 |  |  |  |
| Be advised: We are not here to make friends or be diplomatic. The opinions given on this website will at all times contain truth and will probably contain insensitivity and some name calling. It may also require a sence of humor. If you don't have one, don't bother reading on. Consider yourself warned. |
| Michael Moore Exposed! A reporter for WAVE 3 in Louisville has done a great 2 part piece exposing Michael Moore for what he really his. Click below to see it Part 1 Part 2 |
| Past Nightmares |
| Wednesday, December 15th, 2005 |
Religious McDonald's Sign Draws Attention Oh my God, get over it...
Does the phrase 'Merry Christmas' really offend you? I mean, really? Come on people. Whenever I
read a story like this, it just makes me want to scream. A McDonald's restaurant in Raleigh NC has
put up a sign that reads Merry Christmas Jesus is the Reason for the Season and a North Carolina
woman has complained, and has officially become the most hated woman in North Carolina. Ok, I
made that part up, but I bet if there was a poll...
“It offends me because it specifically talks about Jesus, Merry Christmas. It doesn't give credit to
anyone else,” Amanda Alpert said. Doesn't give the credit of Christmas to anyone else? Who else
should get the credit for Christmas, the department stores? Why do you think they call it
CHRISTmas you idiot? Because it is about the birth of, that's right, JESUS CHRIST! She goes on to
say I care because I'm Jewish, and the reason for the season is upsetting to me. Upsetting? How
pathetic does an individual have to be to actually get upset about Jesus is the reason for the
season?
Let me get this straight. So, because she's Jewish, the owner of the McDonald's can't talk about
Jesus on a sign in front of his restaurant? Hello? He owns the business, the land it sits on, and the
sign itself. It's something called Freedom. I know that concept pisses some people off, but you
know what, get over it.
I'm telling you what people, this notion of political correctness is a plague on all our houses. I read
in a recent survey that over 90% of the people in this country celebrate Christmas. If we even
consider giving into people like this Amanda Alpert, we're doomed as a free society. Hey lady, if you
don't like the sign, don't eat there. If you don't like the sign, don't read it. It's not rocket science. But to
go to the trouble of calling the corporate headquarters of McDonald's to complain about a sign tells
me one thing, you really need to get a life. PS I hope you like the Christmas format. Merry Christmas
to all, even you Ms. Alpert...
Does the phrase 'Merry Christmas' really offend you? I mean, really? Come on people. Whenever I
read a story like this, it just makes me want to scream. A McDonald's restaurant in Raleigh NC has
put up a sign that reads Merry Christmas Jesus is the Reason for the Season and a North Carolina
woman has complained, and has officially become the most hated woman in North Carolina. Ok, I
made that part up, but I bet if there was a poll...
“It offends me because it specifically talks about Jesus, Merry Christmas. It doesn't give credit to
anyone else,” Amanda Alpert said. Doesn't give the credit of Christmas to anyone else? Who else
should get the credit for Christmas, the department stores? Why do you think they call it
CHRISTmas you idiot? Because it is about the birth of, that's right, JESUS CHRIST! She goes on to
say I care because I'm Jewish, and the reason for the season is upsetting to me. Upsetting? How
pathetic does an individual have to be to actually get upset about Jesus is the reason for the
season?
Let me get this straight. So, because she's Jewish, the owner of the McDonald's can't talk about
Jesus on a sign in front of his restaurant? Hello? He owns the business, the land it sits on, and the
sign itself. It's something called Freedom. I know that concept pisses some people off, but you
know what, get over it.
I'm telling you what people, this notion of political correctness is a plague on all our houses. I read
in a recent survey that over 90% of the people in this country celebrate Christmas. If we even
consider giving into people like this Amanda Alpert, we're doomed as a free society. Hey lady, if you
don't like the sign, don't eat there. If you don't like the sign, don't read it. It's not rocket science. But to
go to the trouble of calling the corporate headquarters of McDonald's to complain about a sign tells
me one thing, you really need to get a life. PS I hope you like the Christmas format. Merry Christmas
to all, even you Ms. Alpert...
| Steel this button, post it on your blog and link it back to the Nightmare |
| Friends of the Nightmare |
| From our friends at TerrorWatch.net a piece by Thomas McFadden, author and History Professor, that explains the true story of the Crusades. For years we've been told that the Crusades were nothing more than Christianity trying to force its way into the Muslim World. Turns out the Crusades were battles fought to stop Muslim aggression. Sound familiar? Take the time to read this piece. It will put things in perspective. |
| Nightmare Exclusives |
| Thursday, November 24th, 2005 |
Happy Thanksgiving folks.
I hope you and yours have a wonderful day filled with the blessings of food, family, and football. The
three greatest things in life. (Not necessarily in that order...) Let me share with you what I am
thankful for this year.
First and foremost, I am thankful for our troops. Most of them are away from home, in some far off
land sacrificing this day with family to serve a greater purpose. I know it's hard on them because I've
been there, done that. Thanks to all who have served, are serving now, and who will serve in the
future. May God bless and watch over each and every one of you.
I am thankful for my wife and my kids. They are the purpose in my life and without them, I am
nothing.
I am thankful for this Nation. We are truly blessed with freedom. Liberal or Conservative, democrat
or republican, and yes, even those that don't pay attention, are free to do what we do, believe what
we believe and I thank God for that opportunity.
May each and every visitor to the Nightmare have a wonderful Thanksgiving. I thank you for your time
and your participation. I hope this finds all of you well and may your bellies be full, your home be
warm, and your day be the best yet.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Goose
The True Story of Thanksgiving And the great economic lessons learned at the
beginning of our great nation. By Fred E. Fodvary, Senior Editor at Progress.org.
The Thanksgiving Day that millions of Americans celebrate, with turkey and stuffing, is a myth. The
true history was forgotten long ago, and even most of the history books have it wrong. The myth
goes like this: The Pilgrims landed in 1620 and founded the Colony of New Plymouth. They had a
difficult first winter, but survived with the help of the Indians. In the fall of 1621, the grateful Pilgrims
held their first Thanksgiving Day and invited the Indians to a big Thanksgiving-Day feast with turkey
and pumpkins. There was indeed a big feast in 1621, but it was not a Thanksgiving Day. This three-
day feast was described in a letter by the colonist Edward Winslow. It was a shooting party with the
Indians, but there was no Thanksgiving Day proclamation, nor any mention of a thanksgiving in
1621 in any historical record. The history of the colony was chronicled by Governor William Bradford
in his book, Of Plymouth Plantation, available at many libraries. Bradford relates how the Pilgrims
set up a communist system in which they owned the land in common and would also share the
harvests in common.
By 1623, it became clear this system was not working out well. The men were not eager to work in
the fields, since if they worked hard, they would have to share their produce with everyone else. The
colonists faced another year of poor harvests. They held a meeting to decide what to do.
As Governor Bradford describes it, At last after much debate of things, the governor gave way that
they should set corn everyman for his own particular... That had very good success for it made all
hands very industrious, so much [more] corn was planted than otherwise would have been. The
Pilgrims changed their economic system from communism to geoism; the land was still owned in
common and could not be sold or inherited, but each family was allotted a portion, and they could
keep whatever they grew. The governor assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the
proportion of their number for that end.
Bradford wrote that their experience taught them that communism, meaning sharing all the
production, was vain and a failure: “The experience that has had in this common course and
condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst Godly and sober men, may well evince the Vanities
of the conceit of Plato's and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; that the taking away
of property, and bringing into common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing, as if they
were wiser than God.”
Their new geoist economic system was a great success. It looked like they would have an
abundant harvest this time. But then, during the summer, the rains stopped, threatening the crops.
The Pilgrims held a Day of Humiliation and prayer. The rains came and the harvest was saved. It is
logical to surmise that the Pilgrims saw this as a was a sign that God blessed their new economic
system, because Governor Bradford proclaimed November 29, 1623, as a Day of Thanksgiving.
This was the first proclamation of thanksgiving found in Bradford's chronicles or any other historical
record. The first Thanksgiving Day was therefore in November 1623. Much later, this first
Thanksgiving Day became confused and mixed up with the shooting party with the Indians of 1621.
And in the mix-up, the great economics lesson was forgotten and then discarded by the time the
Plymouth Colony merged with the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1691.
The Pilgrims recognized that the land itself was and should be their common community property,
but that it is proper for the fruits of the labor of each person and family to belong to those who
produced them. This was the great economics lesson the Pilgrims learned, a lesson that so
impressed them that they commemorated it every year thereafter. This should have been a day to
remember their vital economics lesson, but this lesson was later forgotten in the mix-up with the
shooting party with the Indians!
This bitter lesson would be learned all over again by the people of the Soviet Union, where
socialism and communalism of production failed again. Fortunately the Pilgrims, a smaller
community in simpler times, were able to switch quickly and realize the great prosperity that comes
from applying the geoist principle of the common ownership of land and the individual ownership of
labor.
Thanksgiving Day should be remembered not just as a day when we give thanks for our
abundance, but more deeply and historically when we recall why we have this abundance. In our
Thanksgiving Day celebrations, let us therefore tell one another the true origins of the thanksgiving
and the great economic lesson that it rightfully should remember.
I hope you and yours have a wonderful day filled with the blessings of food, family, and football. The
three greatest things in life. (Not necessarily in that order...) Let me share with you what I am
thankful for this year.
First and foremost, I am thankful for our troops. Most of them are away from home, in some far off
land sacrificing this day with family to serve a greater purpose. I know it's hard on them because I've
been there, done that. Thanks to all who have served, are serving now, and who will serve in the
future. May God bless and watch over each and every one of you.
I am thankful for my wife and my kids. They are the purpose in my life and without them, I am
nothing.
I am thankful for this Nation. We are truly blessed with freedom. Liberal or Conservative, democrat
or republican, and yes, even those that don't pay attention, are free to do what we do, believe what
we believe and I thank God for that opportunity.
May each and every visitor to the Nightmare have a wonderful Thanksgiving. I thank you for your time
and your participation. I hope this finds all of you well and may your bellies be full, your home be
warm, and your day be the best yet.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Goose
The True Story of Thanksgiving And the great economic lessons learned at the
beginning of our great nation. By Fred E. Fodvary, Senior Editor at Progress.org.
The Thanksgiving Day that millions of Americans celebrate, with turkey and stuffing, is a myth. The
true history was forgotten long ago, and even most of the history books have it wrong. The myth
goes like this: The Pilgrims landed in 1620 and founded the Colony of New Plymouth. They had a
difficult first winter, but survived with the help of the Indians. In the fall of 1621, the grateful Pilgrims
held their first Thanksgiving Day and invited the Indians to a big Thanksgiving-Day feast with turkey
and pumpkins. There was indeed a big feast in 1621, but it was not a Thanksgiving Day. This three-
day feast was described in a letter by the colonist Edward Winslow. It was a shooting party with the
Indians, but there was no Thanksgiving Day proclamation, nor any mention of a thanksgiving in
1621 in any historical record. The history of the colony was chronicled by Governor William Bradford
in his book, Of Plymouth Plantation, available at many libraries. Bradford relates how the Pilgrims
set up a communist system in which they owned the land in common and would also share the
harvests in common.
By 1623, it became clear this system was not working out well. The men were not eager to work in
the fields, since if they worked hard, they would have to share their produce with everyone else. The
colonists faced another year of poor harvests. They held a meeting to decide what to do.
As Governor Bradford describes it, At last after much debate of things, the governor gave way that
they should set corn everyman for his own particular... That had very good success for it made all
hands very industrious, so much [more] corn was planted than otherwise would have been. The
Pilgrims changed their economic system from communism to geoism; the land was still owned in
common and could not be sold or inherited, but each family was allotted a portion, and they could
keep whatever they grew. The governor assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the
proportion of their number for that end.
Bradford wrote that their experience taught them that communism, meaning sharing all the
production, was vain and a failure: “The experience that has had in this common course and
condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst Godly and sober men, may well evince the Vanities
of the conceit of Plato's and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; that the taking away
of property, and bringing into common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing, as if they
were wiser than God.”
Their new geoist economic system was a great success. It looked like they would have an
abundant harvest this time. But then, during the summer, the rains stopped, threatening the crops.
The Pilgrims held a Day of Humiliation and prayer. The rains came and the harvest was saved. It is
logical to surmise that the Pilgrims saw this as a was a sign that God blessed their new economic
system, because Governor Bradford proclaimed November 29, 1623, as a Day of Thanksgiving.
This was the first proclamation of thanksgiving found in Bradford's chronicles or any other historical
record. The first Thanksgiving Day was therefore in November 1623. Much later, this first
Thanksgiving Day became confused and mixed up with the shooting party with the Indians of 1621.
And in the mix-up, the great economics lesson was forgotten and then discarded by the time the
Plymouth Colony merged with the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1691.
The Pilgrims recognized that the land itself was and should be their common community property,
but that it is proper for the fruits of the labor of each person and family to belong to those who
produced them. This was the great economics lesson the Pilgrims learned, a lesson that so
impressed them that they commemorated it every year thereafter. This should have been a day to
remember their vital economics lesson, but this lesson was later forgotten in the mix-up with the
shooting party with the Indians!
