The 28th Amendment

I get a lot of useful, funny, not-so-useful, and not-so-funny emails. I also get some things that are, in their own way, profound and deserve attention. One of those I feel deserving of attention recently came across my screen. It proposed a 28th amendment to the United States Constitution. The proposed amendment read as follows:

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.

In principal, I looked at this and thought “Yup! This needs to be done.” As a practical matter, I thought “I wonder if this will really serve its intended purpose.” I believe it was conceived with regard to the idiotic “Health Care Reform” proposals now floating among the idiots in Washington DC.

Its intention appears to be to get rid of the special health care plan for congress, their ability to vote unconscionable pay raises for themselves, their 100% pay pension for life regardless of time served, and their apparent disregard of tax laws that they ignore or short-circuit, confident that their colleagues will not prosecute – or even investigate – them. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, after all.

I would be interested in the opinions of others on this. Specifically:

-Should the wording be otherwise worded to better eliminate the new class of royalty?

-How do YOU feel about such an effort?

-What are the non-violent alternatives in dealing with an American aristocracy that was never supposed to be able to exist?

It’s the Oil Stupid

So here we are in yet another crisis – this one economic. As usual, our government is focusing on what they think we think is the obvious problem in an effort to get re-elected in 2010 – not to fix the actual problem long-term, which is what we pay these dolts for. McCain lost the election because he injected unsuccessful drama into the situation, halting his campaign, flying back to Washington, and voting for the pork that he promised to make people famous for. On top of that, the bill ultimately failed.

Now we have to fix the car companies. While it is true that government regulation had a role in their failure, are we really stupid enough to believe that these same idiots can undo the damage they have done. Additionally, the car companies and their UAW counterparts are not blameless. They have acted as an arrogant monopoly in America since the 1950s, were completely caught by surprise by competition, and stubbornly failed to adjust. They might as well be members of Congress themselves. Congress should have an independent auditor evaluate the damage they have done to the car companies, pay it, and move on. The rest is the car companies’ problem – not mine.

Add to that the recent revelation that we have actually been in recession for about a year now, and we should all see that these recent crises are not causes, but symptoms. Of what? To paraphrase Bill Clinton – IT’S THE OIL, STUPID! The big oil price run-up started in early 2008 and the beginning of the recession followed shortly thereafter. Duh! It’s happened before, it’s happening now, and thanks to our short-sighted Congress, it will happen again.

Fixing the oil problem is the key to economic stability – stability that will allow us to address other problems, such as national security, social security, health care, and crime. Obama has this one right. We need to invest and successfully develop alternative energy sources now, while the price of oil is low, without waiting for economic recovery, and the resulting re-spiking of oil prices. He campaigned on it; he should make sure it happens. All else depends on it. I repeat:

IT’S THE OIL STUPID

It always has been, and it always will be until we change it.

Thank You Mike Huckabee

Seemingly lost in the furor over Barack Obama’s latest political problem – his long and close association with his hate-baiting minister – is recognition for the man who brought us this controversy. That man would be Mike Huckabee. It was Mike Huckabee who allowed his faith to become a campaign issue.

It was Mike Huckabee who appeared for a time to benefit from his faith. It was the rest of the politicians running for President of the United States who followed (as opposed to leading) in seeking to take advantage of their faith or at least to use their faith to not lose votes to someone else who might become “the next Mike Huckabee.”

It was Barack Obama, however, who didn’t see the day coming when Saturday Night Live (God help us) would force the press to actually look at him. The free ride always ends eventually and politicians are notoriously short-sighted in these and other matters, which explains a lot about the way they run our government. Yep, it’s still OUR government.

The only thing that is somewhat surprising is that the Clintons couldn’t find a blacker, more controversial minister to endorse them. Bill was the first “black” president after all.

Make no mistake. All of the candidates have this moment on the horizon. McCain’s will come when the violence in Iraq flares up again, as it inevitably must as a determined enemy makes its next move to counter the successful surge architected by General David Petraeus.

Since McCain threw Rumsfeld under the bus, he will look like an idiot when someone has an excuse to say that his idea was no better than Rumsfelds. He, like other politicians, see the present almost exclusively. The Rumsfeld strategy worked spectacularly. A determined enemy reacted – as we should have expected. A new set of eyes were necessary. The course of action was inevitable and based on the enemy’s moves. No one could have seen those enemy moves in advance. As then, there will be a new set of moves, which no one can currently see. A new set of eyes may well be needed again.

