60 Minutes Tribute to the Fallen Soldiers in Iraq

Though I usually hate 60 minutes...and in particular Andy Rooney and the bombastic Mike Wallace; I did think they did a great Memorial Day Tribute for the fallen soldiers in Iraq (though they should have also included Afghanistan casualties).

If you missed it, they scrolled the pictures of the fallen soldiers while "Arpeggio for Strings" (theme from the movie "Platoon") in the background. No reading of names, no commentary....just the pictures and the haunting theme from "Platoon". It was a poignant tribute appropriate for Memorial Day.


Hey, it's Memorial day...so it's a slow news day. I thought I'd post this for some laughs...

"Pros and Cons of John Kerry's Top 20 Vice Presidential Candidates"
- - - -
1. John Edwards, Senator, North Carolina
Pro: Charismatic public speaker
Con: Not likely to deliver home state, may outshine Kerry

2. John McCain, Senator, Arizona
Pro: Independent thinker, veteran, may draw Republican votes
Con: Is a Republican, disagrees with Kerry on most things

3. Bob Kerrey, former Senator, Nebraska
Pro: As 9/11 Commission member, earned reputation as tough but fair
Con: May be considered nepotism for John Kerry to nominate his own brother

4. Bill Clinton, former President
Pro: Oh man, that would be awesome�could you imagine? He'd be all like Yeah, I'm back, so suck on this, y'all and everyone would be all No way and he'd be all Way
Con: None

5. Bob Graham, Senator, Florida
Pro: Decades-long career as America's most popular evangelist could deliver Christians and conservatives
Con: Invented the graham cracker, which, frankly, isn't that great

6. Max Cleland, former Senator, Georgia
Pro: Close Kerry confidant, fellow Vietnam vet
Con: Got ass kicked by a guy named 'Saxby'

7. Paul Tsongas, former Senator, Massachusetts
Pro: Fiscal conservative, appeal could cross party lines
Con: From same state as Kerry, died in 1997

8: H. Ross Perot, businessman, Texas
Pro: Hilarity
Con: None

9. No one; anywhere
Pro: Would allow voters to concentrate on Kerry
Con: Would not deliver a state, raise money, or do anything, due to lack of"

10. Nancy Pelosi, Representative and House Minority Leader, California
Pro: Could lure disenchanted liberal voters who might otherwise go with Nader
Con: As a liberal, hates America, would make religion illegal, raise taxes by 500 percent, move Capitol to France

11. Blanche Lincoln, Senator, Arkansas
Pro: Combines best elements of Blanche DuBois and Abraham Lincoln
Con: No Democrat from Arkansas has ever won national election

12. Bob Menendez, Representative, New Jersey
Pro: Could solidify shaky support in New Jersey, lure Latino voters
Con: Along with brother Lyle, murdered parents

13. Dan Quayle, former Senator, Indiana
Pro: Possessed of Robert Redford-style good looks, energetic
Con: None

14. Ann Coulter, columnist
Pro: Flattering position would silence her exposing of the true evil liberal agenda
Con: Is composed entirely of spiders and deadly snakes writhing beneath a latex "skin"

15. Shaquille O'Neal, basketball player, California
Pro: Can clog up the middle, blocks shots, requires alteration of opposing team's game plan
Con: Free-throw shooting still an issue, recalcitrant

16. Joseph Biden, Senator, Delaware
Pro: Articulate speaker, respected among Democratic leadership
Con: Delaware is a protectorate, not a state, therefore constitutionally ineligible

17. Ashton Kutcher, actor, California
Pro: Could "punk" Bush campaign with crazy pranks, make them think their president plane got stoled, and then he could yell "Punk'd!" and it would be funny
Con: Sucks

18. A big pile of fudge; all over
Pro: Tasty, particularly enjoyed by women and increasingly obese nation
Con: Perishable, nonsentient, lackluster in debates and speeches

19. Fourteen dogs from Ohio; Ohio
Pro: Everyone loves dogs, each dog could be different, like one's a mean dog and one's a cute dog and one wears glasses and looks like a computer-whiz dog, could deliver swing state
Con: So many dogs could mean diluted message, can't talk

20. Jesus, Messiah, Nazareth
Pro: Would put Bush in uncomfortable position of attacking his personal Lord and Savior, could redefine Christianity instantly for political gain, likable
Con: Mythical


ABCNEWS.com : Porn Profits: Corporate America's Secret

ABCNEWS.com : Porn Profits: Corporate America's Secret: "American Porn
Corporate America Is Profiting From Porn -- Quietly"

I was half-asleep when I watched this story on PrimeTime Thursday, so I didn't immediate grasp the point of the story. Here are some excerpts from the print article:

"Companies like General Motors, AOL Time Warner and Marriott earn revenue by piping adult movies into Americans' homes and hotel rooms, but you won't see anything about it in their company reports.

And you won't hear them talking about the production companies that actually make the films — or the performers the producers hire, men and women as young as 18, for sex that is often unprotected.