This bitter lesson would be learned all over again by the people of the Soviet Union, where
socialism and communalism of production failed again. Fortunately the Pilgrims, a smaller
community in simpler times, were able to switch quickly and realize the great prosperity that comes
from applying the geoist principle of the common ownership of land and the individual ownership of
labor.
Thanksgiving Day should be remembered not just as a day when we give thanks for our
abundance, but more deeply and historically when we recall why we have this abundance. In our
Thanksgiving Day celebrations, let us therefore tell one another the true origins of the thanksgiving
and the great economic lesson that it rightfully should remember.
| Hillary and many of her leftist buddies making the argument that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and needed to be dealt with. A far different cry than you're hearing now. Watch the video, it is amazing to see democrats make a very convincing argument, for once. |
| Get great Marine Corps Trash from Sgt. Grit at Grunt.com |
| One German That Gets It. Here is an article from a German citizen that completely understands appeasement does not work. Trying to get Islamo-facists to like you will not stop them from killing you. Read on... |
| That's a scary thought isn't it? Terror-Watch.Net is a site created with the sole purpose of exposing the real truth about the "religion" called Islam and its Promotion of Terrorism and hate against Non-muslims. Check it out. |
| See the tax breakdown for who pays what in America. Our progressive tax system, see if it looks fair to you |
| The Rubberband A buddy of mine from high school has started a new band and they are very good. Click the link to check out pictures of the band and listen to some of the music. If you like good acoustic guitar and a campfire style jam session, check it out. |
| Have you ever wondered why the radical left goes to such extremes such as calling the President a terrorist? Click above see my explanation |
| "Quit your whining, read the book, and open your mind, its not promoting religion, it's teaching history." Click here to see Woody's Blog |
| Just For Fun |
| Marine reached out to child, and she saved lives If this story doesn't invigorate your soul, then you don't have one. Read the story of how a kind and simple gesture by one Marine to a young Iraqi girl saved who knows how many Marine's lives. |
| Click Picture for Paintball 2005 Pics |
| -You Might Be a Liberal If... A take off from Jeff Foxworthy, but it is a great list. |
| Have you contacted your Congressman? Do you know who your Congressman is? |
| Sunday, September 4th, 2005 |
One Disaster after Another Hurricane Katrina and Liberalism, a lethal combination.
Several days ago, I was sickened by the immediate politicization of this disaster. Everything from
blaming the President for Global Warming which has supposedly strengthened the hurricane, to
blaming the President for not evacuating the poor people that don't have cars. And I had plenty of
opportunities to play the political game, but chose not to. I don't play politics with natural disasters.
But I've had about all I can take. I'm still not going to play politics, I'm just going to show you some
things you should know.
I'm sure most of you remember Hurricane Ivan. I know I do. I ended up with four and half feet of
water in my basement as a result of that Son of a you know what... Last year, when Ivan was
barreling through the Gulf, New Orleans had a bit of a dress rehearsal for Katrina. That evacuation
didn't go well and apparently, they have failed to utilize the past year to do anything to fix it.
According an AP story, dated September 19th, 2004, the state of Louisiana government had a bit of
"dry run" with hurricane Ivan and "the storm exposed what some say are significant flaws in the Big
Easy's civil disaster plans." Though Ivan stayed well east of New Orleans, they ordered the
evacuation of the city and that lead to fierce traffic jams and a since of helplessness for the poor.
"They say evacuate, but they don't say how I'm supposed to do that," Latonya Hill, 57, said at the
time. "If I can't walk it or get there on the bus, I don't go. I don't got a car. My daughter don't either."
That's a quote from the news story that ran a year ago. The sad thing is New Orleans had
provisions in their Disaster Plan for transporting those without transportation out of the city.
From Part Two, Section II-Assumptions, Paragraph D of the Louisiana Disaster Plan:
"The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal
buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to
provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating."
So, why wasn't that done? Look at this from the office of the Governor of Louisiana, a press release
dated September 1st, 2005. This is a press release announcing the executive order allowing the
governor to utilize "public school buses for the transportation of Hurricane Katrina evacuees."
September 1st? A little late for that considering the hurricane blew through there 3 days prior. And
who are the libs blaming? The president. At what level should accountability for this disaster
begin? I'd say a few rungs below the Whitehouse. They had a plan in place to deal with the poor
who couldn't get out on their own and they failed to execute pure and simple. In fact, I heard a radio
report this morning that stated the it took several calls from the National Hurricane Center and
another call from the President to get Mayor Nagin to announce the mandatory evacuation. That
makes me insane! Why does the man who lives and runs "The Bowl" have to wait to be told to get
his people out? And again, who is at fault for the lack of execution of the Louisiana Disaster Plan?
I submit to you, it's not the President of the United States.
I want to move on to the problem with liberalism and natural disasters. Let me start with something
from Joe Cook of the New Orleans ACLU. "If the government asks people to evacuate, the
government has some responsibility to provide an option for those people who can't evacuate and
are at the whim of Mother Nature." Now, I'm not totally against the idea of the government providing
assistance in evacuating those who can't get out on their own. Especially when they have the
provision outlined in the Disaster Plan. But it is that dependent attitude that troubles me. The
attitude of depending on the government to get people out of a city that is just a sitting duck waiting
for a disastrous storm.
Why on earth would anyone depend on the government to actually save their lives in the event of a
direct hit of a hurricane? We're talking about the most inefficient bureaucracy in the free world.
Surely, these poor people have been to the welfare office or the social security office. Why can't
these people see the problems inherent in depending on a government that they are familiar with?
I'll tell you why. It's because they have been trained to depend on the government. They have
depended on the government for their livelihood for years. They believe they don't have to take care
of themselves because the government sends them a paycheck every month. "The Great Society"
programs that have indeed helped millions, has also created a dependency that prevents people
from thinking for themselves. And when you can't think for yourself, you are setting yourself up to be
stranded on your rooftop waiting for a helicopter to come get you.
I hate getting in a political debate in the wake of a disaster. I really do. But when my side is
attacked for screwing this thing up when in fact it was a democratic Mayor and democratic Governor
who failed to execute their own plan, I have to stand up. But then again, I believe the truth matters.
Give me truth over political rhetoric any day.
God bless these people in New Orleans. I have a pretty good idea the suffering down there is
going to last quite a while.
Several days ago, I was sickened by the immediate politicization of this disaster. Everything from
blaming the President for Global Warming which has supposedly strengthened the hurricane, to
blaming the President for not evacuating the poor people that don't have cars. And I had plenty of
opportunities to play the political game, but chose not to. I don't play politics with natural disasters.
But I've had about all I can take. I'm still not going to play politics, I'm just going to show you some
things you should know.
I'm sure most of you remember Hurricane Ivan. I know I do. I ended up with four and half feet of
water in my basement as a result of that Son of a you know what... Last year, when Ivan was
barreling through the Gulf, New Orleans had a bit of a dress rehearsal for Katrina. That evacuation
didn't go well and apparently, they have failed to utilize the past year to do anything to fix it.
According an AP story, dated September 19th, 2004, the state of Louisiana government had a bit of
"dry run" with hurricane Ivan and "the storm exposed what some say are significant flaws in the Big
Easy's civil disaster plans." Though Ivan stayed well east of New Orleans, they ordered the
evacuation of the city and that lead to fierce traffic jams and a since of helplessness for the poor.
"They say evacuate, but they don't say how I'm supposed to do that," Latonya Hill, 57, said at the
time. "If I can't walk it or get there on the bus, I don't go. I don't got a car. My daughter don't either."
That's a quote from the news story that ran a year ago. The sad thing is New Orleans had
provisions in their Disaster Plan for transporting those without transportation out of the city.
From Part Two, Section II-Assumptions, Paragraph D of the Louisiana Disaster Plan:
"The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal
buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to
provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating."
So, why wasn't that done? Look at this from the office of the Governor of Louisiana, a press release
dated September 1st, 2005. This is a press release announcing the executive order allowing the
governor to utilize "public school buses for the transportation of Hurricane Katrina evacuees."
September 1st? A little late for that considering the hurricane blew through there 3 days prior. And
who are the libs blaming? The president. At what level should accountability for this disaster
begin? I'd say a few rungs below the Whitehouse. They had a plan in place to deal with the poor
who couldn't get out on their own and they failed to execute pure and simple. In fact, I heard a radio
report this morning that stated the it took several calls from the National Hurricane Center and
another call from the President to get Mayor Nagin to announce the mandatory evacuation. That
makes me insane! Why does the man who lives and runs "The Bowl" have to wait to be told to get
his people out? And again, who is at fault for the lack of execution of the Louisiana Disaster Plan?
I submit to you, it's not the President of the United States.
I want to move on to the problem with liberalism and natural disasters. Let me start with something
from Joe Cook of the New Orleans ACLU. "If the government asks people to evacuate, the
government has some responsibility to provide an option for those people who can't evacuate and
are at the whim of Mother Nature." Now, I'm not totally against the idea of the government providing
assistance in evacuating those who can't get out on their own. Especially when they have the
provision outlined in the Disaster Plan. But it is that dependent attitude that troubles me. The
attitude of depending on the government to get people out of a city that is just a sitting duck waiting
for a disastrous storm.
Why on earth would anyone depend on the government to actually save their lives in the event of a
direct hit of a hurricane? We're talking about the most inefficient bureaucracy in the free world.
Surely, these poor people have been to the welfare office or the social security office. Why can't
these people see the problems inherent in depending on a government that they are familiar with?
I'll tell you why. It's because they have been trained to depend on the government. They have
depended on the government for their livelihood for years. They believe they don't have to take care
of themselves because the government sends them a paycheck every month. "The Great Society"
programs that have indeed helped millions, has also created a dependency that prevents people
from thinking for themselves. And when you can't think for yourself, you are setting yourself up to be
stranded on your rooftop waiting for a helicopter to come get you.
I hate getting in a political debate in the wake of a disaster. I really do. But when my side is
attacked for screwing this thing up when in fact it was a democratic Mayor and democratic Governor
who failed to execute their own plan, I have to stand up. But then again, I believe the truth matters.
Give me truth over political rhetoric any day.
God bless these people in New Orleans. I have a pretty good idea the suffering down there is
going to last quite a while.
| Tuesday, August 23rd, 2005 |
Great Piece in the New York Post Re-enlistment and first time enlistments surpass
goals, and nobody's talking about it.
Ralph Peters has written a very interesting piece in the New York Post and I think you should read it.
I'm posting it here because you won't hear about it in the Mainstream Media; The same Mainstream
Media that couldn't talk enough about recruiting numbers being down last spring. Well, now they
are way up, surpassing their goals by leaps and bounds.
Now, I hate talking about the liberal bias in the media. I really do. It's a point that made so often by
conservative radio hosts and bloggers, that it just doesn't seem to matter anymore. But when it is
this obvious, something has to be said.
Last spring, for well over a week, every mainstream news agency couldn't talk enough about how
recruiting was down, and what were we going to do if we can't get people to join and oh my God,
we're doomed! Even being told by the DOD that there are peaks and valleys in recruiting like in
every other business wasn't enough. They painted a picture of doom and gloom. Well, now
recruiting is above and beyond and where's the coverage? I know, this is good news and we can't
have any good news about the military. (he said sarcastically)
I'm just sick and tired of this crap. There are so many good things happening in Iraq and we don't
hear any of it. Over 150 new hospitals, over 100 completely refurbished hospitals and do we hear
about it? No. Demand for electricity is way up and is being met. Do we hear about it? No.
Pre-invasion phone service, there were only 800,000 active land lines in Iraq and no cell phone
service. Now, there are over 1.2 million land lines and over 1.5 million cell phones in use. That's
infrastructure. That is progress. And do we hear about it? No.
I'm ranting at this point. Just click the link above and read the article. It's a good one.
goals, and nobody's talking about it.
Ralph Peters has written a very interesting piece in the New York Post and I think you should read it.
I'm posting it here because you won't hear about it in the Mainstream Media; The same Mainstream
Media that couldn't talk enough about recruiting numbers being down last spring. Well, now they
are way up, surpassing their goals by leaps and bounds.
Now, I hate talking about the liberal bias in the media. I really do. It's a point that made so often by
conservative radio hosts and bloggers, that it just doesn't seem to matter anymore. But when it is
this obvious, something has to be said.
Last spring, for well over a week, every mainstream news agency couldn't talk enough about how
recruiting was down, and what were we going to do if we can't get people to join and oh my God,
we're doomed! Even being told by the DOD that there are peaks and valleys in recruiting like in
every other business wasn't enough. They painted a picture of doom and gloom. Well, now
recruiting is above and beyond and where's the coverage? I know, this is good news and we can't
have any good news about the military. (he said sarcastically)
I'm just sick and tired of this crap. There are so many good things happening in Iraq and we don't
hear any of it. Over 150 new hospitals, over 100 completely refurbished hospitals and do we hear
about it? No. Demand for electricity is way up and is being met. Do we hear about it? No.