What about Hillary’s moments to come? Please! Her moments are never-ending and can never be justified except by a biased press that turns its head the other way for 20 years.

So thank you Mike Huckabee, for this moment of truth, unintended though it may have been.

Stupidity in “top” American Universities

I thought you had to be smart to get into MIT or Columbia University. Apparently not.

How stupid do you have to be to falsely represent yourself as someone carrying a bomb into the airport where two of the four 9/11 attack planes launched from? A lot of people risk life and limb in non-productive endeavors as the MIT sophomore did, but they don’t intentionally do things that are likely to shut down major transportation hubs. That takes a special kind of self-absorbed, ignorance-cultivated, stupidity - the kind that can only be cultivated in a “top” American university.

How stupid do you have to be to give the leader of the world’s leading terrorist state a global platform to propagandize against America? Once again, it is the kind of self-absorbed, over-indulgent, head-in-the-sand type of stupidity that can only be cultivated at a “top” American university.

How stupid do you have to be to allow the leader of the worlds leading terrorist state to maneuver you into a no-win situation?

There is nothing new to learn about this man. We know it all. He has told us what he stands for. Even if, as the university claims, he will be “challenged” by the students, what will it accomplish? Well, again, he holds all the cards. His mind will never be changed. He can filibuster so that only a limited number of questions can be asked, effectively eliminating the so-called challenge. If the students react to him as they did to the minutemen (which we all know is extremely unlikely), he is given propaganda to take back to his world showing the evidence that Americans are “rude and unholy.” It’s a no win situation, you idiots. Checkmate – he wins no matter what.

Once again, I ask “How stupid do you have to be to let this happen? How hungry for your 15 minutes of fame do you have to be to be eager to play a part in this fiasco? Apparently, you have to be stupid enough to believe the politically correct crap that is fed to students in our “top” universities in 2007, completely ignoring the lessons they should have learned on 9/11. Personally, I think it’s time for a major revision of the syllabus.

New York City officials, by contrast, saw right through the ruse to visit ground zero to lay a wreath in honor of the fallen – his fallen, not ours. What’s the moral of the story?

There are two really:

First, it makes you question the value of a college education, if these are the results.

Second, if you want a real education in New York City, join the NYPD or the FDNY, and stay as far as you can from Columbia University lest it infect you.

Celebrate the 9/11 Victory over Al-Qaeda

I remember the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/2001. I was working from home when one of my co-workers, George, told me to turn on the television. What I remember most about the collapse was thinking to myself “I am watching tens of thousands of people die.” In the days following that attack, I heard Bin Laden (who has apparently now joined the decadent ranks of the $400 haircut club, judging by his recent youthful beard makeover) declare that this was a successful attack beyond any expectations. As usual, he lied.

I considered it a victory for the United States. These evil cowards should have been able to murder 40,000 of us as they worked in those towers and Bin Laden knew it and expected it. But guess what. They couldn’t. We (and by “we” I mean mainly the heroes at the FDNY and on flight 93) saved 37,000+ people. By any standard, saving 37,000+ innocent people is worth celebrating.

What I would like to see in celebration of 9/11 is a story or two on the news about the documented difference that one of these documented survivors has made to our world or to the war on terror. It disturbs me that that I have not seen that in the past six years. I would also like to see some statistics on how many children were born as a direct result of those 37,000+ people surviving that day. I would be willing to bet it is more than 3,000. In any case, even if it is 1, it is another defeat for the terrorists.

The mainstream media is unlikely to pursue such a positive American story, so come on Fox News. We need you to carry the banner for us once again. I am sure Geraldo could come up with thousand of these stories if he put his mind to it. But we don’t need thousands; we just need a few really good ones.

So when 9/11 comes around this year, celebrate it. Celebrate the victory of the noble innocents over the terrorists. Fly your American flag proudly. Fly it rain or shine, secure in the knowledge that that flag and the nation it represents will gladly endure a few drops of rain to mourn its victims and honor its heroes. Celebrate it for the entire month as though it has been declared “Victory on 9/11 month” because, declared or not, that’s what it is. At least, that’s how I see it here at the bottom.

Expand the Death Penalty - Part 1: The Premise

It’s not a question of whether the death penalty is going to be expanded. It’s a matter of who is going to expand it. Many of the states here in the U.S. have eliminated or severely limited the application of the death penalty over the years. The reasons given were that it was uncivilized, barbaric, we might convict an innocent person, and it brought “us” down to the level of the criminals. In short, it made us feel good to be merciful. We were stupid. We chose to be stupid because we were afraid of getting our hands dirty and bloody. Guess what. Our hands are dirty and bloody anyway.

