Your Image Here

WOW...

2007-07-01T02:51:00.000-04:00

I've always thought highly of the blog Vanishing American. And that WILL NOT change.
VA I've always liked and respected you.
As you can see below, I've quoted what I (honestly) thought were ''his'' words.
Then I got a surprise, VA is not a man!
For the record, ''Your Image Here'' IS a man. BTW, the cat in the pic (Sam) is also male.
That said, I understand. Like my own psudonym, yours is genderless.
VA, I apologize for using male pronouns to refer to you. You never intended to mislead me, and I never intended to offend you...

RAIN ON ME...

2007-06-10T21:00:00.001-04:00

Thank God it's finally raining...

''Legalization''...

2007-06-03T03:02:00.000-04:00

I was over at Vanishing American and saw this:

Of course illegal is bad; that should go without saying. But because illegal is bad, does it automatically follow that the same thing is good as long as it is done legally?

There are some countries, notably in Europe, which have to most intents and purposes legalized drugs, the drugs which in our country are illegal. Many in this country, notably many libertarians, and many baby-boomers and Gen X and Y people, say we should make all recreational drugs legal. Suppose we did that. We may, one day, if this country keeps going more and more towards a libertarian/hedonistic society. Would heroin be good for us once it's legal? There are many things which in and of themselves are harmful, regardless of legality. Just making something legal does not automatically remove any harmful aspects of it.

His point here was actually about the distinction between 'Legal' and 'Illegal' mass immigration (I.E the ''I have no problem with mass immigration so long as it's legal'' train of thought).
The subject of ''drug legalization'' came up. I used to be one of those who supported it from the (alcohol) ''Prohibition didn't work'' point of view.
What changed my mind is what used to be derided as ''the numbers racket'' (A.K.A. ''bolita'').
The term for illegal lotteries about 30-40 years ago. Fast-forward to today and what has happend? ''The numbers racket'' is legal, state-sponsored, available just about everywhere and heavily advertised.
And you know what? The harm gambling can and does do has not changed. Just now the State ''gets it's cut of the action''. I know folks that spend at least $100 week after week on ''Lotto''. This is money that could have been used to pay bills or saved for the future BLOWN (and that's the correct term) on ''Lotto''. And while Joe Shmoe might ''win'' relatively small sums here and there overall it's just money that disappears down a rathole.
And even when someone wins ''the great jackpot'' they still lose, because the sudden wealth basically destroys them and often their entire families.
The other side effect of ''legalized gambling'' is that the same people that would have once decried ''the evils of gambling'' now are either silent about it or worse claim ''it's just fine because it's legal''. I used to listen to ''Dr. Laura'' and used to respect her. One of the things that changed my mind about her was the Bill ''The Book of Virtues'' Bennett's ''gambling scandal'' broke out while I was still a regular listener. The very day after the story broke she was on the air to shriek (and she does indeed like to shriek, another aspect of her that I tired of) that Bennett ''wasn't hurting himself or his family, what he was doing was legal, and his critics are merely picking on him''. Well ''Dr. Laura'' he DID ''hurt himself'', pretty much since the story came out his credibility as ''Mr. Virtue'' is gone and can never be completely regained:

Like it or not, it pretty much says it all.
Full Disclosure Time: Have I ever been in a casino (''legal'' or otherwise)? No, I can honestly say I never have. Have I ever played ''Lotto''? I'd be lying if I said I never have. I have not participated in any form of gambling (or as it's proponents call it, ''gaming'') in many years. I see it as a waste of my time and money, ''legal'' or not.
The rush (no pun intended) to defend Limbaugh after he entered rehab for drug abuse (YES, that IS what it was) appalled me. His defenders wanted to preserve the image of him as ''a paragon of morality and virtue'' when IMHO he was merely one of ''the rich and famous'' who had a ''Dr. Feelgood'' to perscribe him all the ''dope'' he wanted. ''Legally'', of course.
When it came out that he was likely buying more ''dope'' on the black market because what he was perscribed was not enough to satisfy him, he ''checked into rehab''.
When the recent ''crazy astronaut'' story came out, I said sarcastically in a chatroom:
[Your Image Here] Let me guess, she'll blame it on booze, and check into rehab
[fellow chatter] Seems to be the trend these days, doesn't it?
BTW, it's true. If I were to sign into that chatroom as my real name, no one would know who I was. My psudonym is my name there. The sarcastic comment was of course in reference to the Mark Foley ''scandal'' that was one of the reasons we now all use the phrase ''Speaker Pelosi''.
The frustration that comes with ''the right'' crashing and burning depresses me...

I'm hanging my head in shame...

2007-06-02T18:26:00.000-04:00

I voted for him as Govenor of FL TWICE:

Jeb Bush, Ken Mehlman: Illegal Aliens Will Vote Republican

Go ahead, click the ''comment'' link and chew me out. I deserve it.
When I saw this I started crying. I thought I was doing right for my State when I enthusiastically voted for JEB TWICE.
I KNOW ''Sorry doesn't feed the bulldog'' but I offer my apologies anyway.
I made a mistake twice. Now that I know I screwed up, I will learn from my mistakes...

''Support the President''? Surely you jest...

2007-06-02T16:29:00.000-04:00

Quote of the year: (Americans) ''don't want to do what's right for America''.
If THIS isn't proof of the President's hatred of America. I don't know what to say.
We have a President that has SQUANDERD the lives of over 3200 Americans in A FUTILE effort to ''transform'' a Moslim land into ''America II'' and is desperately trying to RAM 'amnesty' down America's throat!!!
You KNEW that was part of his agenda even BEFORE 9/11 didn't you? I did.
You thought ''Hey, Bush is a conservative, and LOVES America'' when it became clear that in 2000 and 2004 that our choices were between A LIBERAL and another LIBERAL.
But Bush is ''a cowboy'' you say. And I say ''And so was Marion Morrison'' (Google that name, see what you get).
I see right through his portrayal of a staunch defender of America. It's gotten so awful that even genuine LIBERALS see him as actually one of their own.
''The worst President America ever had'' was how Jimmy Carter described him. I remember his Presidency and how terrible it was. I can only say ''No, SECOND worst, it would take a complete collapse of the US economy to knock you off your throne''.
When Hillary Rodham is sworn in as President the GOP will take the blame. And rightly so.
Watching my country ''crash and burn'' is a terrible thing...

Thought for today...

2007-05-19T15:18:00.001-04:00

And Americans are getting killed and maimed in ''iraq'' for WHAT reason again?
We CAN get ''iraq'' under control. The question is do we have the will to?
But we can't just WISH control over ''iraq'', we have to TAKE it. It's the only way ''the surge'' can be effective. We thought the ''iraqis'' could govern themselves, four bitter years of experience have PROVEN that untrue.
Yes, I know Vice President Bill Clinton went over to ''iraq'' to wag his finger at 'the iraqi people' and tell them 'to straighten up and fly right'. But it was all speaking loudly and carrying no stick.
It's ''crap or get off the pot'' time in ''iraq''. We can either TAKE CONTROL OF IT or take our leave of it and allow 'the iraqi people' to sort out their problems however they choose to...

I guess this makes it official...

2007-05-19T04:37:00.000-04:00

I now officially begin the YIH FOR PREZ campain. I'm running as a Republican (Why not? Both of my cats are seeking the R nomination as well).
Considering that except for Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul the current slate are merely wasting oxygen, I figure I might as well jump in too.
My (and my cats) platform is:
1. Right after I'm sworn in as Prez, I will (as CINC) order ''our troops'' to get off their lazy butts and BEGIN ''the war in iraq''. THEY will have ''benchmarks'' and ''a timetable''. ''Our troops'' will be unleashed to win the war by any means nessessary.
Campain slogan; ''Let them FIGHT, let them WIN so they can come home''.
2. As ''our troops'' return home their service to America is unfinished. There is a significant number of Moslims in America. Uncle Sam is suffering from constipation, he needs a laxitive:

There is no such thing as Moslim-Americans. Sura 9:5 of the koran makes that quite plain.
3. While ''our troops'' BEGIN ''fighting the war over there'' I will see to it that The US Secret Service arrests, detains, and brings straight to the Oval Office Nihad Awad of CAIR.
I'll make a presentation of it, full orchestra and choral group playing and singing ''The Star-Spangled Banner'' as I personally behead Nihad Awad of CAIR. And Google WILL BE REQUIRED to post the thumbnail and link to the YouTube video...

Yes, I know about ''the hostages''...

2007-05-14T00:08:00.000-04:00

The solution to this problem is so plain it's not funny. Our Marines should just grab the nearest ''iraqi'' by the hair, lift it up and put the barrel of his sidearm to it's head and say ''OK, where are they?'' if it gives us taqqiya (the moslim obligation to lie to non-moslims), we merely pull the trigger and send that moslim to it's ''allah''.
We repeat this procedure until our missing soldiers are found. No matter how many ''iraqis'' have to have 'their ticket (to ''allah'') punched'. We ARE fighting a war in ''iraq'' OR ARE WE NOT?
So our Marines have to step over THOUSANDS of dead ''iraqis'' to recover our fellow Americans that those foolish moslims have captured. I don't have a problem with that!!!
It just might convince the moslims that taking Americans hostage might not be a good idea...

Please stop calling it ''a war''...

2007-05-13T14:29:00.000-04:00

Every time I hear some random lefty call ''iraq'' ''Bush's war of aggression'' I want to vomit. But I also feel nauseous when I hear some Junk Food Conservative™ say ''we need to win this war''.
Because I'll put it bluntly, our affairs in ''iraq'' ARE NOT A WAR!!!
Frankly, I would like it to be one but even the Bush Administration doesn't have the stomach for that. CAN we win in ''iraq''? To quote Bush's favourite people; Si se puede! [Yes we can!].
Using Old West stereotypes in regard to the Bush Administration have been popular since before he was elected President the first time and I'll use one now; ''The new Sheriff in town''.
Why should we care if the ''iraqi parliment'' TAKES A TWO-MONTH VACATION in July? Why should we care what spews from the mouth of Al-Sadr's Tony Snow Al-Maliki? (Al-Maliki is no more the President of ''iraq'' than Tony Snow is the POTUS). LET the ''iraqis'' just screw around, pretending to cooperate with us if it serves their own personal agendas. Why should we even care?
We have over 160,000 ''Marshall Matt Dillions'' in ''iraq''. IF WE START treating ''iraq'' as a war where WE IMPOSE law and order on the savage frontier I do indeed believe we can get ''iraq'' under control.
And that's the rub, we don't have the stomach to seize control of ''iraq'' and rule it as a harsh despot. We want to continue to live in the fantasyland of ''if we just give them some more time they'll work their problems out''.
WHY SHOULD THEY? The way they see it Americans are social workers that they can BS to get whatever they want.
It's time for us to give ''iraq'' a deadline to clean up their act OR ELSE. Our only realistic options are IMPOSE law and order upon ''the iraqi people'' or tell them; ''We gave you a chance at freedom and civilization and the vast majority of you just sat there twiddling your thumbs. SO BE IT, keep twiddling your thumbs, deal with life after we leave. And don't come whining to us for help 'cause we're leaving the phone off the hook''...

This should help explain ''Seperationism''...

2007-05-02T06:04:00.000-04:00

It has been said ''in comedy there is truth''; And this was intended to be dark comedy:
http://www.abum.com/55422/Village-Sniper.html
The points this makes are quite plain. You CAN'T ''make friends'' (''win the hearts and minds of'') people THAT ARE ALSO OPENLY STATING AND ACTING as though they are at war with us.
UPDATE: I KNOW, I KNOW!!! I too was getting sick of that stupid video clip auto-playing whenever this blog was accessed. I haven't been able to post lately due to problems beyond my control. I deleted the code for the video clip and replaced it with it's link.
IMHO, this video was a parody of this insane push for ''diversity'' where the locals of this British village were pleased to have this 'croatian sniper' to 'invigorate' their sleepy little hamlet were good. Even when the statements and actions were plainly lethal in their intent.
Not unlike those Moslims in London who brazenly hold up signs saying ''behead those who insult islam'' and ''islam will dominate'' or the mexicans who march here shouting ''Si se puede!'' [Yes we can!] when the intent of that statement is ''Yes, we can stay, continue to invade, and take over your country!''...

I don't drink Bush's kool-aid...

2007-04-27T17:12:00.000-04:00

A while back I was informed of this Powerline post (I'm reproducing it in total to maintain a record of it):

Iraq: A pessimistic assessment

One of our hometown heroes serving in Iraq has written to provide his assessment of the situation there. He writes by way of preface:
It's not pretty but it is reality. My job as a Human Intelligence collector provides me with uncommon situational awareness regarding, not Iraq as a whole, but much of southern Iraq. I meet with chiefs of police, I have been to the Provincial Security meetings, I have questioned terrorists of all stripes, I run sources, and collect the information to put bad guys in jail. I also read a lot of classified reporting from all over the country. What I say I don't say lightly and I say with regret. But as someone who has been separated from my wife, friends, and family for 20 months already (with four months to go thanks to the surge) and as service members continue to lose life and limb I feel that I can no longer hold my tongue.
Here is his assessment:
We want to succeed in Iraq. Because we want to succeed we continually look for ways and opportunities to contribute. This desire to succeed also spawns an eternal optimism that maybe somehow someway things will get better. Wanting to succeed though is no excuse to ignore reality, and the reality in Iraq is ugly.

The Iraqi government and security forces are so thoroughly infiltrated by the Shia militias that you could say that the militias are the government and you would not be far off. Iraqi police in Southern Iraq are not in the fight against the militias at all. Top CF targets walk the streets freely in every city. In most cases police stations are manned by JAM members in police uniforms who actively aid the terrorists. On the rare occasion that a Shia terrorist is actually arrested by an ISF unit, he must be turned over to CF immediately or he will be released by the police or courts.

In addition, politicians from the city council to the CoR, if not Maliki himself, make calls and appearances on behalf of the terrorist, often threatening the job (if not the life) of the offending ISF leader with the audacity to actually do his job. Imagine our Congress, and governorships, and police departments staffed with members of the Crips and Bloods. Imagine being a citizen, a victim of or witness to a crime committed by one of these gangs. What would you do? Where would you turn? Ignoring for the moment the systemic corruption, this is the “government” we hope to turn this country over to.

The situation on the American side is not much better. The careerists in the Army and DoD have leaned that not taking chances and reporting only good news up the chain are the ways to advance their careers. Just look at General Casey. The army is first and foremost a bureaucracy intent on taking its processes, forms, procedures and top down decision making with it wherever it goes. The Army is not flexible enough or well trained enough to win a counterinsurgency.

Then there’s the domestic political situation which I won’t rehash except to say that it’s crippling to the war effort. We’ve been in country over a year and there have been Democratic calls for timetables and withdraws the entire time. Would, should, any rational person bet his life helping CF when you’re expecting them to leave at any time?

We have mismanaged Iraq in ways too numerous to list here for four years. In order to succeed on the ground we would have to scrap everything we have done and start over....
For more, go to Nine-sixteenths and Living Intentionally.

To comment on this post, go here.
Posted by Scott at 07:44 AM

Complete with all links in the post intact. I linked nine-sixteenths on my sidebar, and for two weeks it was a fully-functional blog. Then I clicked on it one day and got something I've never seen before, Blogger's 404 page! Because the Blogger 404 page is such a rare sight, I've reproduced it here.
Blogger has (at this posting) replaced it's 404 page for Nine-sixteenths with a very generic-looking ''placeholder'' page. I have a copy of that one as well.
Living Intentionally still 404's. Both were fully-functional blogs from our fellow Americans over in ''iraq'' that suddenly disappeared. I DON'T KNOW WHY they suddenly disappeared, but that is exactly what happened.
This is only the beginning of this story (not unlike those early reports that Pat Tillman died fighting the taliban in Afghanistan). Where it leads I do not know, but I will continue to follow it.
UPDATE: More actual info about those wonderful ''iraqi people'' that we are fighting any dying for:

The problem with the central government I began to describe is that it is dominated by Shia religious parties. Where someone in Anbar doesn’t see the results of that, at least directly, they do see Sunnis who don’t buy into the political process as a result of the Shia domination but that’s a different problem. In Babil Province and across Southern Iraq we see local and provincial governments actually run by JAM [ED: Joint American Mission] and Badr [ED: Al-Sadr's Badr brigades. His personal army]. There are 30+ Sadrist CoR members. City and provincial politicians are almost always SCIRI but when they’re not they’re Sadrists. Even when a “neutral” or unaffiliated official such as a police chief is put in place, it is quickly made clear that they will play ball or they and/or their families will be killed.

I don’t think it’s well understood how significant it is that Sadr has 30+ CoR members and (I believe four) governmental ministries. When I said to imagine having Crips and Bloods in the government, I wasn’t kidding. That’s really what it’s like. How can you have JAM death squads killing and displacing Sunnis at the same time there are JAM politicians in the government? How can you have Sadr calling for attacks on Americans while he controls government mistires? How can we tell people to go to the police to report a JAM related crime when JAM controls the police? As an aside, most militia activity is directed against the population in the form of kidnappings, extortion, robberies and old fashioned intimidation.

The situation here is extremely complex and it’s impossible to address fully in anything resembling a brief fashion. Almost every paragraph above could easily spawn at least a page of explanation. I’ll try to respond elsewhere as time permits.

Sincerely,
Mike Honeycutt
a/k/a H

Sergeant Honeycutt's observations are consistent with the pessimistic assessment provided by the soldier serving with our hometown heroes in Iraq.

UPDATE: Now when you click on 'nine-sixteenths' instead of the Blogger 404 page or that NZ rugby 'placeholder' page now Blogger spits out a weird error message:

We're sorry, but we were unable to complete your request.

When reporting this error to Blogger Support or on the Blogger Help Group, please:

* Describe what you were doing when you got this error.
* Provide the following error code and additional information.

bX-h1f3s1
Additional information
uri: /blogin.g
host: www.blogger.com

This information will help us to track down your specific problem and fix it! We apologize for the inconvenience.

This whole situation is getting curiouser and curiouser...

It ''jumped the shark'' long ago...

2007-04-27T04:42:00.000-04:00

Over at Right Wing Nuthouse Rick Moran posted ''DID “DAY BY DAY” JUST JUMP THE SHARK?'' about a comic strip there that caricatures Hillary Clinton in 'blackface'.
And yes, I do have many problems with it:
First, I DO tend to ''get technical'' at times. For me it comes with the territory, I know my blogs 'inside and out'. And that is the first thing that bothered me about Rick's post, he 'hotlinked' the strip from Chris Muir's site.
Chris Muir seems to encourage this as a way to promote ''Day by Day''.
I understand this, I have the same arrangement with Ironic Times. They allow me to 'hotlink' their ''banners'' and I give them the best ad space available here to promote their website.
The problem 'hotlinking' Chris's strip causes is that he designed it to change with each new strip he posts. This is the comic strip in question:

I saved a copy of it as a file and uploaded it to Blogger. This can also be done with other blog servers. This prevents it from changing.
When I was made aware of this kerfuffle THIS is what I saw:

Second, this has become WHY I don't support ''Day by Day''. IT'S SLEAZY. It jumps into cheap sex jokes readily.
I can actually hear the ''Junk Food Conservatives'' vomiting their nonsense now; ''Duuuh, you won't run Day by Day 'cause it's a right-wing strip''. Which if I wanted to I could easily do.
I don't publish a newspaper, but even if I did I'd tell him ''WHAT?!?! You want me to run this? AND you want to get paid for this? Forget it.''
I might run the strip on one of my blogs. IF I can be bothered to do it. But I'm in no hurry to help. But I could consider SELLING him ad space on QWIK HITZ!
And last but not least, this absolutely cowardly, craven attitude by Caucasians vis'-a-vis' non-caucasians. A cartoonist for God's sake! If we let the third world dictate what we can and cannot say and can and cannot draw ''the terrorists win''...

Um, Vox...

2007-04-22T19:31:00.000-04:00

Vox Day recently posted 'Bringing Iraq to a town near you' noting that ''iraqi refugees'' are on their way to America. While the Washington Times article he linked to and quoted from is saying the number may likely be 25,000 some of us are indeed up to speed on this subject.
Such as myself:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=refugees+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Famericanfreedoms.blogspot.com%2F+&btnG=Google+Search
I've literally been blogging extensively on this subject since the beginning of the year. As I mentioned in a comment there I know exactly what this means, the same people that are attacking Americans over there will be brought over to attack Americans over here. I've heard suggestions that ''oh, we'll screen them, we'll vet them''. I know how that will work, the screening process will be to say in broken English ''I want to refugee''. The first 25,000 who do that get a trip to America, complete with welfare, food stamps, medicaid, ect, ect. Not long after they are settled here some of them will begin to construct ''roadside bombs'' to deploy against Americans.
Here in America. And when the first IED explodes here IT WILL be our esteemed President's fault. Also sharing the blame will be his tireless cheerleaders like the Malkin family.
I'm glad Vox is now on the same page, I just wonder what took him so long.
UPDATE: Yes, I do know his real name, and if he begins to post to his blog or World Net Daily using it I will start referring to him that way. Until then I will continue to use his 'nom de plume'.
He was, after all, the guy who dubbed me ''Your Image Here''...

OJ, not the killer, the beverage...

2007-04-22T15:43:00.000-04:00

Vanishing American has blogged about the current food safety situation. He suggests the 'tainting' my not have been an accident. Well, the FDA is concerned that it just might be true.
Much of his post is about Orange Juice. He happens to be in luck, one of his regular readers happens to have lived in FL for the past 30 years. That of course, would be yours truly.
To put it bluntly, citrus is not all that viable a business here anymore and hasn't been for years.
When Florida's Citrus Tower opened 50 years ago you could take the elevator to the observation deck and with the exception of the City of Clermont itself all you could see in any direction were Orange groves. This was true 30 years ago as well. If you visit there today however, what you will see in every direction is no longer the tops of Orange trees but the rooftops of tract housing.
What happened were a combination of hard freezes in the mid 80's which killed off a large number of Orange trees and the skyrocketing value of FL land. Since then the old citrus farm families found themselves squeezed (no pun intended) between the rising cost to maintain their groves and competition from South America (primarily Brazil, which is where most OJ now comes from). So if that can, bottle or carton of OJ label reads ''from concentrate'' (which is typical) it's likely from Brazil.
Those who've stuck it out now grow for the fresh citrus market. That gift box of 'Oranges from Florida' were indeed grown here. If the product is labeled 'From Florida' by state law it has to actually be from Florida. And that law is enforced due to the fact that Florida still prides itself in it's citrus production. Despite the fact that both tourism and real estate development both long ago surpassed citrus as the #1 and #2 businesses here.
What were once vast Orange groves now are vast housing developments. Many old citrus families started 'to cash out' and take the large sums that developers were offering for what was once ''cheap Florida land''. Can't even blame 'em, the choice they had was either to eke out a living in the citrus industry or go into a very comfortable retirement on the value of their land.
BTW, so far I've been lucky, the dry food I feed Sam has not caused him any health problems.
But the idea of ''Cat Food russian roulette'' does indeed piss me off. The idea of playing ''russian roulette'' with food of any kind outrages me.
UPDATE: Yeah, a swear word popped up here, and I don't apologize for it. It conveys my feeling in this regard exactly. Any regular reader knows I very seldom swear here...

''The Detroit Madman''...

2007-04-21T17:44:00.000-04:00

That would be Ted Nugent. A mounted deer head was nicknamed ''Nuge'' by Rush Limbaugh on his TV show (back when he had one).
The problem is Ted Nugent is a hardcore libertairian. A true believer in libertarianism.
The problem I have with that is the disconnect from reality that libertarianism espouses.
Just like communism, it reduces Human Beings to mere 'economic units'.
The Achilles heel of communists is Human Nature and that's the Achilles heel of libertainism as well.
In both Theologies, (which is what they both are) there is no right or wrong, human existence is reduced to Capitalism 101, purely buy and sell.
I use Michael Jackson as a perfect example. The parents of the children that Michael Jackson most likely did 'abuse' saw it as merely a way ''to cash in''.
The old joke ''will you 'sleep with me' for a million dollars, OK, will you 'sleep with me' for $20?'' comes to mind. The punchline of course is: ''Well, we already decided that, now we're merely discussing price''.
To use myself as an example, for a dollar or a billion dollars I won't 'sleep with you'. I'm ''priceless''...

Homecoming....

2007-04-21T01:49:00.000-04:00

Nothing like coming home to a big red lettered sign that says:
Peligro!!!
No Entre!!!
The literal translation is:
Danger!!!
No Enter!!!
Complete with the skull and crossbones symbol.
Not to worry, I can read both English and Spanish.
The company that fumigated my home did a very professional job. Just like 2003 I waited until I was given the OK to trip the main.
Gotta give Dr. Andrix's staff credit, Sam and Whitey got TLC. A bit pricey, but worth it.
I had to live in a motel room (the microwave and empty mini fridge were at least useful).
I'm glad to be home.

This one will have to be short...

2007-04-17T14:41:00.000-04:00

After I post this I will be away from my computer for a few days. Feel free to comment but I will not see them or be able to update this until Friday evening.
I quite aware of the situation that happened at VTU. Info at this time is rather sketchy but it seems the shooter was a Korean who came to America as a child.
While it would be easy to go off on a disjointed anti-immigrant rant, I won't.I suspect what we are looking at is another Columbine. An evil, nihilistic piece of garbage who wanted to commit a spectacular suicide. I don't see race or immigration status as particularly important details in this case. East Asians who come to America (especially as children) DO tend to assimilate into modern American culture. ALL aspects of it, good and bad...

I know it's a dead horse...

2007-04-12T04:20:00.000-04:00

But I can't help beating it. Over at my friend and fellow blogger Vanishing American, he wrote an excellent post on ''iraq''. In it he says:

My regular readers will have noticed that I seldom -- almost never, really -- blog about Iraq and the war. I find it too frustrating.

I stand as witness to the truthfulness of that statement.
I know I tend to harp on the subject, as I too find it completely frustrating. There is a mentality among talk radio and it's listeners that claim that anything that's not positive about ''iraq'' is a grand conspiracy between 'the liberal media' and the Democrats ''to destroy Bush'' and ''to betray our troops''. A phrase I continue to use is the old saying ''Do not try to teach a pig to sing, it does not work and it only annoys the pig'' which I believe fits our situation in ''iraq'' perfectly.
This false definition of 'victory' in ''iraq'' (a unified, 'westernized' ''iraq'' that is not governed by islam and is at least somewhat pro-American) IS IMPOSSIBLE.
It doesn't matter how long ''our troops'' stay there or the effort (and lives and limbs) that are spent trying to ''get the pig to sing'' the pig will not sing. It is a pig, pigs cannot sing.
Vanishing American also notes:

Stories such as the two linked above, [NOTE: this one and this one] oddly, fail to convince some supporters of the war in Iraq that perhaps it's time to leave the people of that benighted country to their own devices. The usual knee-jerk response is that 'there is good news in Iraq, but the MSM just won't tell us about it.' Incidents like the behavior of the demonstrators in Najaf, pictured above, fail to convince these stubborn people. They insist that the media simply plays up any incident like this, because they want to turn Americans against the war, and against the President.

What turned me against this so-called ''war'' is that we plainly cannot ''fix'' the ''iraq'' we have ''broken'' and we will never be able to. There have been many surveys of 'the iraqi people' (outside of the Kurdish region) where anywhere from one-half to two-thirds of ''iraqis'' support attacks on Americans. Just HOW are we going ''to win the hearts and minds'' of these people?
One of the arguments of leaving ''iraq'' is ''but it will be a bloodbath there IF we do''. My response to that argument is ''Please use the correct word, it's not IF but WHEN''.
The D's want us out before Bush's second term ends and the R's want us out after Bush leaves office. BOTH for purely political reasons. If Hillary (or Obama) is our next President the D's get blamed ''for losing iraq'' and if one of the many Bob Dole clones is our next President HE will be blamed ''for losing faith in the Bush doctrine''.
On Sept. 20^th, 2006 Rick Moran wrote:

Yes I can understand why he has not admitted past mistakes and errors. The political climate wouldn’t give him “credit” for doing so. The situation in Iraq has gone far beyond the politics of the moment and now engages the future security of the United States. If he can’t be a man and take the inevitable finger pointing and name calling, then all hope is lost and we should start bringing the troops home now. The whispers in Washington that the President wishes to simply “hang on” in Iraq and leave the denouement to his successor is possibly the most immoral, cynical thing I’ve ever heard – which leads me to believe that it is not true. But it is equally immoral to simply apply more of the same prescriptions to a war that is now clearly out of control. Drastic changes are necessary. And if the President is not willing to apply them whether out of fear of the political consequences to his presidency or the Republican party, then he doesn’t deserve to sit in the big chair.

Emphasis mine. Rick, I FULLY AGREE. IT IS ''the most immoral, cynical thing I’ve ever heard''. What outrages me is that it's also true. Rick Moran I'm completely convinced that Bush IS that immoral AND that cynical.
I cannot believe the President is SO dense that he cannot understand ''the American people'' ARE OPPOSED to ''comprehensive immigration reform''.
Even his talk radio cheerleaders are cynically saying ''I fully support President Bush except for amnesty for illegals''...

Farewell Johnny Hart...

2007-04-08T19:14:00.000-04:00

Although the Slantinel dropped the strip many years ago (Florida Today still runs it). I've always enjoyed ''B.C.'' by Johnny Hart. He passed away today.
According to Fox News; "He had a stroke," Hart's wife, Bobby, said on Sunday. "He died at his storyboard.". If that doesn't bring tears to your eyes, nothing will.
I couldn't find the Easter (April 15) 2001 strip that produced so much controversy, but I did find the Easter (April 8) 2007 one:

This might be the last. A worthy farewell...

Mmmm, Hassenpfeffer...

2007-04-08T15:59:00.000-04:00

Don't tell me that rabbit I caught this morning was - UH OH! Oops, sorry folks!!!
No, I don't think it will transcend death. Rabbits generally don't do that. Especially when they're in my belly (I'll be punished, I'll likely have nightmares of rabbits bursting out of my abdomen as in the movie Alien).
But on a lighter note, last year's official Easter Bunny has been saved!!!
I like rabbit, it just seems wrong to eat ham today...

TOM TANCREDO FOR PRESIDENT...

2007-04-06T12:35:00.000-04:00

I AM endorsing a candidate in '08. Kinda obvious who it is.
As I'm writing this I'm listening to puke pukeitt's audio feed via ''townhall.com''. Puke opened up bashing Tancredo even before he put him on the air. Once Puke put Tancredo ''on the air'' he viciously attacked him. As soon as Tom realized that he was there to be a piñata for Puke he bailed out (quite sensible).
Vanishing American suggested that Puke Pukeitt deserves the ''Junk Food Conservative'' epithet that I invented. And I don't disagree, but Puke made it clear that he supports treason...

''My you live in interesting times''...

2007-04-06T03:40:00.000-04:00

I a previous post I mentioned that someone had noted ''Is Tony Blair a [wimp]?'' (I paraphrased due to the fact that I generally don't use that kind of language here).
Now I see that it has been suggested that Iran has achieved a victory in the situation over the captured and now released British Naval personnel. Which I agree, they did.
That would be like looking over the hands of two poker players and seeing that players ''A'' and ''B '' each have ''no pair, king high'' and ''no pair jack high'' and then looking at player ''I''s hand and seeing ''three 4's, a 10 and a 7''.
The proper strategy would be for players ''A'' and ''B'' to either fold or bluff as best as they can. In this hand player ''B'' folded and player ''A'' lamely attempted to bluff. Player ''I'' saw through that attempt to bluff and called. Player ''I'' takes the pot.
That is another drawback to having our forces in ''iraq'' in a futile attempt to 'nation-build' it. It presents about 100,000 Americans and thousands of British in a position to be attacked first by Iran's shi'ite proxies (Al-Sadr, the de facto ruler of about 60% of ''iraq'') with the ability to be quickly and easily reinforced with Iranian military if that should be necessary.
I've noticed that Iran has had little or nothing to say about our presence in ''iraq''. The reason why is Al-Maliki (the figurehead ''president of iraq'') is merely a puppet of Al-Sadr and Al-Sadr is merely a puppet of Iran's ruling council.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Bush had been able to talk Blair into likely sacrificing those 15 Britons in a missile/air strike on Iran. As soon as Iran confirmed the attack came from US/UK forces they would contact Al-Sadr and say ''We would like you to see to it that as many American and British are captured alive as possible, but if you can't capture them alive kill as many as you can''. It wouldn't matter to them ''that CNN helped them'', telescopes and trajectory alone would give them the needed information even faster than CNN could!!!
''President'' Al-Maliki will tell Bush what he wants to hear: ''The IDF is doing everything it can to get the situation under control'' while Al-Sadr's Badr Brigades are actively trying to capture or kill as many Americans and British as possible.
I do not see the sense in keeping 160,000 Americans so conveniently right where Iran wants them to be.

Do I advocate the US/UK as well as the token forces from other countries leave ''iraq''? ABSOLUTELY.
Is there ''a timetable for iraq''? Of course there is! Likely February 2009...

APRIL FOOL...

2007-04-01T19:52:00.000-04:00

I've done this before. I've ''put a new set of clothes'' on Your Image Here (I've made it look exactly like The Radio Patriots).
This ''new set of clothes'' is a bit more ambitious. This is what MY OTHER BLOG looks like. My goal was to make both blogs neither look like one another or how Blogger would like them to look.
It worked.
UPDATE: April 2, back to normal...

My philosiphy...

2007-03-30T17:13:00.000-04:00

I hear this again and again ''We (America) have to 'save' ''iraq'', and Afghanistan, and Bosnia, and Somalia, and ''the palistinians'' and Rwanda, and ''Darfur'', and Zimbabwe and the rest of the world so they won't attack us''.
But you know what? WE CAN'T 'SAVE' THEM!!!
America is NOT ''the world's superhero''. We can't 'save' them from themselves. Yes, I KNOW ''iraq'' is a disaster. And to put it bluntly, we made it that way. But ''iraq'' is a Moslim land (dar-al-islam) and nothing we can do will change that.
The only time we had a sensible foreign policy in recent history was Rwanda. We left them alone to settle their issues as they saw fit. We didn't involve America in their problems.
The reason was Black Hawk Down, we went to Somalia with the noblest of intentions, ''Stop the violence, stop the bloodshed and feed the starving people''. What happened? American Marines that went there to ''feed the starving people'' were slaughtered and their bodies were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. If we'd interfered in Rwanda it would have been the same result, Americans would have died needlessly and the fighting would have happened anyway.
Recently in the park in ''Pleasant Valley'' there were a handful of liberals (scroll down for the entry) who had a ''sing-in'' to ''help the starving people of Zimbabwe''. NO, they weren't ''moonbats'', they had their gathering, sang some folk songs, collected some donations, and even cleaned up after themselves.
It was peaceable, good-natured, good intentioned, and ultimately a waste of time. Let's say for the sake of argument, most if not all of that cash raised (as a courtesy, I gave 'em a dollar) makes it to Zimbabwe or buys food to be shipped there. Money will wind up in some Zimbabwean government official's bank account or the food will wind up in the bellies of Mugabe's cronies (or sold for quick cash).
I can hear the liberals now; ''but, but, those poor people are hurting, they're starving'' and understand that but I know there's not a damn thing we can do about it!
WHAT, do we invade Zimbabwe, capture Mugabe, put him on trial and hang him for ''crimes against humanity''? Stop me if you've heard that story before.
I'm sick and tired of being seen as ''the world's social worker''. Even Jesus didn't feed the whole world with the loaves and fishes and he was doing an actual miracle!
In my opinion the only thing that can be done with ''iraq'' is to tell them ''we gave you a chance, now you're on your own. Welcome your newcomers all of CAIR, 'the flying imams' and your fellow Moslims that won't touch plastic-wrapped bacon with gloves''. And if you want to be ''refugees'' there is Saudi Arabia to the south and Iran to the east. NOT America...

Getting to the root of the problem...

2007-03-29T17:44:00.000-04:00

I came across a comment on a blog that asked the rhetorical question ''Is Tony Blair a wimp?'' (in regards to those British soldiers who were taken hostage by Iran).
My response is ''And you thought he wasn't?''. When the Bush administration began pushing 'Get Saddam' (as if Saddam were actively working with al-quida to commit 9/11) they needed another reason to get other nations to join in.
So the strategy became: Not ONLY are we doing this because the world is under dire imminent threat from ''Saddam's WMD's'' but we are also ''freeing the iraqi people from Saddam's vicious, tyrannical rule''.
And THAT is what brought Labor Party (the British equivalent of the US Democratic Party) PM Blair ''on board'' with 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.
To refresh your memory of March 20, 2003:

President Bush Addresses the Nation
The Oval Office

10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

Those words above in italics IS HOW AND WHY 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' played out as it did. That is what we sold to the British, the Italians, the Spaniards, the Polish, the Danish, and even the Japanese. The post-WWII Japanese Constitution explicitly forbid the deployment of Japanese Military outside of Japan. We encouraged them to change it ''for humanitarian missions'' which is what and why they did.
After it was made undeniable (to other than some whiny talk radio hacks) that ''iraq'' DID NOT present any threat to America it became the whining ''but they're poor and helpless so we gotta help them so they don't attack us''.
What does that actually mean? WELFARE for ''iraq'' FOREVER. We've attached ''iraq'' to the US Government teat until at least January 20, 2009. When ''W'' is finally a former President.
At THAT is what has really produced MY hatred for the President. ''The Surge'' is to tamp down criticizim of how badly 'Operation Iraq Freedom' has gone.
At best, ''the surge'' can be maintained for 24 months. Which is all Bush needs, keep it under the rug until 1/21/09.
''Make the NEXT President take the blame''. Bill Clinton taught him well.
UPDATE: What do I think of the Democratic House and Senate ''attaching timetables and benchmarks to spending''? It's all they have, and I doubt Bush will veto anything that makes it to his desk (If you think I'm wrong, see that link to 'comments' below? TELL ME WHY).
There should be no warning of our exit from ''iraq''. In fact, those American soldiers who have not been assigned passage on board airliners leaving Baghdad MUST BE ORDERED to tell ''iraqis''; ''Not to worry, there will more Americans replacing those who are leaving''.
Would that be Americans using taquyya against Moslims? GOOD.
Meanwhile, those Moslim cashiers employed by Target that won't even touch plastic-wrapped pork with gloves should be given a new home in ''iraq''. As should ''the flying imams''...

Adopt-a-flag...

2007-03-24T14:00:00.000-04:00

In the ASK Show chatroom I mentioned those on Blogger could replace that orange 'B' Blogger icon (you know, this one:) with something that for many would be much more preferable.
Like this one:. It sat comfortably next to the 'http://' on the address bar on non-micro and $oft browsers like Firefox or Opera for a year.
It doesn't work on any version of IE, but that's micro and $oft's problem, not mine. I recently replaced with an icon I made specifically for this blog; .
When I mentioned that I was ditching Old Glory for I asked if anyone using Blogger would like to adopt it for their blog. I said I'd post a 'how-to' to install it to their blog. Well I tend to keep my word so here it is:
Sign into Blogger and in the Dashboard click on 'Template' to open the template editor. At the top of the editor window you should see something like this:

{!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"}

{html}
{head}

{meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" equiv="Content-Type"}

Good, you're right where you wanna be. (I changed the greater and less than characters to { and } to keep your browser from acting upon the HTML code above). And here is the HTML code to cut and paste to make the flag appear:

<link rel="bookmark" href="http://www.geocities.com/your_image_here/favicon.ico">
<link rel="home" title="Home" href="http://www.geocities.com/your_image_here/favicon.ico">
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://www.geocities.com/your_image_here/favicon.ico">


Highlight the above text then hit Ctrl-C to Copy it. Then in the window on your Template editor move the cursor to just after the {HEAD} tag. Hit Ctrl-V to Paste this in. Go down and hit Save Template.
After you see the message 'Settings Were Saved Successfully' click on View Blog and look at the Address Bar.
UPDATE: Just tested the above on my other blog QWIK HITZ! It worked.
Then I went ahead and put it's icon back.
UPDATE II: As part of KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) I modified the source code of to demonstrate that the above HTML does indeed work. On your browser hit ''View Source'' to see where to place it. But I'm asking nicely, DON'T STEAL MY ICON!!! PLEASE.
UPDATE III: Where did this come from? http://www.dioforamerica.com. A now defunct website (that's why I didn't bother to make it a link). Back when it was up (I think it went dead in 2004) I saw that icon and thought ''Hmm, I doubt Ronnie James Dio created this, he or his webmaster likely stumbled across this and helped himself to it''. So yes, I did the same. If ''Dio'' did © this it's up to him to defend it. Unlikely for an icon from a now 'dead' website. Considering that I openly used it for a year without any complaints, it's likely ''Public Domain'', not copywrited or copywriteable...

Spring Cleaning...

2007-03-23T07:01:00.000-04:00

Spring has officially sprung and it's time to freshen up . The changes seem a bit minor now but they soon won't be!!!
It began as a bit of repair to Your Image Here. And it turned into a full-fledged overhaul.
I'm tiring...

The left-wing goofballs are screaming ''Impeach Bush''...

2007-03-18T15:37:00.000-04:00

And guess what? I AGREE WITH THEM!!! Why? Simple:
Calderon Tells Bush Mexico Needs More:

President Bush, working to rebuild strained U.S.-Mexico relations, promised Tuesday he would do his best to get a deeply divided U.S. Congress to change American immigration policies that are hated south of the border. "My pledge to you and your government, but more important to the people of Mexico, is I'll work as hard as I possibly can to pass comprehensive immigration reform,"

Looks like it'll take ''comprehensive impeachment reform'' to stop ''comprehensive immigration reform''.
To refresh your memory, Bush on the campaign trail in 2000:

Notice the flag.
Let's see, the borders are still wide-open, CAIR is still allowed to stay here and run roughshod over America, and ''the flying imams'' are suing and not being shipped back to the Middle East in plain pine boxes.
Reasons #1,#2 and #3 why over 3,200 of America's finest died in ''iraq'' in vain.
I'd like to see Congressman Tancredo initiate Articles of Impeachment right away...

Bursting the bubble...

2007-03-17T21:47:00.000-04:00

Over at QWIK HITZ! I began bashing ''Whackypedia''. As that post developed I went on to bash St. Cloud's ''CyberSpot''.
Why? Because I live right in the center of St. Cloud about 300 feet from City Hall.

And I have a blog. And I have another blog. And I am more than happy to bash CyberSpot on both.
When CyberSpot was introduced, it was touted as being able to do everything. It was promised that you could open a WI-FI enabled laptop anywhere in the city, log in to CyberSpot (it requires a username and password) and be able to enjoy ''a program which gives all residents free high-speed wireless Internet access.''. (from Whackypedia).
To put it bluntly, a year later it still just barely works at all!!!
I gave CyberSpot a fair chance and in every way it failed to give me any reason to ditch the DSL connection that I spent over a grand for this past year.
It can just barely be called ''high speed''. When it works, it's not much faster than dialup, about 64kB (dialup tops out at 52kB) and it's not exactly reliable (about a 50-50 chance that the system will be ''up'' and functional at any given time).
If you are a Bitorrent user, stay away from CyberSpot!!! You'll be frustrated with re-logins and restarts of the share. I tested it with the '68 version of Night of the Living Dead. I picked that flick because there's nothing the MPAA can do about it!!! George Romero screwed up and let his chance to © the film expire! You have 25 years to declare a © on something you create, if you don't, too bad, so sad. IT'S PUBLIC DOMAIN (and a good horror flick) so I am free to upload it, download it, burn it to disc, buy it, sell it, or share it freely.
NOTE: The color remake IS ©1990 George Romero. Keep that in mind.
What I (or anyone else) cannot do is own it. Here, test it out yourself:

On ''CyberSpot'' I can't even maintain the connection for 10 minutes. It's also too slow to 'stream' without dropped frames or ''rebuffering'' pauses.
UPDATE:~~Quite clever of YouTube, they don't put the {/embed} tag in the HTML code they provide. So Google (Blogger) chokes on a straight HTML 'cut and paste'.~~
Gotta admit it does keep the n00bs from posting YouTube to Blogger.
UPDATE II: I thought it was YouTube that failed to provide the {/embed} tag. I was wrong. Google (Blogger) STRIPS IT OFF!!! I have to go to ''Edit Html'' to put the {/embed} tag back where Google (Blogger) expects it to be!!!
Here's the ironic part of it; Guess who owns YouTube? To post this update I had to go to ''Edit Html'' and replace again the {/embed} tag. THIS IS ANNOYING!!!
Just because I can DO HTML does not nessesarily mean I WANT TO!!! SHEESH, I perfer ''Compose'' to ''Edit Html''...

Occasionally I need ''a kick in the pants''...

2007-03-17T05:37:00.000-04:00

And I appreciate Vanishing American for doing so. This is not the first time I've began to reply to a post of his and then thought ''Now wait a minute, why am I writing this as a comment to VA's blog?'' I have a blog of my own, that's where my outburst of verbosity belongs. So:
Considering that the R's are offering not one but a collection of 'Bob Doles' as a possible future President the concept of an openly D retaking the White House is more than realistic
With the so-called 'conservitive media' apparently aligning itself with the most liberal one of the bunch.
Interesting, and I understand your differences with Mr. Auster on Obama.
A while ago I was debating with Mr. Auster about Sean Hannity. I said Sean Hannity has 'charisma' (A natural likeability) that is also present in both Bill Clinton and the late Ronald Reagan.
That ''force of personality'' alone could indeed propel Obama ahead of Hillary (and she and her staff are sweating bullets about that).
Considering that the R's are offering not one but a collection of 'Bob Doles' as a possible future President the concept of an openly D retaking the White House is more than realistic
Where the so-called 'conservitive media' is apparently aligning itself with the most liberal one of the bunch. Get used to the joyous celebration of President Hillary Clinton.
A reason is ''President Hillary Clinton'' will eagerly continue President Bush's foolishness in ''iraq''.
The IDIOT-in chief seeks to remake the world in America's image. As did his father

What I am. And what I am not...

2007-03-16T19:29:00.000-04:00

I AM NOT A ''RACIST''.
At first glance you might look at the phrase above and think ''Ok, so you are merely spouting the standard PC BS''. And you'd be right. And also wrong.
According to The Dictionary, I am NOT a ''racist'':

rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Am I denying that there are different races of humans? No, of course not. I just don't belive there is nessessarily any 'superior' or 'inferior' race of human being.
What influenced my opinion on this were a pair of sisters who are by race Mestizo Mexican but by culture were raised as WASP. They were adopted by a White couple as a toddler and a newborn and raised them as if they gave birth to them.
The older sister had to learn Spanish on her own. And did so after she became an adult. Her younger sister has NO knowlege of Spanish. I learned this because her older sister said the word chocha and had to explain to her sister the English version of the word (vagina).
If either of these ''mexicans'' spoke to you over the phone you would never know they are Mestizo mexicans. In fact, the older sister has a very noticable accent when she speaks Spanish!
THAT is one of the reasons why I'm NOT a ''racist''.

What am I therefore? A ''Culturalist''. There are superior and inferior CULTURES.
We see the effects of ''gimme whatever we want'' cultures on productive ones. Islam is a completely parasitic culture. It doesn't MAKE, it just TAKES. That is why leftists adore it so much...

Sad, really...

2007-03-10T07:34:00.000-05:00

Captain America has been killed. And the President and his cheerleaders are seeking to do the same to America itself.

First multi-blogging...

2007-03-10T03:03:00.000-05:00

Now multi-catting. As in dos gatos (pronouced 'dose gattos', translates as two [male]cats).
Haven't snapped a .jpg of Whitey yet, but this'll do in a pinch:

Not an actual pic of Whitey, but it matches. He naturally wears 'snow camo'. If I were to put him out in the snow, he'd vanish. Luckily for him he lives in Central Florida where snow is quite rare.
He's about 6 months old so it's possible that snow has occured in his lifetime (we had light flurries just before Thanksgiving '06).
Sam is less than happy about the new member of the family, but they've not fought each other.
But I've got a small bucket of water handy if nessesary. Trust me, it'll stop a catfight immediatly, and it will quickly teach them not to fight. So far, I've not had to resort to ''the water option'' and so far I've not needed to.
Julie (who also loves cats) said in the online chatroom that we both participate in ''You don't adopt cats, cats adopt you''. Pretty much describes how Whitey became ''not homeless''.
The house I live in is up for sale. Yes, I'm looking into buying it but Real Estate transactions are a very complicated process that I will not discuss futher at this point.
My Landlord ran a tour of the property (it annoys me, but he has every right to do so) and apparently Whitey came in with the prospective buyers of this piece of Real Estate. After the tour of my home ended Whitey stayed. Whitey had been hanging around here for months and apparently came in with those who were touring my home and fooled my Landlord and his prospective buyers into thinking that HE's the cat that lives here.
Although if push comes to shove (ONE cat is allowed on the Lease) Sam stays, Whitey goes.
Whitey is the newcomer. If it becomes nessessary, he's ''the last hired, the first fired''.
Reality sucks, but you have to deal with it anyway.
But that won't stop Whitey from becoming the official cat of QWIK HITZ! 2 blogs, 2 cats, I can deal with this...

I've tired of Coulter's act...

2007-03-07T06:16:00.000-05:00

In discussion with Vanishing American over the latest Ann Coulter idiocy:
I tend to side with Mr. Auster. I see her as the 'conservitive' version of a radio ''shock jock'' who is only interested in seeing how sleazy she can be or what verbal stunt she can get away with next.
A while ago there were various complaints about Brittany Spears exiting a car wearing a miniskirt and no underwear (obviously just to get ANY kind of attention).
Considering Coulter had pulled the same stunt earlier and on TV no less while promoting her book Godless what does that say about OUR standards?
How do you suggest rejecting the vulgarity of pop culture (especially to young people) when 'right-wing' celebrities are mimicking it (or in the example cited above, seeming to encourage it)?
He replied:

YIH, I'm not sure I answered your questions or objections.
I didn't see the Fox News incident you referred to, with Ann Coulter; I only read about it. But Coulter has cultivated the sexy image all along, and her trademark is her outrageous, in-your-face outspokenness. So has she just 'gone too far' this time, per Lawrence Auster's 'unprincipled exception'?
I agree that the whole vulgarity trend is a bad example for the younger generations in particular. But that has been going on for some time, and the GOP I think wants to promote it to draw in the younger people; they seem to need to prove conservatives are not stodgy and starchy and prudish. So now we have pinup 'pundits' like Coulter and the South Park brand of conservatism. The whole culture is going that way. We're losing the culture war; in fact we're surrendering, by the looks of it.
We should stand against it, but I just can't get worked up about Coulter being Coulter. I don't see her as being a representative of conservatism, especially traditionalism. She's a neocon or a South Park Republican, so whatever she does, I don't see it as representing me.

Although it was MSNBC it could have just as easily been Fox News.
While the example I cited above was my own 'jump the shark' moment in regards to Coulter, the issue of her whole presentation is cumulative.
I can't help but wonder what stunt she will pull next? And where will the point come that ''she's FINALLY gone over the top this time''?
I used 'shock radio' as an example where various 'jocks' seemed to doing a limbo dance of vulgarity to the point where the FCC finally got off their lazy butts and cracked down.
My opinion is this needs to be that point for Ann Coulter.
There is another reason, let's say a liberal says something along the lines of ''Ann Coulter is just a tired old [insert lesbian slur here]''.
Any objection would naturally be seen as hypocritical.
AND RIGHTLY SO! She herself brought it to that level.

Random thoughts...

2007-02-26T00:45:00.000-05:00

As mentioned below, I am now ''multi-blogging''. One person, multiple blogs. There are times when politics/islam/immigration/culture rot are just not what I want to blog about. I only post to YIH if I have unique things to say on a subject. I'll quote others, but I'd perfer to avoid just grabbing something someone else posted and posting it here. If I think something will be taken down or blocked from general view I will post it verbatim. Otherwise I won't do blatant plagerism. It's why I don't post much about illeagal immigration from Mexico, because there are others such as Vanishing American, ParaPundit and VDARE that do a better job than I can in dealing with that subject.
When it comes to islam these days I feel more dismay than anger about it. The President and his cheerleaders claim ''we are winning in iraq'' but I can't belive that. Not with (as the President acknowleges) at least 7,000 ''iraqi refugees'' headed to America. If ''the surge'' was stabilizing ''iraq'' there would be no need to bring ''iraqi refugees'' here!!!
The debate over moslim cabdrivers in Minneapolis continues, with the moslims screaming ''racism'' over making them merely do their job regardless of their faith. Let's say for the sake of argument I was a devout Jew and a cabdriver and I pick up a fare at a supermarket who bought a live lobster to take home to eat. Devout Jews cannot eat lobster (literally ''it CANNOT be kosher''). Would I refuse the fare citing ''religious reasons''? Belive it or not, I CAN do that! It's a live animal (biologically, it's an insect) THAT IS NOT ''an assistance animal''. That's what chafed me about the moslims, THEY ARE DEMANDING SPECIAL RIGHTS to override OUR laws.
If I were a devout Jew and a cab driver would I refuse the fare? As noted above, I'm allowed to by law. But no, I would not. I would do my job and transport my fare (and my fare's lobster) from point A to point B. I don't have to look at the lobster, touch it, or eat it.
I have the same problem with Mexico. Mexico has extremely restrictive laws when it comes to those who live there or even visit if they were not born there. But even suggesting that our laws be equalized to Mexico when it comes to those Mexicans who live here (legally or not) to be treated EXACTLY like Americans get treated in Mexico and the howls of protest come up loudly!
Just like moslims, Mexicans don't want equal rights, THEY WANT SPECIAL RIGHTS!!!
And that's what ticks me off, equal rights (for citizens and legal immigrants) I have no problem with. Demand SPECIAL rights and you'll have one ticked off YIH.
I have heard those who think the NAU is coming fast and those who think the NAU is pure bunk.
I think the NAU is coming but not on the timetable of the NAU ASAP folks. It will be slower (10-15 years) and there will be no ''Amero''. US currency will replace the Canadian Dollar and Mexican Peso.
That said, I OPPOSE IT!!! Because I know where it will lead, to ''the lowest common demoninator'' with Mexico's third world culture openly raping both America and Canada. As ''a way to get even''...

''Fifty Names to hide your cover''...

2007-02-18T23:11:00.000-05:00

Music videos were around many years before MTV!

[Warren(Central,FLORIDA)] 10:05 pm: Fifty Names to Hide Your Cover (Apologies to Paul Simon)

The Slick One came to Sandy in the darkest part of night (Saying)
"Got to get those documents before the Feds indict
We have to be so careful as we slip them out of sight (we need)
Fifty ways to Hide your Cover"

So instead of Sandy I will give you fifty names (mmmm)
Kind've like a secret code to cover up our game
If you're caught you know that you must shoulder all the blame (here are)
Fifty Names to Hide Your Cover

(Refrain)
Stick 'em in your pants, Lance
Hide 'em in your shirt, Bert
Slide 'em up your sleeve, Steve
Just get 'em to me...

Under the truck, Chuck!
You won't have to lie much!
Down in your shorts, Mort
Just shred 'em for me...

Stick 'em in your pants, Lance
Under your lapel, Mel!
Hide 'em in your shoes, Luis
Just get 'em to me...

Under the truck, Chuck!
You don't have to lie much!
Shove 'em in your vest, Wes!
Just shred 'em for me...

You must play it cool if someone sees a tell-tale bulge
Remind them you have private rights and nothing to divulge
This is serious business do not pamper or indulge (Use those)
Fifty Names to Hide Your Cover
Fifty Names to Hide Your Cover

(Refrain)
Stick 'em in your pants, Lance
Hide 'em in your shirt, Bert
Slide 'em up your sleeve, Steve
Just get 'em to me...

Under the truck, Chuck!
You won't have to lie much!
Down in your shorts, Mort
Just shred 'em for me...

Stick 'em in your pants, Lance
Under your lapel, Mel!
Hide 'em in your shoes, Luis
Just get 'em to me...

Under the truck, Chuck!
You don't have to lie much!
Shove 'em in your vest, Wes!
Just shred 'em for me...

[Andrea(WDBO - Orlando,FLORIDA)] 10:09 pm: karaoke time!

In a quandry...

2007-02-18T02:11:00.000-05:00

There have been times when I think ''I would like to post about [subject] but it really doesn't fit the overall 'theme' of YIH'' (which has become our affairs in ''iraq'', immigration, the clash of cultures, and US politics in general).
Currently I take a ''grab bag'' approach to this blog (when you pull up YIH you have no idea what I will post about next). That is also the approach that Rick Darby takes. And while I like and respect Mr. Darby the next time I visit it might be spiritulaity, psychical research or poetry. Which are topics I have little interest in.
(NOTE: I am NOT critisizing Reflecting Light or Rick Darby, I'm using his blog as an example. Nothing more)
The other approach is to have multiple blogs divided be overall theme. That is the approach that Randall Parker (ParaPundit, FuturePundit, StoryPundit, TechiePundit) takes.
In short, I'm thinking of developing a ''spinoff'' blog not unlike what Randall has done. YIH will focus on it's primary subjects and a second blog (~~working title ''Your Image Here: The Next Generation''~~) for humor, music, anime, tech and whatever does not fit the mold YIH has become.
I tried this as an expireiment already with the QWIK HITZ! (also a working title) window in YIH.
Updating the seprate QWIK HITZ! window proved to be more trouble than it was worth.

So what do I do? While I was writing this post I went into Blogger and created another blog: http://qwikhitz.blogspot.com. I was merely wondering if the URL was available. When I discovered it was, I jumped! (VA, as you can see, I'm quite capable of ''shooting from the hip'' as well!) Meet the new blog, not the same as the old blog:

Sometimes my mind works so fast that even I can't keep up. I was thinking of creating another blog and dadgummit, that's exactly what I did. I was thinking ''I wonder if 'qwikhitz.blogspot.com' is available?''. As of 2/18/7, NOT ANYMORE!!!
Right now it has a ''generic blogger'' template, ''the Orange B'' icon, and no Haloscan.
Not a problem, all of these are quite fixable. Time consuming, but fixable.
Your Image Here just gave birth to a new blog, now let's see what kind of parent it will be...

Qwik Hitz! WILL be a different blog, but everything I've learned doing YIH applies there as well...

Yes, I DO know what Ric Keller said...

2007-02-16T04:59:00.000-05:00

And if Rep. Dr. Weldon (R-Florida 15^th congressional district) had the guts to say this I would be jumping for joy!!!

Dr. Weldon is my congressman. And NO, I did not vote for him. I abstained. Had Ric Keller ran in the FL 15^th I still would have abstained.
On the way to work I heard this on Orlando radio. The local Orlando talk host was blustering that Congeressman Keller is a ''traitor'' and a ''turncoat'' who ''does'nt support the troops''. I disagree with that former local TV anchorman.
I CANNOT disagree with what Congressman Keller said. And he had every right to say it on the floor of the House.
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that those who furiously defend ''Operation iraqi freedom'' are merely doing it so THEY can 'go with clean hands' as ''their savior from the America-hating left'' PROVES to be an utter failure.
He has already stated his intention to bring 7,000 random ''iraqis'' to America as ''refugees''.
''The troops'' call them IED's or 'roadside bombs'. When they come home to find that their Commander in Chief BROUGHT those who were attacking them TO AMERICA WITH THEM will YOU ''support the troops'' THEN???
TODAY they are being called ''insurgents'' and ''al-quida in iraq''.
TOMORROW The President will be calling them ''iraqi refugees''.
THANKS A WHOLE LOT...

Another suprise...

2007-02-14T02:26:00.000-05:00

I find myself agreeing with Jhon Hawkins! ''McCain's Insane New Regulatory Burden On Internet Service Providers''.

"The proposal, which Sen. John McCain is planning to introduce on Wednesday, also would require ISPs and perhaps some Web sites to alert the government of any illegal images of real or "cartoon" minors. Failure to do would be punished by criminal penalties including fines of up to $300,000.

Think ''McCain-Finegold'' here.
When it comes to ISP's what the hell are they supposed to do? Assign someone to monitor everything each and every one of their customers do online?
That would be like requiring 'the phone company' to have operators listening into each and every phone conversation. And as soon as they hear something they think is illeagal, to comply with this proposed law they would have to report it as soon as they were aware of it.
I'll use myself as an example, it would be like having my ISP read each and every thing I write to an online chatroom that I'm a regular of. In a recent session I talked about everything from the current weather, to responding to what the hostess was saying, to just greeting others in the chatroom! Not even any naughty language there! All to make sure they comply with the law that McCain proposes.

The more I know of McCain, the more he gives me the creeps. If it winds up McCain v. Hillary, I vote 'third party'. One is as horrible as the other...

This may suprise you...

2007-02-14T01:43:00.000-05:00

I'm witholding judgement on the SLC mall shooting. Already there are those who are stating both moslim attack and ''columbine-style'' attack. As I write this I'm thinking ''inconclusive, could be either one'' (it fits both profiles). At this point real info is rather scanty.
But there is indeed an actual 'Hero' here:

Meet Ken Hammond, the off-duty cop who was carrying and dropped the sicko. He ''stopped the bleeding''. I'll comment further as more comes to light.
UPDATE: ''Today, several Utah papers are reporting that the killer’s name was Sulejmen Talovic, and he was a Bosnian Muslim refugee''. That is actual bias-free reporting; ''Just the facts ma'am''. WND has also reported it this way.
Of course the FBI has already tossed out the ''it was not terrorism'' statement.
Myself, I have not changed my opinion, I still say ''inconclusive''.
My reasoning is there are parts of the M.O. that do not fit the profile of a moslim attack. There is no indication that a koran was found on the body of the shooter.
There have been no witness accounts of any moslim-related statements from the attacker (that itself causes me doubt, moslims tend to be very plain about what they are and what they are doing). And the targeting appears to be random. Islam tends to not target randomly.
This better fits the ''go postal'' type assault where the shooter fires upon anything human until taken down or commits suicide. That's why I'm taking 'a wait and see' approach in this situation.
To put it bluntly, I'm unconvinced either way. Which means I won't rule out either M.O. until enough comes to light to clarify things. The reason I won't 'jump on a bandwagon' is if it turns out to be a ''columbine-style'' assault HAMAS-CAIR will eagerly use this as a way to discredit Americans who oppose them.
I'm just glad there was someone there that could take the SOB down. And did so...

''Separationism'', part II...

2007-02-11T23:04:00.000-05:00

Just got done from another visit to the ASK Show chatroom. I just mentioned what my policy about how to deal with moslims. Which is ''Separationism'':

We separationists affirm the following:

Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.

But we cannot destroy Islam.

Nor can we democratize Islam.

Nor can we assimilate Islam.

Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.

Allowing non-US citizen moslims (US citizen converts to Islam are a small and managable amount) to either stay in America or come here is the problem. There is a push to bring 20,000 ''iraqi refugees'' here. That cannot be allowed to happen. We are beginning to see the sunni-shi'ite blood fued not only in ''iraq'' but in Dearborn MI as well!!!
Robert Spencer put it in perspective:

Doesn't it occur to anyone who reads stories like this that it might not be a good idea to import this problem?

Italics mine. From the Washington Times link above:

Supporters of the existing policy have warned that hostile elements such as al Qaeda terrorists might try to enter the United States posing as refugees. Mr. McCormack did not say what steps might be taken to screen the applicants.

Again, italics mine. From what I've already seen of our so-called immigration policy the 20,000 would merely be the first 20,000 that apply. That would be the ''screening''. If an ''iraqi'' is #20,001 he or she won't get into America. If an ''iraqi'' is #19,999 he or she will.
Doesn't matter if he was Madhi Army or a so-called ''insurgent'', if that application gets stamped ''OK'' before the cutoff count, he wins and we lose. Regardless of what we do in ''iraq''.
UPDATE: Have we lost in ''iraq''? If you belive our actions in ''iraq'' were to ''To open another front in the War on Terror by helping to bring about a stable, prosperous, free and friendly Iraq.'' then we have indeed.

''Welcome to the new Blogger''...

2007-02-09T22:56:00.000-05:00

And I wish I hadn't. For a year I was PROUD of the fact that I could remove what I dubbed ''The Blogger Bar''. [swearing like a sailor]
Great, now I have to find a way to turn it off again. And I will. My simple little hack to remove it no longer works. [still swearing like a sailor]
UPDATE: All it took was a quick Scroogle search. Damn I'm good. And here is how you can remove ''The Blogger Bar'' if you would like to:
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-to-hide-blogger-navbar-in-new.html
UPDATE ''is it legal?'': Let's see, I ''shut off the navbar'' FOR A YEAR with no problems whatsover. Google flipped the switch to ''ON'', I found it and flipped the switch back to ''OFF''.
Yeah, that simple. I ACTUALLY SPENT MORE TIME griping about my problem than I did acutally solving it. DAMN I'm good.
~~When I find out how I'll let you know.~~ If you're wondering, my blog's template has not changed in the past two weeks.
UPDATE: Great, ''Labels for this post:'' screw up my formatting. [swearing again]
I put quite a bit of time and effort to make YIH look like it did and I was hoping I was done for a while.
Then all I did was click on ''try the new Blogger'' signed into it with my gmail accout, clicked ''I Accept'' and promptly screwed the pooch. It doesn't seem to be reversable either. I don't have a ''restore from Recycle Bin'' option here. It's a done deal. [and much more swearing ensues]
BEAR WITH US; A Technician is working on the problems.
Normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Not to worry, this blog is still fully functional.

SB XLI...

2007-02-04T18:27:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: I said the Colts would win.
This will be one post this time. The Colts kick off. 92 yard TD return by the Bears. 14 seconds, 7-0 Bears. Third down and Manning is intercepted. YIKES! Three and out by the Bears, punt goes to the end zone. I'm suprised that The Borg is not a primary sponsor. Third and long and the Colts ''go long''. TD Colts. The weather (light rain) has become a factor, the holder could not place the ball for the PAT. YIKES! The Colts get the ball away from the Bears on the kickoff. The next play the Bears get the ball from the Colts. Second and Goal Bears. On Third and Goal TD Bears. PAT sucsessful. Current score 14-6 Bears. I can't keep up with this game!!!
So when is Manning going to get up under Center? He faked it, but went back to ''shotgun'' formation. OMG, the ball goes back to the Colts. In field goal range. The game is progressing faster than I can ''write''. The Colts punt and down the ball on the Bears 4. The Bears punt and dowm the ball on the Colts 42. The 1^st Quarter ends with a Colts first down on the Bears 42 and the first .com ad during the game. The Colts drive to field goal range and get it. 14-9 Bears. 0 Borg ads. THAT'S QUITE A SUPRISE!!! Both Apple and The Borg HAVE advertised during the SB. Second .com ad. It's still raining on the Dade/Broward County border (the 50-yard line of Joe Robbie Stadium) currently 16-14 Colts.
FINALLY A SB WORTHY AD!!! The GM ''all by myself'' robot ad.
I'm quite suprised that Sprint still uses that name. They bill me as Embarq.
Back-to-back fumbles AGAIN.
The Colts missed the end of the Half field goal. Now for the artist formerly known as ''Prince''.
I like Dan Marino, I liked him when he up against the Bills. I liked him on the field of Joe Robbie Stadium as the Dolphins QB. I was glad the NFL chose him to do the honor of the opening coin toss. He's an awful football commentator.
The prince halftime show. A lame rendition of ''Let's go crazy'' and even lamer cover of ''Rolling on the river''. And an even lamer cover of The Foo Fighters ''The best of you'' STEVE GROHL has got to be wincing. And finally ''Purple rain'', with such a horrid guitar solo that I was shouting at the TV ''Pull his cord!!! Pull his cord!!! Pull his cord!!!'' (yank the cord from his guitar to the amp. Either end, just break the connection). A very disappointing halftime show. Face it, CBS is incapable of doing a good SB halftime show. This should be THE LAST SB on CBS. Other Networks can cover the SB. Maybe even CW can do a better job, I will not watch another SB on CBS. I'll leave THE TV OFF next time ''Local 6'' shows the SB. I MEAN IT.

''Seperationism''...

2007-02-04T03:52:00.000-05:00

A recent column by Leonard Pitts Jr. helps make the case for ''seperationism''. In it he says:

Three-quarters of the drivers serving the airport are Muslims, most from Somalia and, in recent years, many have refused to carry passengers carrying alcohol because Islam frowns on liquor. Dozens of passengers have reportedly been left stranded. Occasionally, even blind people using seeing-eye dogs have been refused passage by drivers citing Islamic teachings that the saliva of dogs is unclean.

Which moslim land are such restrictions imposed? Saudi Arabia? *BZZZT* WRONG! But thanks for playing. Here's the correct answer:

OK, let's say you fly into Minneapolis-St. Paul. Let's say you're carrying alcohol -- rum from the Caribbean, a Merlot you found in Napa Valley. Let's say you try to hail a cab while carrying said alcohol.

Good luck. You're going to need it.

YES, Minneapolis-St. Paul IS in America. It's the largest city in the State of Minnesota. Ever heard of the Minnesota Twins? The Minnesota Vikings? YES, that city!!!
He is quite properly miffed that moslims are trying to impose their lifestyle on kuffar with strong-arm tactics. He notes that ''Occasionally, even blind people using seeing-eye dogs have been refused passage by drivers citing Islamic teachings that the saliva of dogs is unclean.''.
Minnesota Law:

MINNESOTA
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 256C, Sections 256C.01 through 256C.06, amended 1992; Section 363.03(10). Minnesota statutes guarantee a blind person the legal right to be accompanied by a dog guide in all public accommodations and on all public conveyances. A dog guide user also is guaranteed the right to equal accommodation in housing. No extra charge can be levied because of the dog's presence, but the dog guide user is liable for any damage the dog guide causes to the premises. A landlord is not required to modify his property or maintain a higher standard of care than that provided other persons. Minnesota's state policy also ensures equal employment opportunity to blind persons in its state public schools, and in all employment supported in whole or part by public funds, except when the particular disability prevents performance of the work involved. Public accommodations include hotels, public buildings, restaurants, places of resort and amusement, stores and all other places to which the public is invited. (Sect. 256C.02) Public conveyances include airplanes, boats, taxis, trains, buses, and all other modes of transportation offered for public use. (Sect. 256C.02) Housing includes any real property offered for rent, lease, or compensation. (Sect. 256C.025) The service dog must be capable of being properly identified as from a recognized school for Seeing Eye dogs or dog guides. (Sect. 256C.02) Violation: Any person or agent thereof who interferes with the above enumerated rights is guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable therefore under Minnesota law. (Sect. 256C.05)

Boldface mine. Florida Law:

FLORIDA
Florida Statutes, Section 413.08 (1) through (8), enacted 1971, amended 1973, 1974, 1977, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998 Florida statutory law guarantees a blind person the legal right to be accompanied by a specially trained dog guide in all public accommodations and on all public conveyances. Florida statutory law also guarantees a dog guide user the legal right to equal accommodations in all housing. No extra fee can be levied because of the dog's presence, but the dog guide user is liable for any property damage the dog might cause. Landlords are not required to modify the premises nor are they responsible for maintaining a higher standard of care than that provided to other tenants. Housing accommodation covers any real property or portion thereof that is offered for rent, lease or compensation as a residence or sleeping place, but does not include private single family dwellings in which the occupants have offered no more than one room for rent. (Sect. 413.08(4)(a)-(c)) Public conveyances include all common carriers, airplanes, boats, trains, buses, taxis, and any other mode of transportation offered for public use. (Sect. 413.08(1)(a)) Public accommodations include hotels, lodging places, restaurants, stores, places of resort and amusement, and any other place to which the general public is invited. (Sect. 413.08 (1)(a)) Any trainer of a dog guide, while engaged in the training of such dog has the same rights and privileges with respect to access to public facilities. (Amendment Sect. 413.08 (7)) Violation: Any person, firm, corporation, or agent thereof who denies or interferes with the above enumerated rights is guilty under Florida law of a second class misdemeanor and punishable in accordance therewith. (Sect. 413.08 (2))

Again, Boldface mine. Note how similar the two State Laws are. I only address the laws as they apply in Minnesota (which is what Mr. Pitts uses as an example) and Florida (the State that both he and I live in). Both make it quite clear that barring someone with a seeing-eye dog is a violation of State Law and punishable by such. And quite properly should be.
The point that Mr. Pitts does not want to make is the point that I have no problem making: We cannot ''fix'' Islam, it is fundementally different from the way we in ''the west'' live.
At what price ''multiculturalism''? And it does indeed have a price.
Should the basic civil rights of blind people be sacrificed on the altar of ''multiculturism''? What's next? ''You can't ride in my taxi because you're in a wheelchair''? And if someone draws and has published a mild editorial cartoon that states quite plainly that Islam IS Islam should that person face death for it? As an American the idea that the 1^st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression does indeed trump the ''freedom of religion'' clause.
Even the 1^st Amendment cannot be used as ''a blanket protection''. The most well-known example is ''you cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theater'' and call it ''free speech''. Nor can Islam be allowed to override our laws under the guise of ''freedom of religion''.
By not arresting and filing criminal charges under Minnesota (or Florida) Law against the moslims that are here we allow the moslims to implement THEIR sharia Law UPON us.
The moslims see OUR NATION as a land to conqure and we are not doing anything to change their minds. That includes our operations in ''iraq'', we are trying to social work ''a new iraq'' while allowing moslim INVADERS to stay in OUR NATION.
Yes, we are losing, and our President (and his cheerleaders) are doing everything they can to make sure we lose. If we allow America to be colonized BY INVADERS we are truely ''Native Americans''. And I doubt our new moslim masters will allow us to build and operate casinos. Gambling is haram (forbidden) under Islam. Just like seeing-eye dogs.
UPDATE: Sorry bushtard,

Muslim Taxi Drivers vs. Seeing-Eye Dogs

November 14, 2005
From ''danielpipes.org''. Any moslim illegal alien who seeks to override FL law should be arrested and deported to ''iraq'' ASAP. Allow moslims to be moslims where they belong...

No, I don't think so...

2007-02-03T18:25:00.000-05:00

From Vox Day's blog:

Of course, this is the woman who is dumb enough to think that Americans are pining for a third Bush in the White House. Sure, Jeb talks a good game, but the problem is that after the lies his father and his brother told to get elected, no one with more than half a brain, conservative or liberal, believes anything that comes out of the mouth of anyone named Bush.

And I left this as a comment there:

I doubt JEB (his initals) Bush will seek nomination for President. He was overall an OK Govenor of FL but he demonstrated that he can indeed be 'rattled'. By the time 'francis' hit JEB in his public demeanor was quite clearly a shaken man. Granted, that was a stressful time for all of us (in FL) but showing it during an annoucement of moblizing the State to deal with another hurricane was not confidence inspiring.

As Govenor of FL appearing 'shaken' during a period of stress in public is forgivable. For a President it would be seen as distrubing. And would likely make a bad situation worse.
Many attacked President Bush for continuing to read to kindergarteners after the first plane hit the WTC. What they overlook was until the second plane hit it was assumed that this was an airliner crash and nothing more. It's generally assumed that 'red-alert status' is not to be invoked until the situation warrants it. By the time the second plane hit he had finished reading My Little Goat. That was when the teacher was informed to clear the classroom and it turned into a makeshift situation room. At that point Bush went 'into CINC mode'.
That is one of the few things I will defend the Bush administration on. The decison to launch attacks on Afghanistan is another.
I WON'T defend the decision to begin ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' because there were clearly doubts about either the involvement of Saddam's Government in the 9/11 attacks or the threat it actually posed to America. A common critsism of me is to lump me in with those jackasses in DC last Saturday or that 'greving mother as career' Cindy Sheehan.
The critical difference is that they are ''anti-war'' as far as a America is concerned. In truth they are actually PRO-war on 'the west'. And the way they see it 'the west' should not respond to attacks on it in any way. They seek to destroy 'the west' in order to save it. With the mindset that anything would be an improvment over 'western civilization'. That explains their silence in the face of moslims who seek to dictate what is and what is not acceptable in any form of expression. Note that nearly none of these ''liberals'' were willing to take a stand against those WHO OPENLY AND PLAINLY desire to kill those who merely drew a dozen cartoons in reference to Islam and it's founder.
So where does that put me? I have stated repeatedly that over 100,000 of ''the troops'' are being misused in ''iraq'' and should be evacuated from there immediatly. I agree with Hugh Fitzgerald that a sunni-shi'ite ''civil war'' in the entire Middle East is not a bad thing but in fact a good one. And in fact should be encouraged not discouraged.
MAKE the rest of the world see the hatred, violence, and primitivism that is the basic foundation of Islam without expending further American lives in a pointless effort to ''reform'' moslims. About three years ago a local talk radio host was wondering on the air if we (the USA) will be able ''to tame iraq''. Clearly the answer is NO, WE CANNOT ''tame iraq''.
I think of it as like a large-scale forest fire, one that cannot be drowned or smothered. Putting 100,000+ Americans in the middle of it to try to extinguish such a conflaguration from within is pointless and counterproductive.
The correct way to deal with Islam IS NOT ''to try to put it out'' (which cannot be done) but to contain the fire and allow it to burn itself out. Force the fire to consume itself.
That is a fudemental tenent of what Lawrence Auster has dubbed ''Seperationism'', what moslims do to each other is not our concern. Our concern is to do everything to prevent the basic destructiveness from spreading. That would involve removing as many moslims from civilization as possible and quaranteeing it to The Middle East as much as possible.
THAT is why I call for the removal of ''the troops'' from ''iraq''. ''Healing iraq'' is impossible, making ''iraq the model'' is impossible. Our President says that 21,500 more ''troops'' will accomplish what 150,000 have been unable to do, namely ''teach the pig to sing''. The pig is not singing. Nor will it ever.
In my Blogger profile (and on my blog) is a photograph of my cat. I love my cat, but no matter how much effort and expense I could undertake could I turn him into a gaurd dog. No amount of ''training'' will change him from what he is (yes, cats CAN be trained). It's impossible to change the fact that he is a cat. In fact if I paid my vet enough money he could surgically change my cat from anotomically male to anotomically female.
Yet ''he'' could never get pregnant, nor have kittens. So it would be pointless for me to try to make my male cat female would it not? A hubris of 'the west' is the idea that ''anything is possible if we only try''. But no matter how hard we ''try'', 2+2=4. We cannot 'remodel' the Middle East. You can root for ''da Bears'' all you want, that won't do a thing to stop the Colts from winning.
BTW, I use this as an example. As I write this SB XLI is tomorrow, the outcome is unknown to me. This time I don't even have a pick, I honestly belive it could go either way...

Movie Reveiw: ''Idiocracy''...

2007-02-03T02:51:00.000-05:00

To start off, it's not a bad film. But despite the gushing praise of Steve Sailer (who gets paid to crituqe movies) it's NOT 'A great moment in American cinema' either.
I won't 'bash' Fox for giving it limited release, they did so legitimately. It would've likely been an embarssing flop at the box office. Fox likely broke even in the costs to distribute that film to a limited number of theaters. Paying to plug it would've likely been ''a negative cash flow''.
I'll put it bluntly; Have you ever seen MTV's Beavis and Butthead? It's how Mike Judge made a name for himself.
Fox wanted another The Simpsons and got it in the Judge created and voiced King of The Hill.
I suspect the only reason this film 'got green lighted' at all was to keep Mike Judge under contract.
They wrote off about $10 million to keep Judge happy. Both sides got what they wanted.
Once the film 'was in the can' Fox test marketed it. And chose to go with the results of the tests.
If Fox had budgeted and spent the money to promote this 'in general release' it would have likely been wasted (I also suspect Mike Judge was not eager to do the media tour to promo this film).
All that said, the flick itself is not bad at all. Mike Judge has some talent and it shows.
The problem I had with Idiocracy is that I was expecting better than I saw and it failed.
It DOES make the point that America is becoming ''The Jerry Springer Show'' (Hell, it clubs you over the head with that observation) but it seems to have no problem with that.
The one question Mike Judge fails to address in his dismal future is ''Who keeps the lights on?'' (perhaps with ''Propane and Propane Accessories'')
And that's where the movie fails for me. It wanted to be the next ''Soylent Green'' but even if Mike Judge had hired Charlton Heston for the lead role the movie still fails.

My overall assestment? I actually liked the flick. It would have been perfect for Mystrey Science Theatre 3000. NOT a waste of time. If you're in the video store and see this RENT IT.
Not worth watching in a movie theater...

Thought for today...

2007-02-02T11:39:00.000-05:00

I saw my own shadow. That means I'll post my first movie reveiw soon...

Can't help it....

2007-01-28T19:37:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: Tried the link again (2/2/7 2:20pm EST). STILL ''OUT OF STOCK''!
It's not a bad rig. A gig of RAM, a 200gb HD and THE BORG'S 'vista home premium'. Like XP Media Center Edition, but supposedly better 'cause it's win vista.
How do I know? I paid the same price for the same rig with a 512mb of ram, a 120gb HD and XP Media Center Edition. BTW, tried a beta of 'vista home premium' on it for a week then removed it. It works OK, but it didn't wow me.
Considering that the Borg took 5 years and supposedly spent as much as the US did on NASA to have an American plant our flag on The Moon it should've wowed me.
All it did was make me say ''Nice, but I'd rather stick with XP MCE. $280 and the hassle of 'upgrading'? No thanks''.

''wally world'' prints up and mails out a sale flyer that features an item that's unavailable for sale!!!

Had to do a whole screen grab to show 'ya. And here's another:

In big red letters: OUT OF STOCK.
WHAT? They are offering for sale AN ITEM THEY DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE?!?!
YES.
I'm posting this Sunday, January 28^th. I got this sale flyer in the mail Wensday the 24^th!
I can hear them now; ''BUT, BUT, wally world wouldn't be dishonest, that would be dishonest''.
That is a problem I have with so-called ''conservitives'', they automatically associate capitalism with morality.
CAPITALISM IS NOT MORAL. Nor is it immoral, it's Amoral.
Capitalism IS NOT ABOUT ''good and bad'' it's about ''buy and sell''. Customer has money, Seller has something Customer wants to buy. No more, no less.
An old joke comes to mind:
A man walks up to a woman in a bar. Says to her ''will you sleep with me for a million bucks?'' And she eagerly says yes. The man says ''will you sleep with me for fifty bucks?''.
She slaps his face and shouts ''What kind of girl do you think i am???''.
The man replies: ''We've already established that, now we're talking about the price''.
I'm a man who has stated that I WILL INDEED ''whore out'' my blog! I've even quoted it's price!
NO, those terms are non-negotiable. Meet my price, and you can buy my blog for 30 days!
BTW, you CAN ''buy in bulk'', @$1millon per year. That's 65 days free!!!
This discount is only available to annual purchasers.

Why ''the troops support the mission''...

2007-01-26T17:21:00.000-05:00

This is the toughest post I'll likely write. But I must say it. I'm 42 years old and couldn't enlist even if I wanted to.
The average birthdate of ''the troops'' is the early 80's.
THINK ABOUT THAT
To them things like Cellphones, Music CDs and VCRs have always exsisted.
And to them ''helping the iraqi people to make a better life for themselves'' IS INDEED ''the mission''. THAT'S HOW THEY WERE RAISED!!!
They literally don't understand that they are THE WAR CORPS!!! And the few that ''get it'' become ''those rouge troops that commited a massacre in Haditha''.
ARE WE WAGING WAR OR NOT?
If we allow Cindy Sheehan to define a form of social work that doesn't have The Democratic Party stamp of approval on it as ''war'' Osama Bin Laden wins.
Quick history lesson, we FORCED Japan to submit to us.
Perhaps we should have done a demonstration of a Fusion (H) Bomb in Baghdad along with a demonstration of a Fission (A) Bomb in Ahnbar province on March 20, 2003.
It would have likely saved 3,000 American lives.
Now we are depleting our Armed Forces in a futile effort to ''train 'iraqi's''.
22,500 ''troops'' that would be better deployed to 'Dearbornistan' to remove them from over here SO WE DON'T ''have to fight them over here''...

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow...

2007-01-26T14:19:00.002-05:00

In Tucson, snow is glistning:

Let's see, right before Turkey Day we had snow flurries here in Central FL.
And now I can post a pic of cacti in their native AZ habitat with a pretty dusting of snow.
While algore lectures us about ''global warming'', I'll post a pic of people building a snowman IN TUCSON!!!

Global warming? Yeah, I've heard of it...

WAR!!! Huh, good God y'all. What is it...

2007-01-26T03:33:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: Hat tip to Mark Vance and Andrea Shea-King. They gave this post theme music LIVE ''on the air''. Much appreciated. I LIKE pleasant suprises like that.
With a tip of the hat to the late James Brown. But I leave the lyric unfinished for a reason, these days few seem to understand what the word 'war' even means.
Many of ''the troops'' don't, most on either the right or the left don't either.
As I've stated repeatedly I openly support the removal of 75% of ''the troops'' from ''iraq'' NOW. As in RIGHT NOW. As in they should be airborne headed back to America right this very minute. And of course, I've been accused ''of being Cindy Sheehan'' on a few occasions. Which is how degraded the discourse over our affairs in ''iraq'' has become. The left in thier own special idioctic way think America is indeed waging war. And for that reason alone it is to be opposed, as any opposition to (lynch) mob rule must not be allowed to happen. A good example is Jimmy Carter attacking the Israelis for ''apartheid'' toward moslims. What they don't want to understand is if the Israelis removed the walls and surrendered to the moslims it would indeed be the Holocaust all over again. Only much faster and much more brutal.
This nonsense boosts so-called ''conservitives'' by giving them the ability to say ''see, Cindy Sheehan and their ilk are idiots, therefore anyone who opposes the 'war' in 'iraq' is also an idiot''.
Ergo, the left confirms that we are fighting a war, therefore we are doing so, therefore those who don't ''support the mission'' don't ''support the troops'' and ''are leading us to defeat''.
WE HAVE ALLOWED idiots like Cindy Sheehan to define what the word 'war' means!!!
We WERE waging war in ''iraq'' AND HERE IS WHEN AND WHERE WE WON IT:
That is where ''The War in Iraq'' ended with our victory. At that point all that was left to do was to scour ''iraq'' for all those WMD's that we were absolutely certain existed. Hell, he told America they did. REPEATEDLY.
I feel like a cop who has executed a search warrant for explosive devices with the honest belief that homemade pipe bombs or even possibly sticks of dynamite would be found.
And what is siezed after executing that search warrant?
A FEW PACKS OF FIRECRACKERS AND SOME BOTTLE ROCKETS!!! In some States, the possession (or use) of firecrackers and bottle rockets is indeed a crime. And technically THEY ARE explosive devices. This actually began to sour me on talk radio where I heard talk hosts such as Sean Hannity (the male version of ''a blond bombshell'', quite attractive to the opposite sex and also quite empty-headed) say moronic things like ''there were WMD's in 'iraq'! We found them!!!''.
That is what led us to where we are now. WE ARE ''bogged down'' in ''iraq''. The Administration (despite the assistance of ''Junk Food Conservitives'') could no longer legitimately make the argument that ''iraq'' presented a threat to America so the need to ''spin'' began.
Now we are ''bringing 'the iraqi people' a hope for a better future'' by trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Yes, ''a square peg'' CAN ''be fit into a round hole'' but it takes A LOT of ''persuasion''. And that is why we are destroying American lives over in ''iraq''. WE (America) NO LONGER have the ability to say ''Look, this is the way things have to be, you can either WORK TO LEARN what is expected of you, or good luck, you're on your own''.
I've become PERSONALLY exposed to that. Until recently, I thought I could take time to learn and gain expirience. Suddenly I found out that the best training I've got has an end point. After that, IT'S OVER. Nothing I can do to change that fact. I'm on my own.
I ACCEPT THAT CHALLENGE and intend to live up to what is expected of me. IT WILL BE DIFFICULT but I WILL prevail. I won't sink, I'll swim. I have no choice any longer.
And that is how me must deal with ''iraq''.
We MUST set a point in time where they MUST get their act together. NO AND'S, IF'S OR BUT'S.
Not this ''benchmark'' nonsense BY LIBERALS but an ACTUAL cutoff date...

It's George Orwell's world...

2007-01-24T14:46:00.000-05:00

And we're living in it. The first example of how ''war is peace, ignorance is strength, ect.'' comes straight from the SOTU:

(W)e cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won’t have to try to sneak in -- and that will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers, and criminals, and terrorists.

Got that? The only way to have border security is amnasty. But here's where it gets even more ludicrous:

We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers -- so there is no excuse left for violating the law.

{sarc}SURE, Mr. Prez, I belive you. {/sarc} And it gets deeper:

What every terrorist fears most is human freedom – societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies – and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance.

The nutzo libs like to call him retarded, and they are correct. To moslims ''a better way'' is Islam. Note how they vote in free and open elections throughout the Middle East (the Prez sure hasn't). And it just gets dumber:

So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates, reformers, and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security . . . we must.

No, Mr. President ''the great question of our day is'' whether we will quit doing Middle Eastern social work and either begin a no-holds barred campaign of enemy defeating or leave the moslims to work out their affairs however they will:

Republican leaders generally expressed support for Bush's Iraq strategy. "If we fail in Iraq, or withdraw our troops prematurely, the terrorists will follow us home. Success is our only option," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio.

Vox Day snarks ''Apparently terrorists are puppies''. What Rep. Boehener fails to understand is whatever we do in ''iraq'' (stay, leave, go big, go long, go wide, go over, under, sideways, down, go backwards, forwards, square, and round) has no bearing on whether ''the terrorists will follow us home.''.
They are already here, and a whole lot more are on the way and they'll be calling themselves ''iraqi refugees''!!!
The issues of ''terrorism'' and immigration are intertwined. If people from around the world are able to come here to colonize America nothing we do in ''iraq'' or Afganistan has any meaning whatsoever.
Do you have locks on the doors of your home? Do you own and know how to use a firearm? Are you able to decide who is able to come into your home and who should not?
If all these things are good enough for your own home why are they not good enough for your own country?
If we are unable to at least SLAM THE DOOR SHUT IN THE FACE of people from moslim lands (NO, they can't even come as ''tourists'', or ''students'', or ''refugees'') EVERYONE who has died or has been dismembered in ''the war on terror'' DID SO IN VAIN!!!
SUPPORT THE TROOPS! SUPPORT OUR BORDERS!
EVEN IF THAT MEANS OPPOSING THE PRESIDENT...

How China sees us...

2007-01-21T22:54:00.000-05:00

http://www.atomfilms.com/film/haha_america.jsp
NOTE: A bit of foul language. And if you are on dialup I wouldn't bother. But IT IS worth seeing...

What makes islam different...

2007-01-21T01:13:00.000-05:00

If I mention Salt Lake City, UT, which religion would immediatly come to mind?
If you said The Jesus Christ Church of Latter-Day Saints (The Mormons) you would be correct.
Did you know there are Catholic Dioceses in Salt Lake City, UT? There are Synagogues in Salt Lake City, UT as well. There are even Baptist Churches in Salt Lake City, UT.
How many Mormon Tabernacles are there in Mecca, Saudi Arabia? NONE. Synagogues in Mecca, Saudi Arabia? NONE. Catholic Dioceses in Mecca, Saudi Arabia? NONE. Baptist Churches in Mecca, Saudi Arabia? NONE. In fact you are not allowed to enter Mecca, Saudi Arabia unless you can quote several suras from the koran from memory. Did I mention that you have to quote the koran in Arabic?

You have to be able to speak the language of ''the best of peoples'' just to pay a visit to Mecca.
I have heard the phrase ''nuke mecca'' so often that it has become tiresome.
What we must do IS EJECT the moslims IN AMERICA and put up signs that say:
AMERICA, moslims unwelcome due to 911.
In my opinion, it would require about 22,500 of ''our troops'' to clean up that thriving Al-Quida cell in Dearborn MI. But that would involve fighting our enemies, and we MUST NOT do that.
The current President can't allow Americans to fight to defend America.
He is destroying ''our troops'' in a brainless ''nation-building'' social work mission.
You want me TO SUPPORT THAT? Sorry. No can do...

Talk radio: The Next Generation...

2007-01-20T16:56:00.000-05:00

I always have an eye on the future. And in regards to talk radio there is indeed a future.
Not only do I know what it is, I'm a part of it.

Picture if you will a talk radio show that is NOT nationally syndicated, yet it has a national audience.
A talk radio show where the hosts give out the phone number to call and nobody calls!
A talk radio show where people raise a toast to a sponsor? (http://www.gattos.com/)
Even though they might live anywhere from about 70 miles to quite literally thousands (yes, thousands) of miles away?
A talk radio show where nearly everyone who joins in is also has a blog?
[cue ''Twilight Zone'' theme]
But it's NOT ''The Twilight Zone'', it's real. I've become a regular there. I'm Your Image Here A.K.A. YIH. (I do indeed have a real name, but I discourage the use of it)
The show broadcasts (it's an actual radio broadcast, I can listen to it that way) M-F 3-5pm ET. The show also broadcasts on WDBO 580 AM Sunday evenings from 9-11pm ET. For me it's easier to just use an AM radio and not try to pull the online feed. If you are within 100 miles of Disney World I'd recommend you do the same.
Otherwise you'll have to deal with the online feed. Likely just to get it to work at all you'll have to open The Borg's Internet Exploiter. May God protect you.
BTW, it is quite true, every time I open IE it angers me. I have come to loathe IE (6 or 7). If I have to open IE just to get a streaming audio feed to work I'd rather not.

NOTE: If this looks like a blatant ad that's because it is.
I thought I should mention my policy on advertising on my blog, I'm not opposed to it.
My terms are simple; You can advertise anything, anywhere on this blog. The current ad rate is US $100,000 per 30 day period. Take it or leave it.
That applies to Google ads, Blogads, and Pajamas Media. Or any other advertiser.
If Bill Gates wants to take this blog over to plug Vista he can. I've quoted my price, if he accepts it I'll make the deal (YES, the Blogger TOS allows me to do that).
If you are wondering how Ironic Times and The Andrea Shea King Show got ads here the answer is simple: I give them ad space AS A GIFT. Considering what I quoted as my ad rate, a very expensive one at that...

Moron hannity...

2007-01-19T03:45:00.000-05:00

A fellow reader of View From the Right, James R. brought up the subject of Sean Hannity. Having blogged disparagingly of him myself on several occasions, I thought I should add my own 2 cents to the discussion. I sent Lawrence Auster what I had said about Hannity in a previous post. It was an accurate account of what I heard him say live ''on the air''. I couldn't belive what I was hearing, it was downright revolting on a viceral level alone. What Sean read on the air was the text of the Sept. 14, 1993 lawsuit filed against Jackson. Note that Sean broadcasts out of NYC (as he did that day). In my opinion (and the opinion of the caller) it was unnessessarily graphic and vulgar for 3:30pm EDT.
The reason I include Rebecca Hagelin in my upbraiding of Hannity is obvious; she wrote a book stating:

In "Home Invasion: Protecting Your Family in a Culture that's Gone Stark Raving Mad," Rebecca Hagelin proves that in today's all-consuming culture of corruption there is nowhere left to hide—American homes have already been invaded by this insidious enemy that seeks to twist our minds and poison our hearts through the unmonitored Internet, television, magazines, and music that our families ingest on a daily basis.

Speaking as a nationally known social commentator and as a mother of three, Hagelin shows through specific examples and alarming statistics how the enemy has infected the family van, our neighborhood schools and textbooks, the stores in which we shop, and even the churches in which we worship.

Boldface mine. After reading her WND column about Hannity I am reminded of the Dire Straits song Industrial Disease with the tounge-in-cheek lyric; ''Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong''.
UPDATE: The discussion over Hannity continues at VFR:

Liberalism is so monolithic in the media that any bit of conservatism easily sells, even if that conservatism has liberal elements in it.

I would encourage readers to stop listening to Limbaugh and Hannity and to tune into Michael Savage instead. Of all the talk radio pundits, Savage comes closest to the views of VFR. It’s not without flaws, but it will be the kind of very pleasant surprise you get reading Ann Coulter’s Godless critique of evolution: You just couldn’t imagine such a good argument coming from the dippy blonde portrayed on the cover.

So don’t right-off talk radio until you’ve spent some time listening to Michael Savage.

I don't dislike Savage. I listen to him whenever possible. In a recent post I mention that I enjoy his show. I chose a Metallica video off of You Tube to make two points at the same time:
1. Savage's apparent fondness for Metallica. At one point he mentioned that he would like to invite the band to his show. Either the band ignored him or he heard their St. Anger CD and thought better of it.
Having heard St. Anger I think it is safe to say they should not worry too much about THAT ONE being passed around on file-sharing sites. Becuase it's their worst effort by far. IT STUNK.
2. The lyrics of that particular song (No Leaf Clover) fit a message I have been on lately; Regardless of the outcome of ''Iraq'', there will be terrible repercussions of our misguided efforts to ''free'' it. Specifically ''Iraqi refugees'' that I think will soon be coming to America in large numbers.
That said, I am less than convinced that Savage's conservitism is particularly genuine. He has a facinating and entertaining show. While I do belive his opinions on affirmative action, immigration and the changing face of America are authentic, it also appears that he jumped on the bandwagon following the rise of Limbaugh (as did Hannity, Rusty Humpries, Glenn Beck, ect. ect.). There have been writeups about him that I wouldn't automatically discount as mere ''hit pieces''.
Mr. Auster adds the following comment:

Someone said to me that Hannity has charisma. I’m speechless.

I was ''Someone''. When I saw that, I decided to attempt to clarify:

No, not on radio. I agree he has a rather poor radio voice. But on TV/in person yes. I compare him to Clinton in that regard.

While it may be phony as well, he comes off as personable, friendly. The kind of person you could sit down at a bar with, have a few beers and a friendly chat with.

In the case of Hagelin, she reacted to him in a way that is not atypical of women towards him. The phrase “...and drop-dead gorgeous.” trumps everything else.

I apologize for the poor syntax. It was a quickly composed and sent email. I am not a writer by trade. In fact, writing is something that is a bit awkward for me (kinda obvious).
Often time constraints clash with the need to edit and write well. My writing looks like 'a first draft' because it is.

My mention of (Bill) Clinton is because I've always thought he has a natural talent, salesmanship. I've always thought of him as the proverbial ''born salesman'', the kind of person who could sell nearly anything to anyone. I also belive this is Hillary's ''secret weapon''.
In Constitutional terms, Hillary has never been President. In reality, she has been President for eight years!
I've always compared the two of them to the scene in the film The Wizard of Oz where Dorothy and company are in the Great Hall of the Wizard. The huge head with the booming voice is Bill Clinton. The ''man behind the curtain'' is Hillary.
While in terms of the law, Bill Clinton has already been President for eight years (and cannot be VP, by law he is disqualified from being President and therefore cannot be VP either. This disqualification also applies to ''DUHbya''). If Hillary actually becomes President how it will function will be not unlike the previous Clinton presidency. Bill as the public face of it, Hillary as the actual operational control of it.

The horror of ''iraq''...

2007-01-13T14:10:00.000-05:00

From Lawrence Auster's blog:

We should ask three questions about this situation. Two are mandatory: what are the real interests of Americans and the United States in this affair, and what are the likely consequences for the United States of invasion and occupation? The third is not, but is still important: what are the grievances against us that make these Moslems homicidal to the point of suicide?

The overriding interest of Americans is their security and that of the United States. That must be the focus of U.S. policy. To focus intelligently requires adequate intelligence, something we seem not to have, at least in human terms.

If the administration can prove to the satisfaction of the Congress (here satisfaction means a willingness to declare war) that Iraq has or soon could have weapons capable of posing an offensive threat to the United States or U.S. forces deployed in the region, then I'll accept Iraq poses sufficient threat to us to justify intervention. The ability to launch the odd SAM or hose AAA in the general direction of U.S. fighters patrolling over Iraq does not reach the threshold. The administration has not yet made that case, despite Tony Blair's best efforts.

Ensuring an adequate flow of oil for American needs is also an American interest. It is worth asking which is the better way to pursue that goal: invasion and occupation of Middle Eastern oil producers or conservationally sound development of the petrochemical deposits we know we have in our own country? If access to foreign oil is sufficient raison d'etat to justify occupations of sovereign nations, why have we not occupied Mexico and Venezuela?

Peripheral concerns alone cannot justify going to war. "Regime-change" in Iraq, absent the proof mentioned above of the danger to America of Saddam's regime, is not a vital interest of the United States. Neither is the security of Israel, although that is something we should support diplomatically and, to the extent reasonable, economically.

There are few positive consequences imaginable, and many negative. The one positive consequence, assuming for the moment that Iraq does pose a genuine threat to the United States, is the removal of that threat. I do not think American battle casualties would be high; I believe that, feminized and reduced though they have been even since 1991, the U.S. Armed Forces would win the battle fairly easily. At what cost in Iraqi lives, military and civilian, is another question worth asking. After the battle, we face the prospect of occupation, supporting the puppet regime we install, and keeping Iraq's hostile factions apart, all for some unspecified but likely very long period. Our multicultural mushmindedness makes it inevitable that we will admit hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of "refugees," to contribute to the ethnic dissolution of our own country. Is the game worth the price? What of the effect on our economy and markets? What of our relations with other countries, friendly and otherwise?

Those behind the attacks on New York and Washington should be hunted and killed. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are legitimate targets. Still, we can learn something from what bin Laden said his complaints against the United States were, and the order in which he expressed them. The first was the presence of infidel troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holy places. The second was the role of the United States in enforcing sanctions that bin Laden believes have led to the deaths of millions of Iraqi Arabs. The third is American support of the "Zionist entity." He said nothing about American cultural pollution of the faithful, although he and his ilk no doubt abhor our pop culture. He said nothing about hating us because of our democratic ways, uncongenial though he may find them.

If bin Laden reflects what Islamicists in the Middle East really think, they would become far less a threat to our well-being if we stopped meddling in their region. Of course, they would also be less of a threat if the idiots who govern us would stop letting them in our country. As far as I can tell, we have two reasons to meddle in the Middle East: our need for oil and our support for Israel. It stands to reason that we should make ourselves less dependent on Moslem oil, and remove ourselves, as much as practical, from the Persian Gulf and Arabia.

As for supporting Israel, we should, as even-handedly as possible - which is not to ascribe moral equivalence to Israel and Arafat's Palestinian Authority. In bin Laden's view, at least as he has expressed it, our support for Israel is third in the list of evils, behind being in Arabia and blockading Iraq. A poorly kept secret of the Middle East is that Arab regimes actually benefit from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as it gives them a bogeyman to excuse their own failures and deflect popular wrath.

Pace such keyboard warriors as Perle/Wolfowitz, Podhoretz, Kristol, Kagan, et al., we must not degenerate into Imperium over this. HRS
Posted by: Howard Sutherland on October 2, 2002 03:13 PM

Boldface mine. Note the date that comment was posted, over 6 months before ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' began. Mr. Sutherland noted about the possibilty of ''iraqi refugees'' over four years ago. The campaign to ''help iraqi refugees'' is already beginning in earnest.
Regardless of how we end our affairs in ''iraq'', we MUST stand firm;
NO IRAQI REFUGEES!!! NONE!!!
I don't care if it's ''the Christian community'' whining ''but we must help our fellow Christians being opressed in iraq'' or LIBERALS whining ''we owe 'the iraqi people' a better life! It's what we promised them!''. The ''better life we promised them'' was to happen in ''iraq'' and nowhere else.
I understand WHY ''the Christian community'' is arguing to bring ''iraqi refugees'' here but what they don't understand is the fact that we are dealing with a moslim country.
And most Americans HAVE NEVER UNDERSTOOD THAT. There is a basic principle in islam known as taqyyia. The koran quotes mohammed as saying ''War is deception'' and that is something ALL moslims take to heart. Which means as soon as we begin to bring ''opressed iraqi Christians'' to America we will be FLOODED with ''iraqis'' claiming to be ''opressed iraqi Christians'' seeking sanctuary in America.
A while back I was debating online with Mark Vance. He was ranting about a video that appeared on CNN showing an American soldier being killed by an ''iraqi'' sniper. He was outraged that CNN would dare to show such a thing. He was literally claiming CNN was collaberating with ''terrorists'' in ''iraq''. He asked me how did they get this video clip? I can now answer ''the same way they got the video of saddam being hung'', someone in ''iraq'' shot the video and someone from CNN bought it. Nothing more complicated than seeing something at a garage sale, pulling over, stepping out of the car and saying to the person sitting in the front yard ''how much do you want for that?'' and pulling some cash out of a wallet. The seller got the cash, the buyer got the merchandise. Capitalism 101.
There has long been the phrase ''if it bleeds it leads and if it burns it earns''. The media literally live off ''juicy'' video and audio clips. The reason I bring that up is that ''iraqi'' sniper that shot that soldier then will be claiming to be ''an opressed iraqi Christian'' in the future.
We can't tell ''the good guys'' from ''the bad guys'' in ''iraq'' NOW!!!
HOW THE HELL will we be able to sort out ''the good guys'' from ''the bad guys'' when they start coming to America?!?!!!
''Stay or leave'' is no longer the issue.
We can't bend over, we can't fold, WE MUST STAND FIRM:
NO IRAQI REFUGEES!!! NONE!!!

AHHHHHH, THAT'S BETTER...

2007-01-12T17:06:00.000-05:00

YIH is back in comfortable clothing again. I let this blog run around naked, stirring up trouble, and what does it do? It puts Mark Vance into a death spiral.
He was whining (yes, that's the correct word) about ''the democrats raising the minimum wage'' AFTER the FL Legislature passed and the president's little brother SIGNED INTO LAW A MANDATORY FL MINIMUM WAGE.
Let's see, the FL House; Looks like the R's run the show. FL Senate? Same thing. Govenor? I'm actually GLAD the president's little brother is no longer FL Govenor (and can never be again).
I'm bushed. 3,000 Americans killed is enough ''social exprimenting'' for me thank you very much.
I now understand why ''bush 41'' didn't ''get saddam''. IT WASN'T WORTH IT.
The only reason he allowed his retarded son to run for president was because he thought he wouldn't win. Takes quite of bit of pressure off his own lackluster presidency (remember ''READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES''?). He never wanted his braindead son to become president.
Yet it happend anyway. Now we have as horrible a president as jimmy carter.
I can't even claim jimmy carter SPENT OVER 3000 AMERICAN LIVES in persuit of a LIBERAL social work mission. I'm glad JEB can no longer run for Govenor of FL...

Yeah, I like Savage...

2007-01-12T10:41:00.000-05:00

And like him, I'll use Metallica to make a point...

My friend Rick Darby inspired this post...

It's amazing what you can do with a blog...

2007-01-12T03:03:00.000-05:00

Just for the hell of it, I ''went nostalgic'' with Your Image Here.
Don't worry, I can quickly restore it's normal appearance...

The ULTIMATE horror show...

2007-01-11T21:42:00.000-05:00

This horror show will have a cast of over 300 million.
AND IT'S COMING SOON TO AN AMERICA NEAR YOU!!!

Regardless of how we resolve our affairs in ''iraq'' this could likely be what you see out of the windshield OF YOUR OWN CAR in the future!!!
As I mentioned in an earlier post the lobbying effort on behalf of ''iraqi refugees'' has already begun. It's being sold as as ''an act of Christian compassion'' on behalf of ''opressed Christians in iraq''. The ''Christian communtity'' are pushing this as ''a way to help our fellow Christians escape the horror that iraq has become for them''. I see the sales pitch working already:''but are we rescuing and rebuilding their country to have all the non-Islamic residents rounded up and slaughtered? I think not!!!!!!!!''.
Yes we did indeed make ''a living hell for iraqi Christians''. WE WERE SO EAGER to implement ''get saddam'' that WE DIDN'T CARE about what the hell we were getting ourselves into and what the reprecussions of our actions might be:

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger

THAT'S WHAT HE WAS SAYING as 'shock and awe' was getting underway on March 20, 2003.
BTW, EVEN THEN he made sure his statements were available En Español:

EL PRESIDENTE: Mis conciudadanos, en este momento, las fuerzas estadounidenses y de la coalición se encuentran en las etapas iniciales de las operaciones militares para desarmar a Iraq, liberar a su pueblo y defender al mundo de grave peligro.

As ''the Christian community'' promotes ''bringing iraqi Christians to the safety of America'' the leftists in America will make use of this weapon against their enemy. They WILL join with ''the Christian community'' to advocate ''bringing iraqi refugees here to provide them with the new life we did indeed promise them''.
I touched on this subject in a post that bashes The Malkin Family™ (and their blog) again. The Malkin Family™ wants us to feel sympathy for ''the iraqi people''.
AND I JUST CAN'T DO IT.
I can't feel sympathy for ''the iraqi people'' (no matter how many KUTE KIDZ® pics the Malkin Family™ post).
The Malkin Family™ seems to be trying to get Americans to think ''There's more space aboard 'America's Lifeboat' for the sweet, lovable iraqi people''.
The ONLY ''people'' I want to ''rescue'' are Americans.
I DON'T WANT TO BE A ''VANISHING AMERICAN''!!!

Well, the other shoe has dropped...

2007-01-11T20:23:00.000-05:00

Just skimmed through the text of bush's speech last night. As you might guess by now, I'm underwhelmed. I actually suspect he truly belives things like this:

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

Even an enthusiastic booster of our affairs in ''iraq'' Neil Boortz is skeptical: ''So the only thing we can do now is try to win, I suppose. Let's just hope it isn't too late.''. Looking back at our affairs in ''iraq'' now, I'd have to say it was too late THREE YEARS AGO. Two years ago I began to realize (and started to say) that we can't ''win'' in ''iraq''. It's when I realized that ''to win'' in ''iraq'' would require the transformation of a third-world islamic middle eastern hellhole into a ''western-style'' society. Wasn't going to happen then, is'nt going to happen now, and it won't happen long into the future either. It seems that we had no choice but to re-learn the old proverb: ''Do not try to teach a pig to sing. It doesn't work and it only annoys the pig''. The bush worshippers are detrimed to try to get that pig to sing. In spite of the fact that the pig never will.
It's why I advocate bringing ''the troops'' home RIGHT NOW and OPPOSE adding 22,000 more to either stand around and get shot at or ride around in humvees getting blown up.
The hamster is exausted, not allowing it to get off the wheel is just plain cruelty. To compound this futility is insane.
And after bush leaves office and we begin to finally finish our business with ''iraq'' those who went over there with the belief that we actually could transform ''iraq'' into ''iraq the model'' was impossible and they were sent over into a no-win situation.
As I write this, I'm listening to Savage. As I hear him, I realized ''he's finally reading Hugh Fitzgerald!!!''. I'm GLAD someone in talk radio is!!!
Yes, Mark Vance and Andrea Shea-King , you should be reading Hugh Fitzgerald as well.
BTW, here's a good place to start: Fitzgerald: The "Iraqi" "exit strategy"...

Her new name...

2007-01-11T05:59:00.000-05:00

''Michelle Rodham-Pelosi''.
How many times have you heard [insert name of LIBERAL social program here] justified with the statement ''for the children''?
It was awful enough when it was merely hillary and her cohorts were saying this LIBERAL social program was needed ''for the childeren'' here IN AMERICA (with any amount of money is absoultely nessessary ''for the childern'') but now we should be spending over 3,000 American LIVES ''for the children''.
She can no longer dismiss those who think our actions in ''iraq'' are insane, therefore she is going for an emotional cheap shot:

''KUTE KIDZ®''. Just a blatant tug at the 'ol heartstrings.
WE HAVE SPENT 3,000 American LIVES to produce this AUTHENTIC ''KUTE KIDZ®'' pic.
Mr. and Mrs. Malkin, do you think it was WORTH spending 3,000 AMERICAN LIVES so you could post a ''iraqi'' ''KUTE KIDZ®'' pic?
Sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Malkin, IT WASN'T WORTH IT...

I hope they choke on it...

2007-01-06T11:44:00.000-05:00

Hey hawkins and medved, did the ''conspiricy theorists'' come up with this?
Jorge Busheron (or as hawkins and medved call him, GOD) wants to extend Social Security to Mexicants!
Now let's see, FOR DECADES we have been told ''medicare doesn't have enough money to meet it's obligations'' and the solution Jorge Busheron puts in place?
''Medicare part D'' the EXPANSION of it to cover perscription drugs!!!
Yep, if you're hawkins and medved, if you see someone drowning you would toss them a cinderblock.
We've also heard FOR DECADES ''Social Security is in crisis, it will also go bankrupt in the future'' and what does Jorge Busheron do? HE EXPANDS IT.
In a comment to ParaPundit about this Rick Darby said:

Is George W. Bush the first president in history who is clinically -- not just metaphorically -- insane? Maybe we really need to start talking about a "Caine Mutiny" scenario.
Posted by Rick Darby at January 6, 2007 05:42 AM

Like myself he likely supported (and voted for) that idiot TWICE!!!
Now I wonder if he's snorting lines of cocaine off The Oval Office desk!!!
My employer has every right to make me pee in a cup at any time to prove to them I'm not using illegal drugs.
And as a FL ''employer'' of DUHbya I demand that he comply with the FL law that his brother pushed for and signed. JEB put his own daughter in jail for drug abuse. Will he do the same with his brother?

Just a reminder...

2007-01-06T04:58:00.000-05:00

BACK WHEN HE WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2000:

NOT ''The Stars And Stripes''. The bush worshippers KNOW what they did to America.
They SHOULD be ashamed of what they did (such as executing 3,000+ American soldiers in ''iraq'')...

WHY ''we are losing in iraq''...

2007-01-06T03:14:00.000-05:00

To put it bluntly, America no longer has any BALLS.
We went into ''iraq'' with the mission being defined as (I wish I was kidding) ''Operation Iraqi Freedom''. Nearly four years and over 3,000 Americans dead and ''iraq'' has 'gone back to square one'.
No, I haven't seen the cellphone video yet, nor do I think I have any need to. From what I've read of it, he was executed with his final moments hearing ''moqtada, moqtada, moqtada''.
He knew his fate. He did the same to the 'King' of ''iraq'' decades ago.
A friend of mine, Vanishing American noted that The National Guard has been overrun at the border. Blockquote:

How many such incidents will it take before this begins to be taken seriously? I suspect there is nothing the Mexicans can do that would provoke a forceful response from us. It seems that despite the open display of force from the Mexicans, all we do is appease, placate, and court them. Disgusting.

The National Guardsmen were placed at the border unarmed, which is madness, considering the numbers of heavily-armed criminals in the border areas. It's a disgrace to our country to put these Guardsmen in that position and leave them vulnerable.

READ THE BLOCKQUOTE.
Now I'll paraphrase:

How many such incidents will it take before this begins to be taken seriously? I suspect there is nothing the ~~Mexicans~~ ''iraqis'' can do that would provoke a forceful response from us. It seems that despite the open display of force from the ~~Mexicans~~ ''iraqis'', all we do is appease, placate, and court them. Disgusting.

A very disturbing paralell, if you ask me.
I'll mention a radio show and online chatroom that I usually join in on Friday afternoons (3-5pm EST).
I'll also be in that online chatroom Sunday evening 9-11pm EST.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

2006-12-31T23:40:00.000-05:00

I said this a year ago, it's time for Dick Clark to step aside.
He now LOOKS like the now 78 year old man he is. In 1992 Reagan realized it was time to step out of the spotlight, and he did.
It is time for Dick Clark to do the same. Regis Philbin did a fine job in 2004 when Dick was in the hospital after his stroke. I don't blame Dick for trying for just one more, I blame Disney for not having the cojones to tell him ''Sorry, but it's over''.
I feel like I'm staring at a car wreck when I see Dick Clark now. If he's returns for 2008, I won't be so kind then...

It's New Year's Eve...

2006-12-31T17:41:00.001-05:00

So like others have I'll toss out some predictions of my own:
''Iraq'': It's got to the point where I even think about that four-letter word I launch into a rant.
This'll be no exeption. I've seen the term ''an important milestone'' correctly disparaged, but actually there ARE two ''important milestones'' in regards to ''iraq'': It has taken longer than WWII and as of today 3,000 Americans have died in this endeavor.
And it forces the inevitable question: AND WHAT DO WE HAVE TO SHOW FOR IT?
An ''iraq'' that is peaceful, civilized and loves America? If you belive THAT then you need to quit doing dope. Seek treatment, please.
I've watched ''iraq'' go from chaos, to outright anarchy. And now it appears that state of anarchy is resolving itself the way it always has and always will: With the emergence of a dictator to seize control. The execution of saddam also officialy ushered in his replacement; Muqtada Al-Sadr.
The King is dead. Long live the King. It is quite plain that al-sadr is the de facto ruler of ''iraq''. And just like his predicessor, the ''government of Iraq'' exsists to be little more than to be a rubber stamp for whatever the ruler decides. EXACTLY what the ''government of iraq'' was BEFORE March 20, 2003.
And in every possible way the new ruler of ''iraq'' is worse than the old one. The new ruler of ''iraq'' is an ally of Iran. You can't claim saddam was. The old ruler could do nothing but flee in the face of the US Army and Marines, the new one has been given the power to countermand the operations of them. The old sunni despot had a free hand to do the shi'ites whatever he pleased. The new shi'ite despot is treating the sunnis the same way. The old one wielded power through a sense of Pan-Arab nationalism. The new one is ''talibanizing'' his kingdom as fast as he can. More and more reports are documenting ''the plight of Christians in iraq''.
From Dr. Laurie Roth Ph.D., who has been very ''gung ho'' about ''operation iraqi freedom'':

Last night I interviewed Dr. Paul Williams, an FBI trainer and terrorism analyst. He shared tragic information about numerous Syrian Christians in Iraq being targeted and slaughtered by Iraqi authorities because of Islamic law. Many had been decapitated by Iraqi authorities. Hundreds more have fled the country as refugees. I have heard none of this in the news, not that we would hear any truth from our media about the various real dramas going on in Iraq. Why do that when you can position Iraq coverage only to manipulate votes away from Bush and His supporters. Here this whole time I have been under the impression we were building a fragile, but true democratic government style, not Taliban like Islamic law that wipes out Christians and anyone falling under the high and impossible bar from hell. Why has this never made the news over here? This needs to be addressed as an emergency in Iraq. If they want to be Islamic that is their deal, but are we rescuing and rebuilding their country to have all the non-Islamic residents rounded up and slaughtered? I think not!!!!!!!!

Boldface mine. And the reason I did was to say to Dr. Roth one word: GOOGLE!!!
Another undeniable fact: Under saddam, life wasn't too bad for Christians there. Hell, one iraqi Christian was saddam's No. 2 man! And what makes it worse is the reality that there is little we can do to help them. I am absoultely opposed to America taking them in as ''refugees''.
That would be disastrous for the USA. Becuase as soon as we begin taking in iraqi Christians as refugees, we would have sunni iraqis ALSO demanding refuge in America. Not to mention the fact that still more iraqis WILL ALSO CLAIM to be ''opressed iraqi Christians'' as their ticket to America. Hugh Fitzgerald put it so well:

But we have had quite a demonstration of how the Iraqis think and behave. It has been edifying. And the officers and men of the American military, who have served in Iraq, ought to be consulted first about whether or not they think that we "owe Iraqis" something and whether or not they think tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Muslims should be allowed to settle in our country, or for that matter other Infidel lands.

The response of those officers and men should be instructive.

The Boston Globe article I linked to states that the US has ''a policy that authorizes only 500 Iraqis to be resettled here next year''. If that FOR ANY REASON (including ''Christian compassion'') changes America IS IN DEEP TROUBLE!!!
We will be FLOODED with ''iraqi refugees'' including ''iraqi refugees'' that seek ''to get even with America for what it did to iraq''. We could literally see ''iraqis'' that were shooting and bombing American soldiers yesterday coming here as ''refugees'' tomorrow. With instead of 140,000+ potential American targets they will have 300 MILLION+ potential American targets to attack.
Call me ''cold-hearted'', I DON'T CARE.

I also see ''it's the MSM's fault'' nonsense. From NRO:

In Iraq, the press will continue its successful anti-American offensive. By year’s end, a special ops team of New York Times theatre critics will announce that the war in Afghanistan is also lost and call for David Geffen to lead negotiations with the Taliban.

Just reading (or hearing) THAT CRAP also now makes my blood boil. So I offer a challenge to the ''Junk Food Conservitives'' that vomit that nonsense out:
Which employee of [pick one: NYT, WaPo, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, AP, Reuters, or other] SHOT AND KILLED Spc. Dustin R. Donica by small arms fire in Baghdad?
Because if you bleat out somthing stupid like ''Oh, Wolf Blitzer was the one who shot him'' (or whichever is your favorite MSM whipping boy or girl) I say this; ''Fine, it was Wolf Blitzer who shot him. My Glock is loaded and cocked. I will eventually find Wolf Blitzer and he will eventually go down for killing that soldier.
So ''Junk Food Conservitive'' I ask you again; ''ARE YOU ABSOULTELY, POSITIVELY SURE THAT WOLF BLITZER SHOT SPC. DUSTIN R. DONICA IN BAGHDAD''? Think about your answer to that one VERY CAREFULLY.
Wolf Blitzer isn't the one shooting our soldiers is he? So quit blaming your favorite MSM whipping boy or girl for it. I'm sick of hearing (or reading) THAT CRAP.

My prediction for ''iraq'' is we will continue to muddle along there, continue to watch Americans come home in coffins (or missing body parts), continue to watch the death toll rise, continue to watch al-sadr consolidate power, and continue to hear an increasing call to bring ''opressed iraqis'' to America to give them the new life we promised them.
If THAT is ''victory'' (now it's being called ''success'') we have indeed entered an orwellian exsistance.

''Mexico'' (A.K.A. amnasty):
We have a congress that is eager to do ''comprehensive immigration reform'' (A.K.A amnasty) and a president that was eager to do ''comprehensive immigration refom'' even before he became president. Looks like 2+2=4 to me. Get ready to see bush shake hands with speaker pelosi after signing ''comprhensive immigration reform'' into law.
FACE REALITY, we have a government that is at war with it's own people. I don't wish to see this turn into ''Civil War II'' but it might well come to that. We have an ''elite'' that seems to be commited to making America into 'just another turd world country'. And yes, THAT DOES ANGER ME!!!
A phrase that was common this past summer was ''First, stop the bleeding'' in regards to ''immigration reform''. Needless to say, we did NOT ''stop the bleeding''. In a desprate attempt to maintain control of congress the R's came up with a sham ''fence'' that was little more than just another 'bridge to nowhere'. The Israelis understood what was at stake (their very existance) so even most of the Israeli left decided that ''First, we must stop the bleeding'', and they walled off the arabs. The globalist left decried that as 'cruel' (much the same way as Mexico was calling the proposal to ''fence off'' the US/Mexico border 'cruel'.
If wanting to defend America (and NOT be the world's policeman/social worker/welfare check) makes me 'cruel', fine, SO BE IT.

The other subject I write about from time to time, 'tech' I really haven't had much urge to do so. Not really had all that much to say about it. I'll still tinker with the way this blog looks now and then, but I don't see too many radical changes in 2007 (I'm thinking of ditching the QWIK HITZ! section and logo because I simply don't have the time to deal with updating it anymore. Removing it might be my New Year's resolution).
Other than that, I predict that right before, during and after the Super Bowl The Borg will be plugging the living hell out of Windoze Vista. Had the opportunity to try it out, and am quite unimpressed by it. Not quite ready to call it Windoze ME: The Next Generation, but I'm not exactly eager to ''upgrade'' to it either.
Overhyped, overblown, overpriced. Don't fall for the hype, it just ain't that good. Unless you're an Apple fan (which means this doesn't matter to you) I advise you to wait until it's time to replace your computer to ''upgrade'' to Vista. That's what I intend to do...

YIH - YIR...

2006-12-30T18:51:00.000-05:00

A.K.A. Your Image Here - Year In Review:
When I launched this blog I really had little idea what or where it was actully going. It actually began as a 'spinoff' of a Yahoogroup that I was a member of (hence the URL: http://americanfreedoms.blogspot.com/). When it began it had a very generic 'blogger' look that I fully intended to change over time. As you can see, I've been rather successful in that regard (I know HTML what better place to use it than here?). And while I'm pretty satisfied with the way it looks now, it could well change it's appearance now and then in the future.
That 'link list' is an example of most of the blogs and websites that I visit anywhere from daily (about half of them) to infrequently. I read quite a bit every day.
DEC '05-JAN '06:
Many of my opinions were actually quite set when this blog began:

Four reasons I don't like president bush:
1. He LOVES Big Government (and outspends the other liberal president from Texas, LBJ)
2. He is so stupid that he doesn't know what the word VETO means.
3. He calls FUTILE ''nation-building'' efforts defending America.
4. He calls those who actually defend America from mexico's colonization of it ''vigilantes'':

Note: Because it was only 'up' for one week in 2005, I include those posts here. I rang in 2006 online as well.
And began the year with the skepticism I have approached the ''war on terror'' that I've had for years.
I showed why I tend to avoid making perdictions; I thought it would be IRAN that would successfuly test a thermonuclear device before 2007. I was correct in my prediction that a country that didn't have ''the bomb'' would test one. Turned out it was north korea. It also marked the first time a post appeared both on this blog and the Yahoogroup.
By the middle of January my realistic opinion of ''iraq'' was starting to rub the JFC's in that Yahoogroup the wrong way:

Yet we continue to try to teach the pig to sing...
UPDATE:I got a very terse email from ''Thomas Sylvester'' (no, I WON'T post his email addy here, nor will I give it to you. So don't bother asking).

I was QUITE INSULTED BY THIS. I explained WHY I thought the Mission has been completed and I get A SIX WORD dismissal. No explanation, (I provided one) just:

Mission is not done. That simple.
-------Original Message-------

I am sick and tired of the phrase ''Cut and run''. How 'bout ''MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!! We're coming home''? We accomplished what we went there to accomplish. Our job is done.
It is now time for the Iraqi people to take charge of their own affairs. Unless you think they need ''more handholding'' by us. We bestowed upon them a Constitution (such as it is) we gave them free elections (and they voted overwhelmingly for an islamic government) and now you argue that ''we are not done''. That forces the question ''OK, so when are we done''?
It is now time to take off the 'training wheels' and let Iraq BE Iraq. We taught them how to fish, now it is time to step back and allow them to fish on their own.
That WAS our purpose in iraq, was it not??? WE WON!!! Mr. President, ''bring 'em home'' and allow us to begin THE VICTORY parades that our loyal troops HAVE EARNED.
Mr. President, it is time to take the yellow ribbons off the trees and allow us to welcome our fellow Americans home with open arms and joy!!!
THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THEIR MISSION!!!
WELCOME THEM HOME...
''Suzito1'' wrote:
In a message dated 1/14/2006 11:58:25 P.M. Central Standard Time, newsveiws writes:
That forces the question: If we can't ''teach the pig to sing'' why are we continuing to try?

So I take it that you do not believe that freedom is an innate desire in most humans and that you want to fight terrorism on our shores instead of theirs?

This is the warped mentality that began to sour me on that Yahoogroup. And to answer the question above, YES. EXACTLY.
January ended with a rant at that Yahoogroup that tried to explain where I was coming from.
It didn't work.
FEB:
Began with what is now commonly known as ''the cartoon riots'' where moslims around the world made it quite clear that they were really angry over what by ''western'' standards were pretty tame stuff. Like other bloggers I posted them. I also included my opinion on what message the artist was trying to deliver on each one.
If anything this event cemented my point of view on ''iraq''. What we saw in London are the same kind of people that we are trying ''to win the hearts and minds'' of in ''iraq''.
How are we going ''to win the hearts and minds'' of moslims in ''iraq'' when moslims in London are stating their intentions plainly :

These ARE the same kind of people we are actually expending THOUSANDS of American lives to ''free'' in ''iraq'' and Afghanistan. And if it ain't working in London or what has become known as ''Dearbornistan'':

HOW THE HELL are we going to get it to work in ''iraq'' or Afghanistan? All we are doing is getting good Americans killed and maimed for no good reason.
And that's what makes my blood boil.
Belive it or not I am also ''a geek'', tech facinates me. Always has. In that regard I had the ability to report on something that actually qualified as news.
I really did want to belive that St. Cloud could have free, wireless ''high speed internet service'' citywide. But to be honest, I had set up a WI-FI router of my own and was able to test this in ''real-world'' conditions. And that's when I learned that while this might be good PR for the city it's not actually practical. At best WI-FI can connect at a distance of 100 to 150 feet (a decent connection is only realistic at 50 feet or less). That obviously makes ''blanketing'' a city of any size with WI-FI (''free'' or not) pretty much impossible. If WI-FI had the range of a typical cell phone that would be possible. But it does not.
As noted above Your Image Here was not the original name of this blog. It came about quite by accident. Vox Day made the offer ''link my blog, send me your URL and I'll add you as a link to my blog''. And as a regular reader of his blog I did. At the time the format of my blog was still ''under construction''. When he linked me he did so as ''Your Image Here''.
I thought about correcting him, and as I did I realized ''Your Image Here'' is actually a better name for it than ''AmericanFreedoms''. Blogs tend to have odd names anyway (perfect examples: Little Green Footballs, Brainster's Blog). Now you know where the name came from.
MAR:
Came in like a lion. The ''divorce'' from the Yahoogroup known as AmericanFreedoms became final. It also cemented the new name ''Your Image Here'' as the name of this blog.
By the time I was ejected the overall theme (that is what the term ''meme'' means) of the Yahoogroup is that of ''bush is the second coming of Jesus, how dare you question him? How dare you say he's wrong?''. My attitude was (and still is) ''Uh, because I'm an American, and I have the Freedoms to do so''. It actually got to the point that it seemed like I was trying to make the argument that 2+2=4 to people who were determined to belive 2+2=5.
I had no interest in putting a photo of myself on this blog. So I decided the next best thing would be to put a pic of my cat here instead. Yeah, I'm ''a cat person''. Always have been. Don't hate dogs, just perfer cats. Nothing wrong with that at all.
As mentioned above, WI-FI has it's limitations. When it came to comparing internet access I was comparing the ''free'' internet access the City of St. Cloud was offering NOT to the DSL that I've had for 3 years now, but to the lame dialup I had before that.
And if the ''free'' WI-FI and an ''el cheapo'' dialup connection were my only options for internet access the ''el cheapo'' dialup would win. I DON'T BLAME St. Cloud for trying, just the opposite, they proved that no matter how much you WANT it to work and how much you TRY to make it work, you can't fit a square peg into a round hole. To this day I'D LOVE to have ''Free Wireless High-Speed Internet Access'' anywhere in the City. But IT WON'T WORK using WI-FI!!!

I'm proud of that one, It was from an actual movie poster, from an actual movie filmed in St. Cloud.
BTW, that is what Connie Mason looked like before I was born, 'nuff said. OTOH, my home was there (as it had been for 40 years before that movie was made). Even then, it was a short walk from my front door to where much of that flick was shot.
BTW, when I found out a neighbor was leeching off my own WI-FI setup, I put a stop to it.
March also began my mission to replace the next to the ''http://'' on the address bar with something more to my liking. It can be done, but it's tough if you want it to work on IE.
MORE TO COME...

It is done...

2006-12-30T17:26:00.000-05:00

As likely everyone knows by now saddam has been executed.
To answer the now infamous TV question ''How do you feel''? My answer is in a word: Nothing.
In fact I agree with Rick Moran, I find those who express joy or gleefulness over ANY execution to be disgusting, vulgar people.
I happend to be listening to rusty humpries's radio show when the news was announced. A guest host from Dallas was taking his place but for the last hour he broke from his vacation to join in to talk about this. The filthy pig could barely contain his glee. Hearing that disgusted me.
Personally I think 'Life no parole' is the a better option than the death penalty but if a government chooses to implement it I take no issue with that. Nor do I take issue with any government that chooses not to.
The statement of bush on it absolutely flabbergasted me though:

Bush said Saddam received a fair trial - "the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime." He said the trial, which ended with Saddam being sentenced to death, was a testament to the Iraqi people's resolve to move beyond decades of oppression and create a society governed by the rule of law.

"Fair trials were unimaginable under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule," Bush said.

We all know the verdict and sentence had been detrimined the moment he was pulled out of his 'spider hole'. The whole point of the 'trial' was to demonstrate how the western justice system works to the arabs (in an attempt to get them to emulate it).
What it would up being was a showcase of how our attempts to ''westernize'' an arab culture are and will likely remain ultimately futile. It was quite plain saddam knew it was a sham and procceded to turn it into a circus. And in that he quite successful.
Another example of this idiocy is the president's statement that this has become ''an important milestone'' in events in iraq. The phrase ''an important milestone'' has taken enough abuse already.
The only effect saddam's execution will have is purely symbolic. Hugh Fitzgerald details how it will be a minor rallying effect for the sunnis, a moment of pride for the shi'ites and a nudge toward the Kurds to finally wash their hands of this whole social experiment that is being called ''a war'' in the US media. ''The great society'' in America was an unmitigated failure in every way.
It seems to be we have failed to learn that lesson from the 60's and 70's and so now we are trying to repeat this failure in iraq with much, much more tragic and devasting results.
Results that will ultimately put bush in the same category as carter and clinton for devastating our Armed Forces.

Yes, they ARE ''a fifth column''...

2006-12-27T18:17:00.000-05:00

One of the things I've been following is the travails Rod Dreher (who is actually doing his job, getting the story and reporting it) in his dealings with a enemy encampment in Dallas TX.
Because ''the powers that be'' will likely remove this quickly I post it here in total:

I wrote here the other day, after our meeting with a group of representatives from the Dallas Muslim community, my version of how the meeting went. I described the Muslim visitors as evasive and defensive. The group's leader, Mohamed Elmougy, wrote back to accuse me of being dishonest, and said I should be fired from the editorial board.

I made a tape recording of the meeting, which was on the record. I've spent quite some time today transcribing most of the meeting. There was nothing controversial discussed until halfway past the 14 minute mark, when I got my first question. What follows on the jump is a full transcript of the conversation thenceforth, which lasted about 50 minutes. Any errors in the transcription are unintentional. I'm going to try to get the soundfile made linkable, so readers can listen to it. I did not have the names of all the Muslim participants, and have indicated when I don't know the name of the person speaking. Also, owing in part to the placement of the tape recorder, and in part to the accents of some of the visitors, parts of the transcript are garbled.

Read below and judge for yourself if I was unfair. It's important to read this.

[transcript begins at the 14 min 30 second mark]

Rod Dreher: There were some things I brought up to you that many of us in this culture, our culture, find objectionable, violent. Like punishing homosexuals by death, by some form of wife beating. I said to you that I find that violent and objectionable. You responded, as I recall, by saying [to me] that what you find violent, we find a form of social defense, of defense of the family. Would you clarify your remarks, and explain them if I’ve misheard them?

Mohamed Elmougy: If I recall correctly, we were talking about how do you as an American cope with some of the positions in the Koran, and reconcile that with living in this country.

RD: No, I think you had asked me why I find Sheikh [Yusuf] Qaradawi to be violent, and I said I went to his website, and he advocates that someone found guilty of homosexuality, that they could be killed. He advocates within certain limits Muslim husbands beating their wives. And I said to you I find that to be violent. And you said that actually, in the Muslim tradition, in the Koranic tradition, this is a form of Muslim society defending itself, and defending the family.

ME: OK, OK. We were talking about the family, and I can kind of repeat what we were talking about for a little bit of education. We were talking about where does Islam stand, and what is the purpose of some of these edicts and some of these traditions that someone like you would find, you know, to be violent. And I think I also talked about how in the Bible, you will find some of these things, the punishment for sodomy, you have stories in the same way, you can find the same thing in the Bible. It’s no different in the Koran. The way we view it, we don’t look at it as violent. We look at it as a deterrent. Example: if you have children – and I think I used that example – if you have a child, and you go put chocolate in front of him, and you know, he knows he’s going to touch that chocolate, and you tell him if you don’t do that, you know, we’re going to reward you, I’m going to take you to soccer practice, or something that he really likes. Or if you do that, we’re not going to go to soccer practice.

It’s not like you enjoy punishing the child. It is that you try to really come up with a deterrent so they don’t do something that, in your case, something you find disruptive to the family.

And I think homosexuality in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and probably in many other religions, is something that many people and the religion itself has issues with. Nothing you or I can do to change that. We don’t view it as violence. We view it as a deterrence.

So when we tell somebody that if you go steal, we’re going to give you three chances. First we’re going to give you a job so you can go earn a living, and I think that’s what happens in Saudi Arabia, because they apply the sharia law probably different from everybody else. And the second time, we’re going to make sure you have enough money, and the third time you’re just doing it for the sake of doing it, not out of necessity, or hunger, or to feed your children, then obviously you will have your hand cut off. To you that may be violent, but we view it as a deterrent.

RD: Do you believe that homosexuals convicted in a sharia court should be killed, or otherwise punished physically?

ME: I don’t condone homosexuality. I have a lot of friends, a lot of people who work for me, just so you know. I don’t go kill them. But, you know, I don’t condone what they do outside of work, so long as it’s something not in front of me. So do I condone the sharia? We don’t apologize for our religion. If that is what our religion says, we certainly accept it open-heartedly.

[snip]

RD: I understand that [Christianity calls homosexuality a sin]. What concerns me though is what do you believe in *this* society the punishment for those sorts of transgressions should be. Because a lot of us, certainly I speak for myself, you read about the very harsh punishments for violating the moral law – adultery for example – in the sharia, and I wonder what Muslims here really think should happen.

[Unidentified imam]: Who is going to punish anyway, even if the crime is committed?

[garbled talk]

[unidentified Muslim]: You don’t have any authority as Muslims living in north Texas or any state … You have to go through the process of a court hearing, a judge, and the Islamic state ruling in the case.

RD: I guess what I’m wondering though is what you think the role of sharia *should be* in a pluralistic secular society like ours, under ideal circumstances.

[Imam]: As an imam, my whole foundation of dealing with this subject is my concern that somebody within the community is a homosexual. He still have the right to come to the mosque to pray with me, behind me, as the imam, as a member of the community.
But I have to make maybe special effort to educate him about it, to educate myself about it, how to deal with it. That is through the education system. Other than that, I have no authority over anything.

RD: But what do you think *should* be the authority. That’s what I’m asking. In an ideal situation, would you like to see sharia law be the basis for law in this country, and how would you reconcile that –

DMN correspondent Tod Robberson: Or put it another way. In this country, the law of man takes precedence over the law of God. In your opinion, is that the way it should be?

[garbled answer by heavily accented man, saying something to effect that the law is flexible from country to country, but there are some things that we don’t have the authority to change.]

[Ghassan – did not get his last name]: President George Bush feels that he is inspired by God, and based on that he makes his policies. He made that known to us. [crosstalk] President Bush told us that law made by man is not good enough law, that we should be following God’s law.

DMN editorial columnist Bill McKenzie: I have to admit that I’ve followed Bush very closely, and I’ve never heard him say that. Can you tell me where he said that? Of course he talks about his faith, he talks about praying, but I have never heard him –

[Ghassan]: But when he talks about these things as president of the United States, isn’t he implying that, that, that is … so we have a different opinion.

BM: But you’re saying he has come out and said, in effect, that God’s law trumps man’s law and we should follow God’s law. I just have never heard him ever come close to saying that.

[Ghassan]: OK so now we’re talking about literal things, and I understand what you’re saying. So I will go back to Rod and say … Rod has concluded that Islamic law promotes violence, and he cited certain examples, specifically adultery. My question to Rod is, what does he know about the law itself? How did he reach this conclusion? What is the historical evidence that he has gathered? What are the specifics about the law and how it’s implemented?

RD: On adultery?

[Ghassan]: Sure.

RD: Mohamed [Elmougy] told me. Mohamed [Elmougy] brought up something from the hadith, there was a story about a woman, an adulteress who came to the prophet, and he ordered her stoned for her sins.

ME: She wanted to be stoned. He kept sending her back.

RD: But she was stoned, and if I’m remembering correctly, [the Prophet] saw her in paradise. Is that correct?

ME: No, I think you must have read that – I mean, I [garbled] the story, but I think you do a lot of reading on the Internet, and that’s part of the problem. What you’re asking specifically, I think, is such a paranoid view of Islam that you almost give the impression that we’re so bloodthirsty people. And that is my issue with really your writings and your angle on things. That I could do the same thing to Catholicism. And I told you at the beginning that if you’re Catholic, you need to prove to me that you’re not a pedophile, before you’re not. Because certainly it’s not for lack of examples that I have within the church of pedophile priests – and you know we have a congressman who was doing that and he blamed it on his minister or priest – that’s such a narrow approach. That does nothing but create suspicion. That does nothing but alienate our children, who were born and raised here. You could take that angle but you’d be paranoid. You’d be sitting here with me and –

DMN editorial page editor Keven Ann Willey: Let me interject here a minute. You asked us to ask questions, and we’re trying to clarify what I think is a very legitimate difference of interpretation of religion. And I think this is a legitimate question, and Tod framed it in a slightly different way, which kind of helped with that. I don’t know, calling it “paranoid” doesn’t facilitate a full exchange of information here, so I think perhaps going forward, let’s watch our characterization.

RD: Just describe to me your view, the Islamic view, of sharia. What role should sharia play in this society?

ME: [garbled] I don’t sit up all night thinking what the role of sharia needs to be. All I can tell you is that we as American Muslims, living in a non-Muslim country, are ordered to follow the rules of the country that we live in, no matter how much we agree or disagree with. So do I go after you if you’re homosexual, to try to kill you today? No. We haven’t seen that.

So I think to go focus on that and to leave all the other good things that American Muslims are part of, and that the religion is talking about, and only focus on things that to you sound or feel strange is just not the correct approach. Forget paranoid, it’s just not the correct approach. And it does nothing, as I said, but alienate our children from the society that they’re going to be living in, and die in.

My goal at this meeting, and the many other meetings I’ve been involved in, is that we have to kind of snap out of that mood, we as journalists, that we need to really look at us as part of the community. Taxpayers, you know very contributing people of the community, and find out how could we live in harmony. How do we create more understanding and take the myth out of this plan, and Muslims, after September 11, and begin to really look for ways to coexist in this country, as opposed to pointing the finger, and to take one thing from here and there, and to focus on it – as if that’s all we do 24 hours a day. That’s really my issue with some of [Rod’s] writings.

We can sit here today and say OK, what does Catholicism say about homosexuality. What does it say? It is the same thing. It is no different! Now do we go ask the Pope, you know, well listen Pope, what do you feel, do you feel we should go kill them? It’s in that Bible that – no. It’s kind of a very narrow approach. My goal today is to create some kind of comfort level.

We’re not here to defend Islam. Islam doesn’t need our defense. It’s there. Anybody can read it. Anybody can form their opinion. The majority of people, I think, know that we’re peace-loving people, and the folks who committed September 11 are a minority. We’ve said that, we’ve condemned them 50 million times. And we need to move on past that.

One of the issues, since we’re going to ask questions I think it should be a two-way street, that we have with some of the editorials that come out, is that air of suspicion about Islam and Muslims. We need to figure out a way for you, so we can help you get rid of that. But it’s not going to happen by accusing us or trying to corner us on one aspect of punishment in the sharia law and say, “Well folks, why don’t we focus on what the sharia law says about orphans?”

RD: Because it’s an important thing to a lot of Americans, Mohamed, because I think most people want to believe, want to think well of their Muslim neighbors, of Muslim-Americans. But when we see things like this happening overseas, or you see an imam or something in this country who is found to be preaching what strikes a lot of Americans as extremism against homosexuals, or whatever, it concerns people, who want to know where does Islam stand on this. I don’t think it’s a matter of wanting to find something to pick out about Muslim Americans to say “A-ha!” But it’s wondering who is living among us, what do they believe, and how does what they believe fit in with American culture? People think the same thing about the fundamentalist Mormons who are now on trial, their views on polygamy. It is against – it is outside the American mainstream, and people are right to wonder.

[Ghassan]: I believe, and I’ll give you an example from history. As Muslims, we, our ideal examples come either from the Koran or from the traditions of the prophet. These are the two main sources for how we try to model our lives. Our prophet taught us, during the time when the Muslims were oppressed in Mecca, they ordered his followers to migrate to Abyssinia. Abyssinia was ruled by a Christian king. He told them that I know there’s a just king there who will protect you.

So when those Muslims went there, they announced themselves as Muslims, they pleaded their case before the king, they had a debate with a Quraishite who tried to bring them back to Mecca so they could be persecuted further. But the king allowed them to stay, and history tells us those Muslim citizens lived in Abyssinia following the law of the land. That is an important rule for us, and you’ll find if you go after what the [garbled] and jurists, the scholars, they always cite this example, and it’s a very important example.

And for us, to go back and give you an answer, how do I view the sharia applying in the US? It applies perfectly for me. I am supposed to follow the law of the land. That’s No. 1. And everything else fits with the values of the land. Don’t steal. Be kind to the neighbors. All the Ten Commandments that we know, these are things that apply to our lives. There is no difference.

And so that’s exactly how I view the sharia applies to me, and this is how I teach it to my children. And I think we need to demystify that. Now, if an imam today – and certainly I’m not an imam – an imam today, I know this much, that an imam, he cannot, religiously, he cannot apply certain rules that does not fit the law of the land, because this is a non-Muslim country. So certain Islamic rules do not apply here, but it should apply to you as an individual now, but the imam cannot prevent a person who adopted the homosexual lifestyle from coming to the masjid. No, I can’t.

I might disagree with his lifestyle. But guess what? My religion tells me I am obligated to advise that brother or sister that this is not a right lifestyle. If I’m a religious man, I believe in God and I believe that following God’s way is going to take me to a better place, then I need to wish that for everybody else. I should not be faulted for believing that. I should not be faulted for – if I like you as an individual, right, you’re going to blame me one day, ‘Ghassan, if you knew what you had was good, why did you not share it with me?’ You cannot blame me for sharing what I believe is best for all of us with you. I believe that’s a good thing. I don’t think it’s a bad thing.

But unfortunately what we do, is we focus on the soundbites. ‘The Muslims cut off the hand.’ Well, my question to you back is tell me what you understand about that particular law. ‘Oh, the Muslims stoned adulterers.’ I’m gonna ask you specifically, tell me what you know about that? Because I have a whole story about that. But what you grabbed is a soundbite. But there’s about maybe 50 pages you need to read to know that during the Prophet, all those punishments people volunteered and came forward and said, ‘Prophet, punish me, I committed this sin.’ [garbled] We know that two individuals, two individuals have to see the actual intercourse taking place. When does that happen? Four, actually four. You see what I’m saying?

We’re not violent people, want to kill everybody, but what we’re saying is listen, if you do these bad things, you really disturb the order of society, and there is going to be a price for it. But it doesn’t mean we go ahead and apply that price every day. I really believe that in your mind you should move away from ‘Islam is violent.’ I don’t want to tell you what to think, but I’m conveying to you what we perceive you’re thinking. Right. If [garbled] says what does Islam offer, right, you can’t just take soundbites. You can investigate, but go nowhere if you focus on soundbites. OK, what is this punishment. Let me read some more about it, let me read some more about it – I guarantee you that your view would change.

RD: Ghassan, that’s the point, though. You say, and I believe [you], that we Muslims believe this is the punishment set down in the Koran, and in Islamic law, whatever, for this violation of the social order – but we don’t apply it in this society. I think what concerns people, or what concerns me, is, OK, do you think it *should* be applied, necessarily, and if you had the power to apply it, would you support the law being changed to bring the principles of Islamic law into US civil law. That’s the thing that concerns me.

ME: Let me take it further. Do you really think we’re here to change America into a sharia…

RD: I’m asking. I honestly don’t know, Mohamed.

ME: Well I hope you don’t think so, because that would be a pretty optimistic, you know, project, you know, that’s – we’re been trying to survive or fend off accusations, for the past six years, about how a ‘fifth column’ we are, not to be trusted, and how everything’s against American principles and so on and so forth. Certainly the last thing in our mind is to go and apply the sharia law and make America a Muslim country. Do people want that? As I told you in the meeting, I would love for you to be a Muslim. I would love for – just like you would love for me to be a Catholic. But that doesn’t mean that all we do here 24 hours a day is the hidden agenda approach that we’re trying to come up with.

I agree that you need to move past that, because once you move past that, I think you’ll have a lot more open mind, to listen to us and really begin to search in depth really what something is so we can move on to other questions. Because you and I can sit – we invited you to the mosque. You’re more than welcome to come. But don’t come with an accusatory tone. Come with an inquisitive tone. There’s a very big difference between the two. When I sit there and you’re like pointing the finger at me, that is not a dialogue. That is a trial. When you sit there and say, you know, here is what I believe in as an American Muslim, what do you think of that, I will be a lot more receptive, and you will probably gain a lot more by approaching us that way. And that’s all we ask.

Know that you’ll have concerns and continue to have concerns, you have our business cards and we invite you to come sit with us more, alright? We left the door open for you from a year ago. All we ask is in the writings, just understand that these – I’m not going to use the word paranoid, but these alarming writings, you send these alarms through the American public about us, about our place of worship, about our imams, and about our children even – is not very productive.

Because all you have to do is look at Europe, and what they’ve done to their Muslim population there, and what the end result is. Now they’re doing 10 times the effort to try to embrace them. And that’s the mistake that my biggest fear is happening right now, that we’re alienating Muslims. We’re not going anywhere. The more difficult everybody makes our lives, the more determined we are to stay here. The more determined my son, my daughter is [garbled].

I think we have to contend with the fact that we are part of the American family. We can make it a more productive dialogue and part of the fabric, or we try and reject it – but that’s not gonna happen. So, saying that, you and I can sit here and talk till tomorrow like we did last time, but to be fair to everybody else, we need to move on. You have my card. I’ll buy you lunch again [N.B., the News bought lunch the last and only time we met. – RD], and we can talk all you want, but I ask that you do it in an inquisitory manner, not an accusatory manner, and that’s a big difference to us.

[Imam spoke in heavily accented voice, hard to understand. He seemed to be making the point that the newspaper never says anything good about Muslim in Dallas, that we ignore them. Bill McKenzie said that’s not true, and cited work he’d done in his column specifically to include Muslim opinion.]

ME: I think what the imam is trying to articulate is that are there not enough examples, positive examples, that we can research, or focus on, and all of us go look at the hypothetical “what if” – do you really believe in that? – and forget about the reality, which is what all of us contribute to society. And that’s really all we’re trying to say. Dallas Morning News did really do that. There have been a lot of positive things that came – and a lot of good positive things that came – out of the dialogue and the discussion that we’ve had. Absolutely, and nobody can deny that. But I think the editorial board – because we look at the editorial board as the opinion of the Dallas Morning News. Are we correct in assuming that?

KW: Mmm-hmm.

ME: When we see something that the editorial board, that is inaccurate, is a concern for us, because that means there’s not a lot of research going on. When we see lines injected in an editorial about the Dallas Central Mosque, and its imam, and that they teach certain things there when actually the editorial had nothing to do with that, that somehow made that line, to put it there to aid that air of suspicion – we get concerned because that means the newspaper – not Rod, we know Rod – the newspaper is taking that direction. That’s where we get concerned.

Rod can write on the blogs all he wants, write a viewpoint all he wants. That’s his right. This is America, you’re entitled to your opinion. I may or may not read it, I may or may not agree with it, but as an editorial board, I’m here today looking at you to say do you vote on these things, do you read these things, when you see a line like that in an article that has nothing to do with the Central Mosque is teaching about this book that’s by this guy, you know, I’m like what does this have to do with – the imam of the Central Mosque is the most involved with, you know, multi-religions, you know, why, is it accurate No. 1, and No. 2 it gives this air of suspicion about it, and it’s not right.

[crosstalk, garbled]

RD: But is it true? Is it true?

[Dallas CAIR spokeswoman] Saffia Meek: And that’s an issue we want to bring up! If you have a question, you know who we are.

RD: We tried to call the imam and get him on the phone twice. I had one of our editorial board members try to get him on the phone twice. He wouldn’t answer my email, and he wouldn’t answer a phone call.

ME: Do you blame him?

RD: But you can’t come in here and accuse us of –

[crosstalk]

KW: Excuse me, but I really would like to keep this a conversation. You’ve asked a series of questions about how the editorial board works, and I’m happy to try to answer them. In this particular case, let me just insert that you said can you blame him for not returning the call. Well, can you blame us for not getting a quote when we tried?

[Unidentified Muslim:] I have an answer for that.

KW: And then I would welcome the opportunity to answer your earlier question.

[Unidentified Muslim]: First of all, the blog [garbled] is not a personal blog. It’s from the Dallas Morning News. So in a way, it represents the [garbled] opinion. It’s not personal. It’s not Rod Dreher [garbled]. It’s under the sanction of the Dallas Morning News. So to me, I take still some of the comments that have been offensive to me are not personal. If Rod Dreher [garbled] free country, no problem. So I’ve said this point before. [garbled] If the Dallas Morning News do that, I take offense [garbled].

No. 2, as far as the imam, the imam discusses some of the stuff before he responds, and over the years he’s grown skeptical. He has not been able to gain the trust, so I don’t blame him for not responding. But he did a little more research on this issue. Come to find out he was being asked to comment on somebody’s [garbled] to Turkey. Hey, sounds pretty good, you’re Turkish. But he researched to find out that there was already something going to be written about Turkey, which was going to get diluted what he said about it. So it’s not a stand-alone viewpoint.

[Note: here the visitors are confusing several specific issues involving Dr. Yusuf Zia Kavakci, imam of the Dallas Central Mosque. – RD]

[Viewpoints editor] Sharon Grigsby: Excuse me, I really need to respond to that, because Saffia and I, we dealt on this, and I was actually going to bring it up. Couple of real quick points, because we’re going to run out of time. First of all, I understand how you feel about the blog. I disagree with almost everybody on our board on the blog at one time or another. It gets rough. I’m a traditionalist. The blog’s not always been my favorite thing to do. But I appreciate that. There are people on the board who, you know how you might feel about things Rod might post, I post some things that are so liberal, peacenik, whatever.

[Unidentified]: I’m not commenting on the blog, I’m just saying that it’s the Dallas Morning News, it’s not independent –

SG: I know, but we’re talking about the same blog. In other words, you’re talking about the Dallas Morning News blog. I’m on it, Rod’s on it, Bill’s on it, and we all say things. I have, for instance, have a lot of people in the Jewish community here who have wanted to rake me over the coals over some things – they think I’m very pro-Palestine. I understand what you’re saying. We all take the heat from different people. I take a lot of heat, frankly, and have my meetings with the Jewish community, just like y’all have yours. On the Turkey point in particular, the Pope was going to Turkey, and we thought it would be so cool, because the imam is Turkish, and moreso I wanted to get his daughter on the Viewpoints [page]. So Rod was going to write a piece, so I went to my best source, the person who – Saffia’s given me her home e-mail address, so I knew she’d answer me. So I send her an e-mail, I told her right up front that Rod was going to write a piece, here’s what he was going – I beseeched her. I e-mailed the imam myself.

RD: I suggested you contact the imam to write it.

SG: I never got an answer. Saffia was great. And I understand, he didn’t want to participate in anything Rod was doing. But to say we were going to take his piece and water it down? All I can say was it was a profound disappointment on my point that I couldn’t get a voice to participate. So I just want to be real clear.

ME: OK, let me talk about watering down. Do you recall one time there was an article by Nabil Sadoun, and in it we talked about Rod, and some of his past statements about nuking Mecca. And he was given a choice: either take this out of that Viewpoints [column], or it wasn’t going to be published. Was that watering down?

KW: And I can address that. And we’ve had this conversation several times, Mohamed. The reason it was taken out was because the way it described the comment was inaccurate. And we don’t print – knowingly – inaccuracies. And I guess we could continue that conversation, but if the point of today’s meeting is to ask questions –

SG: And I want to go back to the moving on part. You think the imam thought his Turkey piece would be –

[Unidentified]: The punch line was it would not be a stand-alone comment that the imam would be making that would be independent, but it would be in context of something that Rod—

SG: It would be on the same page.

[Unidentified:] And we didn’t want to get into that –

SG: I just want to be real clear. We were asking for the imam, or even better his daughter, to talk about this, and I think if you go back and read Rod’s piece, it was almost exclusively about the Orthodox issue, very little about that. So just to go back to them [garbled] answering your original question, I know that one line you’re talking about, Saffia and I talked about it. How many months or years ago was that editorial?

ME: It was probably about a year and a half ago.

SG: My question is, what have we done since then? Has there been anything since that year and a half ago, that we all have our opinions on, anything in the last year and a half in an editorial that you’ve felt that way about. Because that’s what I’d like to hear about.

ME: That we’ve felt the same way?

SG: That you’ve felt that we were either being inaccurate or misrepresenting the community.

ME: There’s one that I think this is what triggered this meeting, was the issue of Sayyid Qutb. There is this writer. This obscure Egyptian writer who in the Sixties wrote a book, and Rod is obsessed with it. [garbled] And I read the book, I got it from Amazon.com, it’s his view on how to unite the Muslim community and clean it out of the immorality that he observed in the West, because he visited the West and came back ‘Oh my God, how can people,’ I mean, he was fascinated by the ingenious of the West. And I read the book, just because of the discussion, I had promised him to read it.

It didn’t bother me in the least. It’s his viewpoint. And it doesn’t say anything about go kill people. And the impression that was given in this editorial [N.B., It was not an editorial but a bylined opinion column written by me – RD] – that today is, you know, a lot of people subscribe to these views, and then at the end there’s a line, ‘and in the Dallas Central Mosque there was a conference that had this book as part of its reading’ – is almost like saying at the hotel there is a homosexual staying in room 102, and they condone that.

[crosstalk]

RD: I have to tell you, though, that I’ve read the book, “Milestones,” and Sayyid Qutb is not an obscure person, he’s very influential in certain strain of Islam, and this goes back to what we were talking about earlier. Why is it not a matter of concern when a man who preaches violent revolution to purify Islam and the world, that’s being taught to teenagers as part of this quiz at the Dallas Central Mosque – why is that not of concern to the wider community?

ME: It was not taught. It was part of the recommended reading. When I went to St. John’s College for liberal arts. And I read a lot of books. Marxism and all that. Does that mean they were asking me to become a Marxist? Come on, Rod. Wouldn’t you say children, here are a bunch of books you can read from, maybe we can have a dialogue about what this guy thinks and all that. Does that make them a Sayyid Qutb follower.

[garbled]

ME: [Qutb] was someone who had a view, or a vision, about what we needed to do to kind of clean up, or gather, you know, Muslims under a cleaner environment, where they can live together. [garbled]

RD: But he says you should overthrow governments, and that’s a real concern. He’s very clear about that, Mohamed.

Ghassan: For the sake of the group, Sayyid Qutb is a writer from Egypt, from the Sixties, he was from Egypt. He was basically imprisoned and killed by the late president Gamal Nasser of Egypt. So he’s no longer alive. You have to know that there are many groups who have either disowned his writings and views, and you also know that the group he was a part of have, for the last 15 years, been distancing themselves from his writings. [N.B., the Muslim American Society, which co-sponsored the Islamic youth quiz, is the American version of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose chief ideologist Qutb was. – RD.]

You have to also, Rod, present that view as well. I read, after Mohamed invited me for this meeting, I read that book, and I read through the chapter of jihad in that book, specifically. I read it, and I mean, he has, for most of the chapters, a good explanation, and very decent one, to the point where I thought I can quote some of this translation. It’s good. There’s some good stuff in that chapter. But some of it is his own personal view, and you’ve got to present it like that.

Now like Mohamed says, what is the point of that? The mosque, as an administration, serves a large community. People come and apply, ‘Can I have this activity in this community.’ People come and go, no big deal. I’ll give you an example. When Dallas Morning News, maybe Rod it was you or an assistant, called the school. I’m the president of ISF [Islamic Services Foundation, an educational organization that oversees at school in Dallas] [garbled]. The question came “Do you teach ‘Milestones’?” [Garbled] The principal called and said ‘Ghassan, what do I tell them?’ and I said ‘Do you teach Milestones?’ he said “No,” so I said, “Just tell them no!”

SG: And they wouldn’t tell me anything.

G: No, no, no, I have the e-mail. [Garbled] And this conversation took place within 24 hours, so we were very responsive to you. The point is, you had a question, we answered it, and I still think, “What is the point? Are you going to ask me about every author that I read in my life?” You’re going to ask me what I have in my library, and I read a lot about stuff? To me, I’m thinking these things, right. I don’t see the point of that.

Sayyid Qutb has been in the conversation of Middle East governments for years and years and years. I’m originally from Damascus, Syria, and I know that they had traps in bookstores in the streets of Damascus. If you bought Sayyid Qutb books, you get arrested on the spot. That’s a fact, not fiction. But so what? Because the government at that time was against him.

But like I said, he’s an author that had good ideas. Some of his writing in Arabic is very artistic. He had his own ideas. A lot of groups and a lot of organizations have kind of thought he’s out there. I don’t see the point of making an issue of it now. Because today, you go to any of the Middle East government, and you hear this also from Tel Aviv and Israel, you know, ‘All these Muslims are following Sayyid Qutb,’ and I say man, there have been two or three generations of Muslims, Arabs, you say who Sayyid Qutb is and they have no clue. And so they have no clue. I know, because you made me aware of it. [laughs] You made me go look it up. You made me aware of it. There are some things that are better left unsaid. [Garbled.] Move on.

RD: When it is part of a program, a quiz program, for Muslim teenagers at the biggest mosque in Texas, it is a matter of concern.

G: Let me ask you a question, Rod. What other material was recommended reading in that program?

RD: I have it in my desk. I don’t know. That was the one that jumped out at me, because I knew who Sayyid Qutb was.

G: Well, okay, look at the others. Maybe the others are excellent.

RD: Could be. Could be. But –

ME: You go to UNT [University of North Texas], and they’re reading Marx. Does that mean that they’re trying to teach them to become a communist?

RD: I wanted to find –

ME: Shouldn’t that concern you?

RD: Depends on the context.

ME: Now wait wait wait a minute. Marx? Talk about communism. We’re in capitalism, they were our biggest enemies, shouldn’t that – this is my point. You are so obsessed with us as [garbled]. If you keep looking at us that way, that is your privilege, there’s nothing I can do. I’ve given you the opportunity, two hours, your lunch, [garbled] was sitting there, Keven was sitting there, to answer any questions very candidly. If you walked out of there feeling that these guys are bad, that is your privilege. You’re entitled to that opinion. My concern is not you. There’s always going to be you somewhere. My concern is as an editorial board, should somebody with that view kind of dominate that, and inject sentences here and there that really create suspicion and you know make concern about our places of worship and our children’s schools. Question.

TR: The question, and I’ll give some context to it, is at what point does it become a legitimate concern. In the United Kingdom, I went up to Leeds, and I looked at the bookshop where three of the bombers, the subway bombers, had eaten their lunches, eaten their dinners, spent all their free time there. And Sayyid Qutb, he was one of the authors represented in that bookshop. There were a number of other very strong examples at that bookstore. At what point do these things become a concern, because in the Muslim community in London, in the United Kingdom, this is a huge concern, about what the youth of that country, the Muslim youth of that country, are being taught.

ME: I think if you approach it from the angle that it’s a threat, that you have to really try to understand why would the youth go seek that book, read it, and then go – I didn’t get that impression from the book that I needed to go out and bomb the subway tomorrow. Somehow I did not get that impression out of the book. You know, so, I don’t know. Is what we’re doing creating suspicion about them really not helping these youths –

TR: No, no, but my question is at what point does it become a legitimate concern for us to begin examining it?

ME: In this country, one of the things I was taught was freedom of expression. There are many books taught in public schools. I’ll give you an example in Coppell, where I live. They have a book called “The Terrorist,” that was taught to fifth graders. And they talked about you know, in London, how there was this kid who was a terrorist and all and they went in front of the school board and they said it was freedom of expression and we cannot take the book out. Amen. OK, fine. “Mein Kampf” – Bob Mong [DMN editor-in-chief] was telling me I’ve got it at home. Does that make him a Nazi? OK. The fact that a book is available –

TR: Was I justified as a reporter to go up and look at that bookstore, knowing that those young men had spent a huge amount of their time –

[crosstalk]

ME: As a journalist [garbled] your conclusion is where I would differ from you. You can get the US Constitution and create a violent something out of it. You know, freedom and all that. Somebody feels that they are oppressed, they can go fight or kill for their freedom. You can get any book and get anything you want out of it. The point is, that becomes the focus, and it becomes kind of the obsession of an editorial – and that becomes a concern for us, but when you ask it –

TR: We’re not talking about rights. We all know what our rights are here. I guess I’m looking for the point at which you say, “Yeah, that’s legitimate to look at that and be skeptical about that” – where you would not raise concerns over the way we cover this stuff.

[unknown]: [garbled] If you want to know what we’re teaching the kids, why don’t you come ask our curriculum, sit in the classroom, [garbled] be one of them.

[crosstalk]

TR: I tried that in –

[crosstalk]

TR: I’m just saying, there are certain steps to this process [of radicalizing Muslim youth], it’s not something that’s there right now. It’s a slow progression. In the United Kingdom, it’s much more obvious than it is here. I’m not even saying that it’s happening here. And if it were, it’s 50 years away.

G: [garbled] ISF is an organization that way back, we recognized this point, especially after September 11. We don’t want any more – traditionally Islamic schools brought in material from overseas, but we said this is no longer going to be the case. We cannot control, as executives of the organization, what comes from these groups – although we believe they’re good, right. To not leave room for the chance of anything, we’re developing a home-grown Islamic studies curriculum. I invite you to get a copy of that. That will tell you what we’re teaching our children. That’s public information. We’re up to grade six. By summer we’ll have seven and eight. That tells you what kind of indoctrination, if you want to call it that, because that’s what we’ve been accused of, you know, this is what you’re implanting in the minds of the kids.

Just get those books. Give us a review of those books. Tell us what you think about it. This is public information. We’re putting it out there. Because we believe that Islamic studies, going back to your original question, that it needs to be taught in America. It needs to be authored in America, it needs to be taught in America. Not bring an author who authored it somewhere else. Because the whole material is out of context. Everything in Islam has a tiem and a place. Jurists, when they make rules [garbled] this is basic. Anybody who doubts that doesn’t know anything about jurisprudence. Time and place dictates the law.

KW: Forgive me –

[crosstalk]

KW: -- but on that note, “time and place,” we are overdue.

[End of meeting]

Posted 4:13 PM | Rod Dreher

I have seen and heard this over and over again with moslims. People point out ''Your fellow moslims said (and/or did) this'' and ''This is what the koran says, do you agree with it?'' and moslims get evasive.
When moslims are confronted they react in the classic ''kid with a hand in the cookie jar'' behavior. It's why they scream ''racism'' every chance they get. They know it works...

''A Two-state solution''...

2006-12-27T17:07:00.000-05:00

There has been a proposal to divide the country formerly known as iraq into TWO states (as opposed to Three). Break ''iraq'' into a sunni arab/kurdish state and a shia arab state.
Only one problem, Kurds are not arabs. In fact, Kurds are an ethinc group of their own, complete with their own culture and language. And they like arabs about as much as they like turks.
I support an independent Kurdistan including the northern oil fields. With our troops placed to keep the Kurds and the Turks seperate from each other and to help the Kurds with the defence of their southern border from the arabs. The rest of ''iraq'' is to be left to settle it's own affairs however they see fit (we wanted ''freedom'' for them did we not?).
As mentioned in an earlier post the saudis will not put up with ''West Iran'' that close to them.
If we allow them to make THAT ''our problem'' WE HAVE LOST ''the war on terror''. The saudis are as much our enemies as the iranians.
Where do you think the funding for CAIR comes from? ''The flying imams''? Paid for by saudi arabia. Al-quida? Paid for by saudi arabia. Must I remind you where 15 of the 19 911 attackers came from? Must I remind you where osama bin laden came from?
If we were SERIOUS about this ''war on terrorism'' any non-US citizen moslim would be given a choice: ''It's up to you moslim, get on that plane to the middle east or we will ship your corpse there''.

YEAR ONE...

2006-12-24T20:32:00.000-05:00

That's right, Christmas Day evening 2005 was when this blog was launched.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
(Happy Birthday Your Image Here is also OK)
When I did that first post about 11:oopm EST I didn't know about YouTube, so I had to post a pic of the coolest Christmas light display and use it as a link to the video file so you could download it to watch. No longer nessessary, wish I could have done this a year ago:
Now all you have to do is click on the ''play'' arrow.
Carson Williams also did this with a 'broadwayized' version of ''Jingle all the way'' which is also very good.
Don't fret, he has indeed reprised his creation for Christmas 2006. And his display with ''God rest ye merry gentlemen''. He's starting to spread his magic! Such as this:
And here's this with quite a few other Christmas tunes.
We've gone from putting actual candles on cut Christmas trees (can you say ''fire hazard''?) to making Cristmas tree lighting one of the very first uses of electric light. By the 1960's people started to decorate their houses with Christmas lights.
Now it appears people are more interested in Christmas decorations OUTSIDE their houses than INSIDE them: http://www.uglychristmaslights.com/

Back with a vengence...

2006-12-22T15:45:00.000-05:00

I haven't been posting lately. The hustle and bustle of ''the Christmas season'' and putting a close on the year at work have been draining.
But I've done my best to keep up on the news as well. Iraq? It's still a basket case, and will quite likely be that way for some time to come.
My point of veiw is we should get ''our troops'' out of the way and allow (non-Kurdistan) ''iraq'' to become the battlefield for the saudi-iranian war. The sunni arab saudis and the shi'ite persian iranians HATE each other. I say let 'em at each other.
I can hear the Junk Food Conservitives now: ''Easy for you to say hotshot, the price of gas means nothing to you anyway''. Which I admit is quite true.
The JFC's as usual, are missing the point. For the saudis to finance their war against the iranians (and vice-versa) the two sides have only one means to do so. OIL, as in selling as much of it to raise funds as possible.
We have FOUR branches of Armed Forces, for the past three years the Navy and Air Force have had the luxury of sitting on their fat butts while the Army and Marines ''do all the heavy lifting''. It's time for a little switcharoo:

The first step would be to make it clear that the United States will tolerate no action by any state that endangers the international flow of commerce in the Straits of Hormuz. Signaling our determination to back up this statement with force would be a deployment in the Gulf of Oman of minesweepers, a carrier strike group’s guided-missile destroyers, an Aegis-class cruiser, and anti-submarine assets, with the rest of the carrier group remaining in the Indian Ocean. The U.S. Navy could also deploy UAV’s (unmanned air vehicles) and submarines to keep watch above and below against any Iranian missile threat to our flotilla.

Now Arthur Herman describes it as ''strangling'' iran ONLY. I see it as quite possible to ''strangle'' the saudis at the same time. What tends to hamstring our efforts in the ME is the fact that Asia is starved for oil. What we should be doing is making sure as copious a supply to them as possible is ensured by The US Air Force And Navy.
Now you know why I OPENLY ADVOCATE THE IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF 120,000 Army and Marines from ''iraq''. The remaining forces should be deployed to help Kurdistan defend itself from the saudi-iranian battlefield and from Turkey.
You want ''a timetable''? Here you go, Army Soliders and Marines board jumbo jets, and the jets take flight. Destination: USA. And as Americans board those planes, we keep reassuring the sunni and shia moslims in ''iraq'' that as those American soldiers leave there are planes on the way with fresh American ''troops'' to replace them.
The moslims call it taquyya, it's about time they got a taste of their own medicine.
I can hear the JFC's (I coined the phrase, I have every right to turn it into an acronym) now, ''But they are trusting us to bring them freedom''. Freedom for moslims?
That's an oxymoron.
A while back, I was in the chatroom on a Sunday eve and a liberal made it's way in. Gotta give the liberal credit, at least it didn't get stupid right away.
The first thing the liberal said was ''we need to get our troops out of iraq''. And I said ''I fully agree'' [SEE ABOVE].
Of course the house JFC jumped on the liberal like my cat on an open can of tuna.
Enjoyed every bite.
Finally the liberal says ''What are you? A war monger?''.
After laughing at the liberal I replied ''No. The JFC is NOT a war monger, I AM''
Many critisize Ariel Sharon for withdrawing Israelis from Gaza. I actually thought it was a good idea. Gaza had already been walled off and trying to ''gentrify'' the place was counterproductive.
I saw a interior photo of a ''bus'' used to transport Israelis to enclaves in Gaza.
It was LITERALLY a ''Brinks Truck'' converted to transport people.
Why do I think Israel pulling out of Gaza was actually a good idea? Hmm, [clicks link on own blog] Aha! Jihad Watch! Here it is sitting right in front of my face!
Just two quotes are nessesary:

The terror leader accused the U.S. of instigating a Palestinian civil war.
Hamas-Fatah clashes in Gaza have killed at least 16 Palestinians the past five days.

As I cry crocodile tears for each and every one of those 16 moslim deaths I'm going ''YESSSSS! Keep up the good work moslims!''. The ''palistinians'' are nothing more than psychopathic killers. It's Hannibal Lector vs. Jeffery Dahmer! It's Freddy vs. Jason!
Nuke a bag of popcorn, sit back and enjoy the show! I say ''HEY! It's what moslims do best, let 'em do it. TO EACH OTHER!!!''
And then laugh at the moslim spokemen who whine that ''The USA is commiting genocide on moslims'' because that's as silly as blaming shotguns for the deaths of Earnet Hemmingway or Kurt Cobain.
That's right folks, the Gaza Wall barricades those moslims into thier own little hellhole.
Hamas reacts to it by turning on Fatah and Fatah reacts to it by turning on Hamas.
Without a single Israeli to get in the way!!! BTW, of course the moslims blame us, the way they see it, anything bad that happens to them is the USA's fault. Or the Israeli's fault. Or both. *YAWN* Whatever.
This is also my attitude towards 2/3^rds of what was once called ''iraq'', the shia moslims of the former ''iraq'' are at war with the sunni moslims of the former ''iraq''. Get out of the way and let 'em have at it! JFC's will whine ''but that might draw the saudis into war with the iranians and vice-versa''. My response to the JFC's is ''And your point is, WHAT? YOU think the saudis 'are our friends'?!?! Any American who belives THAT after Sept. 11^th 2001 IS A MORON!!!''
Our only involvement should be to make sure the saudis and iranians keep pumping and selling that oil, nothing more. How ELSE will the saudis (sunni moslims) raise money to wage war on iran? And how ELSE will the iranians (shia moslims) raise money to wage war on the saudis?
I can see it now: *RRRINNGGGGG* [picks up phone] Oh hello mr. saudi! Nice to hear from you, still pumping and selling that oil? Good, very good. Keep up the good work. What do you need? Tanks? APC's? Rockets? Artillary? Shells? We aim to please, SO PLEASE AIM. The USA wants to be your one stop shop for all the war supplies you need!!! TROOPS!?!? You need manpower in your war on iran? Are those ''palistinians'' not enough? And what about the taliban? OH! Ok, you want Americans? Hmmm, let's see, we have everyone in CAIR, would that help? We'll be happy to send them to you right away mr. saudi. OHHH! OK, we misunderstood you, US troops? THAT'S what you want mr. saudi? They weren't exactly welcome in saudi arabia the last time they were there! That's WHY we removed them! They weren't welcome in what used to be called ''iraq'' either! That's why they went home. NOW you want US troops to fight alongside you? That's a very funny joke, and I thought moslims had no sense of humor! Oh! Sorry! Thought you were joking. You actually want us to send troops to fight the iranians alongside you? YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE SEPT. 11^th 2001!!! Thank you for calling mr. saudi...

Friday open forum...

2006-12-10T20:46:00.000-05:00

I dislike 'private chat'. So here's an alternitive: Click on 'Comments' below and tell me there...

''A GOOD DEVIL''...

2006-12-08T17:04:00.000-05:00

[Your Image Here(Disgusted,FLORIDA)] 4:57 pm: If we were ACTUALLY ''fighting
terrorism'', we would be deporting or killing moslims HERE.
[Julie(Stowe,VERMONT)] 4:58 pm: now that's provocative....don't you think we
need a few cultural muslims to help us?
[Your Image Here(Disgusted,FLORIDA)] 4:58 pm: NO

That was a snippet of a 'chat room' conversation I was involved in.
''Julie'' is clueless. If you want to understand Mormonisimn (a VERY peaceful religion) you should read the Book of Mormon.
UPDATE: Julie read this post. And responded thusly:

My comment about the cultural Muslims was made in cynicism...if you go to my blog www.jihadophobic.blogspot.com and read my very first post (Why the Radical Islamic Threat, Threatens Moderate Muslims and Us All) and the subsequent ones you'll see where I stand - I am not "clueless"...and it would have been cordial that since I had sent you a PRIVATE message, you clarified my position prior to assuming what it was and posting that erroneous impression...especially since it was made in a chat room that is often full of cynicism and humor.

I humbly extend my apologies to her. I did indeed take what she said out of context. I read and reacted to it.
My point of view is ''why the hell are our best and brightest being put in 'iraq' to be little more than easy targets for jihadis THERE while a growing moslim 'fifth column' is allowed HERE?''
For me that is a raw nerve. Right after ''a shooting'' (that hit nothing and no one) occured outside a mosque in Melbourne FL I said in that chatroom: ''Why is there a mosque in Melbourne FL?'' and ''Why are there enough moslims in Melbourne FL for there to be a mosque?''. I got no answer.
Considering that Melbourne FL is in the same FL County as Kennedy Space Center and about a three hour drive from Disney World (and an hour and a half away from me).
My reaction was based on this idea promoted by both the media and government that there IS such a thing as ''good moslims'' and ''bad moslims'' (even Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes routinely argue this).
As a 'Separationist' I saw the phrase ''don't you think we need a few cultural muslims to help us?'' as uninformed. And I reacted harshly to it.
AGAIN, I EXTEND MY APOLOGIES...

''Iraq study group''...

2006-12-08T14:43:00.000-05:00

Much has been made of ''the iraq study group report''. I could toss up a dozen links that both analize and demolish it.
My own opinion is to take it with a grain of salt. I still feel the need to address a few major points:
''Negoitate with iran and syria''. My opinion: *YAWN*, Dead in the water. It ignores the fact that non-moslims are trying to make a pact with moslims. Here's how it works; IF the moslims come to the negotiaton table -at all-, they will do so DEMANDING EVERYTHING -AND- THE KITCHEN SINK to get ANY cooperation out of them.
We would likely be able to talk them out of their MOST -outrageous- demands, accept their ''moderate'' demands and claim we got an agreement 'in good faith' from the moslims.
The koran INTRUCTS moslims to make agreements with non-moslims IN ORDER TO BREAK THEM when moslims see fit to.
''Support the government of iraq''. WHAT ''GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ''?!?!

X

I DON'T like doing this...

2006-12-02T23:22:00.000-05:00

Edward morrisey, you have been deleted from my blogroll.
I can tolerate your ''bush walks on water'' nonsense, but the SLEAZE you put in an iframe just below the top banner is unacceptable.
You try to claim you are ''conservitive'' (whatever that means these days) but your desire to put quasi-porn on your site (at the top of your blog no less) makes me think you are actually a phony.
I don't care if you remove ''Day by Day''. I removed ''Captain's Quarters'', that's all I needed to do...

12/1...

2006-12-01T04:44:00.000-05:00

TODAY IS:

Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain.
Your cup runneth over again.

Don't scream about
Don't think aloud
Turn your head now baby
Just spit me out
Don't worry about
Don't speak of doubt
Turn your head now baby
Just spit me out

Why follow me to higher ground?
Lost as you swear I am.
Don't throw away your basic needs,
Ambiance and vanity.

DECEMBER promise you have unto me
DECEMBER whispers of treachery
DECEMBER clouds are now covering me
DECEMBER songs no longer I sing...
I HAVE:

AND MY CURE FOR IT IS TO MAKE THIS NO SERIOUS POSTS DAY!!!
IF IT MAKES ME SMILE, IT GETS POSTED. THE LIBERALS WANT TO MAKE THIS A SAD MOURNFUL DAY.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, NO *&^%$'#@ WAY!!!...

The latest ''spin'' we are getting...

2006-11-29T05:50:00.000-05:00

From both the president and ''talk radio'' is: ''We won't leave Iraq UNTIL WE ACHIVE VICTORY!!!''
First, let's look up the word ''Victory'' in the Dictionary (I'll use Dictionary.com):

vic‧to‧ry /ˈvɪktəri, ˈvɪktri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vik-tuh-ree, vik-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a success or triumph over an enemy in battle or war.
2. an engagement ending in such triumph: American victories in the Pacific were won at great cost.
3. the ultimate and decisive superiority in any battle or contest: The new vaccine effected a victory over poliomyelitis.
4. a success or superior position achieved against any opponent, opposition, difficulty, etc.: a moral victory.
5. (initial capital letter) the ancient Roman goddess Victoria, often represented in statues or on coins as the personification of victory.
[Origin: 1275–1325; ME victorie

It is time for ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' to end. It is time for ''OPERATION AMERICAN VICTORY'' to begin.
We begin ''OPERATION AMERICAN VICTORY'' by bringing heavy equipment into the center of the Iraqi desert. We will have to excavate a large pit.
Then FINALLY we begin to wage war in Iraq. ''NO MORE MR. NICE GUY, NO MORE MR. CLEAN''.'
NO MORE LIBERAL ''winning the hearts and minds of the iraqi people''. We gave ''the iraqi people'' over 3 years and a longer period of time than WWII (I guess those who fought WWII ''were just impatient due to television'' as well).
The way I see it, FOR EVERY American Soldier that died in Iraq, A THOUSAND ''iraqis'' pay the ultimate price. That would be about 2.5 million ''iraqis''. For every American Soldier that had to return home with missing body parts, only 100 ''iraqis'' have to pay. Even so-called ''conservitives'' were WHINING about ''haditha'' and ''abu ghrabih''.
We keep hearing how ''America and Israel are 'massacring' moslims''. That is moslim taquua, (never be honest to ''infiedels'').
The moslims keep saying ''as much as the infiedels love life, we love death''.
Let's give them WHAT THE MOSLIMS WANT.
A while ago I managed to refute both a ''junk food conservitive'' AND a hard-core liberal (at the same time) with ''The JFC is NOT 'A War Monger', I AM''...

Thought for Today...

2006-11-28T05:44:00.000-05:00

Today is Tue. Nov. 28 . This officially puts an even more important point on this timeline.
''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' has now gone on LONGER than WWII.
At this point in WWII the Japanese had signed off on it's surrender and stood down. WE WON!!! We defeated our enemies!!!
With Iraq we are non-fighting a non-war against non-enemies while calling it ''fighting our enemies''. How 'Orwellian' can this get? And yet we SOMEHOW expect some kind of ''victory'' out of this.
The JFC's keep saying ''just keep pressing on with the training of 'Iraqi' forces we'll get our victory SOMEHOW''. Not good enough...

Welcome to reality...

2006-11-26T20:52:00.000-05:00

I keep going to Hugh Fitzgerald because he keeps making sense of things:

This could not have been prevented by more American troops. It could not have been prevented by more American aid. In the end, the Sunnis would never acquiesce in the reduced status and power which was the inevitable result of the overthrow of the Sunni despot Saddam Hussein. And the Shi'a woudl never permit a return to the situation before, nor will they ever willingly surrender or share, in a way that non-Muslim Westerners might agree to share among themselves, power or money. And whatever promises might be extracted by the Americans will be broken just as soon as the American aid or presence is no longer deemed necessary. This is something our almost comically ignorant makers of policy will not recognize. How can they? For if they did, then the entire enterprise, save for the part about scouring for major weaponry,would be seen to be based on false assumptions, on nearly criminal negligence in the lack of attention paid both to Islam and to Iraq. All that ails Ameican foreign policy, including the care and feeding of all those "experts" at think-tanks quick with pronouncements and prognostications based on very little, and certainly not on sustained and quiet study, removed from the hectic vacancy that is encouraged by those very think-tanks, and those interviews, and those rich consultancies to televisiion channels, and those seminars sponosred by a Center for Advanced International Blah here and there, when what is needed is less media exposure and more midnight oil.

The utterly unsurprising becomes, for some, a series of amazing surprises. A tragicomedy of error after error, because based on two basic errors: about the definition of the enemy (and hence of the rightly-defined goal), and about the understanding of Iraq (and hence of how the specifics of Iraq can be naturally exploited to further that rightly-defined goal)

Coming. Home. Chickens. Roost.

He understands the reality of the situation...

Like it or not...

2006-11-24T20:45:00.000-05:00

We HAVE ''lost in Iraq''. This whole ''politically correct'' non-war in Iraq is reaching it's peak:

WASHINGTON — President Bush and Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are facing a decision whether to keep their scheduled meeting next week in Jordan at the risk of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr making good on a threat to pull his Shiite faction from the fragile coalition government.

We were so obsessed with ''bringing freedom to the Iraqi people'' that we had no idea who or what we were ''bringing freedom'' TO.
Now we have a standoff situation: bush mananges to keep his appointment with al-maliki;
The onus shifts to al-sadr to make good his threat to essentially dissolve the artificial ''Iraqi government''.
Or al-maliki decides to avoid meeting with bush in Jordan or (doubtful) bush himself decides to refrain from meeting with al-maliki:
That essentially installs al-sadr as ''the new saddam'', the new ruler of non-Kurdistan ''iraq''.
We have already told al-sadr that WHAT WE (THE U.S.of A) CAN DO WITH ''OUR TROOPS'' can be stopped on his orders!!!
For three years now I've heard/read ''we need to take out al-sadr''.
But here's the problem:
WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO IT!!!
Now it's too late, if we NOW ''take out al-sadr'' the artificial ''government of Iraq'' utterly collapses (al-sadr has enough power to say what HE ALLOWS ''our troops'' to do or not do).
Yes, that's how bad it's gotten!!!
If our ''our troops'' are put in a situation where they are little more than 'sitting ducks' for whatever moslim wants to pick them off they should not be there...

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

2006-11-22T20:13:00.000-05:00

No, NOT ''Autumn'', Thanksgiving. And yes, rusty humphires, DEEP FRIED TURKEY ROCKS!!!
Yes, deep frying turkey can be dangerous. There are many things if mishandled can be dangerous.
Done properly, you won't want turkey done any other way...

Yes, it IS pawn vanity's fault...

2006-11-20T18:49:00.000-05:00

And rebecca hagelin's fault as well.
UPDATE: Faux News finally realized it was trying to do to America what mark foley was trying to do to congressional pages. And like mark foley ''they fell on their sword''.
But it again shows the true nature of pawn vanity. He will (and in fact has) defended child molesters called ''Catholic Priests'' and is more than happy to jump on any seedy bandwagon that Faux News brings out for display. ''A great American?'' Not even close...

On Being ''A WAR MONGER''...

2006-11-19T07:01:00.000-05:00

A week ago I was in an online chat room that I'm a regular of. I signed in with my usual 'handle' (Your Image Here) and about 30 minutes later a liberal from Orlando also joined in. Of course the liberal is saying ''we need to get out of Iraq''. I said ''I agree'' (any reader of this blog knows I openly advocate the same thing).
Then the house ''junk food conservitive'' proceeds to blast the liberal using the standard mindless boilerplate that I now consider absolutelty disgusting.
After taking a few blasts from the JFC (might as well make it an acronym, I use it often enough) the liberal whines ''What are you, a warmonger?''. Couldn't resist that one, and replied ''No, the JFC is not a warmonger. I AM''.
Before March 20, 2003 my opinion was: ''OK, if saddam (and his WMD) are this incredible threat to America that the bush adminsistration is claiming then let the dogs of war run free!!!''
Order ''the football'' be delivered to the President, he authorizes the launch codes, makes the call, and ''PUSHES THE BUTTON'' on A SINGLE thermonuclear-tipped ICBM target-locked to the center of Baghdad. Game. Set. And Match.
SUDDENLY A BILLION moslems would realize: ''OH POOPIE!!! THE AMERICANS MEAN IT THIS TIME!!!''.
Then the President comes on the TV and says: ''For eighteen months we have been demanding proof that Iraq has disarmed in accordance with UN resolutions. The Iraqi government has failed to do so and has in fact done everything it could to AVOID resolving this issue peacefully. We regret that we had to employ our own WMD against Iraq, but we were convinced that if we did not we would fail to defend the world from grave danger''.
THAT is where we failed with Iraq. Instead OF FIRST ''enemy defeating'' Iraq, we skipped that step and went straight to ''nation-building'' Iraq. That set up our defeat there.
It's closing in on the FOURTH year of ''nation-building a new Iraq'' and we have made no progress in that regard. Continuing to expend the lives of our fellow Americans in such a foolish endeavor OUTRAGES ME.
I ABSOULTELY HATE THIS WHOLE NOTION THAT ''OUR TROOPS'' ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SOCIAL WORKERS!!!
''OUR TROOPS'' HAVE BECOME IRAQ'S 'WELFARE CHECK'!!! We need some more welfare reform...

Hello, Welcome to Irony. Please have a seat...

2006-11-18T18:49:00.000-05:00

I've been making some modifications to this blog to improve the way it looks.
When I do so I care little how it appears on IE. I HATE Internet Exploder!!! As far as I'm concerned as long as the clock appears right under the ''Your Image Here'' on IE I'm happy.
When Lawerence Auster was having problems with his blog displaying properly on IE7 (and IE6) I knew why and told him how to fix it. I had the same problem myself!
I'm glad he found someone to fix his blog for him. I perfer a more ''hands on'' approach to site coding. That's right, I'm in charge of blog maintaince here as well.
Don't like how this blog displays on your computer? Click on any 'comment' link and tell me WHY it looks wrong.
If it's because of the background colors on the blog main and sidebar, FORGET IT.
They are that way for a reason and likely won't change. Deal with it.
Here's the irony: I pretty much succeded in getting my blog to look the way I want it to. ON INTERNET EXPLODER!!! *&^^%$#@!?{}!!! In fact, I'M quite impressed with how it looks on IE.
IT'S INTENDED TO LOOK GOOD ON FIREFOX AND OPERA!!! NOT IE!!! I don't want to change how it looks on IE. I just want it to look just as good on Firefox and Opera.
I'll try to before this blog makes it to it's 1^st Anniversery...

Amazing how things spread around ''the blogosphere''...

2006-11-18T13:10:00.000-05:00

Every now and then I visit ''Michelle Malkin''s blog. Then I saw something familer.
She posted this on November 14, 2006 09:52 PM:

I saw it and thought ''Hmm, wonder where she dug that little gem up?''. She credits Allah (@ HOT AIR: posted at 11:57 am on November 9, 2006 by Allahpundit) clicked the link and read ''Via INDC Bill'' (Posted by Bill at November 9, 2006 11:30 AM). I said ''OK, so where did HE find it?'' he makes no mention of where he found it. A little miffed at that, and said so:

So Bill where did YOU find that little gem?
I got wind of it from The Inquirer, saw it and said ''OH YEAH! THAT'S going on my blog!''.
Back on Nov 1st.
Had to hack the HTML code a bit to make it work like a YouTube Video...

That's the truth, I can't take credit for discovering it, credit belongs to The Inquirer. It has what I call it's ''suprise link'' that doesn't appear every day but when one does show up it ONLY appears for that day. I saw the video and thought ''I'm putting THAT up! RIGHT AWAY!!!''.
I wanted it to function like a YouTube video, so I dug through the HTML and got it to work (unlike YouTube/Google Video it autoloads and plays on loading the page, got rather annoying even on DSL. Sorry dialup users).
BTW, I don't ''hire out'' my HTML coding. Strictly DIY, it's why this blog changes from time to time as I ''get my hands dirty'' with the HTML. Notice OUR FLAG in the Address bar instead of that orange ''B'', quite proud of that one...

Responding to a comment here...

2006-11-17T18:09:00.000-05:00

From ''Responding to a post...'' I found a comment that inspired this post:

I used to be for "stay the course" in Iraq or something like that, however, I'm beginning to agree with you that we need to redeploy to Kurdish areas.

Had we commited enough troops to secure the country and if we allowed the ones there now to actually fight, we might have been able to actually establish a western style deomcracy. As ii is, our troops are having to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. More troops will not be coming to Iraq. It is likely that we do not have them. Even if we did, the American people would not stand for it.

For better or worse we will be redeploying to Kurdish areas soon. I predict all of our troops will be out of Sunni and Shia areas by the end of July 2007.
B.Poster | 11.16.06 - 1:59 am | #

Originally I was going to respond to this in the comments, then I realized that there is a point that had to be made ''in the blog main''. I can only assume this is the same ''B.Poster'' that I've mentioned before.
This is how I began my reply:
I was originally ''stay the course'' myself. By the end of 2004 I began to have my doubts about our ability to transform Iraq into (as you call it) a western-style democracy. Then I read ''It Didn't Work'' by Wm. F. Buckley and listened to the reaction of it on various talk radio shows. They were in a quandry over it, they couldn't dismiss it as the ravings of cindy sheehan but obviously they couldn't bring themselves to see the common sense of it either.
Then came ''the flash of light'', (''Victory in Iraq'') is the ONLY thing most so-called ''conservitives'' can still defend bush over!!!
Think about it, ''Homeland Security''? With a wide-open US/Mexico border? And the president fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way?! Sucking up to the saudis doesn't help either.
''Fiscal Restraint''? HE MAKES BILL CLINTON LOOK LIKE A TIGHTWAD!!! If I spent like ''lyndon baines bush'' I'd have a couple dozen credit cards and they'd all be maxed out!!!
BTW, If you really need to know, I have one Visa and one MC. They send me the bill, it gets paid in full promptly. I HATE DEBT.
''Responsible Government''? He could have vetoed ''McCain-Finestine'' by merely not signing it into law. He does anyway IN THE HOPE ''that the Supreme Court would strike it down anyway''. Then the Supreme Court upholds it. Guess who got left with egg on thier face? Bushbots.
Rick Darby coined the phrase ''Reverse Bush Derangement Syndrome'', and that is what most of talk radio and a majority of blogs have become.
Their HOPE of some kind of (vaugely defined) ''success'' in transforming Iraq is all they have left. That is why they are quite literally BLIND to the reality of 2/3^rds of Iraq.
They would rather have another 50 to 100 of their fellow Americans be shipped home in coffins every month than to admit they (and he) were wrong.
But THEY (not just bush) THEY are keeping 100,000 of our fellow Americans where they can't fight ANY enemy (because bush has declared ''the Iraqi people'' as ''not our enemy'').
When the facts of what is happening in Iraq is shoved in their face they dodge, desperately clinging to the HOPE that bush will do right on just this and this alone.
As a good example I leave you with the oft-stated claim that saddam was part of and supported al-quida. Bush himself denied that...

Making lemonade...

2006-11-17T15:59:00.000-05:00

Having read and listened to many post-mortems on the '06 election I wanted to toss in my own 2 cents on the common whining about it:
1. ''Pelosi says 'impeachment is off the table' but we just know she's lying''; My point is ''So What? They should be getting busy on impeachment first thing in January''. To the parent of a pre-schooler these days knows about the video or DVD that I've heard nicknamed ''toddler crack''. That video is one the pre-schooler will quite literally watch non-stop over and over again from the time the child wakes up in the morning to falling asleep at night. And I've seen or heard of parents of toddlers take advantage of that fact to use said video as a 'virtual playpen'.
That's what Impeachment proceedings would be for the pols (and the pundits), a 'virtual playpen' where they can busy themselves and otherwise do little harm to themselves or others. As in being too busy in a shouting match over impeachment to have much time or attention to devote to amnasty for illeagals. Granted, a delaying tactic at best, but we have to use whatever we got these days.
2. ''Now that the D's are in power our troops will be leaving Iraq''. Another ''So What?'', I've been openly advocating the same thing for quite some time now. Hugh Fitzgerald makes a similar point, that while the motivations are rotten to the core the ultimate result is actually desirible.
I'm become quite convinced that outside of Kurdistan all ''our troops'' are there for is to be little more than the targets in a shooting range. I cannot nor will not support that. I say send ''the Iraqi people'' 100,000 paper gun range targets in place of the 100,000 of ''our troops'' in 2/3^rds of Iraq.
3. ''Now bush will get amnasty for sure''. I'm convinced that this was one of his aims from the time he was Govenor of Texas and merely considering a run for president. It's quite possible that he could implement amnasty via either Executive Order or even a blanket pardon not unlike the one jimmy carter did with vietnam draft dodgers. If clinton can pardon someone off the ''FBI's Ten Most Wanted List'' bush can pardon literally tens of millions of lawbreakers with the stroke of a pen. Can't even call it unconstitutional, though I doubt our founding fathers ever envisioned that the power of the pardon would be so throughly abused in such a manner (nor did they envision the ability of a president to be ''president for life'' as FDR did).
BTW I support a Constitutional Amendment that would allow the House to 'veto' presidential pardons by majority vote. That's what the amendment process is for, NOT for things like ''the flag burning amendment''.
That is my point of the first two. Keep Washington embroiled over ''withdrawl of troops from Iraq'' and ''impeaching bush over Iraq'' in order to busy them with nonsense. Not unlike plopping a toddler in front of the TV to watch their favorite 'Barney' video over and over again.

rusty, [bleep] yeah...

2006-11-17T06:52:00.000-05:00

Vanishing American replyed to a previous post with:
''I think you've got a point. The likelihood of it being used against people who dissent against the PC orthodoxy is greater than it being used against real enemies.''
THAT is what really troubles me:''As for the police who have one of the kidnappers of your daughter, let's be honest. If we do not give them the tools, leeway and permission to do whatever is necessary to prevent her brutal murder, we are a society not worth saving. The message sent to our enemies that we will not do everything to defend and protect ourselves is far more harmful than anything of concern to John McCain with regard to our current techniques of interrogation.'' (bold and italics mine).
I can fully understand rusty humphries EMOTIONAL reasoning behind this opinion. He has two daughters he obviously loves dearly.
BUT he doesn't understand ''the big picture''.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, three years from now we have 'president hillary clinton' (I'll be honest, I see that as inevitable now). Giving such power to the Executive branch of our government is something to NOT embrace with open arms but something TO AVOID.
I wonder if he would like to be arrested on charges of ''hate speech'' and have ''the tools, leeway and permission to do whatever is necessary'' used upon him. I doubt he'd like to be ''waterboarded'' by an underling of 'president hillary clinton'.
P.S., If you have ever heard rusty humphrie's radio show you'll notice that show's theme song is ''rusty! heck yeah!''. Perhaps you should hear THE ORIGINAL VERSION of that song [CAUTION: FOUL LANGUAGE!!!]...

Be careful what you wish for...

2006-11-15T16:23:00.000-05:00

This may (may not) suprise you but I have been no fan whatsoever of the so-called PATRIOT act. Nor did I favor the administration declaring jose padilla ''an unlawful combatant'' and subject to detention without formal charges and access to legal representaion (NOTE: he IS a US citizen).
The Supreme Court (rightly, in my opinion) struck down the president's claim and basically told the administration ''Do it by the constitution, charge him or release him''.
The reasons I favor the repeal of the so-called PATRIOT act:
1. 90% of it was legislation sought by bill clinton after the Oklahoma City bombing (and died in Congress then). And we all understand what ''enemies'' and ''terrorists'' that clinton was seeking to curtail the actions of.
2. The fact that president bush has reffered to The Minutemen as ''vigilantes''.
3. The possibility that no matter the outcome of the next presidential election, we may have a more openly (instead of surreptitionally) liberal administration replacing the current one.
There were many who were happy ''that the president now has the tools to fight the terrorists''. The problem is what defines a ''terrorist'' is not unlike what defines ''hate speech''. It CAN change according to the political whims of those who define those terms.
With moslems increasingly portrayed as ''victims'' of ''racists'' such as those who accurately show that the koran proscribes moslims to unrelenting war in all forms against non-moslims and those of us who show moslems speaking and acting like moslims there is a distinct possibility that THIS or a future administration will see all defenders against moslims (in ANY way, including telling the truth about them) as ''terrorists''...

Vanishing America...

2006-11-15T03:45:00.000-05:00

For years now the grate winter debate has raged; Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays.
While I perfer Merry Christmas myself I can't get bent out of shape over Happy Holidays either. To me the web posts and talk radio bluster comes off as like pro wrestlers doing the pre-match hype.
But what I saw at my bank the other day IS worth a rant. Call me old-fashioned but I perfer to go into the lobby and walk up to the teller and do my transaction face to face. Like the electric company office my bank likes to decorate for that particular month's main holiday. Being November how they'd decorate is obvious (they at least wait 'till December for the Christmas stuff). What triggered this rant was what I saw sitting next to the teller window, a small Cornicopia complete with the message ''Happy Autumn''.
THAT'S RIGHT, ''Happy Autumn''!!!. I kid you not. PC run amok.

Responding to a post...

2006-11-12T19:15:00.001-05:00

As a way to keep the amount of political commentary down on Chizumatic Steven Den Beste posts his strictly political posts to Chicgao Boyz. His most recent one pushed me to respond to it.
It demonstrates a striking lack of knowlege about the reality of Iraq:

Bailing out of Iraq won't result in increased radicalism in the Middle East. (Though we're told that invading the place did result in increased radicalism.) "Redeploying" won't convince the radicals that we're cowards who have no staying power and can be worn down in a long fight. It won't convince the radicals that they can attack us with impunity and that the price of doing so won't be catastrophe for them.

This is an example of the ''junk food conservitism'' that I often rail about. That is we do anything BUT ''stay the course'' then ''the terrorists win''. It also suggests (by using the term ''Redeploying'' in a sneering way) that somehow, just somehow, if we just keep doing whatever we're doing in Iraq that someday in the future this fantasy future Iraq will somehow become reality.
This ''junk food conservitism'' mentality keeps lamely trying to argue what we are doing in Iraq is actually fighting a war. In truth it's non-fighting a non-war towards a non-victory.
The vast majority of ''our troops'' killed and maimed in Iraq are not being killed in combat with the enemy they are merely being used as target practice for any of dozens of warring factions.
I attempted to post a reply to Steven Den Beste's post on Chicago Boyz. For whatever reason, it failed to post. Not a problem; I saved a copy of that reply and will post it here instead:

One thing that bothers me is when it comes to Iraq that you seem to belive in myths and fantasy.
And for you that's understandable. While this past two years I've been studying Iraq and what is ACTUALLY going on over there you have been watching DVD after DVD of anime.
I advise you to go to Jihad Watch and read the writings of Hugh Fitzgerald. Or ParaPundit and any post on Iraq. The mytholgical Iraq you visulize that is stable, ''westernized'' and functioning as singular US-friendly state is as realistic as teenage girls that can cast magic spells.
A 101 dead Americans this past month alone who were following the orders to try to create what is clearly a fantasy is obscene.
We do indeed need to what you sneeringly call 'redeployment' to bases on the northern and southern Kurdish borders. And allow the rest of Iraq to emerge from anarchy any way it can.
There is no vaugely defined 'victory' to be had in Iraq. Not with an adminstration that is still committed to ''winning the hearts and minds of the (fictional) Iraqi people'' and leaving 100,000 of our fellow Americans to essentially be target practice for any one of dozens of competing factions. Read up on the reality of Iraq or pop Dragon Ball Z back into the DVD drive. Your choice.
Another myth you cling to is that anything but ''stay the course'' is only a far left-wing view.
Is Wm. F. Buckley a raving liberal moonbat? Or George Will? Or Diana West? There is an increasing number on the right that see getting our fellow Americans killed and mamied in persuit of a fantasy is quite literally insane.

I added the links on posting it here. Harsh? You betcha, but if you visit Chizumatic you will also discover my criticisim of SDB is also quite accurate.

What the heck...

2006-11-12T02:58:00.000-05:00

This is the first review of anything I've ever posted. But hey, this blog is a 'grab bag' you never know what you'll find here.
DINNER SHOW: Capone's, Kissimmee FL. Not much of a website that's for sure, looks like something I could throw together in an hour.
While it's been around since the mid-80's I'd never got around to visiting it until now. I'd been to the other, better known ones such as Medievel Times on a dozen occasions, Arabian Knights once and the now-defunct Wild Bill's western review once (it's defunct for good reason, it was awful).
THEME: If you did click on the link, the theme is quite apparent; An Al Capone Chicago speakeasy circa 1930. You enter via the (rather small) lobby/gift shop and are directed to ''the door'' where ''the secret password'' is given in order to enter the speakeasy. Being nearly at the front of the line I was able to see that part of the show. After one performance it becomes a matter of assigning parties for seating.
NOTE: Having been around for 20 years, the place has become quite polished and efficient in how it handles guests. That's not a knock against it, they handle crowds quite well without being unfriendly or unduly distracting from the overall theme.
FOODSERVICE: Food is served buffet style, all you can eat (in an hour). After being seated the waiter/waitress comes to your table for your drink orders. I gotta give the waiter credit, when a member of my party ordered Iced Tea he suggested that she would likely be disappointed by it. He knew that here in The South people take their Iced Tea seriously!!! And suggested another beverage. She took his advice and got a Coke instead.
Guests are brought to the buffet line by 'station' in order to avoid crowding the buffet area. The general idea is to not have a long line for the buffet but also to give each guest adaquate time to get their food.
FOOD: By dinner show standards, not bad at all. I'll be honest, with this type of attraction, you are going there for OK food. That is what Capone's delivers. Nothing worth going there just for the food but nothing that could be described as disappointing either. It's generic Italian: A little salad, (and I DO mean little, lettuce, sliced cucumbers, cherry tomatoes, french and ranch dressing. That's it!) Steamed veggie medley, Mashed Potatos and chicken gravy, FRESH Garlic Bread (that alone gets an honorable mention), Vegetable and Meat Lassanga, Spaghetti, Goulash (with meatballs? First time I'd seen it served that way, but the meatballs were good anyway), Mac and Cheese, Sliced Ham, and Rotisserie Chicken.
Nothing noteworthy but nothing truely disappointing either. By dinner show standards, they did a good job with the food.
DRINKS: Keeping with the speakeasy theme they do indeed serve alcohol (full liquor licence). If they have a cash bar I didn't see it nor was it ever mentioned. Drinks are ''on the house'' and include draft Beer, Sangria and ''rum runners'' (my guess, 8oz. 'Hawaiian Punch' with a shot of rum, I wasn't driving, so that's what I had). I was actually expecting watered-down drinks, and they were not! Drink service was also good, my glass was only empty for a few minutes before my waiter cheerfully refilled it.
SHOW: As noted the theme is ''Roaring 20's'' I had no problem with the sight line, the sound system was quite good and not a visible microphone to be found. They even got the sound levels right! Nothing was muffled or overdriven and with very little echo.
Being this is a tourist attraction the show is G-rated, the girls showed plenty of leg (and some midriff) but less bare skin than you'd see on an average public beach.
The show was tightly scripted but allowed various characters to interact with the audience. Someone in the audience has the nickname ''Possum'' and the cast had fun with that!
I didn't like the shrill voice of ''Bunny'' nor did anyone else I spoke to. While the voice quickly got grating her performance was very good.
It's a carefully structured 3 hour expirence. They actually split up the show into two one hour acts with a intermission to allow those who smoke to go outside in order to have a cigarette (or bathroom break). While I can't blame them for not allowing smoking in the building, I give them credit for allowing us to go outside for a smoke (Yes, I do. AND STUFF IT, I don't want to hear it).
The second act was about wrapping up the story complete with the patented happy ending. The singing and acting were very good. Even the obligitory 'torch song' was done quite well.
As a way to say ''the show is over'' the staff threw out inflated party balloons for the Guests to play with. The lights came up, and it was ''G'wan, get out of here!!!'' (we were the first of two shows).
RECOMMENDED? YES!!! Absoultelty. If you visit here for disney world Capone's is a perfectly wonderful dinner show. But remember, if you can't WALK there, you must have a ''designated driver''.
UPDATE: I thought I'd better tell you, YES, I was ''comped'', Capone's DID NOT ''comp me''. I was treated no differently than anyone else in my (quite large) party. My employer picked up the tab.
I wrote this review completely on my own. No one told me I had to, no one paid me to do it...

Lesson One...

2006-11-11T00:21:00.000-05:00

This is MY blog. It does not have a topic. If I want to post a music video on it I will:
Don't like it? Not my problem...

On ''the troops''...

2006-11-10T17:17:00.000-05:00

There seems to be a mentality that is about WORSHIP of those who serve in all our Armed Forces.
SCEagle is not a god. That's not at all a disparagement of him, it's an acknolwedgement that he's a real human being WITH VERY REAL human problems serving Our Nation with distinction overseas. As ''our troops'' in Iraq are doing.
I disagree with the mission they were sent to do, not ''the troops'' themselves.
What I describe as ''junk food conservitives'' DELIBRATELY try to confuse the two. They work to frame the debate as ''if you don't 'support the mission' you don't support the troops'':

Unlike mark, I'm quite aware of what is going on in 2/3rds of Iraq.
BTW mark, I have no intrest whatsoever in meeting you in a boxing ring. Not my style.

Ok, Andrea, mark needs to be fired...

2006-11-05T23:51:00.000-05:00

The expirence that Heather got at WSB paid off big. She not only 'kept the seat warm' as producer for Andrea Shea King's Sunday Night Show, she dived in and replaced her regular producer. VERY IMPRESSIVE!!!
Mark literally stated on the air that Robert Spencer would be on the Sunday Night show. And he was rather annoyed about saying that: ''Your Image Here, (he did indeed address me directly) I GOT Robert Spencer for the Sunday Night Show!!!''
Not only did he not deliver what he claimed, he ''chickened out'' when it came time to put up or shut up, he ''got sick''.
He didn't have the cojones to say ''I blew it, I'm sorry, I couldn't get Robert Spencer on the show''.
He merely ''called in sick'' and left his job to Heather. She did an impressive job as mark's replacement as both Andrea's producer and in the chat room.
If I could do so I would FIRE mark. His only luck is that I am unable to do so. He failed to do his job completely.
The only thing I can do is treat mark with the disrespect he earned.
UPDATE: I did forget her last name, it's Jackson. When she ably replaced mark as both producer and in the chat room I knew ''yep, that's the same Heather that interned on Neil Boortz's show over the summer''. Yeah, what she has already done is something that mark might not be able to handle; ''The Big Time'' a top 10 nationally syndicated show!
You think I'm lying? First, click here:http://boortz.com/nuze/200508/08262005.html#heather Then go to boortz.com and in the search box enter ''heather'' (no quotes or captialization needed) and click Go!
That's the same Heather that subbed for mark Sunday Night! Neil and his staff respected her so much that she got 'Heather's Corner' on his site. Now she's working her way up the ladder on WDBO. You've got to compete now mark, deal with it...

At least this bad joke has finished being told...

2006-11-05T01:07:00.000-05:00

Well, the verdict on saddam is now in. (as of 4:30am EST) Guilty. Sentenced to Death. Did anyone expect anything else?
The trial of saddam was indeed a sham, done more for the entertainment of the president and his boosters than for any other reason.
I myself have suggested that this show trial be ended and saddam removed from the protection of his jail cell and deposited on the streets of Baghdad. At that point he will have the life expectancy of a generic teenager in one of dozens of modern horror movies. And probably die in a more brutal way than the special-effects ''deaths'' of said movies.
As you can see from the sentence above I care not that saddam was sentenced to death, the moment he was captured alive his fate was sealed. The ''trial'' was what I objected to, it was the zacharias moussoui trial duplicated in Baghdad. In both cases the accused was allowed to turn it into a complete farce. Even though the outcome and sentence were obvious the Defendant was allowed to shame our legal system with continious silly outbursts.
That is what we have taught the muslims, the US legal system is a joke, a playtoy for them.
That's why I said we should have ended that farce and let ''the iraqi people'' exact their own form of ''justice'' on saddam. That would have actually punished saddam and sent a message to other muslims. It would have shown the muslims ''we're done playing games with you''.

How pathetic it's gotten...

2006-11-04T01:45:00.000-05:00

To quote the president: "The Democrats have taken a calculated gamble. They believe that the only way they can win this election is to criticize us and offer no specific plan of their own,".
OK, mr. president, what the hell is YOUR plan?
Your babble has put 101 Americans in coffins and those coffins are being buried in Arlington National Cemetary. IN JUST THIS PAST MONTH!!!
Meanwhile in Iraq your buddy has told ''our troops'' to widthdraw our cordon of 'Sadr City' and call off the search for one of ''our troops''.
IS THAT ''YOUR PLAN'' MR. PRESIDENT?!?!?!? To give command of ''our troops'' TO MOQUTADA AL-SADR?!?!?!? WHAT KIND OF ''PLAN'' IS THAT?!?!?!?!
To head off the ''junk food conservitives'' of talk radio, yes I do indeed have ''A PLAN''. In fact, I've already explained it. TWICE.
The president may be a very friendly person but it doesn't change the fact THAT HE IS AN IDIOT.
He (our president) is actually stupid. It's not ''stratergy'' it's stupidity. I understand the perfectly natural desire to protect ''the slow''.
On The Andrea Shea King Show there is a caller known as ''Gary from Winter Garden'' (on other radio stations he got the nickname ''Sir Gary''). He's a devout Christian, and a very pleasant man, absoultely friendly and as polite as humanly possible.
And it would take about 30 seconds of hearing him why putting him in control of anything WOULD BE A VERY BAD IDEA.
Local talk radio treats ''Gary from Winter Garden''/''Sir Gary'' WITH THE HIGHEST RESPECT POSSIBLE. BECAUSE HE'S ''slow''. If ''Gary from Winter Garden''/''Sir Gary'' runs for President of The United States I would vote for (almost) anyone running against him, tell him face-to-face why I did so and ask him ''Can I still be your friend anyway?''. ''Gary from Winter Garden''/''Sir Gary'' IS LITERALLY our local 'Forrest Gump'. A wonderful, loveable idiot.
The problem is we now have ''President Forrest Gump'' in The White House and A LOT of so-called ''conservitives'' embarassed about it.
To be honest, if ''President Forrest Gump'' was merely spending money mindlessly that I could tolerate. Money doesn't have familes. Spending THE LIVES of our fellow Americans mindlessly CANNOT be tolerated.
UPDATE: In The American Thinker Diego Sevi posts an ''Open Letter to President Bush'' basically begging us to stay to help protect Kurdistan, and that I agree with. I consider that 'doable', he notes that Kurdistan is stable and friendly to US (which is true). I do indeed think our presence in Kurdistan would help the Kurds maintain their internal stability. The other reason we need to stay in Kurdistan is to keep Turkey from interfering in Kurdistan's affiars and vice-versa. As to the rest of Iraq (shia-sunnistan) there is nothing we can accomplish there. Nothing.
In fact, stability in that region of Iraq is NOT in our best interests nor is ''democracy'' or ''freedom'' to a people who have no understanding of and are culturally hostile to both concepts. As Vox Day and Hugh Fitzgerald have both noted the hostilities in ''shia-sunnistan'' should be allowed to continue to expend the manpower and resources of dar-al-islam. As in we let them kill and consume the resources THERE so they have less of both to use over HERE.
WITHOUT the presence of ''our troops'' to continue to be haplessly caught in the crossfire.
The only purpose ''our troops'' are serving in ''shia-sunnistan'' is as target practice for dozens of rival factions vying for control. Which one(s) will win? It surely won't be the artifical 'government of Iraq' that we set up. I belive what will remain will be a small, poor sunni rump state and a rather large (but also impoverished, despite it's oil sales) shi'ite state allied to some degree to Iran. It cannot evolve into any other direction.
But in the years (and it will take years) for the remainder of Iraq to sort itself out there will be a lot of devastation and bloodshed due to a tribal and sectarian rivalry that has exsisted there for centuries that was only kept in check by a succession of dictators. Saddam was little different than any of his predicessors and whatever ruthless faction rises to power and brings order to whatever remains of Iraq.
UPDATE II: The always sensible Diana West looks at Iraq and sees exactly it as I do, a surreal (and insane) example of denial of reality from the White House.