Pre-invasion phone service, there were only 800,000 active land lines in Iraq and no cell phone
service. Now, there are over 1.2 million land lines and over 1.5 million cell phones in use. That's
infrastructure. That is progress. And do we hear about it? No.
I'm ranting at this point. Just click the link above and read the article. It's a good one.
| Monday, August 22nd, 2005 |
Ah, a night off from the gridiron. My son's football team was rewarded for a great effort on Saturday
with a night off from practice. So I'm taking advantage of this time to weigh in on this whack job
camping out in Texas.
Yeah, that's right, I called her a whack job. I've had about all I can take from Cindy Sheehan. I'm not
going to waste your time with sending out my sympathies to her as I don't believe she deserves
them. This woman has betrayed the memory of her son, betrayed what he died for, and is dead set
on helping the enemies of this nation including those that killed her son. In my opinion, she
deserves neither my sympathy nor my understanding. So I will offer neither.
What I will do is expose some facts here the mainstream media refuses to let you in on. Everybody
knows that Cindy Sheehan has already met with President. After that meeting she said "I know he
is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he is sorry and feels some pain for our loss
and I know he is a man of faith." The interesting thing here is she was against the war from the
beginning. She begged her son not to join the military. When he re-enlisted she offered to run him
over with her car so he wouldn't have to go to Iraq. So, if she felt strongly enough to make that offer,
why wouldn't she ask the President these so-called important questions when she had the
chance? Well, according to Media Matters.org, the family "decided against such talk, deferring to
how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act." Well, what has changed? Has Casey
risen from the dead and told her to go after the president? I don't think so.
Cindy Sheehan is clearly being used by the MoveOn.org crowd. Some of the rhetoric she's spewing
out through the media is clearly from those that hate this country. Being interviewed by one reporter,
she said “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not
worth dying for.” That is a betrayal of her son's sacrifice any way you cut it. Casey enlisted in the
Army in 2000. He later re-enlisted, knowing he'd end up in Iraq. He then volunteered for a rescue
mission that ended up getting him killed. I'm not saying he wanted to die, but he knew the risks.
He volunteered to go on that mission. You don't volunteer for a rescue mission into hostile territory
unless you believe in what you are doing. And this woman wants to blame the president for killing
her son? How about blaming the terrorists that, you know, actually killed him. Or for that matter,
blame him for volunteering for a dangerous mission.
It is sad that her son is dead. I feel bad for him. I feel bad for the rest of the family that will miss out
on a life with, from all accounts, a caring and giving young man. An outstanding young man that
believed in serving others. This world will clearly be a lesser place without him and without others
like him that have given the ultimate sacrifice. These are men and women of honor who should be
praised and respected. And their actions in service of this country do not deserve to be demeaned
by anyone, not even their grieving mothers.
Most of you know, I served for over 5 years in the United States Marine Corps. Though there were
times I hated it, I was always proud of serving my country. I was always proud of what it meant to be
a Marine. To this day, I am on a regular basis moved to tears when I think of those who have given
their life so that I may be free. When I think of those who are willing to fight and die for complete
strangers, it fills me with emotion and gratitude that I can't describe with words. Having served in
the Marines, I've had the great privilege of knowing and befriending these types of people, many of
which I am still friends with until this day. I have no doubt I'll still have these friends for the rest of
my life. There is a reason I keep these people in my life, despite being spread out all over the
country. I keep them in my life because they are some of the finest individuals I've ever had the
privilege to meet and be associated with. They are a credit to the Corps, to this country and they
have served this country in a way that would make any patriot proud. A couple of them are still
serving to this day. I can't even imagine the pain I would feel if one of them were lost in combat. I
can't imagine the misery that would follow. I consider these guys my brothers and to lose them
would be devastating. I don't know what I would do if one of them were lost. But I can tell you what I
would not do. I would not betray their memory and their sacrifice by going after their boss and
blame him for their death just to further a political agenda. Not even if their boss was a Democrat.
with a night off from practice. So I'm taking advantage of this time to weigh in on this whack job
camping out in Texas.
Yeah, that's right, I called her a whack job. I've had about all I can take from Cindy Sheehan. I'm not
going to waste your time with sending out my sympathies to her as I don't believe she deserves
them. This woman has betrayed the memory of her son, betrayed what he died for, and is dead set
on helping the enemies of this nation including those that killed her son. In my opinion, she
deserves neither my sympathy nor my understanding. So I will offer neither.
What I will do is expose some facts here the mainstream media refuses to let you in on. Everybody
knows that Cindy Sheehan has already met with President. After that meeting she said "I know he
is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he is sorry and feels some pain for our loss
and I know he is a man of faith." The interesting thing here is she was against the war from the
beginning. She begged her son not to join the military. When he re-enlisted she offered to run him
over with her car so he wouldn't have to go to Iraq. So, if she felt strongly enough to make that offer,
why wouldn't she ask the President these so-called important questions when she had the
chance? Well, according to Media Matters.org, the family "decided against such talk, deferring to
how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act." Well, what has changed? Has Casey
risen from the dead and told her to go after the president? I don't think so.
Cindy Sheehan is clearly being used by the MoveOn.org crowd. Some of the rhetoric she's spewing
out through the media is clearly from those that hate this country. Being interviewed by one reporter,
she said “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not
worth dying for.” That is a betrayal of her son's sacrifice any way you cut it. Casey enlisted in the
Army in 2000. He later re-enlisted, knowing he'd end up in Iraq. He then volunteered for a rescue
mission that ended up getting him killed. I'm not saying he wanted to die, but he knew the risks.
He volunteered to go on that mission. You don't volunteer for a rescue mission into hostile territory
unless you believe in what you are doing. And this woman wants to blame the president for killing
her son? How about blaming the terrorists that, you know, actually killed him. Or for that matter,
blame him for volunteering for a dangerous mission.
It is sad that her son is dead. I feel bad for him. I feel bad for the rest of the family that will miss out
on a life with, from all accounts, a caring and giving young man. An outstanding young man that
believed in serving others. This world will clearly be a lesser place without him and without others
like him that have given the ultimate sacrifice. These are men and women of honor who should be
praised and respected. And their actions in service of this country do not deserve to be demeaned
by anyone, not even their grieving mothers.
Most of you know, I served for over 5 years in the United States Marine Corps. Though there were
times I hated it, I was always proud of serving my country. I was always proud of what it meant to be
a Marine. To this day, I am on a regular basis moved to tears when I think of those who have given
their life so that I may be free. When I think of those who are willing to fight and die for complete
strangers, it fills me with emotion and gratitude that I can't describe with words. Having served in
the Marines, I've had the great privilege of knowing and befriending these types of people, many of
which I am still friends with until this day. I have no doubt I'll still have these friends for the rest of
my life. There is a reason I keep these people in my life, despite being spread out all over the
country. I keep them in my life because they are some of the finest individuals I've ever had the
privilege to meet and be associated with. They are a credit to the Corps, to this country and they
have served this country in a way that would make any patriot proud. A couple of them are still
serving to this day. I can't even imagine the pain I would feel if one of them were lost in combat. I
can't imagine the misery that would follow. I consider these guys my brothers and to lose them
would be devastating. I don't know what I would do if one of them were lost. But I can tell you what I
would not do. I would not betray their memory and their sacrifice by going after their boss and
blame him for their death just to further a political agenda. Not even if their boss was a Democrat.
| Monday, August 8th, 2005 |
My apologies for not posting more often. My son is playing football and it's over 2 hours every night.
My blog time has been cut dramatically. And let me just say, I'm thrilled about it.
I want to talk a little bit about profiling and these searches that have started in New York City.
Generally speaking, I’m against random searches. I don’t think a guy that is walking down the
street should be subject to searching of a backpack or a briefcase without a reasonable suspicion.
Keeping in mind that I’m no legal scholar, I think when someone is getting on a form of mass
transit that is open to the public, it’s a little different story. Would I have said that 10 years ago? I
don’t believe I would. But I’m a lot smarter now than I was 10 years ago.
Currently, without question, you are subject to searches and x-rays when trying to board a plane. It
seems to me a subway or a train should not be any different. Granted, many more lives are
potentially at stake when given the idea of another 9/11 style attack. You can’t really drive a train into
a skyscraper filled with office workers. However, we are talking about a great many people at risk
with a suicide bomber on a train. So, my question, doesn’t the need of the many far outweigh the
need of the few? Meaning, doesn’t the need and the right of the many to ride the train with being
blown up outweigh the need and the right of the individual that doesn’t want to be searched?
The issue of profiling has come up in several circles recently and as sick as it makes me
personally, isn’t something that we seriously need to consider? The idea of searching a sixty year
old woman and not the 25 year old middle-eastern man seems silly to me. The argument has
been made that it was a white guy the blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City. It was a white
guy that set off the bomb at the Olympics in 96 in Atlanta. A legitimate argument if we were still
living in a pre-9/11 world.
I take issue with that argument because at this point in time, who are we more likely to face a
terrorist attack from? From crazed white supremacists? From anti-abortion fanatics? Where are the
terrorist threats coming from? Where are the threats of violence coming from? The threats are not
coming from white guys with a beef against the government. They are coming from young middle-
eastern men that very well could have plans for attacks here in America. Given the attacks in
London, wouldn't it be foolish of the U.S. to not take a harder look at the possibility of similar
attacks? Yes it would. And when you look to prevent attacks similar to that in London, searching an
sixty year old woman doesn't seem logical.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that those searches of people who are obviously not a threat is an
exercise in political correctness. And what I think, and what I believe is the common thinking among
those who are for the idea of profiling, is that while we're spending time searching the sixty year old
woman, we're not spending that time searching the young Muslim males that could very well be
person that needs to be searched.
The anti-profiling folks seem to think that authorities are automatically racist and are just using
these unfortunate times as an opportunity to purposely harass Muslims. There seems to be this
belief that cops are automatically an evil people looking to abuse Muslims. Believe me, searching a
suspected terrorist for a bomb that could go off at any time is not fun. It's not something anyone
takes pleasure in. This is very serious business and it calls for very serious solutions.
It would be nice if we didn't have to do this. It would be nice if we could all just get along. But I'm
afraid John Lennon was wrong, because "All We Need is Love" is a crock and we need a lot more
than love to keep people safe. That is the reality of the world we live in. The dream of living in peace
and harmony and buying the world a Coke just isn't going to work as long as there are those that
believe quit they will be rewarded by God for killing innocent people. It's time to get real and trying to
win a war by being nice.
You’ll have to take me at my word when I tell you that I don’t like the idea. I know young middle-
eastern men that are very happy to be in this country and have no plans to blow anything up. And I
hate the fact that they could be singled out because of their skin color. I hate the idea of any
innocent American being singled out because of their appearance. But honestly, I know if the threat
were coming from short, overweight white men with short Marine style haircuts, a goatee, and
glasses, I’d be the first to volunteer for the search. But that’s me.
My blog time has been cut dramatically. And let me just say, I'm thrilled about it.
I want to talk a little bit about profiling and these searches that have started in New York City.
Generally speaking, I’m against random searches. I don’t think a guy that is walking down the
street should be subject to searching of a backpack or a briefcase without a reasonable suspicion.
Keeping in mind that I’m no legal scholar, I think when someone is getting on a form of mass
transit that is open to the public, it’s a little different story. Would I have said that 10 years ago? I
don’t believe I would. But I’m a lot smarter now than I was 10 years ago.
Currently, without question, you are subject to searches and x-rays when trying to board a plane. It
seems to me a subway or a train should not be any different. Granted, many more lives are
potentially at stake when given the idea of another 9/11 style attack. You can’t really drive a train into
a skyscraper filled with office workers. However, we are talking about a great many people at risk
with a suicide bomber on a train. So, my question, doesn’t the need of the many far outweigh the
need of the few? Meaning, doesn’t the need and the right of the many to ride the train with being
blown up outweigh the need and the right of the individual that doesn’t want to be searched?
The issue of profiling has come up in several circles recently and as sick as it makes me
personally, isn’t something that we seriously need to consider? The idea of searching a sixty year
old woman and not the 25 year old middle-eastern man seems silly to me. The argument has
been made that it was a white guy the blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City. It was a white
guy that set off the bomb at the Olympics in 96 in Atlanta. A legitimate argument if we were still
living in a pre-9/11 world.
I take issue with that argument because at this point in time, who are we more likely to face a
terrorist attack from? From crazed white supremacists? From anti-abortion fanatics? Where are the
terrorist threats coming from? Where are the threats of violence coming from? The threats are not
coming from white guys with a beef against the government. They are coming from young middle-
eastern men that very well could have plans for attacks here in America. Given the attacks in
London, wouldn't it be foolish of the U.S. to not take a harder look at the possibility of similar
attacks? Yes it would. And when you look to prevent attacks similar to that in London, searching an
sixty year old woman doesn't seem logical.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that those searches of people who are obviously not a threat is an
exercise in political correctness. And what I think, and what I believe is the common thinking among
those who are for the idea of profiling, is that while we're spending time searching the sixty year old
woman, we're not spending that time searching the young Muslim males that could very well be
person that needs to be searched.