Every day we turn on the news (some of us do, anyway) only to hear that yet another released criminal has murdered yet another innocent. Every day we turn on the news to hear that another cowardly, suicidal, terrorist has killed more innocents. We all lament about how awful it is and how something should be done after having, ourselves, been the enablers for these criminals and terrorists.

Every so often, we are faced with the prospect of building new prisons. Everyone (except me, apparently) agrees that we ought to build those prisons, but none of us really wants to pay for them. We do pay for them, but we’re pissed about it. We treat these criminals very well and we’re pissed about that. And by very well, I mean much better than any of them treated their victims, whatever their individual crime was (with very few exceptions).

We, as a society, don’t like the idea of playing God, making decisions of life and death. What we choose to remain ignorant about is that we do it anyway, whether we like it and are aware of it or not. When we choose life for a violent criminal, we are choosing death for that criminal’s next victim. I believe it is time to take our heads out of the sand and take responsibility for the shape of our society.

In case you are wondering, yes, the fact that this is part one does mean that there will be at least a part two. This will deal with terrorism at the appropriate point.

Al Gore Really Cares – NOT!

I got home from work tonight to see a story about Al Gore III, son of our former Vice-President, the man who until recently claimed he was President despite the fact that the rules for winning and losing had been clearly laid out for over 200 years, and the man shoving guilt about global warming down our throats in the face of mounting evidence that we need not feel guilty. He was arrested again for reckless activity involving drugs and cars – the kind of things that usually ends with an innocent here at the bottom being dead.

So what did this stalwart public servant of many decades have to say about it? He is just glad that his son was safe. In the face of his son’s stupid, reckless actions, I heard nothing at all about being glad that the rest of us were safe.

Why? Because, as stated in the purpose for this blog, the vast majority of those at the top don’t really care about those of us at the bottom. If they did, we would be able to see it in their actions, without them constantly telling us that they care and trying to prove it by solving fictitious problems and claiming to have invented the internet.

Please go away, Mr. Gore and take care of your own problems.

Gordon Brown’s Reaction to Terror

Gordon Brown took office as Great Britain’s Prime Minister replacing Tony Blair on June 29, 2007. On the same day, two related terrorist plots were foiled – in part by the idiot terrorists themselves. The next day, they tried it again in Glasgow. With doctors like this roaming the face of the earth, it’s a wonder malpractice insurance is as low as it is. Gordon Brown has received accolades for the way he has handled the situation.

Personally, I don’t know a whole lot about Brown except that he stands in stark contrast in style to Blair and appears to be a friend of the United States as well. He is being roundly cheered for his response, which has essentially been to tell Brits to carry on.

OK. I get it, but I would have found him more likeable and more credible if I had heard him give Blair some credit for the phenomenal investigation that MI5, presumably in cooperation with other intelligence agencies around the world, has conducted in the past few days. Brown didn’t put together a team in a few hours capable of conducting a James Bond style operation reaching around the world to capture terrorists as far away as Australia-heading-for Pakistan within a few days. No, that was put in place by his predecessor during the previous 10 years.

It’s all well and good that Gordon Brown be the leader, the strong leader that learns from the mistakes of the past – as we all should. But Tony Blair deserves better than to be thrown out like yesterday’s garbage, and he will get better treatment than that here. Those are HIS fingerprints you see around the throats of these terrorists.

Thank you, Prime Minister Blair for that and so much more. May your successor be as successful and memorable – flamboyant and charismatic or not. We will see and assess Browns mettle during their prosecution.

Immigration Reform – Deformed (Mexican Food)

The immigration bill was killed; now it’s alive again. It apparently has more lives than a cat. I am being called a racist on the news shows (even on Fox News by Geraldo) because I believe the laws of the land ought to be enforced. You know, the ones on the books making invasion of the United Stated illegal since 1986, signed by Reagan and enforced by no one since then.

So for those of you who may agree with me, here is the next argument intended to assault your integrity as soon as the new version of this idiot bill sees resistance. I’m preparing you for it now, so don’t say you weren’t warned. ”Oh, you don’t mind eating Mexican food, but having a few Mexicans around to cook it for you is objectionable, you racist.”

