From the Military Ranks

Ten Reasons to be Scared

2007-02-05T14:09:00.000-08:00

Just in case your aren't paying attention, I've been nice enough to compile a list of ten things in the news lately that should scare you and why. Here goes:

1) Tom Cruise has recently been hailed the "Christ of Scientology" by the wacko cult's leaders. As a Christian, I was deeply offended by the mental images this conjured up of Jesus crawling around Oprah Winfrey's couch like a deranged moron. Sorry Mav, I think you're gonna crash and burn on this one...

2) Sex Offenders on the loose. Seriously, what is the deal? What further proof do the American people need that the liberal solution of rehabilitation not incarceration is a failed experiment. KEEP THESE SICKOS LOCKED UP!! I cannot believe that my children will one day not be able to ride their bike around the neighborhood without parental escort. They should tag these guys like wild animals with GPS tracking devices after they serve MAXIMUM time in prison.

3) Hillary Clinton running in 2008. Is she seriously a candidate? I find it hard to believe she has anything but her best interest in mind.

4) Immigrants... The Governator Arnold is now giving unemployment to illegal aliens who were effected by destruction of 85% of the citrus in California after a deep freeze out here. What a scam, our tax dollars funding illegal immigrants not being able to pick fruit... If illegals are going to be getting government benefits, scrap the income tax and adopt a consumption tax Arnie, at least then they will be paying into the system they are taking from.

5) Same issue but on a federal level. Most of you are unaware that congress last year voted to allow illegal immigrants access to social security. I know, you don't believe me, but that does not negate the fact that it happened. Social Security, simply more proof that the government is incompetent...

6) Polls... Wow, where to start. Everyday we are subjected to poll numbers about what percentage of Americans believe this or that. That in itself is not scary. But I'm slowly coming to the realization that the average American is an idiot. How can you not? There are only so many episodes of American Idol tryouts you can endure before realizing that maybe Democracy isn't such a good idea... What qualifies the opinions of the majority of Americans? Most people can't even tell you that America is a Republic, not a Democracy. Kinda scary when we have politicians basing their decisions on poll numbers... The best indicator I think you can have on the state of the American public is who our children's role models are. With multi-million dollar sports stars and teen rehab queen Lindsey Lohan being the answer, GOD HELP US!

7) What's the deal with UFO sightings lately. Over the last three weeks there has been a rash of sightings across the United States including: South Carolina, Arkansas, Hawaii, Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. All people reported seeing the same thing, a ball of fire or lights streaming across the sky and in some instances changing direction and assuming formations. Now, I'm not a UFO enthusiast, but when this many people see weird stuff in the sky all over the country, I would like an explanation. So maybe it isn't scary, but it's definitely strange...

8) The deranged apocalyptic President of Iran revealed today that Iranian scientists have found an "herbal" cure for AIDS. Before you guys go buying season six of Sex in the City and moving to San Fran, I'd be a little hesitant of a cure coming from Iran. I'm 90% sure the "herbal" cure will turn out to be Hemlock. Meanwhile, if you still want a cure for AIDS, it's called prevention, and the good news is that the drug companies can't charge you for it!

9) Ehren Watada, an Army Lieutenant who recently refused to serve in Iraq, based his argument on his assertion that the war is illegal and immoral. Now, I'm tired of telling this to people who refuse to educate themselves regarding issues they claim to have a position on. The United Nations resolutions were violated by Saddam Hussein 17 times. Enough said... As for immoral, liberals don't believe in immorality. They are rigid deconstructionists who believe in moral relativism, not morality.

10) Although number ten on my list, this is one of the biggest threats facing America today. We live in a culture of weakness. We teach our children that fighting is wrong and that their self-esteem is paramount. We've gone so overboard with our culture of tolerance that nothing is perceived as wrong these days. We make it illegal to spank your children (California) but encourage medicating them. We force third graders to watch videos on homosexuality (New Jersey) without parental consent. If we teach our children that fighting is never the answer, we will inevitably raise a generation of victims. Sometimes fighting is morally imperative. A clear sign of this weakness is today's public debate around the war in Iraq. Most people are ready to withdraw troops from there and call it quits. Why? Because America has become weak. It is this very weakness that encouraged Bin Laden to attack the United States in the first place. Our withdrawal under Clinton from Somalia led Bin Laden to the conclusion that America is a "paper tiger". I hate to agree with somebody like Bin Laden, but he's right. Let me make this clear though, America is not a paper tiger due to any weakness in it's military, it is a paper tiger because of the will of the American people. Americans need to educate themselves beyond the 6 o'clock news and take a stand for what is truly right, which includes the elimination of murderous dictators around the world. Since when has saving millions of lives become immoral. The War in Iraq may be a mess, but it is our presence there that is preventing it from being an unmitigated disaster. There's more on the line there than the media lets on. When American forces withdrew from Vietnam, over 1 million South Vietnamese payed the price with their lives. Lets not make the same mistake by withdrawing prematurely from Iraq.

So there you have it, ten reasons why I think you should be scared...

The Case for War with Iran

2007-01-19T08:33:00.000-08:00

With criticism coming from all fronts concerning the situation in Iraq, U.S. forces in the region are setting the stage for a showdown with Iran over it's nuclear program. With a second carrier strike group making it's way to the Persian Gulf, America will have the air power necessary to conduct air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and keep Iran from shutting down the narrow Straights of Hormuz. With American forces still bogged down in trying to solve the Iraq security problem, is it wise for the U.S. to embark on attacking the region's most powerful and radical country? Not only is it wise, but attacking Iran is vital to stabilizing both Iraq as well as the rest of the region.