The anti-profiling folks seem to think that authorities are automatically racist and are just using
these unfortunate times as an opportunity to purposely harass Muslims. There seems to be this
belief that cops are automatically an evil people looking to abuse Muslims. Believe me, searching a
suspected terrorist for a bomb that could go off at any time is not fun. It's not something anyone
takes pleasure in. This is very serious business and it calls for very serious solutions.
It would be nice if we didn't have to do this. It would be nice if we could all just get along. But I'm
afraid John Lennon was wrong, because "All We Need is Love" is a crock and we need a lot more
than love to keep people safe. That is the reality of the world we live in. The dream of living in peace
and harmony and buying the world a Coke just isn't going to work as long as there are those that
believe quit they will be rewarded by God for killing innocent people. It's time to get real and trying to
win a war by being nice.
You’ll have to take me at my word when I tell you that I don’t like the idea. I know young middle-
eastern men that are very happy to be in this country and have no plans to blow anything up. And I
hate the fact that they could be singled out because of their skin color. I hate the idea of any
innocent American being singled out because of their appearance. But honestly, I know if the threat
were coming from short, overweight white men with short Marine style haircuts, a goatee, and
glasses, I’d be the first to volunteer for the search. But that’s me.
| Monday, August 1st, 2005 |
In Reagan's White House, a Clever, Sometimes Cocky John Roberts
I like the sound of that...
Let me start off by apologizing to my regular readers for not posting much lately. Work has been
nuts and my son has finally returned home for an extended visit with his mother, so my focus has
been elsewhere. But it's a Sunday and I have some time so I've decided to break my silence on
President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts.
I, like most of America, know very little about John Roberts. I know he got his undergraduate degree
from Harvard with honors, in only three years, and went on to graduate from Harvard Law School. I
know he clerked for current Supreme Court Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, and some other little
things that are irrelevant.
Surfing the net this weekend, I found the above linked tidbit in the New York Times that I found quite
interesting. He worked in the Reagan White House as part of the counsel's office from 1982 to
1986 and worked on "every major issue that came before the administration."
The following is what I like to see in a judge, a little common sense. Apparently, a member of the
House, Elliot H. Levitas proposed that the White House and Congress convene a "conference on
power-sharing" to codify the duties of each branch of government after the Supreme Court struck
down efforts by Congress to veto actions taken by the Executive Branch. (Congress Veto the
President? I think it's supposed to be the other way around isn't it?)
Apparently, John Roberts was asked to comment on the proposal of Congressman Levitas. In a
memo to Fred Fielding, his boss, Mr. Roberts responded with what I think is a brilliant, yet simple
response. "There already has, of course, been a 'Conference on Power Sharing.' It took place in
Philadelphia's Constitution Hall in 1787, and someone should tell Levitas about it and the 'report' it
issued." Yeah, I like this guy.
The "report" he is referring to is of course the Constitution. That common sense outlook is exactly
what the Supreme Court needs. This Supreme Court that has seen fit to turn the Fifth Amendment
upside down by ruling that local governments can now take land from one private entity and give it to
another private entity, simply based on the increased tax revenue it will generate.
He seems to be very thoughtful and mindful of the entire Union as well. In reviewing proposed
presidential remarks concerning the signing of a bill to end housing discrimination, he asked that
"from Maine to California" be changed to "from Maine to Hawaii," because the fair housing bill
applied to all 50 states. How many times have we heard the phrase from "New York to California?"
I think I've even used it myself. Seems common that we always forget that Hawaii is a state. Why is
that?
Of course, the New York Times can't be all flattering. They felt the need to point out some "minor
blots" on papers he had written for the administration while in a time cruch. Apparently, in a
response to a letter from then Florida Governor Bob Graham about the disposition of some Cuban
refugees, he misspelled 'Havana' three times.
That should give the democrats the ammunition they need to filibuster this nomination. "He has
insulted our neighbors to the south on three separate occasions! How dare he misspell Havana?"
Oh the humanity...
I like the sound of that...
Let me start off by apologizing to my regular readers for not posting much lately. Work has been
nuts and my son has finally returned home for an extended visit with his mother, so my focus has
been elsewhere. But it's a Sunday and I have some time so I've decided to break my silence on
President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts.
I, like most of America, know very little about John Roberts. I know he got his undergraduate degree
from Harvard with honors, in only three years, and went on to graduate from Harvard Law School. I
know he clerked for current Supreme Court Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, and some other little
things that are irrelevant.
Surfing the net this weekend, I found the above linked tidbit in the New York Times that I found quite
interesting. He worked in the Reagan White House as part of the counsel's office from 1982 to
1986 and worked on "every major issue that came before the administration."
The following is what I like to see in a judge, a little common sense. Apparently, a member of the
House, Elliot H. Levitas proposed that the White House and Congress convene a "conference on
power-sharing" to codify the duties of each branch of government after the Supreme Court struck
down efforts by Congress to veto actions taken by the Executive Branch. (Congress Veto the
President? I think it's supposed to be the other way around isn't it?)
Apparently, John Roberts was asked to comment on the proposal of Congressman Levitas. In a
memo to Fred Fielding, his boss, Mr. Roberts responded with what I think is a brilliant, yet simple
response. "There already has, of course, been a 'Conference on Power Sharing.' It took place in
Philadelphia's Constitution Hall in 1787, and someone should tell Levitas about it and the 'report' it
issued." Yeah, I like this guy.
The "report" he is referring to is of course the Constitution. That common sense outlook is exactly
what the Supreme Court needs. This Supreme Court that has seen fit to turn the Fifth Amendment
upside down by ruling that local governments can now take land from one private entity and give it to
another private entity, simply based on the increased tax revenue it will generate.
He seems to be very thoughtful and mindful of the entire Union as well. In reviewing proposed
presidential remarks concerning the signing of a bill to end housing discrimination, he asked that
"from Maine to California" be changed to "from Maine to Hawaii," because the fair housing bill
applied to all 50 states. How many times have we heard the phrase from "New York to California?"
I think I've even used it myself. Seems common that we always forget that Hawaii is a state. Why is
that?
Of course, the New York Times can't be all flattering. They felt the need to point out some "minor
blots" on papers he had written for the administration while in a time cruch. Apparently, in a
response to a letter from then Florida Governor Bob Graham about the disposition of some Cuban
refugees, he misspelled 'Havana' three times.
That should give the democrats the ammunition they need to filibuster this nomination. "He has
insulted our neighbors to the south on three separate occasions! How dare he misspell Havana?"
Oh the humanity...
| Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 |
Bill Bans Smoking Behind The Wheel Land of the free?
A bill proposed in the New Jersey state legislature would place a ban on smoking while in your car.
Drivers who elect to ignore the ban would face a fine of up to $250. Sponsors of the bill say that it's
designed to improve highway safety. Assemblyman John McKeon, sponsor of the bill cites a
AAA-sponsored study stating that of 32,000 auto accidents linked to distraction, one percent of
those accidents were related to smoking.
Well, let's see; Cell phones are a distraction, so many states have outlawed the use of a phone
without a hands free device. I just heard on a local radio show that the Pennsylvania legislature is
considering a seatbelt law for pets because they can be a distraction. And now, smoking is a
distraction as well so the government is going to save the day. How pathetic are we? Is this what
the purpose of government has evolved to? Banning smoking while driving and putting seat belts
on dogs? Really?
You know, talking to my wife while driving can be a distraction, are we going to outlaw that?
Sometimes, my stepdaughter puts the radio on a country station and the distracts the hell out of
me. Should we outlaw that as well? (I probably wouldn't argue against outlawing country music,
but you get my point.) Billboards are, by design, supposed to grab your attention while you are
driving. They are strategically placed for optimal viewing while you drive. The more they are seen,
the higher the value. Surely, our wise leaders in the government can see the obvious danger in the
distraction that billboards pose.
I'm all for safer roads. But I'm more for personal freedom and responsibility. Perhaps we should
find a way to determine if a person has the physical coordination to smoke and drive at the same
time. If they don't pass the test, we don't let them drive. I drive over 35,000 miles per and yes, I'm a
smoker. If this bill should find it's way into Pennsylvania law, and I'm no longer permitted to smoke
in the safety of my own car, I can assure that while the number of accidents caused by smoking in a
car may go down a bit, the number of road rage incidents are bound to rise dramatically.
Come on people, lets focus shall we? There are real issues out there for us to worry about.
Perhaps New Jersey should focus on something like, I don't know, real crime? This is just
ridiculous.
A bill proposed in the New Jersey state legislature would place a ban on smoking while in your car.
Drivers who elect to ignore the ban would face a fine of up to $250. Sponsors of the bill say that it's
designed to improve highway safety. Assemblyman John McKeon, sponsor of the bill cites a
AAA-sponsored study stating that of 32,000 auto accidents linked to distraction, one percent of
those accidents were related to smoking.
Well, let's see; Cell phones are a distraction, so many states have outlawed the use of a phone
without a hands free device. I just heard on a local radio show that the Pennsylvania legislature is
considering a seatbelt law for pets because they can be a distraction. And now, smoking is a
distraction as well so the government is going to save the day. How pathetic are we? Is this what
the purpose of government has evolved to? Banning smoking while driving and putting seat belts
on dogs? Really?
You know, talking to my wife while driving can be a distraction, are we going to outlaw that?
Sometimes, my stepdaughter puts the radio on a country station and the distracts the hell out of
me. Should we outlaw that as well? (I probably wouldn't argue against outlawing country music,
but you get my point.) Billboards are, by design, supposed to grab your attention while you are
driving. They are strategically placed for optimal viewing while you drive. The more they are seen,
the higher the value. Surely, our wise leaders in the government can see the obvious danger in the
distraction that billboards pose.
I'm all for safer roads. But I'm more for personal freedom and responsibility. Perhaps we should
find a way to determine if a person has the physical coordination to smoke and drive at the same
time. If they don't pass the test, we don't let them drive. I drive over 35,000 miles per and yes, I'm a
smoker. If this bill should find it's way into Pennsylvania law, and I'm no longer permitted to smoke
in the safety of my own car, I can assure that while the number of accidents caused by smoking in a
car may go down a bit, the number of road rage incidents are bound to rise dramatically.
Come on people, lets focus shall we? There are real issues out there for us to worry about.
Perhaps New Jersey should focus on something like, I don't know, real crime? This is just
ridiculous.
| Tuesday, July 19th, 2005 |
Bush: If Crime Committed, Staffer Will Go And he knows no crime was committed...
"President Bush reiterated Monday that if someone in his administration broke the law by talking to
reporters about Joseph Wilson's wife, then they would lose their jobs." The beauty of that statement
is the fact that the President knows that no law has been broken. You never go out on a limb like
that unless you know it will hold. I'm here to tell you, it's going to hold because no law has been
broken.
How do I know that no law has been broken you ask? Because I've been researching this story like
a hawk and I have figured it all out. For background on this story, you can go to the July 14th entry on
Past Nightmares. You know that Rove is being blasted all over the media for supposedly leaking
the identity of a CIA "operative." The democrats have been calling for his resignation or for him to be
fired and taken to the gallows. The media keeps referring to Valerie Plame as a "CIA operative" and
is keeping this story front and center. They seem to think this will be the "Watergate" they've been
looking for. Problem is, no crime has been committed.
For a crime to have been committed, several things would have had to happen. Rove would have
had to name her, knowing she's undercover. Undercover being defined by the law as serving
outside of the United States, her identity being affirmatively protected by the government. Rove
would have had to obtained her identity from classified information and knowingly divulge that
information. All of those standards have to be met for a crime to have been committed.
In the past few days, it's been reported that Rove testified to the grand jury that he had heard about
Plame working on WMDs for the CIA from a reporter. Taking that on face value, that's one standard
not met. It's also been disclosed that he never used her name. That's two standards that have not
been met. We'll set those aside, because here is the bottom line.
As I've researched this story, the question that never really seemed to be answered by anything in
the media is, was Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA considered to be classified information?
Was she in fact an undercover operative, or working in an undercover capacity at the CIA? In fact,
they, even today, refer to her as the "CIA operative." The entire thing boils down to whether or not
she was undercover at the time the conversation between Karl Rove and Matt Cooper took place.
Everything else is just conversation. No cover, no case.
Well, according to Bob Novak, who actually published her name, a confidential CIA source told him
she was not. On an episode of Crossfire back in the fall of 2003, Bob Novak said "They asked me
not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a
confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not
in charge of undercover operators." That according to a CNN.com story dated October 1st, 2003.
She was an analyst, not an operative. She worked a desk, not undercover. Discussing her being
employed by the CIA is virtually the same thing as discussing the employment of a janitor at the CIA.
There was no cover. There was no secret. Hence, there was no law broken.