"We have an industry that is making billions of dollars a year, is spreading to cable television and to the Internet, and yet their employees are considered to be throwaway people," said former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop."

"It is hard to estimate how much money these corporations derive from porn because they do not publicize it in their portfolios or anywhere else. Their financial statements do not mention profits from adult movies. However, one industry analyst estimated that the combination of cable and satellite outlets makes about $1 billion a year from the adult-movie market."

"A spokesman for DirecTV said he was not permitted to talk about the company's profits from adult movies. Representatives of Comcast, Hilton and Marriott refused to talk on the record about the issue. "

The gist of the story hit me on Friday....that PrimeTime was blaming big corporations for the women being in porn and that they, the corporations, were making huge profits while excluding the performers from the benefits. The evil corporations also hide their profits from porn from their balance sheets. To summarize ABC's stance, it's the bourgeoisie exploiting the proletariat.

Exploitation by the corporations named in the story? Hardly. The companies delivering the content are far down the chain. The producers and directors likely do exploit their performers, but that was never really mentioned n the story. It is true that companies make huge profits and the "stars" only make a few grand per scene (unless they're with a huge studio like VCA where they get 6 figure salaries). The entire thing that stood out in retrospect, was the way the story was slanted. Evil corporations making big money at the expense of young female porn stars (or as a C. Everett Koop stated "throwaway people"). Typical of big media, they don't tell the entire story. They only tell the part of the story that suits their slant. Some questions that went unasked and unanswered are the following:

1. The porn star (Belladonna) interview for the piece stated that she wanted out...and that she would get out, but 2 years later is still in the business because more than anything else she's addicted to the relatively easy money. She also stated that when she started, she was "talked into" doing scenes. Where's her culpability in this? For that matter, if the working conditions are so bad (they work without condoms, benefits/health care, and most performers don't make big money), why don't the performers either get out of the business or strike?

2. Nobody analyzed the reason that pornography is so large in America. Why? Moral decline? The possibility that our society is repressed sexually (though I disagree with that statement)? Ease of access? Who knows, I'm sure there's a million theories, but ABC didn't mention one.

3. Why young women (18 year-olds) are drawn to porn to begin with. Easy money? Psychological issues (many were molested/raped as children)? Why are girls of high-school age allowed in the business to begin with?

The entire thing that irritated me about the story was that what happens to young women when they enter porn (which is a good story) was only given as a contrast to point out that evil corporations are making money at their expense.

Where's personal responsibility in this story? Oh, that's right...there's no such thing as personal responsibility...people are always victims. Then again, I guess I can understand where it's a corporation's fault that a porn actress would allow herself to be double-penetrated while being smacked in the face. They'll explain that next time I'm sure.


FOXNews.com - Top Stories - Court Upholds Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law

FOXNews.com - Top Stories - Court Upholds Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law

Of course, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals decided in this manner. They are the champion of all that is liberal. My only question is WHY most people would even need a doctor to assist. If you REALLY want to kill yourself there are thousands of ways to do so.

Unless someone is totally incapacitated (such as the quadriplegic who was given a feeding tube and wanted it removed....obviously he couldn't remove it himself), I can't see why a doctor would be needed. In that case, he wanted to do it himself but was physically unable to do so. That is an exception. Otherwise, there's no need to ask for help. Just do it! Go to alt.suicide.holiday (more info here) for help in doing it yourself. People kill themselves all the time...and all joking aside, it is unfortunate. Most people terminally ill have the capacity and ability to take their own lives. Personally, I'm not in favor of anyone killing themselves, but it would be unfair for me to pass judgement as I'm not walking in their shoes.

The other problem I have with doctor-assisted suicide is that it leaves far too much power outside the hands of the person allegedly wanting to die. Too much subjectivity going on there. Courts, psychologists, doctors helping to make a determination. The suicidee (I made that up...what do you think?), may not be in a proper frame of mind to make a decision to end their own life. It is a permanent decision...there's no going back.

Not to beat a dead horse...but if someone who is able-bodied needs assistance in killing themselves they obviously lack the resolve to do it themselves and should not be assisted. This kind of goes back to the credo of personal responsibility.

Republicans vs. Libertarians

I was asked by someone the other day why I consider myself a Libertarian, but I have voted Republican. What the differences are in the 2 philosophies? Well, I'll break it down for you (albeit simplistically).

To answer the first part of the question, I have voted Republican in Presidential elections because I felt they have the most realistic opportunity to win...and I feel that liberalism is destroying this country. I despise everything the Democratic party stands for and they'd be the last party I'd want in control of anything (I'll save details on this for a later rant). Unfortunately, as I discovered with this administration, there is really little difference between the two parties.

What are the differences between the Libertarian Party and Republican Party? What are the basic differences in philosophy?

To distill it down to bare elements, Republicans feel morally responsible or a moral obligation to the public in some instances (personal behavior), whereas Libertarians use a more objectivist or pragmatic point-of-view. The Libertarian view is personal responsibility.

