemen being killed in Iraq? The fact that insurgents are targeting them? The facts have been well established on both of these points. We know that there are snipers in Iraq. We know that they are killing both US servicemen as well as Iraqi citizens. Does David Doss really believe that the best way to present these truths is by showing such a video?

Make no mistake folks, this was nothing more than CNN resorting to journalistic sensationalism, the media's own version of "shock and awe" designed to improve ratings and continuously push the boundaries of ethics in journalism. Providing the "unvarnished truth" is one thing, but airing a terrorist propoganda film to the world is indicative of serious ethical problems at CNN. Over the years, the boundaries between sensationalism and journalism have been blurred by the ushering in of the digital age. Never in history has a person been able to access so much information in so little time. We live in the "too much information" age of everything from blogging to Youtube at our fingertips. The media outlets now find themsleves competing with websites such as the Drudge Report and The Onion for readership. The effect this competition has had on the mainstream media is to reintroduce the practice of "Yellow Journalism", using sensationalism to gain readership over rival media outlets. Yellow journalism attempts to gain viewership by using "death, dishonor, and disaster" as headlines.

Regardless of what David Doss and Anderson Cooper claim as their reasons, the decision to air this terrorist video boils down to nothing but the latest step away from real journalism for sensationalism. Unfortunately for CNN, the first victim of sensationalism in media is usually the unvarnished truth...

When Big Government Goes Bad

The following article was sent to me just after my recent post about the "common good". I thought it was a nice example of how the government's solutions to protect the common good are fueling a lack of common sense and ultimately undermining the very ideal they hope to achieve. A great example of this can be found in Philip K. Howard's book, The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America. For those of you who are on the fence concerning big government's ability to solve America's social issues, it is a must read...

The Culture of Meanness
By John W. Whitehead October 16, 2006

A culture of meanness has come to characterize many aspects of the nation’s governmental and social policies. “Meanness today is a state of mind,” writes Nicholas Mills in his book The Triumph of Meanness, “the product of a culture of spite and cruelty that has had an enormous impact on us.” But until it happens to us, it is easy to close our eyes and go on with our everyday lives. The problem is epitomized by a recent email I received:

We live in a small rural town. Moved here in 1961. I don't remember what year the State Troopers moved a headquarters into our town. Our young people were plagued with tickets for even the smallest offense. Troopers had to get their limits for the month. People make jokes about that but it has been true. Every kid I knew was getting ticketed for something. But now it is so much worse. I raised my kids to respect police. If they did something wrong and got caught they deserved it and should take their punishment. I have no respect for the police. I feel threatened and fearful of them. They are aggressive and intimidating. They lie and are abusive and we do not know how to fight them. I am not a minority here but people are afraid if they speak out they will be targeted. We are just a small town. I am a 60-year-old grandmother and I just don't care anymore if they do target me. I am afraid they are going to kill someone.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. For example, recently in my hometown of Charlottesville, Va., a 69-year-old woman was offered no mercy by local authorities when she briefly left her sleeping grandchild in her car to run into the grocery store. Since she was only going to get a couple of items and it was a moderately cool day, she decided to crack the windows and sunroof and leave her grandchild undisturbed. Moments after leaving the parking lot, the woman was pulled over by several patrol vehicles and then handcuffed. When her grandchild awoke and began screaming for his grandmother, the police refused to let her hold him and took her to jail. The 69-year-old woman was left with bruises and marks on her wrists. Far from hardened criminals, individuals such as this are treated like street thugs, despite not having committed any serious crime.

At one time, the police would merely have lectured these two upstanding citizens. Certainly, no one would have been handcuffed, arrested and jailed. However, their stories represent a symptom of a much broader and growing problem in America. Perhaps out of fear or some other innate human element, America has grown cold and callous and often lacks common sense in its accepted brutal treatment of others who commit small wrongs or merely make mistakes. We see school children placed at the heart of our court system and treated like hardened criminals. Many find negative marks placed on their permanent records due to the harsh treatment of zero tolerance policies. Average Americans who make unwise but nonetheless harmless decisions are treated like drug traffickers or other dangerous criminals. It seems that everyone is now a criminal-in-waiting.

