Posts tagged “iraq”

2014 Year in Review - The Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous (and the Funny)

January 3, 2015   12:54 pm

I missed this in 2013, and this is not a 3-post series as usual. Instead of writing a lot about each topic, I’ll give a short reason I categorized it where I did. Please make no assumptions or conclusions about what I don’t say; the fact that people are so apt to do that should probably make the “Bad” list, but not this year. Since this is a single post, we’ll lead with…

The Good

The Bad

The Ridiculous

The Funny

Continuing his tradition which he didn’t miss last year, Dave Barry has his take on the year’s events.

Here’s to 2015 - let’s hope it’s a good one!

Patriot Day 2010

September 11, 2010   6:00 am

Today is 9 years removed from September 11th, 2001. There is a lot going on today - fall Saturdays are typically sports days, and today is no different. There are lots of big match-ups in college football, and NASCAR wraps up its regular season tonight, locking in the drivers that will be competing for the championship over the following 10 races. There was a lot going on 9 years ago as well, although as a Tuesday, that day’s scheduled entertainment was in music, not sports; Michael W. Smith’s Worship and Enya’s A Day Without Rain were both released on that date. (It’s almost as if God knew that we were going to need them in the weeks to come.)

A plane is headed for a World Trade Center tower, while the other smolders next to it

Of course, I’m not writing today to celebrate the 9th anniversary of Worship, though that album did revolutionize Christian music (not the first time Michael W. Smith had done that). It is remembered for the actions of a rogue band of terrorists, who turned that day into a day of great loss for our nation. It is remembered for the collapses in security that led to what is still both the worst terrorist attack on America, and the worst airline disaster in our history.

There are lots of directions that this post could go. I could talk about the absolutely horrendous idea of building a worship center for the religion under whose auspices the attacks were carried out mere blocks from the site of the attack; but, from my description, you probably can tell how I feel about that. I could also talk about the idiot in Florida who wanted to have the “Bonfire of the Qur’ans” today; but, again, I’ve probably communicated how I feel just now. I am thankful to God that he has decided against this.

A person falls after jumping from a burning World Trade Center tower

But, today, in between games, cookouts, and races, all I’d like for us all to do is remember. Remember the lives of those who were simply doing their job that sunny September morning. Remember the lives of the police and fire personnel who ran into the building when others were running out. Remember those who were left with the choice of staying where they are and being burned to death, or jumping 100 stories to their death. Remember how the only thing you wanted to do was hold your family tight. Remember the over 3,000 military personnel who have lost their lives in the aftermath of this attack, in counter offenses in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember the pain. That pain reminded people just how good we have it here, and for a time, united nearly all of us around the defense of our country.

When you’re through remembering, turn to praise. Praise God that we have to go back 9 years to remember a successful large-scale terrorist attack on our soil. Praise God for leaders who made some tough decisions that have resulted in our protection. Praise God for the freedom we still have in this country. And finally, praise God that you were not among those who perished on that day, and resolve to accomplish what He left you here to do.

 

Thank You, Morgan

June 7, 2008   4:39 pm

There’s something about liberals. Sure, they believe pretty much the opposite of everything I do, but the way they go about things really puzzles me, especially the public ones that get a lot of press. Morgan K. Freeberg over at House of Eratosthenes has once again proved why he was one of the first ever “Daily Reads” I put out here. He’s the sort of person who, once an idea takes hold, will noodle it out until he gets it. Today, he’s analyzed the phenomenon where something we can do is declared impossible (ex. win in Iraq), while something we can’t do is declared as their goal (ex. eliminate poverty - see Matthew 26:11; the poor aren’t going anywhere).

I’d been trying to come up with a good way to illustrate the projection the liberals show (assuming that their latent feelings are the up-front feelings of their political opposites). In fact, there is a great example in all of the hype surrounding Barack Obama’s clinching of the Democrat nomination for President. It’s only historic to people who focus on race - and those are the same people telling us that we shouldn’t be focusing on race. The most historic thing about Barack Obama’s nomination is that he’s the first person in history to defeat the Clinton war machine (and, to give him his due, that is a significant accomplishment).

