About Me

Name: David Hudson
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Obama Calls for “Greater Unity” in America

Why a Divided America is better than a United One
 
 

Last Thursday, President Barack Obama made a plea to both politicians and American voters to stop “tearing each other apart” and settle their differences civilly. 

“Nothing that human beings do will be perfect” he continued. “But we shouldn’t sort of assume that the other side is heartless or doesn’t care about sick people or is some socialist/communist who’s trying to take over the health care system. We start getting into these caricatures. They’re so damaging.”

To hear Obama talk, you would think that there had been another “Charles Sumner vs. Preston Brooks” beating on the Senate Floor. 

You want to see real damage? You want to see politicians really “tearing each other apart”? There’s a YouTube video of how Indian politicians decided to settle their differences after a disagreement. Watch it, and then tell me again how bad we are.

However, the point of this column isn’t the entertainment value of so-called “civilized and gentlemanly” politicians getting into brawls.

Obama, as well as the Democrats in general, are once again trying to throw up this “unity is always good” illusion that they so often tout. In some cases, unity can be beneficial… it’s the type of unity that Obama wants that’s questionable.

Personally, I like the fights that are going on. I’m enjoying watching the politicians on both sides take shots at each other’s ideas and beliefs. Not only do they make politics interesting, but the more that the GOP and Dems continue to pound on each other, the clearer the real differences between them come out.   One of the biggest complaints I’ve heard from Americans is that “there are no differences between the Democrats and Republicans, they’re all alike”. 

At one point, that was very close to actually being true. Over the years, the Republicans, having become overconfident of their positions of power after the voter revolution in ‘94, had become more concerned with trying to do what would bring them the most votes from the widest base of people, rather than sticking to the conservative beliefs that made them Republicans to begin with. As a result, they had allowed themselves to be watered down so much, that they became known as “Democrat Light”. 

Unfortunately, average Americans, having been brainwashed by government schools and the mainstream media for years, have become so accustomed to this new form of “moderate Republicanism”, that they assumed that this was how Republicans were always supposed to be like.   Suddenly liberals, and even moderate Republicans like Colin Powell, are complaining that the Republicans have “shifted too far to the right”.

They’re not suddenly shifting too far to the right; they’re shifting back to the right… the way they used to be.

I prefer to live in a United States that is divided by our beliefs as it currently is, rather than one that is unified under the beliefs of one party.

In other words, I’d rather live in a free, divided country than one unified under tyranny.

Look at North Korea and China. Those are pretty united countries. 

So why aren’t they happy? Why aren’t people flooding to these countries like they are here? I’ll let you answer that one.

I live in the state of Florida. It’s a pretty conservative state; no state income tax, right-to-work laws, no forced unionization, good concealed-carry laws. It’s pretty similar with most southern states. 

Now I want conservatives to imagine what it would be like living in our country if it was completely unified under the same belief systems and laws that are common in New England (where I’m originally from). Think you would be happy living here?

To the liberals; I want you to imagine the exact opposite… of your state being forced to live under the same laws and belief systems that are common in states such as, let’s say…Texas or Florida. Think you would be happy? Unity doesn’t sound quite so grand now, does it?

This is the great thing about America; you don’t like the laws or political beliefs of the state you live in? All you have to do is move to a state that’s more suitable for your ideals. There are no laws against it, no papers you have to carry. You just do your research, decide which state is best for you… and go. That’s it.

It is our differences, and the divisiveness of our ideals and beliefs that force us to bring out the best in us, regardless of which political party you choose to follow… not being forced to unify under one group’s ideas or beliefs, like Obama’s. It is our divisiveness that has made our country great for hundreds of years.

Leave the one mind-one belief unity garbage to the Chinese and North Koreans.  

Links:

Obama Pleads for Civility, Cooperation in Politics: Ben Feller, Associated Press, 01/28/10

Big Political Fight in Indian (sic): YouTube, 07/12/07

Canefight! Preston Brooks and Charles Sumner: U.S. History.org

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Attacks the Supreme Court During State of the Union Address

 
Criticism of Supreme Court Ruling by Sitting President Unprecedented
There were so many twisted facts, half-truths and outright lies in President Obama’s State of the Union address, that by the time I would have finished covering all of them, I would’ve wound up with a novel instead of an article. Therefore, I decided to just stick to one particular section of the address… his brazen attack on the Justices of the Supreme Court.

Below is an excerpt of his address:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

Justice Samuel Alito could be seen on camera shaking his head “no” and mouthing the words “that’s not true”, right around the part where Obama claimed that our interests could be dictated by “foreign entities”. 

It is rumored that even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the liberal judges nominated by Obama and who likely voted against the measure, rolled her eyes at the comment, though this isn’t confirmed.

Here is what Obama said in layman’s terms, folks…

“To hell with what the Supreme Court ruled. I disagree with it, and I’m encouraging the House and Senate to write bills to find a way to bypass the ruling, or at least find a loophole around it.”

The arrogance of this man is amazing.

According to White House insider Jamie Dupree, no sitting U.S. President in history has ever attacked the Supreme Court directly, right to their faces. 

Now, I know there may be some liberals reading this, particularly those who disagreed with the ruling, may be thinking “Yeah, it serves them right! Obama is standing up for the American people! He should get in their faces for such a stupid ruling!”

Let me ask you something… if your favorite punching bag, George Bush, had made a similar remark to the Supreme Court against their judgment on the “Roe vs. Wade” decision, what would you have said?

What would you say if Bush stated to the Justices during his State of the Union… “You know, I disagree with that ruling, so I’m going to ask the House and Senate to write bills to bypass or work their way around it.”

Admit it… you’d be screaming bloody murder and calling Bush everything from Hitler to the anti-Christ. 

Not that you haven’t been doing so already.

Obama continues to display fewer characteristics of a President of the United States, and more similarities with a third-world despot. 

And to think that we still have at least 3 more years for him to serve.

Links:

President Obama’s State of the Union Address: Tommy Christopher, Mediate.com, 01/28/10

Justice Alito Said “Not True”: CNN Video, CNN.com, 01/28/10

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Desperate Osama Bin Laden Takes Credit for "Underpants Bomber"

 

Osama Bin Laden has finally sent us another tape filled with his usual anti-American, “Death to America” drivel last Saturday.  The unusually short, one minute tape contained the following message:

“The message delivered to you through the plane of the heroic warrior Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a confirmation of the previous messages sent by the heroes of the September 11. America will never dream of security unless…”

Actually, you know what? To hell with Bin-Laden and what he has to say. 

Why do we even bother listening to this fool’s tapes and videos? We already know what he’s going to say. 

America is the great Satan… death to America… Israel sucks, Palestine rules… we’re going to kill you… you’ll never catch me… blah blah blah.  

Yeah, we got the message the first time.   Seriously, how many different ways is this guy going to say the exact same thing over and over again?

It looks to me like Bin Laden is starving for attention. Remember the days when Al-Qaeda only took credit for attacks that actually succeeded? Looks like those days are over.