Consider the story of Margaret Kimbrell of Rock Hill, South Carolina. This 75-year-old woman who suffered from arthritis and had six broken ribs was given a 50,000-volt shock from a police taser gun and was forced to spend three hours behind bars. Describing the pain from being tasered, Kimbrell stated, “It was the worst pain. It felt like something going through my body. I thought I was dying. I said, Lord, let it be over.” What led to this horrifying experience was Margaret’s refusal to leave a nursing home before she had the opportunity to visit a friend whose well-being she was concerned about. According to the police, Margaret posed a threat. They claim she was waving her arms and threatening the staff. Her response was, “As weak as I am, how could I do that?” In Portland, Oregon, authorities seemed to have abandoned their common sense and good judgment when they pepper-sprayed and tasered Eunice Crowder, a blind 71-year-old woman. What began as an attempt by a city employee to remove unsightly shrubs and trash from the handicapped woman’s yard ended in a show of what many believe to be excessive force. After the city employees began to remove her belongings from her yard, Crowder became concerned that a 90-year-old wagon, which was a family heirloom, had been placed in the truck to be hauled away with her other belongings. She told the city employees that she was concerned about the wagon, explained why it was so important to her and asked if she could enter their truck to search for it. When the elderly woman entered the truck in search of her treasure, after being told not to, the city employees called the police. When the police showed up, the situation worsened. Crowder had one foot on the curb and the other on the bumper of the trailer when one of the officers stepped on her foot. Crowder, being blind, asked who it was. Moments later, one of the officers struck her on the head—which dislodged her prosthetic eye, kicked her in the back and pepper-sprayed her in the face.

Students are also facing these issues in schools across America through strict zero tolerance policies. When a high school junior in Kentucky wrote a story about zombies taking over his high school, he was sent to the principal’s office. School officials then contacted the police, which led to a search of the student’s home and his arrest. Despite the student’s plea that the story was merely fiction, he was charged with second-degree felony terrorist threatening. What began as a creative story, the kind thousands of kids have written, ended in a permanent criminal charge that will haunt this young man for the rest of his life. As one commentator noted, “Kids have been kicked out of school for possession of Midol, Tylenol, Alka Seltzer, cough drops and Scope mouthwash—contraband that violates zero tolerance anti-drug policies. Students have been expelled for Halloween costumes that included paper swords and fake spiked knuckles, as well as for possessing rubber bands, slingshots and toy guns—all violations of anti-weapons policies.”

While many of these shocking stories go unnoticed, experts see an alarming trend in many small pockets of America. In fact, a report issued by Human Rights Watch suggests that abuse by public officials against average citizens for minor, often innocent, acts “remains one of the most serious and divisive human rights violations in the United States.” These are the questions we need to ask ourselves in our local community: Are we really any safer? Does the punishment really fit the crime? Have we lost our common sense in order to secure a false sense of safety?

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I’m going to sleep any better tonight just because these local “criminals” were taken off the streets or suspended from school.

Well said Mr. Whitehead!

The Crisis

As the war in Iraq drags on, I'm beginning to come to the opinion that America may be incapable of winning a protracted war. Don't get me wrong, I think militarily we are up to the challenge. We have the forces, we have the knowhow, and we have the experience. We are killing more of the enemy than they are of us. Our soldiers are winning the battles with insurgents. So what is it that could possibly prevent us from attaining victory in Iraq? The answer is ourselves...

In the digital age, Americans are more connected to the World and to each other than at any period in the history of civilization. With network news sponsored affiliates, satellite uplinks, and global cell capability, the media outlets can bring you breaking news "at the speed of live" from anywhere in the world. So everyday when Americans turn on their TVs and hear about the latest roadside bomb or the latest insurgent attack, it is only a matter of time before it starts to weigh on our national conscience. With every profile of a dead soldier we see on the news, every interview with a grieving family, our sense of urgency for an end in sight begins to stir.

