Thursday, November 24, 2005
What can we be thankful for in this time of war?
Many people dismiss the efforts in Iraq as a pointless crusade by George Bush. They focus on the media and Democrats attacks that the WMDs were just a ruse to get us into a war, for oil, coporate profits and the like. We could debate this nonsense for hours, but on this day of thanksgiving to our Lord God, let's keep in mind the sacrifices our service men and women are making for not only us, but for freedom for the world.
Here are just a few of their inarguable accomplishments to date:
Many people dismiss the efforts in Iraq as a pointless crusade by George Bush. They focus on the media and Democrats attacks that the WMDs were just a ruse to get us into a war, for oil, coporate profits and the like. We could debate this nonsense for hours, but on this day of thanksgiving to our Lord God, let's keep in mind the sacrifices our service men and women are making for not only us, but for freedom for the world.
Here are just a few of their inarguable accomplishments to date:
- In the Iraq war so far, the U.S. military has deposed a dictator who had already used weapons of mass destruction.
- Saddam is on trial. His psychopath sons are dead. We've captured or killed scores of foreign terrorists in Baghdad. The rape rooms and torture chambers are gone.
- The Iraqi people have voted in two free, democratic elections this year. They even gave women the right to vote. Iraqis have ratified a constitution and will vote for a National Assembly next month.
- The Kurds are free and no longer require protection by U.S. fighter jets.
- Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has voluntarily dismantled his weapons of mass destruction.
- Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon.
- The Palestinians are holding elections.
- Schools, hospitals, and infrastructures have been rebuilt.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
A Palestinian State – or Egyptian Suburb?
So Israel captures Gaza from Egypt in the 1967 “6 Day War”, Sharon gives it to the Palestinians in 2005, only for it to then be given right back to (or controlled by) Egypt! Who is he going to give the West Bank to - back to Jordan? Talk about rolling over for your enemy. There is going to be hell to pay for Sharon!
This account of Israel history from the ADL:
http://www.adl.org/israel/advocacy/glossary/six_day_war.asp
And this story in the World Tribune brings us to date:
Egypt taking charge of Palestinian Authority
Thursday, October 13, 2005
GAZA CITY — Egypt is taking effective control of the Palestinian Authority, according to PA officials. The sources said that over the last few months leading up to the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Egypt has dominated several key areas of Palestinian government, particularly those affected by the pullout.
They said Egypt approves PA decisions regarding the deployment and training of Palestinian security forces, security operations and policy, development projects and senior appointments, Middle East Newsline reported.
"They are in every facet of the [Palestinian] Authority in Gaza," a PA source said. "It is correct to say that major decisions are not taken without Egypt's approval."
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the sources said, consults with Egypt on virtually every issue. They said Abbas relies on Egypt to restrain Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as protect him from rivals in the ruling Fatah movement.
The sources said Egypt's control over the PA increased significantly in wake of the Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip on Sept. 12. They said Egypt now controls both sides of the 14-kilometer border with the Gaza Strip.
Egypt has been given control of both the PA airport and sea port, the sources said. They said Egyptian personnel would supervise and operate the PA airport at Dahaniya in the southern Gaza Strip as well as the sea port south of Gaza City.
"There's an understanding between President Mubarak and President Abbas to jointly operate the international airport," PA Information Minister Nabil Shaath said. Cairo has also sent government personnel to man critical facilities in the Gaza Strip. Egyptian officers have been directing PA security operations.
"Abbas cannot use the security forces against Hamas or Jihad without Egyptian permission," another source said. "He could threaten, but everybody knows that the authority remains with Egypt."
At one point in September, Abbas threatened to obtain Egyptian permission to launch an offensive against Hamas, which was firing scores of missiles into Israel. But the sources said Egypt rejected a major PA operation against Hamas, and instead, ordered the Islamic insurgency group to suspend missile strikes against the Jewish state.
The sources said Egypt has used a carrot-and-stick approach to maintain the submission of Palestinian insurgency groups. They said the regime of President Hosni Mubarak has allowed Hamas and Jihad leaders to travel freely to Cairo. Hamas was also permitted to establish an unofficial presence in the Egyptian capital.