Is Bin Laden so desperate to be noticed, that he’s actually willing to take credit for some boob who was so incompetent that he couldn’t even blow himself up, never mind a plane full of passengers? 

He really wants to take credit for a man who had to shove his explosives in his underwear to get past security and earning the moniker “The Underpants Bomber” by the American media (some individuals have even gone so far as to refer to him as “The Panty Bomber”)?

He wants to praise a man who was captured not because of our stellar security measures (you know, the one where we search grandma’s wheelchair and 5-year old Timmy’s sippy cup of water for explosives while we allow young to middle aged, nervous looking Middle Eastern men through because we don’t want to “profile” them?), but because of the Underpants Bomber’s apparent inability to follow instructions?

Really!?

 

This buffoon hiding in a cave does not deserve our fear… only our ridicule, our scorn and our mockery. 

The only taped message I want to hear from this guy is “Hi, this is Osama Bin Laden. I am sitting in a cave at these coordinates. Please send a tomahawk cruise missile my way.”

Otherwise, just record over the message with Bob Dylon singing, or Fran Dresner laughing, or any other annoying noise you can think of and send it back to him. 

While we’re at it, we really need to start making more fun of these guys… really making fun of them.

Have you ever seen those old World War II propaganda posters? The ones that over-exaggerated the appearances of the Germans and Japanese soldiers? We need to start doing that again.  

I want to see our cartoonists go on the attack against Al-Qaeda.    I want to see the terrorists drawn with those thick unibrows, the black beady eyes, the hook noses, the oversized turbans and long, bushy beards. 

I remember one of my favorite posters… a snarling Japanese soldier taking aim at you with a rifle, with the caption “Stop Him, and the Job’s Done”. I want to see that same poster, only with a snarling Arab terrorist with a rifle in place of the Japanese soldier.   I want to see these types of posters plastered all over our cities. To hell with CAIR.

Just as we once had not only cartoons, but songs and movies that ridiculed and de-humanized the enemy back in WWII, we need to do that again now. 

I know what some of you are thinking… won’t that just make the enemy mad? Won’t that make them hate us more?

Folks, they’re already trying to kill us. Trust me, you can’t hate anyone worse than that. 

The way I see it, if I’m going to die tomorrow because some Islamic goon blows up the building I’m in, I want to at least get my money’s worth. 

If I’m going to die, I want to die laughing at them.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to listen to some other boob make his State of the Union address…

Links:

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for Christmas Day Bombing Attempt: Foxnews.com, 01/24/10

Stop Him, and the Job’s Done: San Francisco State University.edu

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama vs Republicans on Healthcare

 
 Obama Picks a Fight with the GOP for "Defending the Status Quo"
President Obama threw down the gauntlet at the feet of the GOP during his speech at the House Democratic Caucus Retreat last Thursday. 

And for those of you who are concerned about the deficit, when you've got the Congressional Budget Office that says in the second 10 years this brings down the deficit by a trillion dollars, in the first 10 years it brings it down by over $100 billion, you have nothing to apologize for when it comes to talking about deficit reduction.  The irresponsible thing would have been to do nothing, and that's not what you've decided to do.  This represents the biggest step towards deficit reduction in years. 

So, I know everybody in the media is all in a tizzy -- "Oh, what's this going to mean politically?"  Well, let me tell you something.  If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.  If their best idea is to return to the bad policies and the bad ideas of yesterday, they are going to lose that argument.  What are they going to say?  "Well, you know, the old system really worked well; let's go back to the way it was"? 

Dem’s fightin’ words.

To paraphrase an old saying, Obama should be careful what he wishes for… he may get it. He’s left himself so wide open, that any good conservative Republican now has the opportunity to not only pick up the gauntlet, but beat him silly with it. 

Contrary to what the Obama administration and the mainstream media would have you believe, Republicans have not been advocating that we should “go back to the way it was” or “just do nothing”. Conservative Republicans believe in healthcare reform as much as he does… they just don’t want the government so heavily involved in it. 

There have been several amendments to the health care bill that were introduced by the Republicans, though most have been given little, if any, attention by the mainstream media. Here are a few that I remember from the top of my head:

Eliminating the restriction that you may only purchase health insurance in your state of residence:

This is probably one of the options you may have actually heard of. John McCain mentioned this a few times during his campaign.

The Obama administration has continuously claimed their “public health care” option (aka, government health care) would increase “choice and competition”. What they didn’t tell you was that over time, you would have no choices, as the government system would eventually put the private companies out of business. After all, who doesn’t like free health care (as long as someone else is paying for it?)

A more effective way to increase competition would be to allow citizens to purchase their insurance from companies outside of their state of residence. Now potential customers have dozens of choices, rather than just a few. More companies will be fighting to attract customers, due to the increased competition. Companies will drop their prices. They have to… they won’t have much of a choice but to devise new ways of doing business to lower their rates, or risk going under. Capitalism at work. 

Eliminating mandates that require you to purchase specific services with your health insurance that you will not actually need:

Have you ever had to purchase a health care plan that included services that you’ll never want, need or even really have anything to do with healthcare?

For example, I heard an interesting story that in the state of Connecticut, some insurance plans cover hair transplants. What if you really don’t care if you lose your hair? Baldness seems to be the new fad anyway. Should you really have to pay for that coverage?

Other examples are treatments for smoking, alcohol or drug abuse. I don’t do any of those things, so it’s unlikely I’ll need treatment for them. Why should I have to pay extra for these services if I’ll never need them?

On a slightly un-related note, my property insurance includes coverage for damage due to ice, snow or sleet. It also includes coverage for volcanic eruptions.

I live in the state of Florida. Volcanic eruptions? Really?

Bottom line… customers should have the option to reduce the cost of their insurance by removing coverage plans that they don’t feel they actually need. 

Tort Reform:

You may have heard of this one at some time as well. So what is Tort Reform? 

In a nutshell, Tort Reform places greater restrictions on how much a doctor can be sued by a patient. You may have heard stories of a patient suffering some type of malpractice or botched treatment that would cost him thousands of dollars to treat or fix.   However, rather than the doctor (or hospital) paying thousands for correcting the treatment, he is successfully sued for millions of dollars.

This isn’t counting all the numerous frivolous lawsuits that doctors face from unscrupulous patients and lawyers on top of that.

To protect themselves against the threat of lawsuits like this, doctors need to purchase liability insurance of their own, which can cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Add the extra costs for doctors who are still paying for their college and medical training, as well as overhead expenses, and you can begin to understand why the bill is so high.

Some doctors and nurses, even after having spent thousands to learn their craft, end up leaving the medical field altogether, as they’re just not able to keep up with their expenses. Tort Reform would help lower these expenses, at least against the need for liability insurance.

Allowing tax write offs for doctors on medical expenses for patients unable to pay:

This is pretty self explanatory. By law, hospitals and doctors cannot, and will not, turn away patients simply because they are unable to pay for emergency treatment or do not have insurance (so much for the “they’ll just let you bleed to death in the street” argument).   There are even signs posted all over the emergency room that state this. 