After three years of fighting, with the death toll in Iraq approaching 3,000 US soldiers, our national sense of urgency for an end to the war has gone from a stir to a scream. Politicians are stepping all over each other for the chance to Monday morning quarterback the war. Politicians who voted for the war now oppose it and claim to have been duped into supporting it in the first place. We find ourselves in a tough battle with a determined enemy and a rising death toll among our soldiers. America is bitterly divided as to what we do next. The following words were written during another time in American history where the outcome of another war weighed heavily on the hearts and minds of the American people:

December 23, 1776
THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

Although 240 years later, this message resonates today as it did back then. The message is perseverence. That it is better to have our shoulder against the wheel than our backs against the wall. Freedom does not come easily, nor does it come cheaply as Thomas Paine pointed out. While every American is eager for an end to this war, we must always remember that the quickest way to end a war is to lose it. And losing is not an option in the War on Terror.

To leave the job unfinished in Iraq is to doom our children to fight the same war for the same ground 10 years from now. If we had finished the job during the first Gulf War and ended Saddam's rule then, we would not be in Iraq today. Instead, Americans got their quick war. As our troops came back and we celebrated our overwhelming victory, Saddam was busy killing thousands of Iraqis that answered George Bush's call to overthrow the dictator, thinking that American forces were on their way. We've learned from our mistakes this time around. Although the death toll of US soldiers approaches 3,000 over the last three years, keep in mind that it was over 3,000 people killed in just one day on September 11th. Leaving Iraq now would be putting our backs against the wall. The War on Terror is still being waged, and it's being waged in Iraq...

Beware the "Common Good"

Democrats have a new theme they will be hyping in an attempt to frame their political agenda for the upcoming elections as well as the Presidential race in 2008. The new theme is the "common good". This theme is meant to attack what the democrats call the "radical individualism" that the Republican party has been pushing over the last six years. So what exactly does this "common good" theme entail? Well, the details are a little fuzzy folks. John Halpin, senior fellow at the center for American progress and one of the framers of this new theme says it's a "core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives." Halpin goes on to explain that "With the rise of materialism, greed, and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community_sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty." Like I said, the details are fuzzy, but so far what I'm hearing sounds an awful lot like a thinly veiled attempt to sell America once again on big government.

This highlights one of the principal differences between democrats and republicans, individualism vs. collectivism. Halpin is right in that republicans stress individualism over the "common good". Republicans see society as a collection of individuals whose freedoms, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, are to be preserved even over the wishes of the majority. Republicans have the optimistic view that through the exercise of such freedom, every man and woman is entitled to make something of themselves. It is the struggle and triumphs of the individuals in American society that make America the nation it is. As Ayn Rand once wrote, "America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to "the common good", but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes."

The freedom of the individual to pursue his own course in life is not without its consequences. This individualism is seen as the root cause for the "materialism, greed, and corruption in American society" that Halpin highlights. The concept of the "common good" has always been at the heart of democratic ideology. When they talk about a "return to a sense of community, a shared sacrifice, and the ethics of service and duty" within the framework of the "common good", they mean at the expense of the individual. So who decides what the "common good" is?

The answer is the government. Democrats believe that the government can give people this sense of community. Through taxation and redistribution of wealth in this country, they will give us a sense of "shared sacrifice". They will instill by force the ethics of duty and service by replacing your sense of personal responsibility with a responsibility for the community. This assault on the individual has been waging for years. The lawyers in America have all but absolved us of personal responsibility, teaching us that no matter what we do, there is always someone else to blame. The democrats have led the crusade to save us from ourselves by attempting to ban things that are detrimental to the "common good" such as cigarettes a decade ago and trans fats today. They think that a large centralized government can create justice, sacrifice, and civic virtue by destroying the value of the individual.

I too believe in the ideals of sacrifice, service, and duty that Mr.. Halpin talked about. But all three of these ideals are at their core, personal. The very nature of sacrifice is that one must make the conscious decision to forgo something of value to achieve something greater. Without the willingness of the offer, there can be no sacrifice. The same applies to duty and service. The government cannot force these upon a person, it is up to us as individuals to come to terms with them on our own time. I do not ask for my government to solve all of my problems, nor would I like it to. It is through the fires of adversity that our character is forged, not the mandates of our government. Without the freedom to grow as individuals, the society forcibly dedicated to the "common good" would be hollow.