But if you listen to Joe Wilson, you'd swear her life was in grave danger. If you listen to the
Democrats, you'd think this woman was personally being hunted by hitmen and terrorists. If you
believe what you hear from the left, you'd think this was a serious threat to national security. When
the pure and simple facts clearly show that no crime has been committed.
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, countless others in the democratic party have gone crazy with
allegations and suggestions that Rove be fired. With no criminal charges being filed, no evidence
of a crime, they have gone after Rove as if he was the leader of a terrorist organization. If only they
would go after terrorists with the same energy and enthusiasm that they go after this administration,
perhaps we might nab some more terrorists before they strike again. But they can't do that. They
can't work with the administration, they have to attack the administration at every possible turn.
Because that's all they can do. They have no ideas. They have no agenda. They can't beat the
Republicans at the ballot box or in the arena of ideas so they just attack, attack, attack. They are
imploding ladies and gentlemen. They are slowly, bit by bit, crumbling under the pressure that not
having any ideas produces. And I think it's funny.
Now obviously, I don't sit on the federal grand jury. I'm not privy to all the testimony and all the facts.
But I've followed this very closely over the last week. I've watched hours of news coverage and read
dozens of articles. And if what Bob Novak said in the fall of 2003 is absolutely true, then this case
is all but closed. Except for Judith Miller. We're still not at the bottom of this question, who is she
protecting? What purpose does she serve by sitting in jail when we know who Cooper's sources
were? Speculation is running rampant on the Internet that she is protecting Joe Wilson himself,
partly because, who else is left? I don't know if that theory holds water, but at this point, it wouldn't
surprise me.
"President Bush reiterated Monday that if someone in his administration broke the law by talking to
reporters about Joseph Wilson's wife, then they would lose their jobs." The beauty of that statement
is the fact that the President knows that no law has been broken. You never go out on a limb like
that unless you know it will hold. I'm here to tell you, it's going to hold because no law has been
broken.
How do I know that no law has been broken you ask? Because I've been researching this story like
a hawk and I have figured it all out. For background on this story, you can go to the July 14th entry on
Past Nightmares. You know that Rove is being blasted all over the media for supposedly leaking
the identity of a CIA "operative." The democrats have been calling for his resignation or for him to be
fired and taken to the gallows. The media keeps referring to Valerie Plame as a "CIA operative" and
is keeping this story front and center. They seem to think this will be the "Watergate" they've been
looking for. Problem is, no crime has been committed.
For a crime to have been committed, several things would have had to happen. Rove would have
had to name her, knowing she's undercover. Undercover being defined by the law as serving
outside of the United States, her identity being affirmatively protected by the government. Rove
would have had to obtained her identity from classified information and knowingly divulge that
information. All of those standards have to be met for a crime to have been committed.
In the past few days, it's been reported that Rove testified to the grand jury that he had heard about
Plame working on WMDs for the CIA from a reporter. Taking that on face value, that's one standard
not met. It's also been disclosed that he never used her name. That's two standards that have not
been met. We'll set those aside, because here is the bottom line.
As I've researched this story, the question that never really seemed to be answered by anything in
the media is, was Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA considered to be classified information?
Was she in fact an undercover operative, or working in an undercover capacity at the CIA? In fact,
they, even today, refer to her as the "CIA operative." The entire thing boils down to whether or not
she was undercover at the time the conversation between Karl Rove and Matt Cooper took place.
Everything else is just conversation. No cover, no case.
Well, according to Bob Novak, who actually published her name, a confidential CIA source told him
she was not. On an episode of Crossfire back in the fall of 2003, Bob Novak said "They asked me
not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a
confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not
in charge of undercover operators." That according to a CNN.com story dated October 1st, 2003.
She was an analyst, not an operative. She worked a desk, not undercover. Discussing her being
employed by the CIA is virtually the same thing as discussing the employment of a janitor at the CIA.
There was no cover. There was no secret. Hence, there was no law broken.
But if you listen to Joe Wilson, you'd swear her life was in grave danger. If you listen to the
Democrats, you'd think this woman was personally being hunted by hitmen and terrorists. If you
believe what you hear from the left, you'd think this was a serious threat to national security. When
the pure and simple facts clearly show that no crime has been committed.
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, countless others in the democratic party have gone crazy with
allegations and suggestions that Rove be fired. With no criminal charges being filed, no evidence
of a crime, they have gone after Rove as if he was the leader of a terrorist organization. If only they
would go after terrorists with the same energy and enthusiasm that they go after this administration,
perhaps we might nab some more terrorists before they strike again. But they can't do that. They
can't work with the administration, they have to attack the administration at every possible turn.
Because that's all they can do. They have no ideas. They have no agenda. They can't beat the
Republicans at the ballot box or in the arena of ideas so they just attack, attack, attack. They are
imploding ladies and gentlemen. They are slowly, bit by bit, crumbling under the pressure that not
having any ideas produces. And I think it's funny.
Now obviously, I don't sit on the federal grand jury. I'm not privy to all the testimony and all the facts.
But I've followed this very closely over the last week. I've watched hours of news coverage and read
dozens of articles. And if what Bob Novak said in the fall of 2003 is absolutely true, then this case
is all but closed. Except for Judith Miller. We're still not at the bottom of this question, who is she
protecting? What purpose does she serve by sitting in jail when we know who Cooper's sources
were? Speculation is running rampant on the Internet that she is protecting Joe Wilson himself,
partly because, who else is left? I don't know if that theory holds water, but at this point, it wouldn't
surprise me.
| Monday, July 18th, 2005 |
Suspect in Van Gogh trial tells court he would do it again Yeah, no kidding...
You may recall the story from the Netherlands of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh who was
murdered in the streets of Amsterdam back in November. He was shot and stabbed and nearly
beheaded with a kitchen knife by Mohammed Bouyeri and he admitted his guilt in court last week.
But that's not all he had to say.
''I did it out of conviction,'' Bouyeri said. ''If I ever get free, I would do it again.'' Then he turns to the
gallery and spots van Gogh's mother. He looks at her and says ''I don't feel your pain, I have to
admit I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because I think you're a nonbeliever.''
This guy makes me freaking sick.
As you may know, van Gogh was a strong a vocal critic of Muslim extremists and the theory is that
his murder was motivated by that fact, but Bouyeri refused to answer in court when asked his
motive. He also faces charges of terrorism, impeding democracy and manslaughter for the
gunfight with police that occurred at the time of his arrest. He also turned to police during the
hearing and told them ''I shot to kill and to be killed. You cannot understand.''
Is there really anything more to say? Do I need to go into why these extremists can't be negotiated
with? Do I need to explain again, that these people just want us dead and there is nothing we can
say or do that will change their minds? I understand the emotional need to feel superior that we as
Americans have. I realize the need for "civilized" measures, so as to make us everything that is right
and true in the world. The problem is, our vanity could get us killed. We just need to kill as many of
them as we can as fast as we can. Then maybe, people like Bouyeri will not longer cause pain like
the pain Mrs. van Gogh is feeling.
You may recall the story from the Netherlands of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh who was
murdered in the streets of Amsterdam back in November. He was shot and stabbed and nearly
beheaded with a kitchen knife by Mohammed Bouyeri and he admitted his guilt in court last week.
But that's not all he had to say.
''I did it out of conviction,'' Bouyeri said. ''If I ever get free, I would do it again.'' Then he turns to the
gallery and spots van Gogh's mother. He looks at her and says ''I don't feel your pain, I have to
admit I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because I think you're a nonbeliever.''
This guy makes me freaking sick.
As you may know, van Gogh was a strong a vocal critic of Muslim extremists and the theory is that
his murder was motivated by that fact, but Bouyeri refused to answer in court when asked his
motive. He also faces charges of terrorism, impeding democracy and manslaughter for the
gunfight with police that occurred at the time of his arrest. He also turned to police during the
hearing and told them ''I shot to kill and to be killed. You cannot understand.''
Is there really anything more to say? Do I need to go into why these extremists can't be negotiated
with? Do I need to explain again, that these people just want us dead and there is nothing we can
say or do that will change their minds? I understand the emotional need to feel superior that we as
Americans have. I realize the need for "civilized" measures, so as to make us everything that is right
and true in the world. The problem is, our vanity could get us killed. We just need to kill as many of
them as we can as fast as we can. Then maybe, people like Bouyeri will not longer cause pain like
the pain Mrs. van Gogh is feeling.
| Friday, July 15th, 2005 |
Oliver Stone to Direct 9/11 Film That can't be good...
You probably heard earlier in the week that Oliver Stone will be directing a film about 9/11 and will
star Nicholas Cage. Honestly, I think Cage is a brilliant actor and my wife loves him. We don't miss
a Cage movie. But this may bring on some trouble in the paradise that is my young marriage.
Stone has done some interesting movies, but he's a freaking whack job.
Doubt my words? Then keep reading...
While taking part in a panel discussion put on by HBO Films in October of 2001, Oliver Stone went
off on some sort of diatribe about the "new world order." Read the following excerpt from the article
in the New Yorker, from October of 2001.
You probably heard earlier in the week that Oliver Stone will be directing a film about 9/11 and will
star Nicholas Cage. Honestly, I think Cage is a brilliant actor and my wife loves him. We don't miss
a Cage movie. But this may bring on some trouble in the paradise that is my young marriage.
Stone has done some interesting movies, but he's a freaking whack job.
Doubt my words? Then keep reading...
While taking part in a panel discussion put on by HBO Films in October of 2001, Oliver Stone went
off on some sort of diatribe about the "new world order." Read the following excerpt from the article
in the New Yorker, from October of 2001.
"There's been conglomeration under six principal princes—they're kings,
they're barons!—and these six companies have control of the world," he said,
referring to such corporations as Fox and AOL Time Warner. His voice grew
louder as his ideas took shape. "Michael Eisner decides, 'I can't make a movie
about Martin Luther King, Jr.—they'll be rioting at the gates of Disneyland!'
That's bullshit! But that's what the new world order is." There was a storm of
applause. "They control culture, they control ideas. And I think the revolt of
September 11th was about 'Fuck you! Fuck your order—' "
they're barons!—and these six companies have control of the world," he said,
referring to such corporations as Fox and AOL Time Warner. His voice grew
louder as his ideas took shape. "Michael Eisner decides, 'I can't make a movie
about Martin Luther King, Jr.—they'll be rioting at the gates of Disneyland!'
That's bullshit! But that's what the new world order is." There was a storm of
applause. "They control culture, they control ideas. And I think the revolt of
September 11th was about 'Fuck you! Fuck your order—' "
Yeah, he's nuts... That's a new one on me, "the revolt of September 11th?" A revolt? He later
compared the dancing in the streets of Pakistan after the attacks to the way people responded to
the revolutions in France and Russia. Wow, the September 11th attacks were the equivalent to the
French Revolution? I don't think so. While it may, in the minds of the terrorist perpetrators, been
some sort of attack on the financial center of the world, we all know those terrorists were freaking
insane. It doesn't take a revolutionary to kill a bunch of civilians sipping their morning coffee. It only
takes an insane coward. And it takes a want-to-be revolutionary to liken September 11th to the
French Revolution. He would like to be a revolutionary. But the doesn't have the wit, nor the balls.
Here's why I'm going to have a problem with my new wife. Shortly after the panel discussion,
several of the panelists went to a nearby restaurant and Stone went on to say:
compared the dancing in the streets of Pakistan after the attacks to the way people responded to
the revolutions in France and Russia. Wow, the September 11th attacks were the equivalent to the
French Revolution? I don't think so. While it may, in the minds of the terrorist perpetrators, been
some sort of attack on the financial center of the world, we all know those terrorists were freaking
insane. It doesn't take a revolutionary to kill a bunch of civilians sipping their morning coffee. It only
takes an insane coward. And it takes a want-to-be revolutionary to liken September 11th to the
French Revolution. He would like to be a revolutionary. But the doesn't have the wit, nor the balls.
Here's why I'm going to have a problem with my new wife. Shortly after the panel discussion,
several of the panelists went to a nearby restaurant and Stone went on to say:
"This is the time for a bullet of a film about terrorism, like 'The Battle of Algiers' "
Gillo Pontecorvo's 1966 movie about the conflict between the French and F.L.N.
terrorist cells in Algeria, in which the director's sympathies lie with the terrorists.
"You show the Arab side and the American side in a chase film with a 'French
Connection' urgency, where you track people by satellite, like in 'Enemy of the
State.' My movie would have the C.I.A. guys and the F.B.I. guys, but they blow it.
They're a bunch of drunks from World War II who haven't recovered from the
disasters of the sixties—the Kennedy assassination and Vietnam. My movie would
show the new heroes of security, the people who really get the job done, who
know where the secrets are."
Gillo Pontecorvo's 1966 movie about the conflict between the French and F.L.N.
terrorist cells in Algeria, in which the director's sympathies lie with the terrorists.
"You show the Arab side and the American side in a chase film with a 'French
Connection' urgency, where you track people by satellite, like in 'Enemy of the
State.' My movie would have the C.I.A. guys and the F.B.I. guys, but they blow it.