This treatment comes at a substantial loss for the doctor, who must replace equipment or supplies that he needs for future patients. Allowing doctors to write off these expenses on their taxes would be another step in lowering your bill, as they won’t need to charge extra to help cover the needed supplies. 

Allow employees to keep health insurance that they purchased from their place of employment:

It’s simple, really. Rather than depending on your place of employment for your health insurance, if you purchase it at your company… then that insurance plan is yours. You can take it with you wherever you go; even if you lose your job or simply change jobs. This way you don’t need to worry about losing a plan that you like, and being forced to change to a more expensive plan at your new place of employment, or worse, having to resort to COBRA in the event that you lose your job. 

Allow private citizens to write off their insurance expenses on their taxes:

Here’s an interesting tidbit of information… did you know that employers are allowed to write off their taxes the expenses for the insurance that they provide for their employees? 

So why shouldn’t employees, or any private citizen, be allowed to do that with their own health insurance plans as well? Just imagine how much money you could save in the long run. It would certainly be more of an incentive to purchase insurance on your own, rather than the government forcing you to pay taxes for not having it… something that the Democrats have been pushing for (some people have argued that this is actually unconstitutional, as there is no amendment that states that as an American citizen, you can be forced by the federal government to pay fees for a service that you have not purchased).

Expanded Tax-free Health Savings Accounts:

First established in 2003, these are somewhat similar to what Social Security was originally meant to be… a tax-free account that is intended for you to invest money in for the purpose of being able to use it to cover your expenses in your later years. 

However, the money that is taxed out of your paycheck for Social Security, contrary to popular belief, does not go into a private account that only you can access; it’s placed in the general fund. 

It wasn’t always like that. Once upon a time, the money was truly meant to only to support retirees, but somewhere along the way, politicians decided that they really, really needed those untouched billions of dollars that were stored away by American citizens (whether they wanted to or not), so they wrote new laws that allowed them to dip their hands in the public cookie jar for their own uses. Now Social Security is going bankrupt (if it isn’t already) and is filled with IOU’s. 

Health Savings Accounts are the partial answer to this. While not intended to serve all of your needs, they are designed to help cover your healthcare costs. This places the customer in charge of taking care of his own health care expenses. While this may seem daunting, and some would argue that they would rather have someone else take care of their healthcare for them (like the government), remember the old saying… he who pays the bills, makes the rules.

Remember, HSA’s are tax free, and only you invest money into it, unlike Social Security, which revolves more around “everyone put their money in a pot” strategy (not to mention you are forced to put money in the pot). Therefore, only you are allowed to take money out of it (I should note that while they are tax-free, you will get penalized and taxed if you withdraw the money for non-medical purposes before the age of 65). Since the money is in a private account, politicians aren’t allowed to dip their grubby paws in it either. 

Not that they may not try to anyway. They’ve tried something similar to that during the Clinton years, with private retirement plans. If the House and Senate had not been taken over by the Republicans, they may very well have succeeded. 

The president of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, actually did pull this stunt, so nothing is impossible.

H.R.3400 – Empowering Patients First Act:

This bill was introduced by the Republicans back in July 2009. You can read it for yourself by clicking the highlighted link above, or the link under the “Links” section of this article. 

I won’t even pretend that I understand everything in this bill, or that you’ll even agree with all of it. The reason I’m pointing this out is due to the numerous accusations by the Democrats and the Obama administration that the Republicans “never do anything except say no”, and have “introduced no plans of their own”. 

Of course, this bill is never mentioned in the mainstream media, so it’s no surprise that the general public buys into that claim.

So… what do all these amendments and ideas have in common?

All of them were introduced by the Republicans.

The mainstream media has given little, if any, mention of them.

Not one of these plans will increase the size and control of the government on healthcare in any way, shape or form.

Every single one of them has been rejected by the Democrats; probably because they don’t increase the size and control of the government in any way, shape or form.

Keep this in mind… the Democrats are not pushing so hard for healthcare reform because they care so much about your personal health. This is about increasing their control over your healthcare. This is about them staying in power, and they’ll accomplish this by assuring you that “they know what’s best for you”. They’ll protect you from those “evil, money hungry doctors and insurance companies”.

If they really cared about decreasing your healthcare costs, they would be looking into private market solutions, not trying to wrest control of it from you and the private market.

Remember that saying I told you earlier, “He who pays the bills… makes the rules”?

The question is… do you want to make the rules, or do you want the government to make them for you?

Links:

H.R.3400 – Empowering Patients First Act

Health Savings Accounts: Is an HSA Right for You? : Mayo Clinic Staff, Mayoclinic.com, 05/15/08

A Free-Market Cure for US Healthcare System: Rudolph W. Giuliani, 08/03/07

Remarks by the President at the House Democratic Caucus Retreat (Obama’s Speech): Whitehouse.gov, 01/14/10 (note: section quoted above is 4th paragraph from the bottom of the speech)

Obama: I Want to Fight GOP over Healthcare: (Video) Real Clear Politics.com, 01/14/10

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Lost" Fans Relieved Premiere Won't Be Preempted by Obama's SOTU Address

Fans of the hit ABC television series “Lost” celebrated last Saturday when White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, after being asked no less than three times on the subject by reporters, confirmed that President Obama would not hold his annual State of the Union speech during the series 3-hour series premiere.

“I don’t foresee a scenario in which millions of people who hope to finally get some conclusion with “Lost” are preempted by the President” Gibbs stated. 

“You can quote a senior administration official” he further re-assured them.

If you needed any evidence that Americans care more about being entertained by their favorite shows than they do about concerning themselves with what’s going on in the White House, this is it. 

Sure, I can understand it to a degree. I never liked it when my favorite shows were interrupted by a president’s speech either… especially the one sitting in the White House now. I can barely stand to listen to the guy, since I know that whatever he’ll say is almost 100% bull, but I still need to, since it’s important to know and understand just what this man is up to.

Moving the SOTU speech was actually a smart strategy on Obama’s part, especially since it’s likely that the majority of these “Lost” fans are the very yahoos that put Obama into office in the first place. I once joked to a co-worker that Obama could guarantee himself a one-term presidency if he made the mistake of pre-empting “American Idol” with one of his televised addresses. Little did I know then just how close to the mark I would be.

It’s part of a strategy that Obama uses well; keep the masses happy and entertained, keep them ignorant, keep them oblivious to what’s really going on and most of all, continue to complain loudly about how mean the opposition is with their attacks against him (a tactic that has prompted me to give him the nickname “Complainer in Chief”, though I doubt I’m the first one to do so. I’ve never heard a sitting president whine about his critics as much as Obama does.).

I can’t help but think of that stanza from Nirvana’s song “Smells Like Teen Spirit”:

With the lights out, it’s less dangerous
Here we are now, entertain us
I feel stupid, and contagious
Here we are now, entertain us

But never mind that. Rest easy, “Lost” fans, your show is safe for now. 

Lost fans… what an oddly appropriate phrase.
 