When the talk about the "common good" makes its way into the upcoming elections, make sure the "common good" being sold to you isn't at the expense of your personal freedom.

Random Thoughts from the Weekend

Grieving mother turned outspoken anti-war and anti-Bush advocate, Cindy Sheehan, announced this week that she is a finalist for the Nobel Peace Prize. I had to chuckle because the day before I watched a video clip where she was talking about an episode of The Twilight Zone in which someone went back in time and killed Adolf Hitler as a baby. This episode had her thinking about what it would be like to go back and kill George Bush when he was a baby. Although only 1 in 191 finalists, would you really be suprised if she won? After all, Yasser Arafat got one back in 1994 and last year's winner was Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency for, get this, "...their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes". Don't hold your breath this year Mohamed!

As I was driving yesterday I noticed a funny looking car pull out behind me. It was a Delorean!! No lie, my wife is my witness. Anyways, I got to thinking about why you don't see more Deloreans out there on the road. Maybe everytime they hit 88 mph they inexplicably disappear? Somebody make sure Cindy Sheehan doesn't get her hands on the car keys!

As a member of the military, I am bound to a strict code of ethics. In fact, I know of a guy who used to do the same job as me but was recently stripped of his rank, stripped of his wings (which means he can no longer fly), docked half a month's pay for two months, restricted to base for 30 days, and must now change jobs. What did he do? He slept with a married woman. The military doesn't want those types of people leading others. The leaders in the military are REQUIRED to set the example. How nice would it be to demand the same moral leadership from our country's leaders?

For those of you who do not know, I am a quote junkie!! I collect quotes from everything and everyone. I thought I'd close this entry with a quote that is indicative of the political thinking in Washington that is destroying the foundations of our way of life:

"Sometimes in order to make progress and move ahead, you have to stand up and do the wrong thing" - Representative Gary Ackerman (D, N.Y.)

How noble of you Gary...

Nuff Said Folks

Negative Campaigning

I have a confession to make, I like negative campaigning. I've spent the last few years trying to convince myself that mudslinging in a political race is somehow a show of low class. I've changed my mind though.

What changed my mind? The flood of Congressional scandals that are now threatening the Republican party's majority in Congress. I have been disgusted by the number of Republicans and Democrats who have been implicated in a wide array of scandals that have all occurred on the Republican's watch.

So what does this have to do with negative campaigning? It's because I want FULL DISCLOSURE of my representatives past. Sorry to be so demanding, but I no longer feel like I can trust them. I grew up reading stories of Randy "Duke" Cunningham's famous dogfight over Vietnam, which is still taught at Top Gun today. A Navy Ace who had served his country with distinction and honor, who today sits in jail on federal charges of bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion. Given his past deeds, voters elected him to Congress as their trusted Representative. They had no idea of his character flaws. My point is, I want to know what kind of character my representatives have before I go to the ballot box. The best way to do that is to get everything out in the open. Put all of the cards on the table and let the people decide. More importantly, it allows ethical issues and character flaws to be dealt with BEFORE these people get elected to Congress.

Everyone has skeletons in their closet. Everyone has done things that they are not proud of. But who these guys were before they polished themselves up for political office speaks to their character and integrity. So lay it all on the table. The dirt that your opponent digs up on you is as important to me as your stance on issues. I would take a Joe Lieberman over another Randy "Duke" Cunningham anyday!

Say NO to Bilateral Talks

Stop the press, the Democrats are on the offensive against George Bush. Every Democrat within camera shot is now calling for bilateral talks with North Korea to defuse the current situation. The Bush administration, to their credit, are sticking to the six party talks.