They're a bunch of drunks from World War II who haven't recovered from the
disasters of the sixties—the Kennedy assassination and Vietnam. My movie would
show the new heroes of security, the people who really get the job done, who
know where the secrets are."
Show the Arab side? Why on earth would we want to see the Arab side? Why do I get the feeling
this will be a film to help the world understand the plight of the poor terrorists? Oliver Stone said in
a press release that "It's a work of collective passion, a serious meditation on what happened, and
carries within a compassion that heals. It's an exploration of heroism in our country -- but is
international at the same time in its humanity." Oh, here we go... "international in it's humanity" says
to me we are going to hit with images that are supposed make us understand our enemy. I'm so
sick of hearing we need to be "understanding."
There seems to be this movement from the left to make the world "understand" the other side. Like
if we were all more understanding to the views of these radicals, we could then get along better.
We could all just get along and hold hands, sing Kum-baya and put the ugliness of war behind us.
That's a nice dream but that's not the reality. For these terrorists, this war is not about a political
view. This war is not subject to debate. This hatred is based on their religion. There is nothing
more profound in the life of a devoutly religious person than their belief system. And there is
nothing more sacred to these people than their religion. There is no middle ground.
So why do the left wing whacko's like Oliver Stone want to reach out and understand these Islamic
extremists? What doesn't make since to me is, they have no desire to understand and get along
with the religious right. To the left, the religious right is the evil in the world. Look at the judicial
fight. They use the word 'extremist' to denounce a judicial nominee. But for some reason the
Islamic extremist should be understood? The whacko leftists in this country hate the religious right.
The terrible bible reading, NASCAR watching, hardworking, unenlightened people that just
happened to use their voice last November. They have no desire to reach out the religious right
who they share a society with but they insist we should reach out to those other religious people
that want us dead. Where's the logic in that? There is none. And that's why liberalism is doomed
to failure. Because it is intellectually dishonest.
this will be a film to help the world understand the plight of the poor terrorists? Oliver Stone said in
a press release that "It's a work of collective passion, a serious meditation on what happened, and
carries within a compassion that heals. It's an exploration of heroism in our country -- but is
international at the same time in its humanity." Oh, here we go... "international in it's humanity" says
to me we are going to hit with images that are supposed make us understand our enemy. I'm so
sick of hearing we need to be "understanding."
There seems to be this movement from the left to make the world "understand" the other side. Like
if we were all more understanding to the views of these radicals, we could then get along better.
We could all just get along and hold hands, sing Kum-baya and put the ugliness of war behind us.
That's a nice dream but that's not the reality. For these terrorists, this war is not about a political
view. This war is not subject to debate. This hatred is based on their religion. There is nothing
more profound in the life of a devoutly religious person than their belief system. And there is
nothing more sacred to these people than their religion. There is no middle ground.
So why do the left wing whacko's like Oliver Stone want to reach out and understand these Islamic
extremists? What doesn't make since to me is, they have no desire to understand and get along
with the religious right. To the left, the religious right is the evil in the world. Look at the judicial
fight. They use the word 'extremist' to denounce a judicial nominee. But for some reason the
Islamic extremist should be understood? The whacko leftists in this country hate the religious right.
The terrible bible reading, NASCAR watching, hardworking, unenlightened people that just
happened to use their voice last November. They have no desire to reach out the religious right
who they share a society with but they insist we should reach out to those other religious people
that want us dead. Where's the logic in that? There is none. And that's why liberalism is doomed
to failure. Because it is intellectually dishonest.
| Thursday, July 14th, 2005 |
Cooper Details Rove Conversations About Plame Allow me to explain...
By now, you've all heard that Karl Rove has been under fire of late for his so-called "outing" of
reported "CIA operative" Valerie Plame. I put "CIA operative" in quotes because I've seen nothing in
print or on the news that leads me to believe she was anything more than an analyst. This is the
case that landed New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail last week for not giving up her source.
According to news reports, and Rove's attorney, Karl Rove had a conversation with Time Magazine
reporter, Matt Cooper. Cooper was working on a story about former Ambassador Joseph Wilson,
who had been dispatched by someone to investigate the matter of uranium being purchased from
Niger by Iraq.
During the 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush had cited British intelligence reports
stating Saddam was attempting to buy uranium from Niger in an effort to construct nuclear
weapons. Long and short of it, Joe Wilson comes back, says those claims are false. Writes an
article for the New York Times in July of 03, writes a book, and is, at that point, supposedly on the
Administration's shit list. You may recall the big stink about this Niger investigation during the
campaign.
Wilson had written and stated that he was sent to Niger by the office of the Vice President and Matt
Cooper was writing something about that and mentioned it to Rove. Rove then informed him,
according to an email from Cooper to his editors, that the VP didn't send him, and "apparently his
wife, who works at the agency" set it up for him. That has been documented by former CIA head
George Tenent. So clearly, Rove was trying to ward Cooper off of a bogus premise for his story. A
few days later, Robert Novak wrote a piece naming Valerie Plame in an article and a big stink arose
because he published the name of a so-called "CIA operative." A federal investigation was called
for and for some 18 months the investigation has been underway, cultivating recently in a federal
grand jury. Remember, this was all taking place prior to the election.
Now, that's the background for those of you who didn't know what all the hubbub was about. Now,
this is where it gets interesting. Wilson, a former Clinton appointee, I'll say again, Clinton
appointee,campaigned for Senator John Kerry in at least six states. According to a Washington
Times report from February 04. He had "also been offering the Massachusetts candidate speech
writing tips. "
Another interesting fact is that it turns out Mr. Wilson did very little investigating down in Niger, and
his report of no attempts by Saddam to purchase uranium from Niger turned out to be false,
according to a New York Times report from July of 2004. Those two items alone seem to discredit
Wilson's claim that the Whitehouse was out to get him when they leaked his wifes name.
Would it surprise you to learn that he was also in Baghdad the night Saddam Hussein's armies
invaded Kuwait in August of 1990? And, according to the Vanity Fair interview, he in fact "once on
August 6, 1990, with Saddam himself." That's four days after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Now, who
really knows what took place at that meeting? He says there were cameras running, but I'd love to
see that video. Now, in all fairness, he was the deputy ambassador in Baghdad, left in charge of the
American Embassy there while his boss, April Glaspie took her twice delayed vacation. Interesting
to me that the Chief Ambassador to Iraq goes on vacation, and Iraq invades Kuwait. But in his roll
as acting ambassador, it would be fitting he meet with Saddam. I'd just really like to see that video.
Let's get to the wife... Valerie Plame was indeed a covert agent long ago. Though the question of
whether or not she was at the time of the Rove/Cooper conversation is still a mystery and why that
hasn't been answered by the CIA is beyond me. She was working at CIA headquarter in Langley on
WMDs, so how is that an undercover operative position? Anyway, Plame met Wilson in 1997 and
on their "third or fourth" date, he says, they were in the middle of a "heavy make-out" session when
she said she had something to tell him. It was then that she informed him that she was undercover
for the CIA, according to a Vanity Fair interview from January 04. I'm just wondering how
"undercover" was she if she's spilling those beans on a "third or fourth" date? Granted, I'm no CIA
operative, but I think I could keep a secret like that a little longer than three or four dates. And I'm
just wondering, could she be arrested for divulging that information? That seems a little suspect to
me.
Now, it would appear that I'm on my own little smear campaign here, but really I'm just trying to give
you some information the mainstream media won't give you. I've been following this pretty close
and I had no idea Wilson was a deputy ambassador in Iraq during the Gulf War.
Honestly, it seems to me Joe Wilson had some motivation for his bogus investigation. A Clinton
appointee, a John Kerry supporter and campaigner that writes a story that makes President Bush
look bad in the middle of a Presidential campaign? A story that turns out to be bogus? Come on,
it's fairly obvious to me this guy is no fan of the President and has an agenda. And what the hell
kind of CIA operative tells a guy on their third or fourth that she is an undercover agent for the CIA?
Now, I'm sure Valerie Plame was at one time a true patriot. You don't go into the CIA without a
sense of duty. And I have the same feelings about Joe Wilson. An ambassador and major player
during the Gulf War has my respect. But I don't think it's a stretch to conclude these two have
become political activists playing a very partisan game. I don't think it's a stretch that they decided to
play that game very seriously with an agenda in mind.
I think Rove is a genius so I have a hard time believing he would do something so stupid. And a
guy with something to hide does not sign an confidentiality waiver addressing every reporter he ever
discussed this case with. And he signed it a the beginning of the investigation. Which brings me
back to Judith Miller. If Rove was the source of Plame's identity, why is Miller still in jail? He signed
the confidentiality waiver 18 months ago and reaffirmed it for Cooper last week. Cooper agreed to
testify before the grand jury and he didn't go to jail. Miller still refused and she sitting in a cell. So,
my question is, why? Who is she protecting. I have a hard time believing a New York Times
reporter would go to jail to protect a member of the Bush Administration. I have a hard time
believing she went out of principle when somebody else already rolled. Who is Miller protecting?
That's the real story here that the mainstream media seems to have no interest in investigating.
Now, obviously the investigation is ongoing so what do we really know? Nothing. We won't know
anything until the grand jury makes their determination. From my research, which I've done quite a
bit as you can see, I don't think Rove did anything wrong. I guess we'll see...
By now, you've all heard that Karl Rove has been under fire of late for his so-called "outing" of
reported "CIA operative" Valerie Plame. I put "CIA operative" in quotes because I've seen nothing in
print or on the news that leads me to believe she was anything more than an analyst. This is the
case that landed New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail last week for not giving up her source.
According to news reports, and Rove's attorney, Karl Rove had a conversation with Time Magazine
reporter, Matt Cooper. Cooper was working on a story about former Ambassador Joseph Wilson,
who had been dispatched by someone to investigate the matter of uranium being purchased from
Niger by Iraq.
During the 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush had cited British intelligence reports
stating Saddam was attempting to buy uranium from Niger in an effort to construct nuclear
weapons. Long and short of it, Joe Wilson comes back, says those claims are false. Writes an
article for the New York Times in July of 03, writes a book, and is, at that point, supposedly on the
Administration's shit list. You may recall the big stink about this Niger investigation during the
campaign.
Wilson had written and stated that he was sent to Niger by the office of the Vice President and Matt
Cooper was writing something about that and mentioned it to Rove. Rove then informed him,
according to an email from Cooper to his editors, that the VP didn't send him, and "apparently his
wife, who works at the agency" set it up for him. That has been documented by former CIA head
George Tenent. So clearly, Rove was trying to ward Cooper off of a bogus premise for his story. A
few days later, Robert Novak wrote a piece naming Valerie Plame in an article and a big stink arose
because he published the name of a so-called "CIA operative." A federal investigation was called
for and for some 18 months the investigation has been underway, cultivating recently in a federal
grand jury. Remember, this was all taking place prior to the election.
Now, that's the background for those of you who didn't know what all the hubbub was about. Now,
this is where it gets interesting. Wilson, a former Clinton appointee, I'll say again, Clinton
appointee,campaigned for Senator John Kerry in at least six states. According to a Washington
Times report from February 04. He had "also been offering the Massachusetts candidate speech
writing tips. "
Another interesting fact is that it turns out Mr. Wilson did very little investigating down in Niger, and
his report of no attempts by Saddam to purchase uranium from Niger turned out to be false,
according to a New York Times report from July of 2004. Those two items alone seem to discredit
Wilson's claim that the Whitehouse was out to get him when they leaked his wifes name.
Would it surprise you to learn that he was also in Baghdad the night Saddam Hussein's armies
invaded Kuwait in August of 1990? And, according to the Vanity Fair interview, he in fact "once on
August 6, 1990, with Saddam himself." That's four days after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Now, who
really knows what took place at that meeting? He says there were cameras running, but I'd love to
see that video. Now, in all fairness, he was the deputy ambassador in Baghdad, left in charge of the
American Embassy there while his boss, April Glaspie took her twice delayed vacation. Interesting
to me that the Chief Ambassador to Iraq goes on vacation, and Iraq invades Kuwait. But in his roll
as acting ambassador, it would be fitting he meet with Saddam. I'd just really like to see that video.
Let's get to the wife... Valerie Plame was indeed a covert agent long ago. Though the question of
whether or not she was at the time of the Rove/Cooper conversation is still a mystery and why that
hasn't been answered by the CIA is beyond me. She was working at CIA headquarter in Langley on
WMDs, so how is that an undercover operative position? Anyway, Plame met Wilson in 1997 and
on their "third or fourth" date, he says, they were in the middle of a "heavy make-out" session when
she said she had something to tell him. It was then that she informed him that she was undercover
for the CIA, according to a Vanity Fair interview from January 04. I'm just wondering how
"undercover" was she if she's spilling those beans on a "third or fourth" date? Granted, I'm no CIA
operative, but I think I could keep a secret like that a little longer than three or four dates. And I'm
just wondering, could she be arrested for divulging that information? That seems a little suspect to
me.