As Ayn Rand wrote, "The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence....The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

Obviously, most Republicans do not agree with that philosophy.

One example of this is the "War on Drugs." The so-called war on illegal drugs is a total and abysmal failure. You might have some in law enforcement that tout their increasing drug seizures, but they won't be objective because the war on drugs has been a cash cow for law enforcement. Government doles out billions of dollars to fight the war, puts thousands of cops on the street, and seizures of cash and property help fund law enforcement in the war. I might add that the seizures are without a trial I might add...only if you're found innocent at trial, do you get your property back...so much for the 4th amendment.

ADDENDUM on the foreiture issue:
A good friend of mine, a former police officer who worked undercover, informed me of the following:
"Forfeitures are contested only after posting a bond to get your own property back. Then you are offered a civil trial in forfeiture court. If the amount forfeited is over a certain amount there may not be any bond. However the bond is quite significant considering it is your property. You could still win your case with no conviction and lose your property.

civil vs. criminal
preponderance of the evidence vs. beyond a reasonable doubt"

This makes the State's actions even more heinous than I originally thought.

Tell me, has this massive effort really stopped anyone from taking drugs? Illegal drug use has remained steady or grown the last 30 years. Some drugs have become more popular (ecstasy), some have fallen (LSD), while others have maintained consistent levels (marijuana). Statistics for the last 30 years can be found here. The only dip in usage was during the mid-80's "Say NO to drugs" campaign. Why? Demand fell. As a teen in the 80's, I can attest that drug usage was not cool. Of course that changed when a pot-smoking President was elected (sorry...had to throw that in there).

Do you think supply dipped? Nope, and it has nothing to do with drug seizures. In fact, the amount of drugs seized has grown over the last 10 years and during the last 5 years has grown or remained steady. All those seizures had zero affect on drug usage. During the 80's it was cool to say no to drugs. Cutting demand by teaching the hazards to kids at a young age works far better than attacking the supply. Demand CREATES supply. That's economics 101.

What are the additional costs besides law enforcement? Prison of course! Does prison for drug abusers and dealers act as a deterrent? Nope. Addicts will continue to seek out drugs because, well...they're addicts. Dealers will continue to sell drugs because there's so much money involved. How many people are in prison for drug-related offenses you ask? Well, 54.7% of the prison population or 86,165 prisoners are in prison for drug-related offenses. As you can see from the earlier drug usage charts, this so-called deterrent has not worked. In addition, violent criminals are paroled early to ease prison overcrowding. The result of more drug offenders in prision is more violent criminals on our streets.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Does Prohibition ring a bell? As everyone knows, prohibition gave rise to the Mafia...and alcohol was available to anyone that really wanted it. Back then, the Mafia had a code of NOT involving ordinary citizens in any shootouts. Today's gangs have no such code. They are well armed and organized an will shoot anyone for almost any reason. Our streets are not any safer today due to the "war".

It's more than apparent to me...as it should be to you...that there is a certain portion of the population that will always do drugs. We all know the detrimental effects of drug abuse. We can attack the demand by teaching kids the hazards. I'm NOT talking the D.A.R.E. program either...it has had zero effect on drug usage. You can't tell kids NOT to do drugs, you have to SHOW them what they do to a person or otherwise make it cool to NOT do drugs. You can take your children to local police department's jail for a tour and ask the guide who in the cells are drug addicts. I took my son when he was 6 and the Police Officer pointed out what each criminal was in jail for...out of 6 cells, 2 were for drugs, 2 for alcohol, and 2 for stealing something. It made a strong impression on him. Another example of what drugs do to a person is here. I had one example of 13 years of mugshots for woman beginning when she was 19. She starts out smiling and looking good, but by the end, she looks 50. Unfortunately, I can't find it anymore. If anyone can find this photo, please comment with a link...she's a blue-eyed brunette. In fact if you can find any collection of mugshots of one individual over time, please comment with a link.

Finally, the hypocrisy of what is legal and illegal is quite annoying. Two destructive drugs are available to anyone of age (and illegally to those not of age). What 2? Alcohol and nicotine. Of course, we're all familiar with the problems of excessive alcohol consumption and the addictedness of nicotine, so why are those drugs legal? Simply put, money.

What about prostitution? It's the world's oldest profession so it's safe to say it isn't going away. In fact, it's gotten easier for anyone with internet access and cash. Simply do a google search for Escort and your city and you'll come back with tons of hits. I believe our neighbors to the north (Canada to those of you geographically challenged) got it right, require them to register and receive regular blood tests. Does jail time ever stop them? Nope, too much money for a few hours work. You might say, "what about the poor girls doing this kind of work?" I'll respond...personal responsibility. People choose their own paths.