Now, the average Joe on the street may say, "What's wrong with talking to North Korea one-on-one?". The answer is EVERYTHING. First of all, lets talk about North Korea's record on agreements made in 1994 in Geneva:

(1) North Korea would freeze it's existing nuclear program and agree to enhanced IAEA safeguards
(2) The US would replace North Korea's graphite-moderated reactors with a Light Water Reactor (US taxpayer money well spent)
(3) Both countries would move toward full mobilization of political and economic relations
(4) Both sides would work together for peace and stability on a nuclear free Korean peninsula

Not the best track record given the current situation, but it highlights the dangers of bilateral talks. When people talk about bilateral talks, they merely mean direct negotiations between North Korea and the United States. The key word being negotiations. If the United States sits down directly with North Korea, we will have to meet them somewhere in the middle for anything to get done. The very nature of negotiating demands concessions be made on both sides in order to come to an agreed framework. This would be giving in to nuclear blackmail, and it would be the wrong thing to do...

So why would so many Democrats be calling for bilateral talks? Because Democrats cannot protect America. Perhaps they would like to build the North Koreans more nuclear reactors with US taxpayer money. After all, that's what Bill Clinton did. I'm still sickened when I think of the images of then Secretary of State Madeline Albright dancing with the murderous dictator, Kim Jong-il and presenting him with an autographed basketball by Michael Jordan. American diplomacy at it's finest...

The answer to this crisis is decisive military action with the goal of regime change and a UN mission to feed the starving North Korean people in the aftermath. As I noted would happen on my blog earlier this week, China has indeed taken the bite out of any security council resolution by taking away the provisions for ensuring North Korea doesn't export it's nuclear weapons. That means nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. I pray that President Bush lives up to his announcement yesterday that America will not stand for a nuclear North Korea. To do this, Americans need to stand by the President in saying NO to bilateral talks.

GIVE WAR A CHANCE

With North Korea and Iran actively defying the international community with their pursuit of nuclear weapons, Americans once again face a very difficult decision regarding the use of force as a tool for diplomacy. Will the American people have the will to fight? This question worries me...

Since the 1960s and the Vietnam anti-war movement, American society has drastically changed the way they view war. The slogans that ruled the day have become ingrained in the American psyche. We teach our children that "violence doesn't solve anything" and that "all wars are bad". Is this a healthy perspective for our children to grow up with? The answer is NO.

By teaching our children and fellow citizens that force is not a legitimate answer to problems, we remove from them the responsibility that all good people have to combat evil where they find it. The converse of force is responsibility. Not only the responsibility to use this force wisely, but the responsibility to use it when necessary! Some people may wince at such talk about good and evil, but that is what it boils down to folks. There is real evil in this world. This evil seeks to supress the freedoms of your fellow men and women and sooner or later will seek to do the same to you. Whether this evil uses Islam or communism as the driving force behind this suppression, those who have the authority to act have the responsibility to act to prevent this.

We must teach our children that there is a time to talk, and there is a time to fight. We must teach them the responsibility that comes with having the ability to act. We must instill in them the values that made this country great, so that when the time comes, they do what is right, not what is politically expedient. What we cannot allow is for them to do nothing, because that is all evil needs to take a foothold in this world.

Seeds of War: Part II

With North Korea defying the international community this weekend by allegedly testing it's first nuclear weapon, the World became a MUCH more dangerous place. Let me be clear about this, North Korea has NEVER developed a weapon system they did not seek to export. Just this week they delivered an upgraded Surface-to-Air Missile Radar system to Syria, a known supporter of terrorism.

Now, I don't own a crystal ball, but if North Korea did indeed test a nuclear weapon and is not dealt with immediatley, we will see a major World city, possibly even a US city, nuked in the next ten years. Why all the doom and gloom? I'll give you three reasons:

(1) Our so called allies continue to support our enemies. The biggest reason North Korea has been able to get this far with their nuclear arms has been because China refuses to pressure the regime. The UN security council is being defanged on the North Korea issue by China. Will things change now that North Korea has detonated their first nuke? Not likely... Watch any attempt to pressure North Korea in the upcoming months be watered down by the Chicoms. Not forgetting about Iran, the Ukraine recently sold Iran ten advanced anti-aircraft systems designed to shoot down American stealth aircraft. If our "allies" continue to arm dangerous regimes, terrorism will become increasingly technologically sophisticated.