Sources and Links:

Obama’s State of the Union won’t preempt season premiere of ‘Lost’ after all: Lisa de Moraes, Washington Post.com, 01/09/10

Quit Bitching About Lost vs. State of the Union: Harry Kimball, Newser.com, 01/08/10



We’ll make great pets, indeed – because many of us are so focused on our narcissistic entertainments that we can’t take a step back and be reminded that before we are couch potatoes, we are citizens. - Michael Roston
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

3 US Navy SEALs Arraigned on Pearl Harbor Anniversary

So… today is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Not that any mainstream media source will bother mentioning it. We wouldn’t want people to remember the catalyst that resulted in the bombing of Hiroshima after all, which I can guarantee you the mainstream media will cover when that anniversary rolls around. 

But do you want to know what’s even more tragic than forgetting the anniversary of a horrific attack by an enemy army? There’s an attack going on against our military at this moment, on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, and most Americans aren’t even aware of it (no thanks to the mainstream). Worse still, the attack isn’t even being carried out by a hostile foreign nation… it’s by our own government. 

Three US Navy SEALs (Sea, Air and Land Forces) have been arraigned for thier court-martials today for what has been referred to as a “dereliction of duty”. What is this horrific offense, you ask? 

Well, it looks like the three SEALS are accused of “abusing” a terrorist that they captured back in early September. While its not yet clear as of this writing exactly when this alleged abuse took place, at some point during his detention, the terrorist claimed that he was “punched in the gut” as well as in the mouth, using his bloody lip as “evidence”. 

Now, before you get all sympathetic about this poor, abused man, let me tell you what this animal did…

Back in Fallujah in 2004, a supply convoy that was being escorted by four Blackwater security contractors was ambushed by terrorists. The contractors were killed, hacked apart, burned, then as a final insult, two of their bodies were hung on a bridge over the Euphrates River, specifically so that reporters could get a good look at them. 

The prisoner complaining that he was abused by the SEALs, Ahmed Hashim Abed, was the mastermind of that attack. Feel sorry for him now?

So, what we have here is that these SEALs are finally able to capture this guy, and in return, they get court-martialed for giving this goon a fat lip. For all we know, the guy probably punched himself in the mouth just so that he could raise this accusation. 

I know what you’re thinking. That’s insane, right? What kind of person would be crazy enough to punch himself in the face just so he could accuse someone of beating him? 

The same kind of person who flies planes into buildings.   The same kind of person who would strap a bomb to himself, wander into a crowd, scream “Allah Akbar” and blow himself up... that kind of person. It wouldn’t seem too far fetched for this guy to punch himself in the face to set his captors up. That would actually be pretty trivial to guys like this. While I can’t state this as an absolute fact, I hear that Al-Qaeda has a training manual that specifically says (some say on page 18), that if captured, accuse your captors of abuse. They may not go free, but they can at least, in their minds, put in that seed of doubt to a sympathetic public with the allegations, which could work out favorably for him in the long run during a trial. 

As most of us know, it’s much easier to make accusations than it is to prove the accuser is lying.

But let’s say that this terrorist mastermind is actually telling the truth. What if he really did get punched in the face by his captors? Of course, that’s assuming that it wasn’t done during a struggle while making an escape attempt. You know what I say to that?

Tough luck. 

Do you really expect me to feel sorry for some animal that is responsible for murdering four contractors and hanging their charred bodies on a bridge for the world to see? This guy was lucky that a fat lip was all he got. He should be on his knees and thanking Allah that it was the SEALs that captured him, and not fellow Iraqis who are not exactly known for their restraint towards their prisoners. This joker would’ve been killed a long time ago, and you can bet that the manner of death would’ve been horrible. Just ask the family members of any US soldier that was captured in Iraq.   Only one has ever come back alive, and she was rescued by us, not returned by her captors.

Split lips will heal in time. Those four contractors will never come back to their families… ever. 

Sources:

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist: Rowan Scarborough, Foxnews.com, 11/30/2009

SEALs Charged in Alleged Assault of Detainee: Gidget Fuentes, NavyTimes.com, 11/24/09

Navy SEALs May go to Prison for Giving a Fat Lip to Islamic Terrorist: Jim O’Neil, Canada Free Press, 11/26/09

Photo of Euphrates River Bridge Hanging: Foxnews.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Group in California Proposes Banning Divorce

 

As if California really needed another reason to earn the title “the land of fruits and nuts”.

Although it is meant to be satirical, the movement to ban divorces in California has gained somewhat in popularity. John Marcotte, the married 38-year old father of two and the movement’s brainchild, explained that his inspiration for introducing the petition came from the passing of proposition 8, an amendment that banned gay marriage, to which the voters of California passed in 2008.

“Since California decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more.”

WELL… I guess he SHOWED US! 

Mr. Marcotte doesn’t actually give a rat’s furry rear end about “saving marriages”. He’s just doing this to prove his point… that homosexuals deserve to get married as much as heterosexuals do.   Since he didn’t get his way, he’s decided to throw a tantrum. If gays can’t marry, and those self-rightous straights are so obsessed with “saving marriages”, well damn it, we’ll just ban divorces for them.   That’ll fix ‘em! 

Reminds me of Brad Pitt’s vow that he and Angelina Jolie would never get married until gays could get married too. Glad you’re such a proponent of saving marriages, Brad. Second time’s the charm, eh?

No danger of that happening though, as they’re headed for splitsville soon anyway, if you can believe the tabloids.  I’m sure Brad won’t mind putting his marriage plans on hold. Indefinitely.

Now that we’ve established Marcotte’s reason for the petition to ban divorces, how about we discuss one way we can really help save marriages? Here’s an idea that’s been thrown around; rather than enact Sharia Law and forbid divorces, let’s make it harder to get married. 

Gay and Lesbian groups have often flaunted how successful their “marriages” are as opposed to heterosexual marriages, which have a roughly 50% divorce rate. There’s a simple reason for that… too many couples are getting married on a whim, for the wrong reasons. 

Let’s pick on Las Vegas for a minute. How many times have you heard of a couple, sometimes complete strangers, had a little too much to drink and decided to visit one of those “quickie marriage” places? Hell, Carrie Underwood even wrote a song about one (if I were to assume that she writes all of her own songs, I’d guess that the woman has serious man problems). I bet those are counted in the divorce rate.

How many teenagers get married right out of high school, before they even really know anything about their sweethearts? Out come the kids and voila… they’re added to the divorce statistic. 

Do you want to know one reason why gays and lesbians can claim that their marriages last longer and have a lower divorce rate? Probably because it’s so difficult for them to get married in the first place. As getting married is tougher, they’re more likely to make damn well sure that their respective partners are really someone that they want to get involved with for the long run. Few sane people want to go through that hassle more than once. 

However, as more and more states, particularly in New England, are allowing gays and lesbians to marry, I can guarantee you that we’re going to be seeing the homosexual divorce rates start to go up, now that marriages are getting easier for them.

So, how do we make it harder for us straights to get married?