What about abortion? Though I'm personally opposed to abortion, I'm not about to carry any child for 9 months either. I do feel that Roe vs. Wade is bad law, but only because the Supreme Court legislated from the bench, rather than it being a states-rights issue (similar to the sodomy decision last year). Because it is NOT my body, it cannot be MY decision. I'm going to beat a dead horse on this later...personal responsibility. The difference is that Republicans view the fetus as a separate entity...again, a moral issue and to many, religious belief that the soul enters the fetus upon conception. I am vehemently opposed to late-term abortions (abortions after the 6th month) because those "entities" can live outside the mother's body. In those cases, because those fetuses can live outside the mother's body...it IS murder. Yes, I know that it's technically outlawed by Roe vs. Wade, but late-term abortions can and do happen...all they need is a doctor's opinion that "it's for the mother's health" and it's ok.

Personal responsibility is a major difference between Democrats and Republicans...Libertarians just take it a step further. Stay out of my house...it's my body and my life. Let me live it the way I choose...so long as I'm not hurting anyone else. If I choose self-destructive behavior...it is MY choice...and MY responsibility. Conversely, if I choose to work hard and be a success, it's MY success...and I shouldn't have to share so much of my earnings with the government (this year, the first 5 months of the year go to taxes of one kind or another). Protect our shores, protect me from miscreants that would harm me or my family, and protect my property. Government nowadays does none of those tasks especially well...because they've got their hands in too many places. That includes the one place I hate the most...my wallet!


Researching a famous quote...Bummer!

I thought I found this really cool quote from 1770 by Alexander Tyler (Tytler) that points out a major problem with our government...in particular my belief that Democrats buy their votes by catering to special interests. I found the quote so cool that it was at the bottom of my blog.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury."
-- Alexander Tyler, Scottish historian, 1770

Being that I'm a reading nut, I wanted to buy the book that contained the quote.

After a search of all the usual suspects (Amazon, Google, Library of Congress) for "Cycle of Democracy" or "Fall of the Athenian Republic", I could NOT find the book (though I did find other books are attributed to Alexander Tytler). The inability to find this book caused me to grow suspicious. A HUGE number of websites cite this quote (including one from a Congressman from Wisconsin), but I could NOT find the book. Strange eh? I was really bummed out because I REALLY wanted to read it.

Well, in the course of my research into finding the book I discovered that the quote itself appears to be invalid (thus the removal from the bottom of my page). I could NOT verify the existence of the book or that the quote was correctly attributed to Tyler (Tytler). I did a search to see if the quote was misattributed to Tytler, and the sites I found all attributed the quote to him. In fact, the quote or book allegedly containing the quote is never mentioned in his bio.

Further research yielded a couple more sites (Snopes being one) that state that the quote is likely fictitious. They can be found at Snopes and here.

The quote would have been especially prescient if it was true to the time (1770) that it was attributed to the author. However, since it appears to be a manufactured product of the 20th century, it loses its impact. Because of this fact and that I cannot perpetuate the lie, I removed it from my page.

Though I enjoy research, I don't always enjoy the results...


Wow, I'm behind on a LOT of things

I'm behind on my reading...well, kinda-sorta. I started Edu-Crisis, but when David Horowitz' book arrived, I started that as well. Now I'm 1/2 way through both. Does anyone else do this? Start one book...get halfway through and then start another? I didn't intend it that way...I just read the preface and before I knew it, I was 50 pages into the book! :-0

I really need to take some time to finish my speedreading class...suddenly, 600wpm doesn't seem fast enough. So much to read, so little time. That doesn't include all of the stupid magazines I subscribe to either (Maxim, Stuff, CGW, PCGamer, NewsMax, The Hockey News). The sucky thing about a magazine is that I usually read it cover to cover in about 30-45 minutes. Not sure if I'm getting my money's worth there...but I do enjoy them all.

I've also been sidetracked by the development of my website (www.liberal-antithesis.com), which currently redirects to my blog. Since I'm a server admin by trade, deciding how to develop my website (FrontPage/Dreamweaver/etc) is proving difficult since I know how I want it to look, but I can't find any templates that really capture what I'm after. Currently, I'm in the midst of deciding which development tools I want to use. Either way, I'm going to have to learn more than HTML. Ugh...I've made a career avoiding programming...looks like I'm going to learn some of it after all.

I have a number of rants lined up, but I haven't had the time to properly research my position on each. Since Charles Melin took me to task for not adding links in support of my argument (he had a good point), I need to do research (both online and offline) for each of my positions. My opinions weren't created out of thin air, but in order to strengthen my arguments and perhaps get a liberal thinking (I know it's a stretch), I need to cite my sources. I guess I set myself up for that type of response when I took liberals to task in my earlier post for NOT having the ability to make an argument or support one. Opinion is easy...supporting it takes thought and research. For some strange reason, I find that fun!


Nic Berg Conspiracy Theories Debunked

I was listening to the radio this morning and the DJs brought up a Nic Berg conspiracy theory. A quick google search found these common conspiracy theorists' arguments that the CIA/US Military killed Nic Berg. (do a search under "Berg Conspiracy"):

1. The chair is the same type found in Abu Ghraib prison.

2. The orange jumpsuit that Nic Berg is wearing is the same type that prisoners in Abu Ghraib wear and why would a terrorist want to draw attention to a captor with an orange jumpsuit.