Now, it would appear that I'm on my own little smear campaign here, but really I'm just trying to give
you some information the mainstream media won't give you. I've been following this pretty close
and I had no idea Wilson was a deputy ambassador in Iraq during the Gulf War.
Honestly, it seems to me Joe Wilson had some motivation for his bogus investigation. A Clinton
appointee, a John Kerry supporter and campaigner that writes a story that makes President Bush
look bad in the middle of a Presidential campaign? A story that turns out to be bogus? Come on,
it's fairly obvious to me this guy is no fan of the President and has an agenda. And what the hell
kind of CIA operative tells a guy on their third or fourth that she is an undercover agent for the CIA?
Now, I'm sure Valerie Plame was at one time a true patriot. You don't go into the CIA without a
sense of duty. And I have the same feelings about Joe Wilson. An ambassador and major player
during the Gulf War has my respect. But I don't think it's a stretch to conclude these two have
become political activists playing a very partisan game. I don't think it's a stretch that they decided to
play that game very seriously with an agenda in mind.
I think Rove is a genius so I have a hard time believing he would do something so stupid. And a
guy with something to hide does not sign an confidentiality waiver addressing every reporter he ever
discussed this case with. And he signed it a the beginning of the investigation. Which brings me
back to Judith Miller. If Rove was the source of Plame's identity, why is Miller still in jail? He signed
the confidentiality waiver 18 months ago and reaffirmed it for Cooper last week. Cooper agreed to
testify before the grand jury and he didn't go to jail. Miller still refused and she sitting in a cell. So,
my question is, why? Who is she protecting. I have a hard time believing a New York Times
reporter would go to jail to protect a member of the Bush Administration. I have a hard time
believing she went out of principle when somebody else already rolled. Who is Miller protecting?
That's the real story here that the mainstream media seems to have no interest in investigating.
Now, obviously the investigation is ongoing so what do we really know? Nothing. We won't know
anything until the grand jury makes their determination. From my research, which I've done quite a
bit as you can see, I don't think Rove did anything wrong. I guess we'll see...
| Tuesday, July 12th, 2005 |
Al-Qaeda Nukes Already in U.S. One of the most disturbing articles I've ever read...
You really need to read the linked story, but here's the 2nd paragraph. "According to captured al-
Qaeda leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the
multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border
with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups." See what I mean about
disturbing?
The editors note on this article states that "the Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is an online, subscription
intelligence news service from the creator of WorldNetDaily.com – a journalist who has been
developing sources around the world for almost 30 years." I haven't subscribed to the G2 Bulletin,
so I don't have any idea how credible this story is.
That being said, obviously, I have no way to confirm this story. I have no contacts or sources at the
Pentagon or the CIA, so I'll have to take this story at face value. But imagine for a second this story
is accurate. Imagine that al-Qaeda has obtained nukes from Russia and have already smuggled
them into the country. What now? Should we stock up on water and can goods and ammunition?
I'm seriously considering. Who am I kidding, I don't even own a gun for which to fire said
ammunition from. I guess I should add some guns to my shopping list for my next visit to my local
Wal-Mart Super Center.
All kidding aside, what the hell are we doing? What the hell is our beloved government doing? I've
stated before that rule number one in a combat is, secure your perimeter. Our perimeter is simply
wide open. An estimated 700,000 illegals entered the United States last year alone. Is it so hard to
believe that maybe a dozen or so of them brought in a suitcase with a nuclear bomb inside?
Now, this story could very well be the warning shot across the bow that could result in some action
being taken by our government. And then again, this story could be dismissed as a simple scare
tactic constructed by alarmists with an agenda. Either way, we need to realize the absolutely real
possibility that an armed nuclear weapon is in the hands of some whack job in Chicago or New
York just waiting for the order to set it off. What do we do now?
Prepare is the answer to that last question. God forbid there is such an attack in our country, or any
country for that matter. But what if there is? I hate this doom and gloom crap. I really do. I want to
believe in our system. I want to believe there are people way smarter than me watching my back.
But these people that hate us are very serious about it and I truly believe they would love to kill me
and my family, personally. Not to say they have me in mind, but they definitely want me dead. Just
as they want you dead. And that's a threat I take very seriously. That's a threat I take personally.
And I think we should all take it personally.
The problem is, our side has to be right every single time. The bad guys only have to get lucky
once, and people die. My logic tells me that given the relatively small amount of damage done in
London, that if they had more, they'd use it. Why waste time blowing up a few subway cars when
you can take out a city with the big one? But perhaps that's what they want us to think. They want to
once again feel safe between the oceans. No terrorists attacks in the U.S. in nearly four years and
it's just a matter of time before we again get lazy and comfortable again.
Of course, the last thing I want to do is become one of those crazy survivalists, wearing camouflage
every day, stockpiling water, food, teaching my kid how to skin a deer and make an impromptu hand
grenade from a pipe and some kitty litter. But after reading that article, those are exactly the
thoughts that crossed my mind. I'm a former Marine, with some decent self defense skills, and
what I like to consider great instincts and a flare for pressure situations. But I'm not ready Marshall
Law. I'm not even ready to believe that I need to be ready for Marshall Law. But this article definitely
has me thinking about it. Because if there are multiple nuclear attacks in this country, Marshall Law
is exactly what we'll have.
I hope and pray with all my heart that this article is wrong. I hope and pray that this threat will never
be realized. I hope and pray that if this article is correct, we catch these guys before they get the
chance to carry out the so-called "American Hiroshima." I hope and pray that the people I've put my
faith in to watch my back, are doing just that.
I want to leave you with a closing thought. We've been the biggest and the baddest on the block for
a long time. With that reputation comes a certain arrogance. And arrogance that could very well
lead us to believe "it can't happen here." An arrogance that can allow us to put our blinders on. At
the risk of sounding like an alarmist, I urge you to remember that arrogance is a weakness. A
weakness that those that want us dead are just looking to exploit. A weakness that could set us up
for a fall unparalleled in human history. Rome didn't fall in a day. It took a bit of time. And if you
think for one second they weren't arrogant, then you're just sadly mistaken.
You really need to read the linked story, but here's the 2nd paragraph. "According to captured al-
Qaeda leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the
multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border
with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups." See what I mean about
disturbing?
The editors note on this article states that "the Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is an online, subscription
intelligence news service from the creator of WorldNetDaily.com – a journalist who has been
developing sources around the world for almost 30 years." I haven't subscribed to the G2 Bulletin,
so I don't have any idea how credible this story is.
That being said, obviously, I have no way to confirm this story. I have no contacts or sources at the
Pentagon or the CIA, so I'll have to take this story at face value. But imagine for a second this story
is accurate. Imagine that al-Qaeda has obtained nukes from Russia and have already smuggled
them into the country. What now? Should we stock up on water and can goods and ammunition?
I'm seriously considering. Who am I kidding, I don't even own a gun for which to fire said
ammunition from. I guess I should add some guns to my shopping list for my next visit to my local
Wal-Mart Super Center.
All kidding aside, what the hell are we doing? What the hell is our beloved government doing? I've
stated before that rule number one in a combat is, secure your perimeter. Our perimeter is simply
wide open. An estimated 700,000 illegals entered the United States last year alone. Is it so hard to
believe that maybe a dozen or so of them brought in a suitcase with a nuclear bomb inside?
Now, this story could very well be the warning shot across the bow that could result in some action
being taken by our government. And then again, this story could be dismissed as a simple scare
tactic constructed by alarmists with an agenda. Either way, we need to realize the absolutely real
possibility that an armed nuclear weapon is in the hands of some whack job in Chicago or New
York just waiting for the order to set it off. What do we do now?
Prepare is the answer to that last question. God forbid there is such an attack in our country, or any
country for that matter. But what if there is? I hate this doom and gloom crap. I really do. I want to
believe in our system. I want to believe there are people way smarter than me watching my back.
But these people that hate us are very serious about it and I truly believe they would love to kill me
and my family, personally. Not to say they have me in mind, but they definitely want me dead. Just
as they want you dead. And that's a threat I take very seriously. That's a threat I take personally.
And I think we should all take it personally.
The problem is, our side has to be right every single time. The bad guys only have to get lucky
once, and people die. My logic tells me that given the relatively small amount of damage done in
London, that if they had more, they'd use it. Why waste time blowing up a few subway cars when
you can take out a city with the big one? But perhaps that's what they want us to think. They want to
once again feel safe between the oceans. No terrorists attacks in the U.S. in nearly four years and
it's just a matter of time before we again get lazy and comfortable again.
Of course, the last thing I want to do is become one of those crazy survivalists, wearing camouflage
every day, stockpiling water, food, teaching my kid how to skin a deer and make an impromptu hand
grenade from a pipe and some kitty litter. But after reading that article, those are exactly the
thoughts that crossed my mind. I'm a former Marine, with some decent self defense skills, and
what I like to consider great instincts and a flare for pressure situations. But I'm not ready Marshall
Law. I'm not even ready to believe that I need to be ready for Marshall Law. But this article definitely
has me thinking about it. Because if there are multiple nuclear attacks in this country, Marshall Law
is exactly what we'll have.
I hope and pray with all my heart that this article is wrong. I hope and pray that this threat will never
be realized. I hope and pray that if this article is correct, we catch these guys before they get the
chance to carry out the so-called "American Hiroshima." I hope and pray that the people I've put my
faith in to watch my back, are doing just that.
I want to leave you with a closing thought. We've been the biggest and the baddest on the block for
a long time. With that reputation comes a certain arrogance. And arrogance that could very well
lead us to believe "it can't happen here." An arrogance that can allow us to put our blinders on. At
the risk of sounding like an alarmist, I urge you to remember that arrogance is a weakness. A
weakness that those that want us dead are just looking to exploit. A weakness that could set us up
for a fall unparalleled in human history. Rome didn't fall in a day. It took a bit of time. And if you
think for one second they weren't arrogant, then you're just sadly mistaken.
| Monday, July 11th, 2005 |
Sen. Hillary Clinton Slams Bush in Speech And they call Republicans divisive...
In a speech at the inaugural Aspen Ideas Festival, Senator Hillary Clinton went on the attack against
President Bush in a manner not quite so dignified for a potential Presidential candidate. First she
accused the President of damaging the economy by giving the dreaded tax cuts to the rich while
overspending. It's always funny to me how regardless of the 2 straight years of economic growth,
the dems always find away to paint such a horrible picture.
"I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington," the former First Lady said of
our Commander and Chief in a time of war. Now, I'm not here to defend the President. He's a big
boy he can take care of himself. And knowing what I know about the President, he couldn't care
less about insults coming from the likes of Hillary Clinton. My point is, where does she get off
criticizing the amount of spending by any president? Hillary-Care would have cost tax-payers
billions and would have only done major, and I do mean major, damage to our economy. Not to
mention caused a steady decline in the availability of health care in this country.
The funniest line in the story, is where it tells us the festival was "organized by the Aspen Institute
nonpartisan think tank." As if a truly nonpartisan think tank would invite Hillary Clinton to speak at
their inaugural event. I wonder what conservative gave a speech as this so-called nonpartisan think
tank meeting? I know nothing about this group. Perhaps they are a nonpartisan group. I just find it
amusing that any nonpartisan group would invite one of the most partisan politicians in American
history to speak at their inaugural event.
And you know, it does tick me off that a United States Senator would be so low class as to refer to
the President of the United States as Alfred E. Neuman. This is so blatantly divisive and low rent
that it just makes me sick to my stomach to think this woman could very well be the first woman
President of the United States. Forget about all the hand holding with Newt Gingrinch that took
place about a month ago. This is the real Hillary Clinton. This is who she truly is. She should be
ashamed of herself as should every person that supports her. Honestly, if the Dems had a real
idea or forward looking agenda for America, they could come up with something better than
personally insulting the President. You'd think they would have figured that out by now.
In a speech at the inaugural Aspen Ideas Festival, Senator Hillary Clinton went on the attack against
President Bush in a manner not quite so dignified for a potential Presidential candidate. First she
accused the President of damaging the economy by giving the dreaded tax cuts to the rich while
overspending. It's always funny to me how regardless of the 2 straight years of economic growth,
the dems always find away to paint such a horrible picture.
"I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington," the former First Lady said of
our Commander and Chief in a time of war. Now, I'm not here to defend the President. He's a big
boy he can take care of himself. And knowing what I know about the President, he couldn't care
less about insults coming from the likes of Hillary Clinton. My point is, where does she get off
criticizing the amount of spending by any president? Hillary-Care would have cost tax-payers
billions and would have only done major, and I do mean major, damage to our economy. Not to
mention caused a steady decline in the availability of health care in this country.
The funniest line in the story, is where it tells us the festival was "organized by the Aspen Institute
nonpartisan think tank." As if a truly nonpartisan think tank would invite Hillary Clinton to speak at
their inaugural event. I wonder what conservative gave a speech as this so-called nonpartisan think
tank meeting? I know nothing about this group. Perhaps they are a nonpartisan group. I just find it
amusing that any nonpartisan group would invite one of the most partisan politicians in American
history to speak at their inaugural event.