One way is to make it mandatory for the couple to receive some type of counseling once they make their intentions known. It could be a priest, rabbi, counselor, imam, Wiccan high priestess… whatever. I don’t care. 

The important thing is, most of these people need a reality check from a neutral party who will be asking them the tough questions, such as “are you sure that you know exactly what you’re getting into? Do you really think you can handle the financial responsibilities? Just how well do you really know each other… besides how great they are in the sack? What will you do when you have kids?  How will you pay for your house? Mom and dad aren’t going to let you live with them forever. How will you feel about your hottie girlfriend/boyfriend when they’re looks start to go? Are you still going to love them?

Have you done most, if not all, of everything you’ve wanted to do in life already? If you haven’t done it by now, you’re chances of achieving your dreams drop dramatically after you get married and start having kids. 

Unless of course, that is your dream.

Are you really ready to sacrifice your own happiness and dedicate your life to the happiness and well-being of your spouse?

And don’t feed me any of this crap about what a jerk I am (ok… I am, but that’s besides the point), how you married your spouse right out of high school, you’ve stayed together for 30 years, had 5 great kids who are all academic geniuses, you’re filthy rich, blah blah blah.   You got lucky, you beat the odds. You’re a rare exception to the rule, not the norm. Congratulations.

Don’t misunderstand; I am not suggesting that you should not get to marry the person of your choice. This is America after all, not the Middle East. We don’t do arranged marriages here. 

Ok, true… we have the occasional shotgun wedding, but most of these guys had it coming to them.

What I’m asking is that people, especially you young ones, to think with your heads, as well as your hearts, before you jump into a commitment like marriage. 

Ask yourself the hard questions now, so you won’t become part of John Marcotte’s (and his radical buddies) statistics on failed marriages later. 

Links:

Movement Under Way in California to ban Divorce: Judy Lin, Associated Press, 11/30/09

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Eric Holder says not to be Afraid of 9/11 Conspirators

 

Well, I wasn’t expecting to get back on the subject of the trials of the 9/11 plotters being held in NYC so soon, but something that both Attorney General Eric Holder and Barack Obama said this morning got my attention.

Eric Holder defended his decision to hold civilian trials in NYC, as opposed to a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, by stating that “I have every confidence that the nation will see him for the coward that he is. I’m not scared of what (Mohammed) will have to say at trial - and no one else needs to be either.”

“We need not cower in the face of the enemy,” he continued. “Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.”

Obama agreed, and referred to those who would be offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by the benefit of a civilian trial as opposed to a military tribunal “won’t find it offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”

Almost as if catching himself, he quickly added that “I’m not going to be in that courtroom. That’s the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury.”

Look you fools… we’re not cowering before these terrorists. We’re not scared of what Mohammed or his ilk has to scream in the courtroom. Saddam Hussein did plenty of yelling and screaming in the courtroom… that didn’t stop him from becoming an Iraqi tree ornament. 

We have plenty of real, legitimate reasons for not wanting the trials being held in NYC, one of them being security concerns, which I discussed earlier. 

The biggest reason, however, is the idea that these Islamic, terrorist thugs, captured while trying to kill us, will receive the same rights and privileges as a U.S. citizen under the Constitution. They’re lawyers can claim that they’re rights weren’t read, that they were tortured, that they have a right to an attorney, etc. Don’t forget, even with Mohammed’s confession that he was the mastermind of the attacks, that confession could be thrown out. They could, even though the chance is small, be acquitted. 

Now here’s the best part… what happens if they are acquitted?

Well, according to Eric Holder, that’s never going to happen. 

“Failure is not an option” he vows. “These are cases that have to be won. I don’t expect that we’ll have a contrary result.”

Does anyone really believe that these guys, particularly Mohammad, will be released back into the populace if found “not guilty”? 

Can you imagine what would happen if we were talking about American citizens still being held after being found not guilty?

So… what exactly is the point of a civilian trial then? If we’re hell-bent on convicting them and keeping them locked up, wouldn’t a military tribunal make more sense? Why are they making the taxpayers go through with this? 

My guess is that their intention is to “show off” to the rest of the world just how “unafraid” we are by holding these trials in the very city that the terrorists attacked, of the complete faith we have in our justice system. 

Instead, we’re going to be showing the world how our justice system has become a complete mockery of what it once stood for. 

Links:

Graham Accuses Holder of ‘Making Bad History’ with Sept. 11 Trial Decision: Fox News, 11/18/09

Obama, Holder Firm on Convicting 9/11 Plotter: CBS5 news.com, 11/18/09

Holder: ‘I’m Not Scared of What Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Has to Say: Rachel Slajda, TPM Livewire, 11/18/09

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Free Cash Giveaway Event Turns Unruly

 
Is Anyone Really Surprised?
The Paris event itself may have been canceled at the last minute, but that didn’t stop thousands of people from starting a riot anyway.

At least 7,000 people were waiting for an event hosted by a French marketing site called “Mailorama.fr” to start an event, in which a London double-decker bus named the “Bus of Fortune” would drive past the crowd in Paris and hand out envelopes that could contain anywhere from $7.50 to $750 out the windows to the waiting crowd below. 

At least, that was the plan. 

When the police got a good look at the crowd waiting for them, they changed their minds and canceled the event. 

Uh ohhh.

Well, that didn’t sit well with the crowd, and predictably, things got ugly quickly. Windows were pelted with fruit, and at least one car was overturned. I guess that’s what happens when you deny people their “hard-earned” money. After all, have you ever overturned a car and decorated windows with fruit? It’s more difficult than it sounds. They really worked for that money.

While the organizers themselves claimed that they regretted that the event didn’t go as planned, a government official named Eric Woerth expressed shock that the marketing site even considered organizing the event.

“Just because they do this sort of thing in the United States, that’s not a reason to do it in France. It borders on the ludicrous”.

You gotta love the French. Even though the U.S. had absolutely nothing to do with the event, they still find a way to pin the blame on us. 

Oh, and someone needs to clue in Monsieur Woerth that his Socialist government gives money away to slackers all the time, just not as openly as “Mailorama” tried to do.  

Still, frenchie here does bring up an interesting topic. He’s correct when he says that we’ve actually done this kind of thing before. 

Last year in February of 2008, an internet company called “Cashtomatoe.com” decided to throw their own little cash giveaway promotion in Union Square, NYC. The idea was for representatives of the company, dressed as tomatoes, to pass out tomatoes with money attached to them to the homeless. 

Apparently, the mob got tired of waiting, and began yelling “make it rain” and (my personal favorite) “give me my money!” as the clock counted down until the event started. With only 5 minutes to go, the impatient mob of 100 people then pushed their way to the workers, and began grabbing the bags of tomatoes with the money in them. 

Long story short… the money was stolen, fights broke out and people got trampled and stomped on. The money didn’t make it into the hands of the homeless as it was intended, but into the greedy hands of an unruly mob out for quick cash. 

I’m reminded of a scene from that old “Batman” movie back in the 80’s, when the Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) announced on television that he would be celebrating Gotham’s anniversary by throwing a parade and tossing out millions of dollars to the crowd. However, unknown to the greedy parade attendees, he also intended on releasing a deadly gas from the parade floats on the money-grabbing revelers. 