3. That the hands of the "terrorists" are "white" and they are "fat".

4. The sound is too clear for a video camera held at 10-12 feet.

5. Approximately 1 minute of video is missing (after Berg is dead and they are cutting off his head...just before they raise the head.

6. That Muslims do not decapitate victims in this manner. They kill with one quick blow with a sharp sword.

7. That one of the "terrorists" is standing at parade rest.

8. That the video camera is set to 24 hours (military time) instead of 12 hours.

9. The head cut is "too clean" for a knife.

10. al-Zarqawi is wearing a gold ring. Wearing gold is forbidden by Islam.

11. That a "frame-by-frame" analysis shows a person wearing a U.S. military hat.

12. al-Zarqawi has a prosthetic leg and moves too well in the video.

13. A lack of blood at the scene. A medical expert claimed in the Asia Times that he believed the Berg to be already dead.


1. Illogical argument. There is a white plastic chair in Abu Ghraib prison. Nic Berg was sitting on a white plastic chair. Therefore Nic Berg was in Abu Ghraib prison. These chairs are common throughout the world...they are cheap plastic chairs for crying out loud. I have the same set...so I must been acting in complicity with the CIA to kill Nic Berg.

2. Illogical argument. Prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison wear orange jumpsuits. Nic Berg was wearing an orange jumpsuit. Therefore Nic Berg was killed in Abu Ghraib prison. Oh, and these are difficult to find? They are VERY easy to find!

A point on #1 and #2. If these terrorists were outraged regarding prisoner abuse, they'd WANT to draw comparisons to Abu Ghraib prison by staging the murder in this manner.

3. Illogical argument. Pure assumption. This argument works on a faulty premise that all Arabs are dark-skinned. All Arabs are dark-skinned. The killers are light-skinned. Therefore the killers cannot be Arabs. In fact, pictures of al-Zarqawi show him to be a lighter skinned Arab. Arab terrorists are never fat? These people are well funded...I'm sure they eat well. In additition, it would be difficult to gauge their size with the robes they are wearing.

4. Audio is too clear? I'm not sure I agree with this point, but it would be very simple to rig a microphone boom that would be out-of-frame.

5. Yes, a minute of video is missing. A simple edit job would have pulled out the extra minute it took to completely sever his head. That extra minute would have lessened the impact of them cutting off his head and raising it to the camera.

6. This is false. Muslims execute other Muslims this way...NOT their enemies! Beheading is a method prescribed by Islamic Law. Since Berg was not Muslim and was an "infidel", no such quick death was given to him.

7. Illogical argument. Terrorist is standing at "Parade Rest". Parade rest is used by the U.S. Military. Therefore the terrorist is with the U.S. Military. This is a pure stretch. In addition, al Qaeda operated numerous training camps and as such would have instilled basic military discipline. I stand with my hands behind my back when I'm in a line...does that mean I'm in the military?

8. Illogical argument. The video is on 24 hour time. The U.S. Military uses 24 hour time. Therefore the military videotaped the murder. This is so weak I don't know how to respond. I have videos of my son that are set to 24 hours...and not on purpose. It just wasn't a priority while filming him. I don't remember if the default was 24 hours or 12...but the consipiracy theorists' arguments on this point are so weak as to defy explanation.

9. This is false. There is tissue clearly hanging from the head and the cut is NOT clean.

10. Illogical argument. al-Zarqawi is a Muslim. Islam forbids the wearing of gold. Therefore the "terrorist" cannot be al-Zarqawi. Islam also forbids things like drinking and going to strip clubs...but thats exactly what many of the 9/11 terrorists did the night before they flew the planes into the WTC and the Pentagon.

11. Though so many sites claimed that something was a hat or helmet in the right-hand side of the frame during the killing, it is a real stretch. There is a person standing there, but what they are wearing is NOT clear.

12. A few points here. 1. There's no proof that al-Zarqawi has a prosthetic leg. The U.S. military has stated they aren't certain of that fact. 2. That people that have prothestic limbs cannot move well is pure assumption. It really depends on the prosthesis (and where the amputation is on the leg). AND the length of time the person has had the prosthesis. I don't see that the killer is moving especially well. The person to the right of the killer is the one that moves quickly to knock Berg to the ground. al-Zarqawi goes to a knee and begins the killing. When he stands, one leg does look stiff, but that's hardly evidence in support of their argument.

13. You can clearly see blood coming out of the neck of Berg as he's being murdered. As for the lack of blood on the ground, it would be masked by the dark color of the flooring (though you can make out a darker color than the flooring).Though it is interesting that approx 90 seconds of video is missing from the time he is thrown to the ground to the time the first cut begins, the claims that the body was already dead before he is decpatitated is speculative at best. You you can clearly see Berg moving (in the full video) before he is thrown down to the ground and after the decapitation begins. Is it possible in the missing 90 seconds killed him or otherwise incapcitated him in another manner in 90 seconds? Yes, he could have been incapacitated, but from the looks of the video, it's doubtful that he was dead prior to the decapitation as you can here the scream and gurgling.