Copyright © 2005 East West Services, Inc.
So Israel captures Gaza from Egypt in the 1967 “6 Day War”, Sharon gives it to the Palestinians in 2005, only for it to then be given right back to (or controlled by) Egypt! Who is he going to give the West Bank to - back to Jordan? Talk about rolling over for your enemy. There is going to be hell to pay for Sharon!
This account of Israel history from the ADL:
http://www.adl.org/israel/advocacy/glossary/six_day_war.asp
And this story in the World Tribune brings us to date:
Egypt taking charge of Palestinian Authority
Thursday, October 13, 2005
GAZA CITY — Egypt is taking effective control of the Palestinian Authority, according to PA officials. The sources said that over the last few months leading up to the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Egypt has dominated several key areas of Palestinian government, particularly those affected by the pullout.
They said Egypt approves PA decisions regarding the deployment and training of Palestinian security forces, security operations and policy, development projects and senior appointments, Middle East Newsline reported.
"They are in every facet of the [Palestinian] Authority in Gaza," a PA source said. "It is correct to say that major decisions are not taken without Egypt's approval."
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the sources said, consults with Egypt on virtually every issue. They said Abbas relies on Egypt to restrain Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as protect him from rivals in the ruling Fatah movement.
The sources said Egypt's control over the PA increased significantly in wake of the Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip on Sept. 12. They said Egypt now controls both sides of the 14-kilometer border with the Gaza Strip.
Egypt has been given control of both the PA airport and sea port, the sources said. They said Egyptian personnel would supervise and operate the PA airport at Dahaniya in the southern Gaza Strip as well as the sea port south of Gaza City.
"There's an understanding between President Mubarak and President Abbas to jointly operate the international airport," PA Information Minister Nabil Shaath said. Cairo has also sent government personnel to man critical facilities in the Gaza Strip. Egyptian officers have been directing PA security operations.
"Abbas cannot use the security forces against Hamas or Jihad without Egyptian permission," another source said. "He could threaten, but everybody knows that the authority remains with Egypt."
At one point in September, Abbas threatened to obtain Egyptian permission to launch an offensive against Hamas, which was firing scores of missiles into Israel. But the sources said Egypt rejected a major PA operation against Hamas, and instead, ordered the Islamic insurgency group to suspend missile strikes against the Jewish state.
The sources said Egypt has used a carrot-and-stick approach to maintain the submission of Palestinian insurgency groups. They said the regime of President Hosni Mubarak has allowed Hamas and Jihad leaders to travel freely to Cairo. Hamas was also permitted to establish an unofficial presence in the Egyptian capital.
Copyright © 2005 East West Services, Inc.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
The Other Enemy
The liberal mainstream media has been the punching bag, and rightly so, of conservatives for some time now. It has been proven time and time again, just how biased our mainstream press can be. If they aren't editorializing the news to support their liberal viewpoints, then they are glorifying and profiteering the tragedy of others. The established elders of the mainstream press were the "peace-niks" or "love-children" of the 60's. These folks didn't grow up and become responsible members of society. They figured out way to continue to promote their perverted agendas. One way, as we have seen, is to infiltrate the press. The other, which goes nearly unreported but nonetheless affects us all, is the infiltration of our educational system.
These elitists have been running our universities since the 60's. The naive that soaked up this liberal propaganda in the 60's and 70's have become the teachers of today, now brainwashing our children in the primary and secondary educational systems. Liberalism has become a genetic disease, passing from generation to generation. Not only do parents today have to defend their children from the perversions of sexual and physical abuse, drugs and alcohol , crime, and gratuitous sex and violence in today's media / entertainment. We now must defend our children from completely false liberal dogma being thrust upon them by the media and their teachers!
It has been my mission and challenge in life to educate my children. Many feel, including President Bush, that it is the school's job to educate our children. WRONG - it is our job! The schools are here to work for the parents, if they don't meet our requirements, we find somebody else to work for us. Most of the problem with the educational system today is the lack of parental involvement. If we are to leave the education of our children up to the schools / media, then we will get what we deserve - a generation of kids with minds filled with liberal-psycho-babble mush!