And he would’ve gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for that meddling freak in a bat costume.

Looking back, I sometimes wonder if maybe the Joker was the real hero. 

Sources:

Free Money Event Turns Violent: Frank Carnevale, MyFox Illinois, 11/16/09

Cashtomatoe Money Giveaway Turns Rotten with Union Square Riot: Seth Fiegerman & Tracy Connor, NYDaily News.com, 03/01/08

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Teen Suspended for Bengals Haircut

Does Dustin Reader Really Deserve our Sympathy?
 
 

14-year old Dustin Reader, who attends Garfield Middle School in Hamilton, Ohio, has received an in-school suspension for what he and his family claim simply for showing their support for the Cincinnati Bengals. The offense? Dustin has a new haircut that is designed after the pattern of the Bengal’s helmet shaven on his head, complete with the capital “B” on the back.

The school claims that the haircut is against their policy that a student cannot have a haircut that is “too distracting” to other students.

Dustin’s mother, Tina Wanamaker says that “He’s had designs on his head before, and no one said anything.” 

Dustin’s father, James Reader, agreed.

“This is a way for him to express pride in the Bengal’s putting in a winning season. It’s not racist, drug related, not gang-related or anything like that. It’s about football.”

Now, I’ve seen several versions of this story on the internet, and judging from the comments I’ve read after the articles, it seems that the vast majority of the commentators are on young Dustin’s side. It’s a pretty sympathetic scenario, after all. Few people are fans of a government school’s policies, which tend to be seen as over-reaching and un-compromising.

Well, it looks like I’m about to tick off a lot of people.

If you were to judge this scenario strictly by the written stories themselves, you would likely take Dustin’s side. 

On the other hand, if you were to view the story through the video interviews, such as the one from YouTube and especially the one from CNN, you might think of Dustin a little differently.

I’ll come right out and say it, folks… Dustin strikes me as a punk.

I have the sneaking suspicion that this kid has had problems with school rules before. Watch the video links carefully, particularly the CNN video.   Listen to not just what he’s saying, but how he says it. Observe his body language and demeanor. Watch how he treats his bike at the end of his little stunt session after showing off for the camera on the YouTube video. I think the odds are good that he wasn’t the one that paid for it.

Look at his eyes. I’ve seen eyes like that before; they were almost always in mug shots. 

Every part of this kid screams “I don’t give a damn about anything… or anyone. Screw the rules; I’ll do whatever the hell I want”.

Now, listen to his parents and how they justify his behavior. Bet you can guess where he gets his attitude from.

“It’s just a haircut. It ain’t drugly related (no, that’s not a typo), it ain’t got no guns, it ain’t got no cusswords, and stuff like that” Dustin drawls. “So why are they worried about it?”

I don’t think Dustin’s haircut is the problem, I think his attitude is the real problem here. According to the CNN video, the school has given Dustin warnings about his hair in the past. 

I know some of you are going to scream “free speech” right about now. I have a dirty little secret for you… the 1st Amendment, or the right to free speech, technically only applies to criticism or complaints against the government, its laws and its officials, it does not necessarily apply in companies or facilities, whose owners can make their own policies that apply the second you walk through their doors. 

Don’t believe me? How many of you work in a facility that has a dress code? Just try walking in wearing a pair of jeans and a t-shirt where the dress code requires a suit and tie, and try to argue your right to free speech and expression. 

Right... good luck with that.   Hope you enjoyed working there.

Don’t misunderstand; I am not a fan of our government schools. Some of their policies, such as expelling some kid for bringing fingernail clippers or an aspirin to school (don’t laugh, this has actually happened) are asinine, but as far as haircuts go, well… them’s the breaks. Dustin can wear his hair any way he wants once he graduates. Of course, that might keep him from getting certain jobs that he may want, but if he really wants his hair like that, he’ll just have to find a job that will accept him the way he is.  

Have fun job hunting.

As Red Foreman, my favorite character from “That 70’s Show” once said; “Part of becoming an adult is having to do crap that you don’t wanna do”. 

Or in this case, not getting to do the crap that you do wanna do. Hopefully, Dustin will learn this lesson early enough that he won’t have to learn the hard way in his adult years. 

I don’t think he’s completely hopeless; he does volunteer to help his barber clean up the shop at the end of the day after all, and the barber serves as his mentor, so there is some hope for him.   

Here’s to hoping we don’t see the kid on “America’s Most Wanted” in the near future.

Sources:

Ohio Middle School Student Dustin Reader Suspended for Cincinnati Bengals Haircut: Andy Clayton, NY Daily News.com, 11/12/09

Haircut Controversy: CNN Video, 11/13/09

Hamilton Student Suspended for Haircut: YouTube Video, posted by “wlwttv”
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

9/11 Mastermind to be Tried in NYC in Civilian Court

Is it really our "civic duty" to grant terrorists equal rights under the law?
 
Khalid Shiek Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, along with four other co-conspirators who have been accused of participating in the 9/11 attacks, will be relocated from their current detention in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, to Manhattan to stand trial. 

Well, congratulations, President Obama. You’ve just succeeded in making New York City an even bigger target for terrorism than it already was. I always knew you’d accomplish something.

Never mind the fact that the terrorists, who have tried to destroy us, will enjoy the same rights and privileges for a trial as a U.S. citizen would under our Constitution, or even the possibility that the terrorists may even win their cases, due to the fact that they weren’t read their rights, were tortured, etc. Let’s talk about the security measures.

Has it occurred to Attorney-General Eric Holder, who I remind you, was responsible for the pardoning of 16 FALN terrorists back in 1999 (who didn’t even ask for a pardon) just where exactly are we going to hold these terrorists before and during the trail? 

How are they going to handle the security at the courthouse itself, both to prevent a rescue attempt of Mohammed and company by their terrorist co-horts and to protect the crowds who will gather to watch the trial?

How are they going to handle the transportation from the holding facility to the courthouse? How much security will be needed to transport these goons? How secure will the routes be? How much are these trials and security measures going to cost us?

Most importantly, what will our security itself focus on; the safety of Americans from the terrorists… or the safety of the terrorists from the Americans?

None of this was really necessary. Wasn’t there a courthouse in Guantanamo Bay already? Wouldn’t the terrorists have been much less likely to escape from there than they can back in the States? 

Sure, we’ve tried terrorists in NYC before, notably Omar Abdul-Rahman, aka, the “blind sheik”, who is best known for the first World Trade Center bombing back in 1993, but let’s face it, Khalid Shiek Mohammed has a much higher profile than Omar. Just because nothing happened last time, that’s no guarantee that nothing will happen this time.  Terrorists are much more sophisticated now than they were back then.

It’s a shame that Obama decided to close the prison before he actually decided on what he was going to do with the prisonersHow can someone with as much leadership experience as him…

Oh, wait… right.

You want to complain that Guantanamo Bay was being used as a recruitment tool by the terrorists? Wait until the trials in Manhattan start.