There you have it...and thanks to all the wacko conspiracy theorists that forced me to watch the video again to debunk your weak arguments. It just ticked me off all over again!


Yes Ladies and Gents, we are at war.

For those of you that doubt that we are in for a long war with al Qaeda, here are some pertinent quotes from Osama bin Laden. The war against al Qaeda also includes Iraq. There now should be no doubt that al Qaeda has ties to Iraq after al-Zarqawi brutally killed Nic Berg.

These people (Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists) will not stop by any means other than their own deaths. Life means very little to them. Your life means nothing, and their own lives mean little more. They don't fear OR respect us. At least the old Soviet Union did fear and respect us (vice versa). Sure, we hated the Soviets, but we respected them (from a military perspective)...hence nothing more than sabre rattling. Of course, we did fight wars and battles over Soviet Expansionism (Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cold War), and people died on both sides...but the nukes never flew and we never attacked each other directly.

These quotes show the lack of respect al Qaeda has for our country...and also a lack of fear. Of course it doesn't help when our media go over there and kiss OBL's ass (thanks Peter Arnett and John Miller).

Keep in mind, both interviews were after the Sudanese Government offered bin Laden up to President-in-Sheep Bill Clinton (between 1996-1998)...and he refused...and 9/11 was already in the planning stages. Don't believe me...go here,
and listen to the MP3 where Clinton states he could't extradite bin Laden because he did NOT commit any crimes against America. What does Bubba call the 1993 WTC bombing? The 1993 battle in Somilia (where it has been established that al Qaeda was there)? The bombings of our embassies in Tanzania or Kenya? The USS Cole?

It wasn't about legality anyway...it was war as far back as 1993...we just didn't engage them until 2001.

1997 Interview with Peter Arnett

OSAMA BIN LADEN: "some Arab 'Mujahideen' who were in Afghanistan ... participated with their brothers in Somalia against the American occupation troops and killed large numbers of them. After a little resistance, The American troops left after achieving nothing ... after some resistance from powerless, poor, unarmed people whose only weapon is the belief in Allah The Almighty, ... we learned ... the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters. The Americans ran away from those fighters who fought and killed them, while the latter were still there. If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return."

PETER ARNETT: "Mr. Bin Laden, you've declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States' troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?"

OSAMA BIN LADEN: We declared jihad against the US government ... As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places ...

1998 Interview with John Miller of ABC News

OSAMA BIN LADEN: "We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions. We rely on Allah. ...

NATO, that America created, we know it spent $455 billion American dollars in improving weaponry to protect Europe and America from Russia, and they did not fire a single shot. ...

The youth ... headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians, but they were surprised ... at the low morale of the American soldiers and ... after a few blows ... left, dragging their corpses.

JOHN MILLER: Mr. bin Laden, you have issued a fatwa calling on all Muslims to kill Americans where they can, when they can. Is that directed at all Americans, just American military, just Americans in Saudi Arabia?

OSAMA BIN LADEN: We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are all targets in this fatwa.

So much for the "Religion of Peace "


Sure, let terrorists vote too!

There's a movement afoot to let non-citizens vote in our elections. This idea is simply preposterous. It's as bad as Bush's trial balloon on amnesty for illegal immigrants. Why?

First off, non-citizens have less vested in the future of our country. They're here to invest in themselves either through education or work. For example, they can work here on their H1-B Visas and leave when their work is completed...they can line their pockets and go back to their native countries wealthy people. There's no personal investment in the future of our country.

Secondly, it will allow terrorists and those friendly to terrorists the ability to vote. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were here legally...on student visas....and would have been given the right to vote. Would you want people who are the enemies of our nation the right to vote in our elections? We have enough enemies here on the left.

Finally, the right to vote is one of our most fundamental rights as citizens. It would cheapen the electoral process by demeaning our privileges as citizens.

I'm not denying that immigrants have been and will be important to the growth of this country. But if they do really love this country let them apply for citizenship and become citizens before being allowed to vote.


Idiotic Leftist Media Comment of the Day

Apparently, the NY Times doesn't approve of how the CIA has been interrogating al Qaeda operatives. Perhaps we should just ask for the information nicely and promise them an ice cream. MORONS!

Can Liberals Make an Argument? You decide!

Is it just me, or are liberals unable to make any kind of logical argument? They always resort to ad hominem (attack on the person), ad misericordiam (appeal to pity), ad nauseam, or Straw Man arguments. They simply don't have a strong argument on any of their views so they resort to diversionary tactics and illogical arguments. It's difficult to debate with a liberal because they always appeal to the emotional. Either to get a rise out of you or to appeal to the masses. When dealing with a lib, I just try to remain calm and make a logical argument.