Nearly every night we speak with our children about what is said on the news, what was presented to them at school that day, clarify inaccurate facts, explain incompetence and ignorance, and apply historical lessons to today's issues. Initially our children thought that teachers and news anchors were infallible - we corrected that misperception quickly! We discuss issues such as the environment, crime and social justice, charity and welfare, religion, abortion, morality, personal responsibility, gun rights, freedom, politics, the military, and so on. Schools should stick to the three R's (and maybe history and geography) and leave the rest to the parents. We don't need diversity sensitivity, environmental awareness, self-esteem adjustments, sexual / birth control education, free breakfast, lunch, dinner and before and after school care, and summer school.
Yes, many poor need help. However they are getting the wrong kind of help. We need to help them to help themselves and to help them raise their children responsibly. We need more Bill Cosby's preaching morality. We need more social peer pressure on those behaving poorly. It is not just the poor either. Even the middle-class and wealthy are making the same mistakes. My children were fortunate enough to be able to attend "private schools", where only the brightest were accepted. Among their peers at these schools, the same liberal dogma is preached, the same skulls-full-of mush kids (albeit rich ones) were turned out into society, to further the liberal cause. If their parents had an inclination to understand what their kids were learning and spent a little time listening to them and teaching them, instead of going to charity balls, and dinner parties, perhaps their bright kids wouldn't have turned into the next generation of Dan Rathers and Hillary Clintons.
We have created generations of brain-washed idiots. I fear that there is little hope. Those few of us, who choose to educate their children and help them to be clear, independent thinkers, are in the minority. We are fighting a cultural war and we are the rebels.
May God give us and our children, the strength to carry on.
The liberal mainstream media has been the punching bag, and rightly so, of conservatives for some time now. It has been proven time and time again, just how biased our mainstream press can be. If they aren't editorializing the news to support their liberal viewpoints, then they are glorifying and profiteering the tragedy of others. The established elders of the mainstream press were the "peace-niks" or "love-children" of the 60's. These folks didn't grow up and become responsible members of society. They figured out way to continue to promote their perverted agendas. One way, as we have seen, is to infiltrate the press. The other, which goes nearly unreported but nonetheless affects us all, is the infiltration of our educational system.
These elitists have been running our universities since the 60's. The naive that soaked up this liberal propaganda in the 60's and 70's have become the teachers of today, now brainwashing our children in the primary and secondary educational systems. Liberalism has become a genetic disease, passing from generation to generation. Not only do parents today have to defend their children from the perversions of sexual and physical abuse, drugs and alcohol , crime, and gratuitous sex and violence in today's media / entertainment. We now must defend our children from completely false liberal dogma being thrust upon them by the media and their teachers!
It has been my mission and challenge in life to educate my children. Many feel, including President Bush, that it is the school's job to educate our children. WRONG - it is our job! The schools are here to work for the parents, if they don't meet our requirements, we find somebody else to work for us. Most of the problem with the educational system today is the lack of parental involvement. If we are to leave the education of our children up to the schools / media, then we will get what we deserve - a generation of kids with minds filled with liberal-psycho-babble mush!
Nearly every night we speak with our children about what is said on the news, what was presented to them at school that day, clarify inaccurate facts, explain incompetence and ignorance, and apply historical lessons to today's issues. Initially our children thought that teachers and news anchors were infallible - we corrected that misperception quickly! We discuss issues such as the environment, crime and social justice, charity and welfare, religion, abortion, morality, personal responsibility, gun rights, freedom, politics, the military, and so on. Schools should stick to the three R's (and maybe history and geography) and leave the rest to the parents. We don't need diversity sensitivity, environmental awareness, self-esteem adjustments, sexual / birth control education, free breakfast, lunch, dinner and before and after school care, and summer school.
Yes, many poor need help. However they are getting the wrong kind of help. We need to help them to help themselves and to help them raise their children responsibly. We need more Bill Cosby's preaching morality. We need more social peer pressure on those behaving poorly. It is not just the poor either. Even the middle-class and wealthy are making the same mistakes. My children were fortunate enough to be able to attend "private schools", where only the brightest were accepted. Among their peers at these schools, the same liberal dogma is preached, the same skulls-full-of mush kids (albeit rich ones) were turned out into society, to further the liberal cause. If their parents had an inclination to understand what their kids were learning and spent a little time listening to them and teaching them, instead of going to charity balls, and dinner parties, perhaps their bright kids wouldn't have turned into the next generation of Dan Rathers and Hillary Clintons.
We have created generations of brain-washed idiots. I fear that there is little hope. Those few of us, who choose to educate their children and help them to be clear, independent thinkers, are in the minority. We are fighting a cultural war and we are the rebels.
May God give us and our children, the strength to carry on.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
"Tom Delay" - The Movie
As reported by Byron York in Thursday's National Review Online, Ronnie Earle, the Texas D.A. who this week filed an indictment against Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay, has been "outed" as the self-serving spotlight-hog that he truly is. It is now known that for the last two years, Earle has allowed filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Mark Schermbeck unprecedented behind the scenes access as Earle hunted down Delay. Here is an excert from Byron York's story:
"So far, The Big Buy has received almost no attention in the press. With DeLay's indictment, and increased attention to Earle as well, that situation seems likely to change. (The filmmakers say they will be back at work next week, filming a new ending to the picture.) "We're pretty low on everybody's radar," Schermbeck says. "We kind of took a gamble three years ago. We didn't know what was going to happen. We feel like, as documentary filmmakers, we gambled and it paid off.""
As we read, the filmmakers will be filming a new ending to the story. Does this imply that they had already filmed an ending, one in which Delay is not indicted? Talk about a dud of a movie, and a waste of time for both the filmmakers and Earle! Is there any chance that Earle decided to indict Delay simply in order to develop a more interesting end to the movie, just so that he could be the "star"?
It makes one wonder doesn't it?
Remember folks, always question the media - they're despicable!
As reported by Byron York in Thursday's National Review Online, Ronnie Earle, the Texas D.A. who this week filed an indictment against Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay, has been "outed" as the self-serving spotlight-hog that he truly is. It is now known that for the last two years, Earle has allowed filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Mark Schermbeck unprecedented behind the scenes access as Earle hunted down Delay. Here is an excert from Byron York's story:
"So far, The Big Buy has received almost no attention in the press. With DeLay's indictment, and increased attention to Earle as well, that situation seems likely to change. (The filmmakers say they will be back at work next week, filming a new ending to the picture.) "We're pretty low on everybody's radar," Schermbeck says. "We kind of took a gamble three years ago. We didn't know what was going to happen. We feel like, as documentary filmmakers, we gambled and it paid off.""
As we read, the filmmakers will be filming a new ending to the story. Does this imply that they had already filmed an ending, one in which Delay is not indicted? Talk about a dud of a movie, and a waste of time for both the filmmakers and Earle! Is there any chance that Earle decided to indict Delay simply in order to develop a more interesting end to the movie, just so that he could be the "star"?
It makes one wonder doesn't it?
Remember folks, always question the media - they're despicable!
Saturday, October 01, 2005
The quote of the week, from former Education Secretary turned radio host Bill Bennett:
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Yes, I've selectively taken this quote out of the transcript, and could perhaps be accused of skewing the context. However, I think anyone could read the entire transcript and would find that the context of the above quote is not altered by including the entire transcript.
So what about it? What part of the quote has the everyone up in arms? These six words: "I do know that it's true". Is he saying that it is a fact that by reducing the number of blacks you reduce the crime rate? It sure appears that he is, and that is what folks are upset about. The insinuation is that blacks are responsible for a majority of crime, or at least in Bill's mind they seem to be.