Sources:

Accused 9/11 Mastermind to Face Civilian Trial in N.Y.: Charlie Savage, Washington Times, 11/13/09

US Lawmakers Consider Guantanamo to be Both Prison and Courthouse: Suzanne Presto, VOA News.com, 5/17/09

Eric Holder and the FALN: Curt Levy, Washington Times.com, 01/23/09

Challenges for 9/11 Trial in NYC: CNN video with Alberto Gonzales, 11/13/09

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The 20th Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall

  Gorbachev Cheered, Reagan Snubbed
 
Today, the 9th of November, marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. There was quite an attendance in Berlin to mark the event, which was highlighted by Poland's 1980's pro-democracy leader Lech Walesa, as well as Miklos Nemeth, Hungary's last prime minister before Communism collapsed, together pushing down a mile-long row of giant, colorfully painted dominoes to symbolize the wall's collapse.

Naturally, Angela Merkel, who is Germany's first chancellor to be raised in the former Communist East Germany, was also in attendance, as well as the event's biggest star, Mikhail Gorbachev, who is widely regarded as a hero for his role in reforming the Soviet Union,  who was greeted to the chants of "Gorby Gorby!" by an adoring crowd.

"You made this possible - you courageously let things happen, and that was much more than we could expect" Chancellor Merkel praised Gorbachev.

It's too bad that neither the chancellor, nor the crowd, realizes that Gorbachev still believes in the Communist dream.   He reformed Communism... not renounced it. But hey, why let the little details get in the way of a celebration, right?

Anyway, other world leaders in attendance included the current Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, as well as all 27 leaders of the European Union.

Not in attendance... Barack Obama. I guess he just couldn't be bothered to go. I don't know why; there were plenty of other Socialists for him to "socialize" with. He did, however, send Secretary of State Clinton to go in his place, as well as a nifty little video tape with the inspiring message of "Let us never forget Nov. 9, 1989, nor the sacrifices that made it possible".

Sacrifices... now there's a word Obama seems to be fond of.

I guess flying all the way to Berlin to mark the 20th anniversary of the wall coming down wasn't as important to him as flying to Copenhagen to pitch for Chicago's bid for the winter Olympics, or a night on the town on Broadway with the First Lady... at taxpayer expense, of course. Maybe he's saving up for his next apology tour?

The thing that kind of irked me about this celebration, however, was what was not mentioned, at least, not in the media I've seen so far; the man who helped make this possible... Ronald Reagan.

Don't misunderstand; I'm not going to say that Reagan was the sole driving force, or even the most influential, reason that the wall fell. God forbid I come across as one of those "arrogant Americans" as Obama would so eloquently put it.

But to not even mention Reagan's name at the event? Anyone remember this little part of a speech that Reagan made in West Berlin way back in June 12, 1987?

"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Reagan's advisers were shocked at that statement; he had said it against their advice to not antagonize the Soviets. The Democrats, as well as liberals in general, were all convinced that he had just started World War III and began digging fallout shelters in their backyards, but Reagan stuck to his guns, the Soviet Union began to collapse and a couple of years later, down came the wall.

You see, there was a reason why "Gorby", the hero of the Soviet Union, reformed his country; he didn't really have much of a choice. The Soviets had lost too much money, much of it due to trying to keep up with us on the nuclear arms race, when they chose missiles over maintaining the rest of their economy. They literally spent themselves into oblivion.

You know, kind of like what we're doing to ourselves now?

Can you imagine what would've happened if Obama had been giving a speech in West Berlin back then? It probably would've gone something like this:

"Mr. Gorbachev, we in America would like nothing more than to work with you. We are convinced that despite our differences, we can work together in peace and harmony. East Berlin and East Germany are clearly your domains, and we would not wish to intrude in your affairs concerning these territories. To make up for our past mistakes and arrogance, we are prepared to make compromises on our behalf, to demonstrate that no one nation should dominate any other nation. We are all citizens of the world. Come to West Berlin... let's talk things out."

Look folks, like I said, we weren't the sole reason for the Soviet Union collapsing and the wall coming down. The people of Germany and Eastern Europe did most of the hard work themselves; they deserve a lot of credit for what they did, but I think we, particularly Reagan, deserved a little more credit than what was given at tonight's celebration, at least in our own media. I could be wrong, of course. Maybe Reagan was mentioned, but you couldn't tell that from the articles I've read on the event.

Sources:

Thousands cheer 20 years since fall of Berlin Wall: Melissa Eddy and Kirsten Grieshaber, Associated Press, 11/09/09

Merkel Thanks Gorbechev on Berlin Wall anniversary: Kirsten Grieshaber , Associated Press, 11/09/09

Ronald Reagan - "Tear Down This Wall": The History Place, Great Speeches Collection

Reagan; "Tear Down This Wall": YouTube Video, Posted by "JohnJ2427", 07/03/07
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Shooting Massacre at Fort Hood

 
Muslim Image Takes Another Nosedive
This afternoon, a shooting broke out at the processing center in Fort Hood, Texas. As of this writing, 12 people, most of them solders, have been killed. At least 31 others have been wounded.  The shooter has been killed, and it’s rumored that he may have had 2 accomplices, who have been apprehended. 

When I first heard this story on the radio on the way home from work, my first thought was that it was a possible terrorist attack. However, the FBI stated that they did not believe that it was terrorist related (as if some guy randomly shooting and killing people didn’t cause terror to anyone). They later stated that the shooter was in military uniform, and that he was a known soldier.  At the time, they refused to give the soldier’s name. 

I had a bad feeling that I knew why. I remembered how back in 2003, there was a big story about how a U.S. soldier had rolled 3 grenades into his fellow soldiers’ tent, killing 2 officers and injuring 14 other soldiers. It turns out that the soldier was a Muslim; Sgt. Asan Akbar. Apparently, Sgt. Akbar felt that his fellow soldiers were unfairly “personalizing the war as being the fault of all Muslims”.

What better way to make your point that Muslims are not at fault than by rolling a few grenades into your fellow soldiers’ tent? 

Well, my suspicions that the soldier is a Muslim, or at least of Arabic descent, has proven correct so far. The soldier’s name? Sgt. Malik Nadal Hasan. 

I’m going to take a wild guess here; I’ll probably be wrong, but here it goes…

Sgt. Hasan, and possibly his accomplices who may also be Muslims, are unhappy with the war that is going on in Afghanistan.   They’re upset that their Muslim “brothers” are being killed by American soldiers. They’re ashamed to be American soldiers themselves, so they decided to arrange a little shooting spree to “redeem their honor”.   

Naturally, liberals will claim that they condemn the shooting, but the condemnation will be followed by something along the lines of “but it’s understandable why they would do that. If we weren’t over there killing innocent Afghanis/Iraqis to begin with, this would never have happened. The pressure to them must be unbearable”. 

Some have already tried blaming the shooting on the high levels of stress and the numerous deployments to Afghanistan that many of the soldiers have already been through. Naturally, they’ll conveniently leave out the part where hundreds of our soldiers have already gone through this, yet it never occurred to them that as much stress as they may be going through, they never thought to deliberately shoot up their fellow soldiers.