Here's a debate that I joined at Fark after the beheading of Nic Berg. Don't ask me why, but I viewed the video. In a previous profession, I'd seen my share of death (not an enjoyable part of that job), so I have a strong stomach. I really didn't want to see this man die...but I did want to see the guys doing the killing. Perhaps just to understand their mindset. However, the sight of these animals chating "Allah Akbar" (god is great) while brutally killing an unarmed civilian truly saddened and incensed me. The only insight I gained is knowing that these people are beyond reaching through any sort of diplomacy. The only thing they'll understand is death...hopefully their own.

I did resort to the invective a few times because I was so irritated after viewing the video and reading some of the liberal BS that was posted. Things like, "He got what he deserved for going over there and supporting the U.S.", and "If we only took as much time to understand the Fundamentalist Muslims as we did fighting a war against them, this wouldn't have happened," "Bush lied to us," "Bush stole the election," and so on.

This exchange is kinda long, but worth the read...good for a few laughs at their meager attempts at argument. The original post was refuting the distorted facts that liberals like to tout about the Vietnam war (since they love the whole quagmire comparison).

My post for reference:

Just Ignorant --

How appropriate a name. You cannot compare Vietnam to Iraq though you libs will continue to try.

First off, the war was lost here at home by you hippies protesting the war. We were winning the war (NVA & VC dead:1.1 million - US Dead:58k. The NVA strategy became propaganda against the war and they were assisted in their propaganda by asshats like Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and John F'ing Kerry with their traitorous actions. The NVA KNEW they couldn't win the war...so they turned the U.S. public against it via propaganda.

Secondly, on January 27, 1973, the Paris Peace accords were signed which was essentially a cease-fire and a simultaneous withdrawal of US forces. The issue of South Vietnamese sovereignty was to be decided later...without war. The US promised withdrawal and the NVA promised not to attack the north. This appeased you peace activist commies, but was disastrous to the South Vietnamese people when in 1974, the NVA broke the agreement and attacked the south. With only a small number of US forces left, the South Vietnamese were overrun bit by bit until Saigon was overrun...to the sounds of your cheering.

You commie hippies just don't get it. The South Vietnamese didn't want communism...they wanted to be free. The US offered to help halt the spread of Communism with that in mind. Of course, if it was up to you hippies, the world would be a Utopia under communism...which is precisely why you have opposed any war against communist forces...

Now, it's Blame America First all over again with the hippie crowd. Al Qaeda is right and justified and the U.S. is wrong. It's America's fault because of our support of Israel. It's America's fault because they don't have economic opportunity. It's America's fault because...(insert BS here). If this was 1942, you'd be wondering why the Japanese were so disenfranchised that they would attack us. You'd be marching in Washington against going to war in Germany and Italy since those people were harmless to us. Well, fortunately, liberalism wasn't as widespread then, otherwise most of Europe would be speaking German...and there wouldn't be any Jews left either.

You liberal hippies live under the delusion that all war is bad and should be avoided at all costs. If people want to kill us then we must have done something to cause them to hate us that much. I hate to burst your bubble, but there are bad people in this world that will try to eliminate us as a country...if we let them...or should I say...if YOU let them.

Now here's a lib responding to that post...pretty humorous since he didn't even attempt to refute my argument.

slayer199 --

"we should increase troops and wipe out all of the Fundamentalist Muslims."

...who look exactly like the others. But you won't mind killing them all for good measure. Your ideas on Vietnam prove that much. Exactly what do you imagine you're defending? You're empty inside. Vietnam:

"We were winning the war (NVA & VC dead:1.1 million - US Dead:58k."

The genocide just wasn't enough for you. What's a good number? 10 million human lives? 20 million? If the goal was a pro-U.S. government, then no amount of scorched earth, no millions-to-thousands ratio of dead buys you a win.

Inhuman, soulless ideologue. I know what would have made your kind happy: put our crimes on par with Stalin's. Leave a few crippled, radiation-sick Vietnamese hobbling around in your smoking moonscape of a "free" capitalist wonderland. We could invest there, build vacation homes on the coast. Maybe pay some mutant widows and children to have sex with us, "doing them a favor" we'd say.

I am simply trying to imagine what positive outcome you imagine from the holocaust we perpetrated in Southeast Asia. You would kill nine out of ten, and let the remainder vote for the U.S.-approved candidate, or else.

You would destroy nearly anything real (countless people and resources) in defense of something imagined (mere ideas about sacred capitalism and infectious communism).

Turn your appetite for destruction against yourself now. Or rather, against your sick ideas: kill yourself to stamp them out! Harsh? A bit of your own medicine. This is the "win" dangling before your eyes in Asia, Iraq etc. for ever and ever. Destroy the hollow shell that remains of your humanity.>>

Pretty funny isn't it? Not one attempt at an argument. Ad hominem attacks and appeals to pity...how beautiful. Here's another funny one. I was pointing out how Clinton was a failure...especially in terms of foreign policy.