Since America's victory over Saddam's Bathist regime in 2003, Iran has continued to fund insurgents in Iraq in an attempt to keep the U.S. focus from their nuclear ambitions. Iranian weapons, insurgents, and money has been free flowing to destabilize the country from all sides. U.S. Central Command estimates about 5,000 Iranian intelligence agents have infiltrated the country to spur the Shi'ite death squads that have plagued security forces in the region over the last two years. This support for Iraq's Shi'ite majority has in turn emboldened countries like Syria to increase material and monetary support for the Sunni minorities who are the victims of these death squads. In no way is Iran's manipulation limited to Iraq. Iranian support for terrorist organizations such as Hizbollah and Hamas has posed a significant threat to Israel and Lebanon. By using these organizations as proxies, Iran has placed all their hopes in staving off an American or Israeli attack on it's nuclear program until it can successfully declare itself a nuclear state. Taking a page from Kim Jong Il's playbook, Iran believes the only way to guarantee themselves protection from retribution for their terrorist activities is by acquiring nuclear weapons. Once they acquire these weapons, the proliferation of nuclear technology to terrorist organizations is a foregone conclusion.

The initial response from the Bush administration following the attacks on 9/11 was that you were either with or against us in the war on terror. The Taliban made it clear that they were against us, and we removed the regime from power. Saddam's bathist regime also supported terrorist organizations and gave monetary compensation to families of suicide bombers, and we toppled his regime. Iran is now the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They have not only shown themselves to be against us, but have publically called for the destruction of Israel as well as the United States. Their President is a deranged follower of an evil religion and honestly believes that his mission is to be the catalyst for Armageddon. Not exactly the type of leader one feels comfortable with having nuclear weapons.

The next 50 years are going to be some of the most dangerous years the human race has ever seen. The American people must understand that we are facing a greater danger in radical Islam than we ever did against Nazi Germany. We must remember that our freedom comes at the price of eternal vigilance. We must maintain the willpower to face these threats on foreign shores if we are to be successful in keeping them from ours. The forceful destruction of Iran's nuclear weapons program will send a clear message to those states who continue to support terrorism and will be a huge step in preventing terrorists from getting their hands on nukes.

When the bombs start to fall on Tehran, whether you agree with the strikes or not, be grateful they aren't falling on New York.

What a Week!

2006-11-11T08:25:00.000-08:00

What a week! Republicans lose control of both the House of Representatives as well as the Senate and controversial Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld resigns shortly after. As the news pundits on every channel race to give their analysis of this weeks events, I find myself unable to resist the temptation to do the same. So here you go folks, here is a US serviceman's post-election analysis:

First off, the election was NOT a referendum on Iraq. The Democrats employed a two prong strategy to win Congress. Their liberal leaders (Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, and Clinton) campaigned against Iraq and used it as a central issue in energizing their liberal base to get out the vote. But the big winners in the tight races were not the extreme left wing Ned Lamonts, it was so called "conservative" democrats (if there is such a thing). The democrats who won control of Congress ran primarily as moderates and conservatives. But here's the catch, now that they have control, it is the liberal wing of the party that will have the coveted leadership positions within the House and Senate.

The republicans, on the other hand, were unable to energize their conservative base, who feel betrayed over issues like immigration and uncontrolled spending. The straw that broke the republican's back was the leadership's inability to effectively police their own, leading to various ethical scandals that have further alienated conservatives. In the days leading up to the election, the radio waves were filled with conservative talk show hosts criticizing the republicans. Conservative radio listeners called in expressing anger that the republicans had strayed so far from their conservative principals. Many even talked about punishing the republicans by not voting at all. And punish them they did...

Are you ready for the silver lining? Gridlock! I never quite understand how so many people talk about gridlock like it's a bad thing. The government that governs least governs best folks. The less laws that are passed by Congress (especially a democratic Congress) the better for the American people. The democrats will overplay their hand, try to pass higher taxes and a socialistic domestic agenda, and will ultimately destroy their chances at a 2008 Presidency. When the moderate and conservative democrats who tipped the scales in Congress last week go back home in 2008 they will have to answer to their constituents for the liberal policies that will be pushed through Congress in the next two years. Lets hope Bush's veto pen has plenty of ink in it. Even if it doesn't, the Bush administration will undoubtedly pave the way for a true conservative candidate for the republicans in 2008.

I have one more thought about the elections. Did anyone notice who else claimed victory last week other than the democrats? That's right, Al Qaeda and Iran. The Ayatollah Khamenei called U.S. elections an "overwhelming victory for Iran" and Al Qaeda mocked the "lame duck" President Bush and vowed to blow up the White House. The elections last week were a good indication that the terrorists think they are winning the war. Not the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, but the war against the will of the American people...

The Unvarnished Truth

2006-10-21T17:23:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-20T05:49:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-17T09:34:00.000-07:00

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"

2006-10-17T07:42:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-15T14:00:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-14T11:01:00.000-07:00

Negative Campaigning

2006-10-13T07:53:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-12T07:40:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-11T09:14:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-09T08:36:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-10-06T18:08:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-04T06:25:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-03T21:25:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-03T07:41:00.000-07:00

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!!

2006-10-01T16:45:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-01T13:25:00.000-07:00

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.

Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

2006-09-30T08:21:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-29T15:09:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-09-28T09:11:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-28T08:14:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-27T09:34:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-25T14:07:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-23T09:42:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-23T08:44:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-21T18:52:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-19T20:29:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-17T14:52:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-08T19:04:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-08T12:00:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-06T08:00:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-05T11:25:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-05T07:50:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-09-04T17:49:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-04T08:19:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-09-02T08:50:00.000-07:00

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:

The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.
The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.
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

2006-09-01T21:32:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-01T15:37:00.000-07:00

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.