Morgan also covers the over-compensation angle - you know, the stereotypical guy who buys a muscle car to substitute for lack of anatomical size. I forget where I heard it, but there’s a saying that “if you have to tell someone you’re generous, you probably aren’t.” Back to Jesus talking about the poor, He said that our left hand should not know what our right hand is doing. (Matthew 6:2-3)

Go check out his post - he thoroughly dissects and analyzes this phenomenon.

Why I Won't Be Supporting Obama

May 9, 2008   6:15 pm

I know, that really surprises you regulars… But, via Hugh Hewitt, we have a perfect illustration with what I believe is wrong with Barack Obama. It is a mindset that permeates everything he is and does, and is brought to us courtesy of his wife Michelle, speaking on Friday ahead of this past week’s North Carolina primary election.

(Throughout these quotes, the emphasis is mine.)

But we’ve also learned something else this year, something that we’ve all sort of felt at some point in our life, that we’re still living in a nation, and in a time when the bar is set, I talk about this all the time, they set the bar. They say look, if you do these things, you can get to this bar, right? And then you work and you struggle, you do everything that they say, and you think you’re getting close to the bar and you’re working hard, and you’re sacrificing, and then you get to the bar, you’re right there, you’re reaching out for the bar, you think you have it, and then what happens? They move the bar. They raise it up. They shift it to the left and to the right. It’s always just quite out of reach.

This is a diatribe on victimhood. Look how many times the work “they” is used to refer to some external entity. The person she’s describing does not believe that they are responsible for their own happiness - this person is too busy being held down by “them” (what previous generations would call “the man”). Ironically, though, this is pretty much real life she’s disparaging here. How many people have saved up to buy something, only to find that they forgot the tax, or it’s suddenly more expensive. I experience this in my line of work all the time. “Build it to these requirements.” So I build it. “Oh, why did you do it that way?” Because that’s what the requirements said. “Oh, yeah - but what I meant was something else.”

And, who was it that said “Aim for the moon”? (No, not the “nuke the moon” folks over at IMAO…) Achievement is great, but it shouldn’t be an end in and of itself. Once you achieve your goals, you set new ones and begin pushing again. That’s the premise of the whole “SMART” goal-setting process. (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely, for those who’ve never heard of that.) You break your big goal into specific, measurable, realistic goals (ex. “win in North Carolina”). It’s not moving the bar, it’s moving on to the next small goal.

And that’s a little bit of what Barack has been experiencing. The bar is constantly changing for this man. Raise the money? Not enough. Build an organization? Not enough. Win a whole bunch of states? Not the right states. You got to win certain states. So the bar has been shifting and moving in this race…

Well, raising money means nothing for the presidency - if it did, we’d have wrapped up the second term of President Forbes in 2004. So no, that’s not enough. If organization was key, Barack wouldn’t even get to run because President Dean would be going for his second term. So no, still not enough. Win a bunch of states? Well, if you win 3 states for 100 delegates, and your opponent wins 1 state for 150 delgates, then yes, you won the wrong states. You’re whining that running for President is tough? What did you expect, that raising enough money for a coronation would be enough?

…but the irony is, the sad irony is that that’s exactly what’s happening to most Americans in this country. The bar is shifting and moving on people all the time. And folks are struggling like never before, working harder than ever, believing that their hard work will lead to some reward, some payoff. But what they find is that they get there and the bar has changed, things are different, wasn’t enough. So you have to work even harder.

No, they’re not. This view of America is completely flawed. Yes, people are working hard. Yes, some are feeling the pinch of bad decisions or bad circumstances. It’s not that the bar has changed, it’s that real life has hit. The most important thing to realize in all this, though, is that when life happens, it’s not the job of the government to step in and “fix” it.

And see what happens when you live in a nation where the vast majority of Americans are struggling every day to reach an ever-shifting and moving bar, then what happens in that nation is that people do become isolated. They do live in a level of division, because see, when you’re that busy struggling all the time, which most people that you know and I know are, that you don’t have time to get to know your neighbor. You don’t have time to reach out and have conversations, to share stories. In fact, you feel very alone in your struggle, because you feel that somehow, it must be your fault that you’re struggling so hard. Everybody else must be doing okay. I must be doing something wrong, so you hide. You don’t realize that the struggles of that farmer in rural Iowa are the same as the struggles as a city worker in the south side of Chicago, because we don’t talk to each other.

In the immortal words of Toby Keith, “A little less talk, and a lot more action.” If you’re busting your butt to get ahead, you’re struggling, you don’t have a lot of time for conversations and story sharing. If you think that they’re valuable to helping you with your struggle, you make time for them. If you can attain your goals without touchy-feely stuff, then you probably don’t.

And, there’s a bit of smug self-centeredness in this description as well. I don’t believe that most people feel that they’re all that different from other people. Certainly not any of the people I know - in fact, it’s been my experience that the easiest common topic to discuss with people is child rearing. Everyone has a funny story from that, and most people’s experience is quite similar. You’re revealing a part of yourself that I don’t think you meant to reveal.

And when you live in a nation with a vast majority of Americans are struggling to reach an ever-shifting and moving bar, then naturally, people become cynical. They don’t believe that politics can do anything for them. So they fold their arms in disgust, and they say you know, I can’t be bothered voting, because it has never done anything for me before. So let me stay home, let me not bother. Naturally, we as a nation get cynical.

Politics can’t do anything for anyone! What people become cynical about is politicians who say one thing to get elected, then do another once in office. Why do you think our current President’s approval rating has been in the toilet for some time? He campaigned as a conservative, then moved to middle once elected. His base doesn’t like it because he’s betrayed them, and his opponents still don’t like him because he caused the country to get an education in electoral law in 2000. You don’t find much in the middle of the road other than roadkill.

And besides, isn’t “politician” the charge that got your husband all riled up? His pastor can say those horrendous things about our country, and he’s just an old man from a different generation - but as soon as he accused Barack of being a politician, that’s when he got disowned. (That’s the irony - Barack’s response to that essentially proved what Dr. Wright said!)

And when you live in a nation where people are struggling every day to reach an ever-shifting and moving bar, then what happens in that kind of nation is that people are afraid, because when your world’s not right, no matter how hard you work, then you become afraid of everyone and everything, because you don’t know who’s fault it is, why you can’t get a handle on life, why you can’t secure a better future for your kids.

I’m not afraid. Is it because I’m one of those folks who’s clinging to God and guns? :) I’m not too awfully worried about securing a better future for my kids. What I’m concerned with is teaching my kids how not to become victims; teaching them how to take responsibility for their actions; teaching them that if they want something done, they should do it; teaching them respect for other people; teaching them the difference between respecting the earth (which we learn as Cub Scouts) and worshiping it. Secure a better future for my kids? My ultimate goal is to feel that the future is secure because my kids are in it.

And the problem with fear is that it cuts us off. Fear is the worst enemy. It cuts us off from one another and our own families, and our communities, and it has certainly cut us off from the rest of the world. It’s like fear creates this veil of impossibility, and it is hanging over all of our heads, and we spend more time now in this nation talking about what we can’t do, what won’t work, what can’t change.

If people would quit trying to recycle failed socialistic programs and wealth-envy politics, we’d have a lot less to talk about. Many of us would love to talk about change, but it’s tough to talk with someone who won’t debate like an adult. An example of what won’t work is the current Social Security ponzi scheme. But, a few years ago, when an attempt was made to get our government out of the Social Security business, opponents screamed about how they’d be taking food out of grandma’s mouth. It’s the same with the minimum wage debate - the claim is made that you can’t support a family of four on minimum wage. First off, it is possible, if you live within your means (a foreign concept these days, I know - see collapse, mortgage, sub-prime); secondly, that’s not what minimum wage is designed for. On the other side, you’ve got a $7+ minimum wage, and we wonder why there’s a demand for $2/hour illegal labor. It’s not that there are jobs Americans won’t do, it’s that they, by law, can’t do them!

And one more example of the whole “arguing like adults” thing, blogress Cassy Fiano recently posted two pictures of Barack Obama’s celebration in North Carolina - one from the campaign itself, the other from Mary Katherine Ham, who was there covering it. The pictures illustrated that, though some creative photography, it appeared that the venue was full when it was, in fact, not. What was the number one liberal response to this heinous exposure of “politicianing”? You’re fat. (Language warning on that link.)

See, and the problem with that kind of thinking is that we passed that on to our children, because see, the thing I know as a mother is our children are watching everything we do and say, every explicit and implicit sign, they are watching us. And our fear is helping us to raise a nation of young doubters, young people who are insular and they’re timid. And they don’t try, because they already heard us tell them why they can’t succeed. See, and I don’t want that for my kids.

Then don’t live in a fear-induced paralysis! Get out there and take control of your destiny. Go to school, apply for that better job, update your resume, do what it takes. That’s the picture you want your kids to see. I’ll tell you what, you’re into real life here again - that is what’s happening to our kids. But don’t bemoan it, do something about it! There’s nothing that the President of the United States can do to tackle that kind of fear, and putting that responsibility on him is a big part of the problem.

You know, jobs like my father had those blue collar jobs where you got pensions, vacation, all that, they’re dwindling. They’re drying up. They’re disappearing, going overseas. And if you’re lucky enough to have a job, nine times out of ten, your salary’s not keeping up with the cost of living. Barack and I met with a family of railroad workers, union folks. They said for eight years, they hadn’t seen a pay increase. For eight years, zero pay increase. Eight years. No increase. Gas prices going up, food going up, rent, insurance, own a home, what’s going with the mortgages? That’s going up. It’s all going up, and salaries are staying stagnant. So no wonder that bar feels like it’s moving.

And why is that? See regulation, government, obscene. People who don’t understand free-market economics think that they can levy whatever requirement they want on business (usually some sort of wealth-distribution scheme), and that business owners are just going to eat that out of their profits. That’s not the way the real world works. This is part of the minimum wage debate too - if I employ 10 people at $5/hour, and I suddenly have to pay them $7/hour, that a $20/hour of overhead I’m going to incur. To fix that, I will either raise my prices to compensate, or let 3 of the people go. With the former, the buying power of the $7/hour wage is diminished, and with the latter, three of the folks lose all their buying power (moving the bar, no doubt). Why are these jobs going overseas? Because people there will work harder, for less money, and be grateful to have a job in the first place.

And I don’t know how single parents do it. There are millions of them all over this country. Let me tell you, single parents love their kids, too. But it is almost impossible to raise a family of any size on a single salary. So now you’ve got single parents who have to double and triple shift, taking on two, three jobs, working all the time, and feeling like they’re failing because that bar is moving, because how on Earth are you going to work as hard as you need to to pay the bills and be at parent/teacher conferences, and sit down and do homework when a kid has trouble? How are you going to manage all that? Well, folks are not, and they’re doing it suffering in silence, blaming themselves for the fact that they’re not working hard enough. Maybe something’s wrong.

Ooh boy - time for some insensitivity. I agree, something’s wrong. People in this country have lost their backbone to stand up and say that single parenthood is not the ideal child-rearing environment! This isn’t a knock on single parents per se, but most of the single parents I know would agree that it is not the ideal environment. But since no one will say that, and we’ve elevated our own self-centeredness to such an extent that people just get out of their marriages if they’re not happy instead of working on them, we get this. The people I feel sorry for in single-parent households are the kids. Men and women both bring different styles and aspects to the parenting table, and the presence of both has the best opportunity to produce a good result.

This also comes back to the whole “living within your means” thing. It doesn’t take three jobs to support a family - I’ve got three kids and a wife living on one enlisted military salary, and we get by just fine. No, we don’t have a new Toyota Sienna (much to my wife’s dismay), but we have what we need.

And [Barack] has spent every ounce of his time running over the decisions in his head - do I…when graduating from college, do I work on Wall Street? Make a lot of money, that’d be better for me, or do I go work in a community as an organizer? Well, what did Barack do? He became a community organizer, working in some of the toughest neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago, worked for years in neighborhoods where people had a reason to give up hope, because their jobs had been lost, steel mills shut down, living in brown fields left by those closed steel plants, unsafe streets, schools deteriorating, grandparents raising grandkids. Barack spent years working with churches, busing single mothers down to City Hall to help them find their voice, building the kind of operations on the ground just like he’s doing in this race, block by block, person by person. Now you tell me whether there’s anybody in this race who can claim to have made the same choice with their lives. You tell me, but I think that Barack Obama is the only person that can claim that kind of choice.

And, were he running for Humanitarian of the Year, this might be a good thing. But he’s not - he’s running for President of the United States of America. He wants to be the CEO of one of the largest economies on the planet, yet he has no experience in managing anything, even a non-profit. (If you’re on the ground, house to house and driving buses, you’re not managing.) People don’t just “get” to be CEO because they’re a nice person. They start in lower management, working out their inevitable neophyte mistakes and gaining experience as to what does and doesn’t work. Then they move up and prove their abilities at a higher level. Even then, things don’t always go smoothly. Carly Fiorina, the HP exec who “broke the glass ceiling,” was supposed to take HP to heights previously unknown. As it turns out, her ideas didn’t match up with what the market wanted, and she left a few years later, much more quietly than she arrived.

The job is President of the United States is a tough one, but it’s not the President of the World. Sometimes, what’s best for the USA is not what’s best for some other countries. I don’t want my President making decisions for the betterment of other countries to the detriment of this one. You may think that’s why we should all be opposed to the Iraq war, but that’s why I’m for it. I believe that instilling a representative form of government in that area of the country will help stabilize that region, which will in turn stabilize our nation. That way, we can have the time to deal with the people here that need attention.

So, there you have it - several reasons I’m not supporting Barack Obama.

Selective Religion

October 26, 2007   10:46 pm

There is something that has been bugging me, and thanks to an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, I’m getting around to addressing it. Here is the transcript which we’ll be discussing - a strong language warning is in effect. (Quoted portions here will be sanitized.) I’ll state up front that Bill Maher is a comedian, so I understand that some of this is his schtick. I’ll also state that I’m not picking on him, just using what he said as an example of an argument I’ve heard hundreds of time. The argument is this - current practitioners of Christianity have it all wrong. Jesus was accepting and loving, not full of hate like today’s Christians.

We’ll start with Maher’s monologue…

And finally, New Rule: If the choice in '08 is between Rudy and Hillary, “values voters” must do the Christian thing and choose Hillary. Of course, I think all religion is nuts, but at least she practices it the way Jesus suggested: privately. Like a Dick Cheney energy meeting.

I’ll certainly grant him one thing - though Hillary’s husband is a louse, they are both still married in their first marriage. But, apart from that, the only time Hillary goes to church is when there’s a good photo op, whereas Giuliani has not pretended to be religious.

Plus, she’s raised an admirable daughter, while Rudy’s kids couldn’t hate him more if they were New York City firefighters.

And let’s not forget, Hillary didn’t commit adultery. Her husband did. And afterwards, she did the Christian thing and forgave him. And then she had a GPS unit implanted in his {manhood}. But the important thing is, she forgave him!

I included these just for a chuckle or two. He does make a few good points. Some may speculate about whether her forgiveness was politically calculated or not, but regardless, she did forgive him, even after the one reason given in Scripture as allowing divorce (more on that later).

Now, I bring all this up because this weekend in Washington is the “Values Voters Convention.” Three days of peace, love and hypocrisy. Where the Republican frontrunners will spend the week kissing the {backsides} of 2,000 social conservatives who despise liberals, homosexuals, Muslims, Mexicans and Nobel Prize winners. And who believe the sound of a condom wrapper being opened makes angels die.

Now we start with the elitism and name-calling. I listen to and read conservative commentary, I am friends with many conservatives, and I consider myself to be a conservative as well. I don’t despise liberals, though I do despise their viewpoints. I don’t despise homosexuals. I’ll admit that I’m a little apprehensive of Muslims, but living and working around them for four months while I was deployed certainly helped ease that apprehension. I have no problems with Mexicans at all - however, I believe they should emigrate to this country according to our laws. And the last line isn’t even worthy of a comment. :)

It’s kind of like a “Star Trek” convention, only the virgins are angry - and they think outer space is just a theory. So, Ann Coulter, if you’ve got any more “{queer}” jokes, this is the room for you.

On the contrary, most “values voters” are not virgins; they just ascribe to God’s version of sexuality. And, they know that outer space isn’t just a theory; God created it. And, most conservatives I know can parse words well enough to realize that what Ann Coulter was making fun of the railroading of Isaiah Washington and the lack of manliness of John Edwards - not using the slur against Edwards.

Moving along…

And I know that if you can look at the war in Iraq, the melting environments and the descent of America into “idiocracy,” and still think our biggest problems are boobies during the Super Bowl and the “war on Christmas,” then you don’t have values, you have issues.

We disagree on the war in Iraq. Global warming is a religion, not science, and information keeps coming out every week disproving this religion, with it’s “indulgences” in the form of carbon credits. Conservatives are also concerned about the lack of knowledge amongst the public, which is why we are in favor of trying other alternatives to the proven failed government school system. Broadcast standards are what they are - whine all you want, that’s why your show is on HBO. And the “war on Christmas” is an assault on freedom of religion, one of the bedrock principles of this country. I’ll agree, “we” have issues, but by “we” I mean this entire nation.

If you had “values,” you’d draw the line at torture. But a startling number of people who call themselves Christians don’t. And I’m pretty sure if you asked, “What would Jesus veto,” it wouldn’t be health care for sick kids.

Sure, we’ll draw the line at torture - but not your definition of torture, which is “pretty much anything that makes the detainee uncomfortable.” And I’m pretty sure Jesus would have vetoed this latest S-CHIP bill, which isn’t health care for sick kids, it’s health insurance for middle-class kids.

Let me take this opportunity for a rabbit-trail rant. What is it with liberals and dishonest euphemisms? “Taxes” become “contributions”, health “insurance” becomes health “care”, “religion” becomes “hate” (unless it’s Islam, then it’s hallowed and is not to be trifled with), and “interrogation” is “torture”. As the Godfather has said, “Words mean things.” If they were honest about their agenda, the public would never buy it. Who here is against “health care for children”? (crickets chirping) Who here is against “taxpayer (that’s you and me, by the way)-funded health insurance for children of middle-class families through age 25”? (show of hands) That’s what I thought.

But back to Bill - here it is, folks, his grand finale…

Why, it’s almost like “values voters” don’t really believe Jesus was right about anything. [in mock attack ad voice] “Jesus Christ: wrong on gays, wrong on taxes, wrong on torture, and wrong for America.”

Here’s a passage I’ve heard I don’t know how many times, used to prove this exact point. It’s from John 8, where the people brought a woman caught in the act of adultery to Jesus. Their law said she should be stoned, but they wanted to see what Jesus would say. We’ll look at John 8:3-11 from the Holman Christian Standard Bible (click the link to read them, if you think I’m quoting them incorrectly, or to read it in a different translation).

3 Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, making her stand in the center. 4 “Teacher,” they said to Him, “this woman was caught in the act of committing adultery. 5 In the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do You say?” 6 They asked this to trap Him, in order that they might have evidence to accuse Him.

Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger. 7 When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, “The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Oooh, that’s good! That’s usually where the argument ends. “You’re not sinless, so who are you to “cast stones” at me?” They interpret “casting stones” as “saying what I’m doing is wrong.” Rather than excusing sin, though, this is a prohibition against meting out punishment. Casting stones was executing a death-sentence judgment against someone. But there’s more!

8 Then He stooped down again and continued writing on the ground. 9 When they heard this, they left one by one, starting with the older men. Only He was left, with the woman in the center. 10 When Jesus stood up, He said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, Lord,” she answered.

“Neither do I condemn you,” said Jesus.

“But look! Jesus SAID ‘I don’t condemn you’!!!” Again, calling a sin a sin is not condemnation. But, there’s one part of this verse that conveniently gets snipped, and it’s the part that we as Christians believe is the most important part.

“Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

The emphasis in the above is, of course, mine. Jesus did not condemn her, but He also did not say that what she was doing was “just the way she was, and we should accept it” or “fine with Him as long as she wasn’t hurting anyone else.” He forgave, then gave her the charge of turning away from that sin. That is the truly beautiful part of this story - we don’t have to continue sinning, to continue to be a slave to sin, once we have met the saving power of Christ.

In logic, a “straw man” is a fallacious argument of an opponent’s position that is misconstrued but argued as fact. That is what people who espouse these arguments are doing. They are setting up a straw man of this religion that Jesus never taught, so they can tear down our practice of it. They’re wrong, and we should call them on it. There is a difference between being meek and defending the faith. :)

So, the next time someone tells you what Jesus would do, (as Paul Harvey would say) now you know the rest of the story.

Awesome Propaganda

August 17, 2007   1:14 pm

Check out the Agence France-Presse picture and caption…

A older woman in a black head scarf holds up two bullets, still in their casings

An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. At least 175 people were slaughtered on Tuesday and more than 200 wounded when four suicide truck bombs targeted people from an ancient religious sect in northern Iraq, officials said. (AFP/Wissam al-Okaili)

This propaganda is missing one crucial detail. If you don’t know, put your mouse over the picture to find out. Even though this is categorized under “funny stuff,” it’s more sad than funny.

(Hat Tip - Emperor Misha I of The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler)

This Guy Nails It

June 3, 2007   5:02 pm

“This guy” is Signal94, a retired peace officer. His latest post (as of this writing) is entitled “One More Time” - here’s a teaser…

Last night I watched a report on Headline Line News regarding the basement democrats trying to keep their presidential aspirations alive (they are in the basement as far as the front runners are concerned). The station played part of a Chris Dodd ad where he states that we are involved in an Iraqi civil war … and I nearly threw my shoe through the TV set.

Senator Dodd, obviously you haven’t been paying attention for the last twenty-seven years.

He also has an article posted on Friday entitled “Do You Know?”, filled with interesting statistics…

Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

Did you know that 3,100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?

Signal94 is now listed under “Daily Reads” in the sidebar.

Amen

May 13, 2007   7:47 pm

Just read it.

The First 100 Hours - Selling Out the Troops Before Wednesday

January 11, 2007   9:20 pm

Several things are converging at once, and I believe they’re related. Tuesday was a busy day, so I’ll explain each, and then how they could be.

First, the hard-working 101st Congress started their 4-day work-week, after taking Monday off for the BCS championship game. (They should have taken Tuesday off instead of Monday, so they could sleep in Tuesday morning after the late finish.) This is the now Democrat-controlled House and Senate - the legislative body we’ll have to deal with for the next two years.

Second, we have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), on the heels of his joint letter with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) expressing opposition to increasing troop levels, announced that there will be a symbolic resolution voted on in the Senate next week opposing any escalation in the war in Iraq. (This is in the 4th paragraph under the heading “Dems considering options”.) That link also has a full story on the bill that Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-MA) introduced to require Congressional approval for any troop increases in Iraq. This bill is a clear usurpation of executive power, and will not pass muster - however, its introduction and the accompanying rhetoric sends a message. (Mr. Kennedy also gave a speech at the National Press Club in which he was highly critical of the President and his Iraq policy. While I would love to give his speech the proper fisking it deserves (and may if I have the time), I’ll quote one of the more egregious portions here…)

But I do not retreat from the view that Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam. At the critical moment in the war on terrorism, the administration turned away from pursuing Osama bin Laden and made the catastrophic choice instead that has bogged down America in an endless quagmire in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

Our misguided resort to war has created much more and much more intense anti-American feeling than Osama bin Laden ever dreamed of. And the sooner we reverse that distressing trend, the better.

I am convinced that John Kerry could have worked with the international community to end that war and bring our troops home with honor.

Third, the first open fighting of the year broke out in Baghdad, where Iraqi forces went after an insurgent stronghold after the insurgents killed over 100 people. The Iraqi forces called for US backup, and together they prevailed, but not after 10-hour firefight.

Are these three things related? If they are, there are two different ways that it could be. The most likely, and the way I believe these are related, is that the militant element in Iraq is emboldened by this new leadership. They hear the rhetoric from our newly-elected leaders, and they sense that the will of the American people may be waning. They feel that if they step up their attacks, and engage in open hostilities, that they will help those in this country who want us to pull out. We’ve known for a long time that terrorists prefer Democrats - remember Osama bin Laden’s tape before the 2004 elections, threatening states that voted for President Bush? If this is what this turns out to be, I pray that we have the will to fight off this renewed zeal on the part of the terrorists.

Another option is that the Congressional Democrats are using the fighting in Iraq as a political issue. (Of course, the media goes right along with them - look at the first paragraph of this story about Sen. Tim Johnson’s emergency brain surgery.) The worse the war goes, the better the Democrats look. I think that a lot of them are not realizing what this means. The Democrats have positioned themselves on the wrong side of this issue. If America loses the war, they win - their prognostications of doom and gloom will have been proved to be true, and they can give the rest of us a big “I told you so.” However, if America wins, they lose - and they will only be madder, and more resentful; they will never admit that our nation did the right thing by going into Iraq. Of course, in a way, they’ve already gotten a small victory; at the beginning, I never would have used the term “if America wins,” it would have been “when America wins.”

Where is the truth? Are these related at all? If they’re not directly related, then they are at least mutually beneficial - which should be enough for any of us that love truth and freedom (and don’&t want the blood of our brothers in arms to have been spilt in vain) to know what side we should be on. Contrary to what Congress seems to think, the American people do not elect and seat 435 "Commander-in-Chief"s every two years - we elect one every four years. For the next two years, there is one Commander in Chief, with a new Secretary of Defense. If the Democrats have ideas for how to win the war, then let them work together with the administration so that we will prevail. If all they have is grandstanding, naysaying, and threats of treasonous proportions, then they need to sit down and shut up.

Why would a patriotic American position themselves so that they are only validated if America loses? The short answer - they wouldn’t.

Ruminations on the News of the Day

July 17, 2005   8:15 pm

Several issues making news in the last few weeks…

Karl Rove – Allegations are flying about Karl Rove revealing a CIA agent’s name to a reporter. As is standard procedure for the left, facts don’t particularly matter. Rove did not reveal a name, only that Joe Wilson’s wife was an employee at the CIA. Even if he had, she is not a covert agent, so laws against naming her identity do not apply. However, none of these facts are keeping the Democrats (and their more-than-willing accomplices in the press) from mounting what can only be described as a feeding frenzy, calling for Karl Rove to be fired.

The media is behaving particularly despicably in this. Check out the transcript of a recent press briefing at the White House. This is nothing short of desperation, and they know it. If Karl Rove were guilty, they would just be quiet and wait for the indictment - the longer Rove is around, the better for them. Of course, this is the way Democrats work. Remember, when George W. Bush ® was certified as the winner of Florida’s Presidential election, it was the Supreme Court enforcing existing law; when Christine Gregoire (D) was declared governor of Washington, the Washington Supreme Court invented new law.

Iraq - If the Democrats had to donate $1 to the Federal government every time they said something like “everyone knows there’s no link between Iraq and Al-qaeda,” we wouldn’t have a budget deficit. This technique is called the “Big Lie” - repeat it often enough, and people start to believe it. However, saying it three times does not make it so (unlike certain TV shows). The Weekly Standard published an article this past week called “The Mother of All Connections,” that details the links between the administration of Saddam Hussein and the terror network of Osama bin Laden. It’s quite lengthy, but well-researched, and demonstrates conclusively that Iraq was the next stop in the war on terror, and not just for the benefits of introducing freedom to the Middle East.

"Support the Troops" - This is another fave from the anti-Bush left. Even John Kerry got in on this when he was running for president. The logic is basically summed up like this - “Support the troops - bring them home.” This sounds good, all nice and touchy-feely (once again, the left’s preference for feelings over facts is evident), but would actually be the worst possible thing to do at this point. Our nation’s troops have worked hard to get Iraq and Afghanistan free, and we’re still working to get them trained on maintaining their freedom. Pulling out now would be very disrespectful to the over 1,000 folks who have died in this war to date. (Again, why should that surprise me?) Think about it this way [ when a player on a sports team becomes injured, do they tell the other players “Hey man, we just need to quit - this is too dangerous!”? Of course not. We’ve seen, time and time again, these guys saying “You guys stay in it!” Seeing this through to its successful completion is the only way to honor and, yes, support, our troops.

I’ll wrap this one up with a link to an excellent Dennis Prager column entitled, quite bluntly, “The Left Doesn’t Support the Troops and Should Admit It.” He puts the issue in quite plain terms that anyone should be able to understand.