(2) Terrorists are already obtaining advanced technology. When Isreal waged war against Hizbullah last month, the world was shocked when a Chinese C-802 anti-ship cruise missile slammed into the side of an Isreali ship. Where did the terrorists get such advanced technology? The answer is Iran. The "Axis of Evil", now comprising only Iran and North Korea, are being propped up by countries like China and Russia, who seek to undermine the United States' status of sole superpower in the world. Does anybody really think that nuclear technology will not filter down to these terrorist through regimes like North Korea and Iran? Iran's leader believes that his sole purpose on Earth is to bring about Armageddon. North Korea's leader is clinically insane...

(3) As my brother pointed out while I was away, the United Nations, and Europe specifically, do not have the will to do what needs to be done. Even with China and Russia propping up these dangerous regimes, we can move forward with the support of Europe. Europe, however, continues to take the route of appeasement. Without international support, the United States may not be able to go it alone, but we have to try. To not face these threats head-on with decisive action will further embolden the Iranian regime in their quest for nuclear weapons. A strong response to North Korea may be the wake-up call the Iranian people need to stop their President from taking them down a path of destruction.

As I've said before on this BLOG, stopping North Korea would not be difficult, but it would be costly. The price to destroy the regime would be about 30,000 American lives and the 12 million South Korean lives that live in Seoul. Regardless of the action we decide on, we should pull our 30,000 troops (who have been called nothing more than a tripwire) out of South Korea. As for what South Korea should do, start running bombing raid drills because your "sunshine" policy with the North doesn't seem to be working...

Will the Useless Nations Please Stand Up?

As North Korea once again stands to defy the international community one must ponder what America is doing paying billions of dollars to help sustain the UN, who seem to have absolutely no control over world events. When confronted with serious issues, these representatives from various nations sit around talk about passing meaningless resolutions that they are incapable of enforcing (e.g. Iraq being supplied weapons by France, Russia, and Germany) and grandstanding in front of the media. We have seen their repeated failures in Rwanda, Somalia, Oil for Food, the Sudan, and now countries trying to obtain Nukes. At what point do we realize that this organization dedicated to preventing war, genocide, and human rights abuses, can not fulfill its purpose, thus rendering it irrelevant. Take the Rwandan situation for example:

""Some 2,000 personnel from several countries, including France, United Kingdom, United States and Italy, had come to evacuate their expatriates and though they were stumbling on corpses, they remained firm in totally ignoring the catastrophe." - retired General Romeo Dallaire, former commander, UN mission in Rwanda.

Ambassador Gambari, who served as Nigeria's representative on the UN Security Council at the time of the Rwandan Ethnic Cleansing, acknowledged that "Without a doubt, it was the Council, especially its most powerful members that had failed the people of Rwanda in their gravest hour of need." He continued, "The controversy over the international community's culpability for its failure to prevent the genocide in Rwanda would not easily go away.""-AfricaFocus Bulletin May 2004

If the United Nations can't go in and stabilize third world nations like Rwanda with overwhelming military force and advanced technology, how can it ever declare itself capable dealing with nations like Iran, Syria, North Korea, and China? Answer- It can't!

It is time for the world to wake up and realize that America has few allies left that we can count on. We need to regroup and sever our ties with nations who would use the platform we give them to insult us, humiliate us, and sympathize with the enemies who want us dead. We should not give them more money and incentives to stop them from making nukes which they will just turn around and move the project underground (e.g. North Korea).
If my brother Mark believes that the most overpaid people in America are Democrat Strategists, then maybe he would agree with me that UN Ambassadors and staffers must be the most overpaid and useless people in the world.

Guest Blogger

While my Wife and I take a trip to Boston for a good friend's wedding, my younger brother will be guest blogging for me. We share most of the same opinions on major issues and think alike in almost every way. I hope you enjoy his perspective on things and support or challenge him through your comments while you can!

Common Sense- by Brian

It absolutely blows my mind watching coverage of Bob Woodwards new book. There is nothing new that is presented, just a focus on Secretary of State Rice's "Review of Terrorist Threats" with George Tennent on July 10th, 2001. First, let us not forget that we now know that it was a "review," not a supposed warning that in the next two months we are going to be hit. Second, if our intelligence agencies knew that Islamic Terrorists were going to fly planes into US targets, she would've taken the meeting more seriously.