I know that this isn’t the politically correct thing to say, but hey… somebody has to say it. And yes, I’m probably jumping to conclusions, but let’s face it, I’m sure many of you are thinking along similar lines. 

It’s unfortunate that Sgt. Hasan chose to “express himself” in this matter. He’s done more harm to the Muslim image than anything we could have done. 

Sources:

12 Killed in Shooting at Fort Hood: Sig Christensen and Scott Huddleston, Express News, 111/5/09

Officers Testify of Warnings before Tent Attack: Richard A Serrano, LA Times, 07/17/03

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Use CBO’s “2% Rule” to Push Health Reform Bill

 

As of late, the Republicans have been using the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to support their argument that the cost of the Democrats’ health care reform bill would cost billions more than originally projected. Now, the Democrats are using the CBO to push their argument that not only would just a small percentage of Americans would sign up for the public option (2%), but that it would also help insurers as well. 

That’s the thing about relying on a non-partisan organization like the CBO; it’s a double-edged sword. Their findings can be just as easily used against you by the other side, as you can use its data against their side. And that’s assuming that the CBO is correct to begin with. No organization is always right.

However, this really isn’t so much about the CBO, as it is about the “sandman” tactics that the Dems are using again. 

“Only 2% of Americans are going to use the public option.” the Democrats claim. “What’s all the big fuss about? You’re getting all worked up over nothing! 2% is hardly a government takeover, is it? Hell, it will even help private insurers out because the premiums for the private plans will be cheaper due to the higher premiums of the public plans. What’s everyone so afraid of? We won’t let a government takeover happen; we’re on your side!”

In other words… back to sleep, middle-class America… back to sleep.

This argument is strikingly similar to one that was used with another policy that the Democrats pushed way back in 1913… you know it now as the income tax.  

The Dems were successfully able to make it Constitutional for the federal government to grab a percentage of your income, by force, by using a tried and true tactic; they played the wealth envy game. They targeted their campaign towards poor and middle class Americans by soothingly assuring them; “Don’t worry…only the wealthiest 1% in the north-eastern United States would ever have to pay that mean ol’ income tax.  That’s hardly a government takeover, is it? After all, we’re only making the richest among you pay their fair share. They have plenty of money. You won’t be affected at all! Remember, we’re on your side!”

Not surprisingly, the tax was passed by an overwhelming majority, and the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was added.  

We all know how that little promise turned out now, don’t we? 

You may be wondering right now, “Wait a second… I don’t live in the north-eastern U.S….I’m not wealthy; so why am I’m paying income taxes?”

I’ll get to that later but until then, I leave you with this; don’t listen to the sandmen, don’t fall back asleep, we have enough nightmares with the income tax as it is.

Sources:

After All the Fuss, Public Health Plan Covers Few: Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, 11/01/09

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Police Accused of Ticketing Latina for “Driving While Hispanic”

 Claims She was Cited Because She Couldn’t Speak English
 
There is a controversy going on in Dallas, Texas over some speeding tickets that were issued over the past three years.

You see, according to the Orlando Sentinel (10/28/09), there is apparently no law stating that you need to know the English language in order to be able to drive there. This is where Ernestina Mondragon, who has accused the police of citing her for “being a non-English speaking driver” comes in.    She was originally pulled over for making an illegal U-turn while driving her daughter to school back on Oct. 2nd

Hector Flores, who was the former president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, exclaimed “It’s unbelievable. It’s (here it comes, guys… everyone’s favorite phrase!) racial profiling. She was cited for driving while Hispanic. For driving while immigrant.” 

Ms. Mondragon also stated to the Dallas Morning News that “I felt I’d been looked down on and discriminated against”.

Right… as if making an illegal U-turn, failing to present a license, and being unable to understand the officer had absolutely nothing to do with the case.

But wait, it gets even better folks, this is my favorite part.

Quoting from the Sentinel; “Ms. Mondragon, who has been in the country legally since 1980, speaks mostly Spanish”.

Stop! Back up for a second. 

You mean to tell me, with a straight face, that Ernestina Mondragon has been here for for almost thirty years, and she still can’t speak English with any real fluency… and she has the nerve to complain about being cited for “driving while Hispanic”?

Once upon a time, I would’ve said that this was unbelievable, that neither Ms. Mondragon’s or Hector Florez’s complaints could be taken seriously.   Unfortunately, I’ve seen or read about so many incidents like this, that it’s no longer out of the ordinary.

I can only wonder what would happen to Ms. Mondragon if she needed medical attention after a car accident, and she was unable to communicate with the EMTs.

I imagine they’d be sued because they didn’t speak Spanish.

I’d like to remind her, along with her supporters, that while you can speak in any language you wish in this country, the majority of the U.S. speaks English. You’re going to need to learn it if you want any real chance of success here. I can’t help but wonder what job she has now with her limited language skills. 

I’m also going to go out on a limb and assume that she uses her daughter as her translator. I’ve seen with my own eyes at least three occasions where Hispanic mothers, unable to speak English, would use their young children to interpret for them, one of them couldn’t have been older than 6 years old. On another occasion, the parents of a 12 year-old girl were using her to translate a complicated financial matter with a bank teller. The poor kid was trying her best, but it’s difficult enough to explain matters that complicated to a native English speaker, let alone having to ask a little kid to try to explain them in Spanish.

You don’t see that happening with natives from other countries. Probably because since none of our services, television or radio stations are in their languages, they have more of an incentive to learn English quicker. Not so with Spanish speakers. Latinos can safely seal themselves off in their own little worlds, and never need to even learn basic English phrases.

Alright, a quick disclaimer is necessary here…

Not all Latinos have trouble learning English, or seal themselves off in their own little worlds. Most of them handle the English language quite well. 

There, had to get that out before I get accused of painting all Latinos with a broad brush.

Another thing… don’t try to argue with me about how the first settlers in America (in Florida) spoke Spanish, so therefore, the earliest language spoken here was Spanish. I’ve seen this tactic used several times before. Our laws are written in English. So is our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. 

Oh, and don’t even try pointing out that drivers do not have to know English under Dallas law, that’s not what this column is about. The law is stupid, but until the citizens of Dallas do something about it, that’s just the way it is.

While English is unfortunately not the official language by law, it is so in the minds of most Americans, native born and immigrants alike. Individuals like Ms. Mondragon, as well as race-based groups such as the likes of the League of United Latin American Citizens need to stop expecting us to bend over backwards to accommodate them, and start integrating in with the rest of us. There is no longer any excuse for not learning English, or any other language for that matter. Language courses are available in books at the library and all over the internet; many of them are available for free. 

Take advantage of them. Not only will you be better off for it, you’ll probably avoid situations like the above in the first place.

Now how much do you want to bet that I’ll be accused of making racist comments?

Sources:

Dallas ticketed non-English speakers: Orlando Sentinel, Section A9, 10/28/09

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »