Tuesday, February 28, 2006
head all morning. I got an email today about a deployment
opportunity to Iraq. The deployment, which is for six months,
looks like something I'd really like to do. Unfortunately, I won't
be available to deploy until three weeks after the "report-by"
date. The needs of my unit have to take precedence over my
personal desires. Another opportunity missed. Oh well. I
guess the Stones were right. Proving once again that even
a broken clock is right twice a day.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
I heard this speech by Hillary on Hannity & Colmes last night:
"Suppose that you were meeting today to decide who got the vouchers.
First parent comes and says 'I want to send my daughter to St.
Peter's Roman Catholic School' and you say 'Great, wonderful
school, here's your voucher. Next parent who comes says, 'I want
to send, you know, my child to the Jewish Day School. Great here's
your voucher! Next parent who comes says, 'I want to send my child
to the private school that I've already dreamed of sending my child
to.' Fine. Here's your voucher.
Next parent who comes says, 'I want to send my child to the school
of the Church of the White Supremacist.' You say, 'Wait a minute.
You can't send...we're not giving a voucher for that.' And the parent
says, 'Well, the way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore
I believe in white supremacy. And therefore, you gave it to a
Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, gave it to a secular
private parent. Under the Constitution, you can't discriminate
Suppose the next parent comes and says 'I want to send my child to
the School of...the Jihad.' Wait a minute! We're not going to send a
child with taxpayers dollars to the School of Jihad. 'Well, you
gave it to the Catholics, gave it to the Jews, gave it to the private
secular people. You're gonna tell me I can't? I'm a taxpayer. Under
Now, tell me how we're going to make those choices."
So, there you have it. Hillary would like to trust you with the
freedom to choose where your children should be educated, but she
can't take the chance that you might make a bad choice. That's the
nanny-state mentality for you. They want what's best for you.
They know what's best for you. They'll do what's best for you.
And you'd better like it, becuase you don't have a choice*.
*Unless, of course, you want an abortion.
Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for posting the transcript.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Having a UAE-based company running the ports would give terrorists an excellent opportunity to place personnel in a position where they could gather intelligence about our port security. Information like security strengths, weaknesses, and shipping schedules would be essential in planning any large scale terrorist operation. We're already weak in the port security department. Why make the terrorists job any easier?
Look who's in favor of the deal. Jimmy "Punked by Islamic Extremists" Carter.
"The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it's exists," Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
"My belief is that the president and his secretary of state, the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government or organization to manage their ports," Carter added. "I don't think there's any particular threat to our security."
Considering his track record in dealing with Islamic extremists, anything Carter suggests is most certainly wrong. This is a really (really) bad idea folks. Lets not put dollars ahead of sense.
Friday, February 17, 2006
The 54-page report also urged the immediate shutdown of the prison complex. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the detention facility would have to be closed "sooner or later ... hopefully as soon as is possible."
"The United States government should either expeditiously bring all Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial ... or release them without further delay," read the UN Commission on Human Rights report.
As hard as this is to believe, I sincerely doubt that the UN has the best interest of the US in mind. And I can't, for the life of me, recall mass trials for all of the Axis POW's during WW II. If I recall correctly, we held onto those guys until the end of the war.
For some perspective on the issue from someone who has a clue, check out Mike Gifford's column at Defensewatch.
There's a fact that everyone needs to wake up to--the men we've detained at Gitmo are not common soldiers. They aren't conscripts fighting as soldiers in an Army that were captured in some obscure battle, like so many of the Iraqi soldiers you saw surrender en masse during war. These people are out to bring down the United States at all costs, and often have information that can help destroy the network that's out to destroy us. They will never fight by the same rules we do, and they know how to use our rules of warfare against America, Britain or anyone they consider an enemy. (5) We're not the bad guys here--they are--but in our panic to be completely fair, I'm afraid we're going to make deadly and potentially irreversible concessions.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
As you may have already surmised, I am less than impressed with
the media's handling of Dick Cheney's hunting accident. They
haven't exactly covered themselves in glory this week. The best
analysis I've seen about this to date can be found in Thomas
Sowells' latest column. I'm posting by email, so I can't post the
link. I'll put the url below. You can just copy and paste it into
your browser's address box. Or you can find it at Townhall.com.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
-Anyone who is a parent, and who has lived through the "terrible
twos," probably experienced deja vu upon seeing NBC news
personality David Gregory throwing a tantrum over the Cheney-
hunting accident story. And they probably empathized with Scott
-I read over at Drudge's site that Madame Hillary finds the way in
which information was released about the Cheney hunting accident
"troubling." As troubling as perjury by a sitting president? As
troubling as unauthorized access to FBI files for political purposes?
As troubling as campaign contributions from communist China? As
troubling as dozens of questionable last-minute pardons as payback
to supporters and donors from an outgoing president (and his
candidate wife)? As troubling as the illegal transfer of technology
to communist China? As troubling as a thirty hour delay
in releasing the suicide note of a senior administration aide? More
troubling, no doubt. It was a hunting accident, after all.
-The cartoon riot in the Muslim world continues. The mainstream
media has apprently lost interest in the story, or are busy with
more important things. This begs the question: If a tree falls in
the forest, and the American media isn't there to cover it, does it
make a sound? You bet your ass it does.
-Some snot-nosed punks at the University of Washington don't want
a memorial to UoW alum, and WW II fighter ace, Greg "Pappy"
Boyington on campus. Maybe they have a point. A campus full of
whiney, self-absorbed, left-wing asshats isn't good enough to have
a memorial to a hero like Boyington.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Always looking for a hidden lesson in everything, I've been giving
serious thought to the media meltdown over Dick Cheney's hunting
accident. Here's what I came up with:
Dick Cheney accidently shoots one of his best friends in a hunting
accident, and a thirty hour delay in reporting it to the almighty
Washington press corps is a mortal sin. "Coverup" is the word of
the day. NBC's David Gregory is ready to duke it out with Scott
McClellan during a press conference. No doubt we'll hear calls
for a Congressional investigation--and maybe utterances of the "I"
word--in the near future.
Rewind to the 1990s. President Bill Clinton has "sex with that
woman, Miss Lewinsky" and lies about it, under oath and in a speech
to the nation. "It's ok", we are told, because it involves his
personal life. None of our business anyway.
Thousands of FBI files on Clinton poltical opponents wind up in the
hands of a political hack at the White House. "It was just a
mistake," we are told. Lighten up already.
White House travel office director Billy Dale is arrested and
criminally prosecuted so a Clinton cousin can be installed as
director. A jury acquits him after a mere two hours of
deliberation. "Billy who?" the media elites asked at the time.
"Ancient history" they tell us today.
So, what's the lesson in all this? The lesson is that there is no
bias in the mainstream media. It's all just a paranoid delusion
of the right wing. Nothing but b.s. cooked up by talk radio. So
there you have it. Any questions?
Monday, February 13, 2006
Some observations on the goings-on in the news:
Judging by the media feeding frenzy over the Dick Cheney hunting
accident, I'm inclined to suggest that Scott McClellen borrow the
VP's shotgun for his next news conference. Some birdshot in the
ass of a couple of the snottier reporters may serve as a warning to
the rest. Then again, maybe not. They are pretty dense.
On a side note, statistically speaking, it's still safer to hunt
with Cheney than it is to hitch a ride with Teddy Kennedy.
It looks as if former VP Al Gore and DNC Chair Howard Dean are in
a footrace to the looney bin. Who will win? Damned if I know.
It's too close to call at this point.
Senator Hillary's leftwing-moderate-antiwar-hawkish-tax-and-spend-
fiscally responsible act is wearing thin. In her bid for the
presidency, she's trying to wear too many hats, a tough trick to
pull off. Even for someone with a head as big as hers. It's
starting to appear that she won't even get the nomination, let
alone win the election in '08.
Since Cindy Shhehan has decided not to run against DiFi for US
Senate, I wonder if we could convince her to move to New York
and take on Madame Hillary. I'd actually register as a Democrat
in order to vote for Cindy in the primary.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
The cartoon implosion now rocking the Muslim world - featuring embassy burnings, threats of 9-11 sequels and the Arab street equivalent of the Terrible Twos - is based on equal parts fake photographs and a default riot mode looking for an excuse. Extreme propaganda on one side and a lack of fortitude on the other have brought us near the brink of extinction through a global act of accidental self-mockery.
Any so-called “moderate Muslims” there are have simply made insufficient effort to distinguish themselves, or to alter the horrid image of Islam. The “good” Muslims have no place in the press, and have either not made the effort, or are simply incapable. If they are the majority, as apologists like to assert, then why haven’t they taken over Islam? Why don’t they control it?
Nobody believes in this “vast majority” of moderate Muslims. This is a fantasy, until proven otherwise. Many of these “moderate Muslims” hardly practice Islam at all. They left it by the wayside, along with the other chronic restraints of a socially retarded culture that justifies its deformity in the name of religion. They prefer freedom. Islam is only for weddings and funerals, or personal prayer. It is no longer a way of life for the “moderate Muslims.” There are no “moderate Muslims.”
Why have so many Europeans submitted (to) this kind of blackmail? Anti-Americanism is part of the answer. Like the Arab world, Europe is deeply resentful of American power. In order to counter balance the United States and increase their dwindling welfare state populations, Europeans have, ever since the oil shock of 1973, entered into a close relationship with the Arab world. The so called Euro-Arab dialogue produces regular meetings designed, in principle, to bring modernity to the Arab world while easing the way for Arab immigrants to be integrated into Europe. In practice, as in the case of the Danish cartoon affair, the Arab world has been little modernized, but it has successfully exported its hatreds and world-view to Europe.
What’s noteworthy about the latest violence is not that it is unusual — but how very ordinary in so many ways it has become. Yes, of course, the grimly whimsical surprise is that this time the lightning rod has turned out to be not the famous London underground, or the grand train stations of Madrid, or the twin towers of New York, but a set of cartoons out of Copenhagen. The Danish drawings did not trigger some previously nonexistent fury. They have simply become the latest litmus test of how very much the worst thugs of the Islamic world believe they are entitled to get away with, whatever the pretext.
The inimitable Ann Coulter
The rioting Muslims claim they are upset because Islam prohibits any depictions of Muhammad -- though the text is ambiguous on beheadings, suicide bombings and flying planes into skyscrapers.
My take? The evidence is mounting that these riots aren't that spontaneous. The cartoons are five months old, and they're only now causing an uproar? The three most offensive "cartoons" were never even published, and are almost certainly fakes. And how does every asshat with a zippo in the Muslim world come to have a Danish flag? I've spent a little time in the middle east, and I've never seen or heard of a "Scandinavian flag superstore" in the region.
For what it's worth, I don't think that the American left is alone in viewing the war on terrorism as a "quagmire." The global Islamic revolution that was supposed to be set off by the US response to 9/11 hasn't happened. The terrorists are still out there and they're still active, but they've made no progress. It's going to take more than a few thousand fanatics to make bin Laden's vision come true, it's going to take millions. I believe that this whole thing is meant to serve as a recruiting drive and a pep rally for Islamofascist anti-Americanism. Let's hope it's not successful.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
If I can tolerate the likes of Ted Rall, Michael Moore, Al Franken, and others of their ilk, Muslims can tolerate these cartoons. Even the "Christian Right" managed to deal with Piss Christ and Kanye West posing as Jesus without rioting or threatening to massacre anyone.
And while I'm showing my support for freedom of speech, I'd like to show a little support for the people of Denmark. I think I'm going to buy (and drink) some Carlsberg Beer this weekend. Buy Danish!
Monday, February 06, 2006
A government agent can't search your person without a
warrant or probable cause. If you're carrying a suitcase, he
can't search it without a warrant or probable cause. If you're in
your car, he can't search your car without a warrant or probable
cause. Unless you give them permission, government agents can't
search you without legal justification (i.e. a warrant or probable
cause). Ever! Right? Not so fast.
What if you're entering the US at a border checkpoint? Can they
search you? Your suitcase? Your car? With no warrant? No probable
cause? No problem. I've seen it with my own eyes. When I was in
college, three of my friends and I spent about an hour at the US-
Canadian border while my friend's car was tossed by Customs
Inspectors. Why? Because we were college kids, and they probably
figured that we had some drugs in the car. Turns out we didn't.
When they were done searching the car, one of the Customs guys
said "OK, you can go now." No explanation. No apology. They didn't
even put back the stuff they threw on the pavement during the
search. That's just the way it is at the border. Anyone, or anything,
entering the US can be searched. It's been that way for years and
With this in mind, I'm curious as to why phone calls and
communications are any different. We're in the information age.
A lot can be done with the transfer of information. Why should it
be allowed to enter the country unchecked? Are we trying to use
a 19th century mindset to deal with a 21st century problem? I think
it may be time for a new paradigm.