My Post for Reference:

Finally, if Clinton had done his job while in office instead of fooling around with interns (he saw Monica more than he saw the Director of the CIA...in 8 friggin years), we wouldn't be in this position to begin with...and yes, the Sudan offered up bin Laden not once...not twice...but three times and Clinton refused because he didn't feel he could prosecute. Uh hello dumbass, the first attack on the WTC was an act of war (as were the attacks on the embassies in Kenya, Tanzania, and the USS Cole).

And the joyful response!


Umm, for some reason you feel justified at getting pissed off at liberals for this?

There are solid reasons why Clinton did not extract Bin Laden from the Sudan. First of all because he did not wish to treat the laws of our country so flipantly. To extract Bin Laden and not have a case against him that a US court wouldn't throw out would have been idiotic.

Quit trying to through the blame around on this one

My response:


As I said in my post...we were at war back in 1993 after the first WTC bombing. Rules of War are different than the Rules of Law. It's kill or be killed...and in this case over 3000 people were killed thanks to Mr. Clinton's policy. Sadly, now more people will die on both sides because of his inaction.

Basically he restates the same thing 3 more times...until we get to this post of his:


3000 people were killed because of some sort of POLICY that Clinton had control over?

you really are deluded.

It isn't as if the Clinton administration signed some sort of document sanctioning their action.

And another thing: the rule of war is not kill or be killed - unless you are talking philosophy and not reality.

My response...which backed him into a corner...because he was so fond of stating that Clinton couldn't prosecute him.

"3000 people were killed because of some sort of POLICY that Clinton had control over?"

Uh yeah, did you ever hear of the Gorelick memo that prevented the CIA and FBI from working together?

I won't even get into Clinton's failure to act when we were at war with al Qaeda beginning in 1993.

"you really are deluded."
Don't think so...do some homework instead of blindly following Bubba.

"It isn't as if the Clinton administration signed some sort of document sanctioning their action."

See the Gorelick memo directed by Clinton above. And he did guarantee an attack on us with his inaction which emboldened bin Laden. "With Allah's grace, Muslims over there cooperated with some Arab Mujahideen who were in Afghanistan. They participated with their brothers in Somalia against the American occupation troops and killed large numbers of them... The American troops left after achieving nothing. They left after claiming that they were the largest power on earth...After some resistance from powerless, poor, unarmed people whose only weapon is the belief in Allah The Almighty, ... we learned ... the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters. The Americans ran away from those fighters who fought and killed them, while the latter were still there. If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return." --Osama bin Laden

"And another thing: the rule of war is not kill or be killed - unless you are talking philosophy and not reality."

What do you propose? Showering our enemies with gifts and love? If your enemy holds a gun to your family's head, will you grab your gun (you probably don't have one...guns are bad... but play along) and shoot him, or watch your family be raped and murdered while you try to understand why? I prefer Sun Tzu "In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns." To that end, we should increase troops and wipe out all of the Fundamentalist Muslims.

Finally his response which I so greatly enjoyed...


I hate legalese.

I don't see this as a cut and dry situation. We were not at war after the first WTC attack and the attack on the USS Cole.

War cannot be declared on a non-state. It sounds like from your reasoning you would advocate the assasination of targets around the globe without the benifit of a trial - even if the targets are US Citizens. Sanction that, and frankly our "Western Democracy" isn't worth schite.

There you have it...according to this guy, war cannot be declared on non-state (I think he meant war cannot be declared by a non-state...whatever). By his logic, this country shouldn't exist since we weren't a "state", we were merely English colonies at the time and therefore invalid as a "state". I never responded as I lost track of time and realized I had to be up for work in 4 hours! I'm sure I would have wasted my time as he would have continued to defend Bubba.

I admit that I threw in a few ad hominem attacks...but give me a break...I was tired and cranky at the time and I still argued the points...unlike the libs...who didn't make any arguments.


Kerry is Funny...unintentionally of course!

Yesterday, in case anyone missed it...there was a vote in Congress to get cloture to extend unemployment benefits. The vote failed by one vote 59-40. A successful vote would have extended unemployment benefits. The only Senator that didn't vote? John F. Kerry who was campaigning in Kentucky....and he had the audicity to blame the Republicans for failing to pass the extension and to do enough about jobs (apparently he didn't read the latest job report?). It's comical! He doesn't show up to vote on something that's a cornerstone of his campaign...jobs and jobless benefits...he doesn't show up to vote on something he so passionately (cough, cough, choke) believes in...as if this guy has any passion in his life other than power and money. Remember, he REALLY cares about the little people in the world. Simply hilarious.

Welcome to my Blog

Initially, I started this blog so I could comment on a co-workers blog...but then I got into the idea so I created my own because it might be fun.

My writing style varies...sometimes stream-of-consciousness, sometimes very well organized, always...the antithesis of liberalism.

I read a lot and I read quickly! Lately, I've been going through a book a week...

"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest." - Ben Franklin