But are they? Do FBI crime statistics back up Bill Bennett's claim? He didn't reference them or any other facts to back up his claim. Even if he did prove that what he is saying is true, it would have been irrelevant to his critics. However, it might have helped to retain the support of his base, who would like nothing better than for him to say, "yeah, it's true - here are the facts, now get over it!".
So why did he say it? Why did he select blacks as his example? He just as easily could have used male babies or welfare babies as a innocuous examples. But he didn't and I have a few possible reasons why.
1) In his mind he equates blacks with crime, and had diarreah of the mouth during a brief lapse in restraint. (unlikely)
2) He simply mis-spoke ("I didn't mean it") and didn't know how to recover. (doubtfull)
3) He's smarter than all of his critics and said it intentionally to get a reaction and boost his ratings. (Remember the old adage? "When things don't make sense - follow the money")
Should a man be judged a racist, by one comment or slip of the tongue? To be fair, no of course not. If one demonstrates a pattern of racist behavior or attitudes, then perhaps he could be labeled or judged as a racist. But not this man, not for this one sentence. Bennett has no history of racist actions or attitudes. Quite the contrary, he has had a exemplary career of service - service to all population sectors, including blacks. The irony is that there are true racists out there, many of which are disguised as "friends and political allies of the disenfranchised".
- Of which party does the only KKK member in congress belong?
-Who, night after night on the news during hurricane Katrina, portrayed New Orleans black residents as looters, rapist, and murderers, and then claimed feigned disgust when some viewers had negative attitudes towards blacks?
-Who advertised free abortions for New Orleans "evacuees". (Remember Oprah's dislike for the term "refugee".) Does anyone care that an Arkansas "doctor" wants to kill black "evacuees" babies? Perhaps they might if he had called them refugees.
Is this misplaced outrage or a conspiracy of deception?
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Yes, I've selectively taken this quote out of the transcript, and could perhaps be accused of skewing the context. However, I think anyone could read the entire transcript and would find that the context of the above quote is not altered by including the entire transcript.
So what about it? What part of the quote has the everyone up in arms? These six words: "I do know that it's true". Is he saying that it is a fact that by reducing the number of blacks you reduce the crime rate? It sure appears that he is, and that is what folks are upset about. The insinuation is that blacks are responsible for a majority of crime, or at least in Bill's mind they seem to be.
But are they? Do FBI crime statistics back up Bill Bennett's claim? He didn't reference them or any other facts to back up his claim. Even if he did prove that what he is saying is true, it would have been irrelevant to his critics. However, it might have helped to retain the support of his base, who would like nothing better than for him to say, "yeah, it's true - here are the facts, now get over it!".
So why did he say it? Why did he select blacks as his example? He just as easily could have used male babies or welfare babies as a innocuous examples. But he didn't and I have a few possible reasons why.
1) In his mind he equates blacks with crime, and had diarreah of the mouth during a brief lapse in restraint. (unlikely)
2) He simply mis-spoke ("I didn't mean it") and didn't know how to recover. (doubtfull)
3) He's smarter than all of his critics and said it intentionally to get a reaction and boost his ratings. (Remember the old adage? "When things don't make sense - follow the money")
Should a man be judged a racist, by one comment or slip of the tongue? To be fair, no of course not. If one demonstrates a pattern of racist behavior or attitudes, then perhaps he could be labeled or judged as a racist. But not this man, not for this one sentence. Bennett has no history of racist actions or attitudes. Quite the contrary, he has had a exemplary career of service - service to all population sectors, including blacks. The irony is that there are true racists out there, many of which are disguised as "friends and political allies of the disenfranchised".
- Of which party does the only KKK member in congress belong?
-Who, night after night on the news during hurricane Katrina, portrayed New Orleans black residents as looters, rapist, and murderers, and then claimed feigned disgust when some viewers had negative attitudes towards blacks?
-Who advertised free abortions for New Orleans "evacuees". (Remember Oprah's dislike for the term "refugee".) Does anyone care that an Arkansas "doctor" wants to kill black "evacuees" babies? Perhaps they might if he had called them refugees.
Is this misplaced outrage or a conspiracy of deception?