Seriously folks, lets think about this. I can think of at least 100 different ways to hit America pre-911 without even touching on ramming planes into buildings. In the month and a half after the warning to Sec. State Rice, could she or President Bush have addressed and ensured that every possible terror threat could be thwarted due to that meeting? Face the facts! No one could've anticipated what would've happened. It was the first time in the history of the world that this type of "terror" attack took place. If you have common sense, you will accept this fact and not listen to all the nonsense you hear on the news. Think America...I implore you!

The Seeds of War

As the network news outlets focus on the November elections, there are a few small stories they have missed this week. These stories may not amount to much in their own right, but taken together they remind me of a snowball traveling downhill, picking up speed and mass as it goes. When that snowball hits the bottom, we will see a clash of civilizations that has the potential to spark World War III. Some of the events that have been under-reported this week:

-President Ahmadinejad of Iran is backing his candidate for upcoming elections to the Assembly of Experts in Iran against the current Ayatollah Khamenei. The Assembly of Experts oversees the Iranian regime as well as it's military. The Candidate, Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, known as the crocodile for his strong anti-US line, is a shoe-in considering the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are prepared to stuff ballots and make sure the "election" goes the President's way. What does this mean for the World? An international reporter said it best:

"As the head of the Assembly of Experts, Mesbah-Yazdi would legitimize Ahmadinejad's vision of the second coming of the Shi'ite prophet Ali. The president has portrayed the current Iranian nuclear showdown with the West as the precursor to what could be Armageddon and the dawn of a new Islamic world."

-I'm sure everyone saw the press coverage of Pakistani President Musharraf's visit to the White House where he pitched his new book, but the most interesting part about his visit is what was going on back in Pakistan without his approval. The Pakistani Intelligence agency took it upon themselves to release over 150 Al-Qaeda aligned prisoners while the President was gone. Also, hard-liners in the military have abandoned control over Waziristan, which has been flooded with Taliban members ever since the withdrawal. The message, the Pakistani President does not seem to be able to control his own military or Intelligence agency. The scary part, who is in control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons?

-North Korea, the non-Middle Eastern country in the "Axis of Evil" is warning the World that it is going to test a nuclear weapon. The good news is that we could destroy North Korea's capability to wage war in about a month. The bad news is that nobody knows how China would react. North Korea would be easy, China would not...

So what do these regimes all have in common: Iran, China, North Korea, the Taliban? They are all oppressive and do not believe in freedom for their people. They rule through intimidation, torture, and misinformation. Most importantly, they hate America and they hate YOU...

One Month Anniversary!!

Well, I'm officially one month into writing my blog and am having a blast. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I do writing. The following is a look at some of Michael Remirez's political cartoons for September. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words:

Inside the Muslim Mind

The following was taken from a strategic studies website dedicated to Middle Eastern affairs. It is a post from a Jihadist website by an unidentified Saudi Arabian government worker asking what the fastest and easiest way to blow up the American Embassy in Riyadh is:

"I know if I blow it up, I will scare the hearts of the Americans and I will cost America at least $3 million to rebuild it,” the unidentified man stated. “There might be human losses among these infidels, and there might even be causalities among Saudi soldiers. Well, that is alright since it is a war and wars claim victims.”

The Muslim goes on to rethink his idea of blowing up the embassy:

“No, no, no, I think the idea of blowing up the American Embassy is not good; it is stupid and will be a failed adventure. But this is what Osama Bin Laden did with the [World Trade Center]. I was the first one to rejoice, but then with the passage of time, I now hate Bin Laden and his acts because I believe that blowing up these towers caused such a loss to the Islamic nation — worse than any before. In six years we lost Afghanistan, Iraq, our charity organizations, media, and religious trips. The enemy kept on beating us and our clerics were humiliated, while people like Bin Laden and Nasrallah [head of Lebanese Hizbullah] are constantly praised. I really want to know what good did Bin Laden did for the [Islamic] nation.”

Sure enough, Bin-Laden has stirred up quite the hornets nest. Hopefully more Muslims will be deterred like this man. Until that happens, we must continue to fight terrorism wherever we find it. That means holding the line in Iraq.