1/16/2005

Finally - My site is UP!

Check it out! The Liberal Antithesis.

12/09/2004

Defending the Right to Life

I know this is a long article, but worth the read. I recently stopped sitting on the fence in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. I agree with many of the reasons listed in this article (non-religious reasons consistent with a Libertarian viewpoint). As a Libertarian, I could care less what people do to themselves, but the line is drawn when it comes to hurting others. I'm not the only Libertarian that has supported this viewpoint (Gary Nolan also supported pro-life). I'm not a religious wacko that's going to start bombing abortion clinics or killing abortion doctors, but I do believe it's wrong.

Summary:

Our DNA is what defines us as both unique and human.
All men (or mankind) are endowed with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (per the Declaration of Independence).
That life is defined at conception based on scientific definitions of life.
That abortion is extinguishing that life.

What I find very interesting is that liberals will defend the life every insect, animal, and plant in the name of protecting life, fight the death penalty..and at the same time vehemently defend abortion while defining a fetus as an "unviable tissue mass."

It occurs to me that there is an interesting side-affect of abortion. Abortion (along with cures to most STDs) has given rise to sexual promiscuity in that you can have sex without consequence (just as most STDs are now curable with the exceptions of Hepatitis, Herpes, and AIDS). I'm far from innocent (and still D&D free!), but I'm far more responsible now than I was in my youth, primarily because there ARE more serious consequences to promiscuity than when I was "sowing my wild oats"...death being one of the possibilities. Of course, the threat of death from sex would be nil if people were less promiscious.

Liberals hold their 60's mantra of "If it feels good, do it" high on their mantle. The way they should put it is, "Action without responsibility." The government will always support those that screw up...and if all else fails, blame the screw-ups on conservatives.

Though I am not passionate about this issue (meaning, I'm not going to march on any clinics, picket in front of an abortion doctors' homes, or shoot a doctor who performs abortion), I will support conservative candidates that will work to get Roe vs. Wade overturned.



11/22/2004

Floridian: Iraq 'n' roll

This is funny. The troops in Iraq are playing Heavy Metal music to harass the insurgents in Iraq. This method has proved useful in the past (ask Manuel Noriega how he liked it), and the troops like the music. You might say, "No problem, good for the troops and bad for the enemies."

Well apparently Amnesty International has a problem with it and they don't find it humorous at all:

"Uncooperative prisoners are being exposed for prolonged periods to tracks by rock group Metallica and music from children's TV programmes Sesame Street and Barney in the hope of making them talk," the BBC reported in May 2003. "However, Amnesty International said such tactics may constitute torture."

Though listening to Barney has tortured adults for years, I hardly consider this real torture. Saddam Hussein practiced real torture. Al-Zarqawi practices real torture. Heavy Metal is not torture folks...it's an annoyance (to those that don't like it). In fact, the troops should up the ante and start playing Slayer!

I find it funny that they (Amnesty) interview the prisoners and act like they are getting the truth. Sorry, Abu Gharib was already exposed...and no real torture going on there...only humiliation. If torture was really going on in that magnitude that the prisoners and Amnesty International claim, then the media would be all too happy to expose it...just as they exposed the Abu Gharib scandal (2 months after the military had already begun taking action on the scandal).

If anything, the self-righteous Amnesty International is meaningless. What is their purpose? We know bad things happen all over the world by corrupt governments and dictators. What does Amnesty International do? Here's an example:

A.I.: "Saddam Hussein's regime is guilty of torturing and killing innocent civilians."
Saddam: "Whatever!"

They complained about Saddam and the Taliban yet were powerless to do anything about it. In comes the U.S., with the power and capability to stop the offending governments and government officials, and they complain about heavy metal music "torturing" the prisoners (many who are guilty applying real torture under Saddam). Ohhh, the humanity!

Amnesty International is much like the U.N. If you complain about something yet do nothing to rectify the situation...guess what? The situation never gets resolved! Wow, what a revelation! Words without the resolve to act accomplishes nothing. It's like if I tell my son he has to get better grades, but I don't take any action to ensure that happens...he won't get better grades. It's only through praise and punishment that he gets good grades. As he matures, he'll do it for himself out of honor, integrity, and responsibility. Unfortunately, our enemies have none of these qualities.

11/19/2004

Posting Frequency

I'm still undecided on how much I should post. I'd rather do 1-3 quality posts a week than 5 short ones. For those of you reading, which would you prefer? More frequent, shorter posts? Or longer, more detailed posts, a few times a week. Thanks for your opinion!

The Left Attacks our Military Again

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the Marine shooting of a wounded and "unarmed" man. Here is a transcript of the 2 Marines talking in case you missed it:

VOICE: Any Marines in there?
VOICE: Yeah, they're on the floor, far right, far right.
VOICE: Coming around the back, hey, who's in here?
VOICE: Coming around.
VOICE: What are you doing in here? (BLEEP).
VOICE: That guy shot at my tank (BLEEP).
VOICE: Yeah.
VOICE: Yeah.
VOICE: Shot up my tank.
VOICE: Come in here.
VOICE: Yeah.
VOICE: Did you shoot them?
VOICE: Did they have any weapons on them?
VOICE: All right. These are the ones from yesterday.
VOICE: These are the ones they never picked up. Bleep.
VOICE: He's breathing.
VOICE: He's f#$%ing faking he's dead!
VOICE: He's faking he's f@#$ing dead!
SOUND: BANG
VOICE: Well, he's dead now

We're hearing all of the liberals carp about how this killing is a violation of the Geneva Convention. How convenient they ignore the insurgent's (i.e. terrorist) violations of Laws and Customs of War on Land (which is referenced by the Geneva Convention) where "To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army" and "To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention" are also prohibited.

Additionally, do these insurgents (aka terrorists) meet the Geneva Convention requirements to be P.O.W.s to begin with? According to the Geneva Convention (and Laws and Customs of War on Land) it's debatable.

From the Laws and Customs of War on Land:
"The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Also defined in the Geneva Conventions (Convention III, Part 1, Article 4, #2):

"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

The insurgents clearly do not meet the requirements of a combatant under the protections of the Geneva Convention. For example, in the case of this Marine, a member of his unit was killed a day earlier by an insurgent who faked death and was not carrying his weapon openly. The Marine that did shoot the insurgent was wounded in the face during the attack.

For those of you that can't draw a line, faking death to seek an advantage and booby-trapping bodies are both prohibited. The Geneva Conventions also prohibit the killing of civilians such as Margaret Hassan, but you don't hear about those violations of the Geneva Convention, do you? These animals have brutally tortured and beheaded numerous civilians, and yet liberals want to whine over the death of one? Where's the media outrage for all of the civilian victims? Where's the media outrage for brutal murder of Margaret Hassan who was against the war and had worked to help the Iraqi people for over 30 years? Where is the media outrage for the years of Geneva Convention violations under Saddam Hussein?

It's rather hypocritical for the media to cry over the death of a dead terrorist who likely does NOT meet the requirements of a P.O.W. under the Geneva Conventions, when the terrorists themselves don't follow ANY of the Laws or Customs of War. For those of you that say, "Hey, it's war," please remember the knife cuts both ways.

This is yet another case where the media cries foul when they think it will hurt conservatives (in this case the Bush Administration - guilt through association), but conveniently don't apply the same "high journalistic standards" when similar facts and circumstances don't meet their agenda.