And you know, it does tick me off that a United States Senator would be so low class as to refer to
the President of the United States as Alfred E. Neuman. This is so blatantly divisive and low rent
that it just makes me sick to my stomach to think this woman could very well be the first woman
President of the United States. Forget about all the hand holding with Newt Gingrinch that took
place about a month ago. This is the real Hillary Clinton. This is who she truly is. She should be
ashamed of herself as should every person that supports her. Honestly, if the Dems had a real
idea or forward looking agenda for America, they could come up with something better than
personally insulting the President. You'd think they would have figured that out by now.
| Friday, July 8th, 2005 |
London Blasts Have Stamp of Al Qaeda Talk about stating the obvious...
Multiple bombs, all going off within a short time of each other, targets containing lots of people,
targets that possess the most potential for sparking fear and chaos, that's the mark of any terrorist
group. But the reported claim of responsibility by the "Secret Organization - al-Qaeda in Europe" is
probably the most obvious evidence that al Qaeda is again responsible for cowardly attacks on
unarmed civilians who have nothing to do with any war, much less the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I'm just wondering, what is going to take for people to wake up? Will this most recent attack in
London do it? The attacks in Madrid didn't seem to wake anyone up. At the time I'm writing this,
reports say 37 people confirmed dead, over 700 injured. A death toll I'm fairly certain will rise and
while I'm sure of those 700 injured, some were minor, surely some were life changing wounds.
And for what? What purpose does it truly serve?
It serves only to strike fear and chaos. That's all they can accomplish. But the problem is, fear and
chaos only begets anger and action. When strong people get scared, they inevitably take action.
And I hope that this attack will wake up the people in Europe. I hope that those who have taken
such strong opposition to the U.S. will now wake up and see this enemy for what they truly are.
Mayor Ken Livingstone, someone who sits left of center said after the attacks "I want to say one
thing, specifically to the world today — this was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the
powerful, it was not aimed at presidents or prime ministers, it was aimed at ordinary, working-class
Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian ... young and old … that isn't an ideology, it isn't
even a perverted fate, it is an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder." And he is exactly right.
These freaking terrorists say they do these things to punish the infidels for actions taken in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The truth is, they're trying to test the resolve of the political leaders of the war on terror.
When they hit Madrid, they changed the political will of the Spanish people. The people in Spain no
longer had the stomach for the war and the newly elected prime minister of Spain pulled their
troops. This gave the terrorists a victory and they're trying to repeat that victory in London. The
problem is, Tony Blair is no sissy. He's not a lap dog like everyone likes to joke about. He's a
strong and determined man and now he's pissed. You don't get to be prime minister of Great
Britain without being strong. And now they've hit him in the mouth, not just his best friend. I
watched his press conference and this is a man with determination in his eyes. They were
attempting to diminish his resolve and they only succeeded in strengthening it.
Multiple bombs, all going off within a short time of each other, targets containing lots of people,
targets that possess the most potential for sparking fear and chaos, that's the mark of any terrorist
group. But the reported claim of responsibility by the "Secret Organization - al-Qaeda in Europe" is
probably the most obvious evidence that al Qaeda is again responsible for cowardly attacks on
unarmed civilians who have nothing to do with any war, much less the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I'm just wondering, what is going to take for people to wake up? Will this most recent attack in
London do it? The attacks in Madrid didn't seem to wake anyone up. At the time I'm writing this,
reports say 37 people confirmed dead, over 700 injured. A death toll I'm fairly certain will rise and
while I'm sure of those 700 injured, some were minor, surely some were life changing wounds.
And for what? What purpose does it truly serve?
It serves only to strike fear and chaos. That's all they can accomplish. But the problem is, fear and
chaos only begets anger and action. When strong people get scared, they inevitably take action.
And I hope that this attack will wake up the people in Europe. I hope that those who have taken
such strong opposition to the U.S. will now wake up and see this enemy for what they truly are.
Mayor Ken Livingstone, someone who sits left of center said after the attacks "I want to say one
thing, specifically to the world today — this was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the
powerful, it was not aimed at presidents or prime ministers, it was aimed at ordinary, working-class
Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian ... young and old … that isn't an ideology, it isn't
even a perverted fate, it is an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder." And he is exactly right.
These freaking terrorists say they do these things to punish the infidels for actions taken in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The truth is, they're trying to test the resolve of the political leaders of the war on terror.
When they hit Madrid, they changed the political will of the Spanish people. The people in Spain no
longer had the stomach for the war and the newly elected prime minister of Spain pulled their
troops. This gave the terrorists a victory and they're trying to repeat that victory in London. The
problem is, Tony Blair is no sissy. He's not a lap dog like everyone likes to joke about. He's a
strong and determined man and now he's pissed. You don't get to be prime minister of Great
Britain without being strong. And now they've hit him in the mouth, not just his best friend. I
watched his press conference and this is a man with determination in his eyes. They were
attempting to diminish his resolve and they only succeeded in strengthening it.
This picture was taken during his press conference. Look at
him, does he look weak to you? To me, he looks pissed. And
he should be pissed. They've come into his house, just like
they came into ours on September 11th, 2001.
What I wonder is, will the rest of the European Union actually
act like a Union? Now that Jacques Chirac of France and
Gerhard Schröder of Germany had to look Tony Blair in the eyes
at the moment of impact, at the moment he got the word of the
attack, how will they respond? Being there with him at that
moment had to have an effect. Will they step up and join us in
this war on terror? Or will they continue to cower? Will the rest
of Europe come to the realization that this enemy doesn't kill for
political or even ideological reasons? Will they realize that
these terrorists kill for the sake of killing and it's only a matter of
time before it comes to their house?
him, does he look weak to you? To me, he looks pissed. And
he should be pissed. They've come into his house, just like
they came into ours on September 11th, 2001.
What I wonder is, will the rest of the European Union actually
act like a Union? Now that Jacques Chirac of France and
Gerhard Schröder of Germany had to look Tony Blair in the eyes
at the moment of impact, at the moment he got the word of the
attack, how will they respond? Being there with him at that
moment had to have an effect. Will they step up and join us in
this war on terror? Or will they continue to cower? Will the rest
of Europe come to the realization that this enemy doesn't kill for
political or even ideological reasons? Will they realize that
these terrorists kill for the sake of killing and it's only a matter of
time before it comes to their house?
And if it doesn't open their eyes, what the hell will? If doesn't open the eyes of people in our own
country, what the hell will? Does Germany have to get hit in the mouth themselves before they take
this threat seriously? Do we have to get hit in the mouth again? What more do we have to bear for
the Bush haters of the world to see the light? Point is, like him or hate him, he's leading the war on
terror. He's had the resolve to continue this fight. I can't say I'm completely happy with President
Bush on a number of issues. Regular readers of the Nightmare know that. But this is the most
important issue in our time. We can fight on Social Security. We can fight about judicial nominees.
We can disagree on gay marriage. But surely we can agree on the need to defeat radical
extremism. Surely we can agree that the lives of our people, the security of our nation rises above
political differences. We have got to get together on this war before more innocent lives are
needlessly lost. Staying divided against this enemy only strengthens this enemy. Surely, we can
come together and kick their ass. Can't we?
And let me say, that not only does Europe need to realize this threat, but the non-extremist Islamic
world needs to realize it as well. I do think there are peace loving Muslims out there. I believe there
are Muslims who don't believe in jihad. The question is, where are they? They need to get on
board and no longer tolerate the actions of the extreme wing of the Muslim religion. Just like we in
America do not tolerate the actions of extremists here at home. We do our best to rid our own
house of the actions of the KKK, who in my mind is the Christian equivalent of Muslim extremists.
Why isn't the mainstream Muslim world cleaning their own house?
country, what the hell will? Does Germany have to get hit in the mouth themselves before they take
this threat seriously? Do we have to get hit in the mouth again? What more do we have to bear for
the Bush haters of the world to see the light? Point is, like him or hate him, he's leading the war on
terror. He's had the resolve to continue this fight. I can't say I'm completely happy with President
Bush on a number of issues. Regular readers of the Nightmare know that. But this is the most
important issue in our time. We can fight on Social Security. We can fight about judicial nominees.
We can disagree on gay marriage. But surely we can agree on the need to defeat radical
extremism. Surely we can agree that the lives of our people, the security of our nation rises above
political differences. We have got to get together on this war before more innocent lives are
needlessly lost. Staying divided against this enemy only strengthens this enemy. Surely, we can
come together and kick their ass. Can't we?
And let me say, that not only does Europe need to realize this threat, but the non-extremist Islamic
world needs to realize it as well. I do think there are peace loving Muslims out there. I believe there
are Muslims who don't believe in jihad. The question is, where are they? They need to get on
board and no longer tolerate the actions of the extreme wing of the Muslim religion. Just like we in
America do not tolerate the actions of extremists here at home. We do our best to rid our own
house of the actions of the KKK, who in my mind is the Christian equivalent of Muslim extremists.
Why isn't the mainstream Muslim world cleaning their own house?
| Thursday, July 7th, 2005 |
Terrorists Strike London With Series of Blasts And it pisses me off...
LONDON — A series of explosions struck London's public transportation system Thursday
morning in what Prime Minister Tony Blair called a coordinated series of "barbaric" terrorist attacks.
I don't want to politicize this. That is not my intention. I want to share my sorrow with Great Britain
and let them know that they are in my prayers.
This kind of senseless attack against civilians only goes to show you exactly what type of people we
are dealing with. A group calling themselves 'Secret Organization - al-Qaeda in Europe' has
claimed responsibility for the attacks saying they are in retaliation for British involvement in Iraq and
Afghanistan. They set out to kill civilians in London. Not in Iraq or Afghanistan, but in London. They
purposely target civilians and that is why we must hunt them down and kill them all.
If a Marine gets killed in the line of duty, it saddens me, but that's what Marines do. They kill or get
killed. They know the risks of their jobs. But to purposely target civilians on a train going to work not
only goes against the laws of war, but against the laws of humanity.
Like I said, I don't want to politicize this incident but I do hope that the eyes of the world will once
again open and recognize that these people will not accept peace. They will not listen to reason.
To purposely target civilians on their way to work proves their lack of reason. It proves their lack of
humanity.
Today I stand with Britain. Today, I fly the Union Jack. Today I pray to God that the evil people that
carried out these attacks are brought to justice, dead or alive, doesn't matter to me.
LONDON — A series of explosions struck London's public transportation system Thursday
morning in what Prime Minister Tony Blair called a coordinated series of "barbaric" terrorist attacks.
I don't want to politicize this. That is not my intention. I want to share my sorrow with Great Britain
and let them know that they are in my prayers.
This kind of senseless attack against civilians only goes to show you exactly what type of people we
are dealing with. A group calling themselves 'Secret Organization - al-Qaeda in Europe' has
claimed responsibility for the attacks saying they are in retaliation for British involvement in Iraq and
Afghanistan. They set out to kill civilians in London. Not in Iraq or Afghanistan, but in London. They
purposely target civilians and that is why we must hunt them down and kill them all.
If a Marine gets killed in the line of duty, it saddens me, but that's what Marines do. They kill or get
killed. They know the risks of their jobs. But to purposely target civilians on a train going to work not
only goes against the laws of war, but against the laws of humanity.
Like I said, I don't want to politicize this incident but I do hope that the eyes of the world will once
again open and recognize that these people will not accept peace. They will not listen to reason.
To purposely target civilians on their way to work proves their lack of reason. It proves their lack of
humanity.
Today I stand with Britain. Today, I fly the Union Jack. Today I pray to God that the evil people that
carried out these attacks are brought to justice, dead or alive, doesn't matter to me.
| Tuesday, July 5th, 2005 |
Acts see album sales soar after Live 8 gigs But will those new profits help a single
hungry child in Africa? Somehow, I don't think so.
Several of the bands that took part in the Live 8 concert, that was intended to raise awareness to the
problem of poverty in Africa, have themselves benefited from the concert in the form of record sales.
"According to HMV, one of Britain's main record retailers with 200 stores nationwide, Pink Floyd's
"Echoes" album posted a staggering 1,343 percent increase in sales on Sunday compared with the
same day a week ago."
Now, you know me, I have no problem with recording artists making money. I buy CDs. I don't
download music. But I find it funny that these so-called great humanitarians are going to rake in a
ton of money by "raising awareness" to th
hungry child in Africa? Somehow, I don't think so.
Several of the bands that took part in the Live 8 concert, that was intended to raise awareness to the
problem of poverty in Africa, have themselves benefited from the concert in the form of record sales.
"According to HMV, one of Britain's main record retailers with 200 stores nationwide, Pink Floyd's
"Echoes" album posted a staggering 1,343 percent increase in sales on Sunday compared with the
same day a week ago."
Now, you know me, I have no problem with recording artists making money. I buy CDs. I don't
download music. But I find it funny that these so-called great humanitarians are going to rake in a
ton of money by "raising awareness" to th