Here is the correct response. “No you [add expletive if desired. You’ve earned the right at this point] moron. I love legal Mexican food, preferably cooked by legal Americans of Mexican descent. And by the way - that Mexican-American crap, or any other hyphenated American. I don’t want them cooking my food either. I want Americans in America, who think of themselves as Americans - not any kind of hyphenated American, and if I had my way, anybody who thinks of themselves as a hyphenated American would be deported to wherever they used to hyphenate, since that is obviously where they would prefer to be. Anything else?”

No, they won’t learn a thing. But the important thing is they will not have tricked you into feeling guilt you had no business feeling.

Meanwhile, Bush and the Congress are continuing to ignore the will of the people – that they do their jobs in enforcing current laws (like the 1986 immigration law and the 2006 fence authorization) rather than create a third law to ignore. These are the activities that serve as the principal argument for term limits. Can’t we extend them to include the Congress?

Maybe Cheney becoming a fourth branch of government isn’t such a bad idea. Who in their right mind would want to be associated with what we have in there right now. That’s all I can stand to write right now as my stomach is bothering me, and believe me, it’s not the excellent Mexican food I had for lunch.

Democratic Leadership – Enabling Hamas Victory

The first tangible results of the soaring U.S. popularity triggered by the leadership of the Democratic Party’s “surrender-to-anyone” policy and George W. Bush’s “placate-the-idiots-in-Congress” policy are in. Iran and Hamas have been emboldened, and now they control the Gaza strip. For the first time since 9/11, the terrorists are winning. Way to turn the tide of the war, Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, and President Bush. Was this the change America voted for in 2006? Happy Flag Day.

When Israel pulled out of Gaza 3 years ago, it was in its own interest, declaring that the area was indefensible. Israel was right, apparently. The result will be a clarification of Palestine’s actual position, a single voice with a single objective – the destruction of Israel.

This will, in turn, lead to an escalation of Palestinian attacks on Israel. Israel will defend itself, be condemned by the both the world and the Democrats in Congress for trying to stay alive, and the world will be sucked in. The bad guys will be gleeful as they send their pawns to inglorious death, and the good guys will be kicking, screaming, wringing their hands, and wasting valuable time searching their souls and consciences.

Israel’s decision was based on a number of assumptions, the most important of which was continued and unwavering U.S. support. Since we are in the process of figuring out how to renege on our commitment to the citizens of Iraq, can our commitment to Israel be far behind. Not to renege would violate the Congressional surrender policy. Since they have now made war inevitable, they had better start formulating their surrender strategy now unless they want to look something other than stupid for a change.

Enter Joe Lieberman, the only person in the federal government talking sense and speaking his conscience. Take out Iranian nukes, he suggests, before they exist. For most Democrats in Congress and virtually all liberals, this ought to make perfect sense. It is nothing more than political abortion – kill the nukes in the womb, so to speak. It is a second chance to relive 1938 all over again. President Bush had better re-grow some cojones (At least he had some at one time, unlike Congress.), and the world had better start listening to the only member of Congress making sense, working for America, and speaking his conscience.

Side note on Lieberman: I hereby officially forgive Joe Lieberman for his “not guilty” vote on Clinton’s impeachment, even though I still disagree with it.

Immigration Reform - Deformed

The proposed immigration bill being sold to us by the Bush administration and the leadership in the U.S. Congress is the equivalent of the Iraq surrender bill. This is the Mexico surrender bill born of the same mindset, the same misguided expediency, and with the same consequences.

The irresponsibility of the Bush administration and all the prior administrations in not enforcing the laws currently in place is astounding. I, along with many others, believe that this has been the result of pandering to the Hispanic vote. It succeeded. If my belief is correct, President Bush, will have the blood of Americans on his hands when the WMDs that may have crossed the border under his watch are used on us. That, sadly, will be his legacy, just as intern sex and 9/11 are Clinton’s legacy.

Legacy calculation:

• War in Afghanistan +10
• War in Iraq +15
• Best economy ever +5
• Supreme Court Appointments +7
• 10,000 people die from WMDs that crossed our borders with the blessing of the U.S. Government -2,000,000
• Destruction of the Republican party -4,000

Incidentally, other administrations share the legacy hits on the WMDs on a sliding scale, with those to whom the highest urgency should have been most apparent taking the biggest hits as follows:

• Bush 43 -2,000,000
• Clinton -1,500,000
• Bush 41 -500,000
• Reagan -100,000
• Carter -4,000,000 (for nurturing terrorism)

The Congress, complacent in this, will have an equally disgraceful legacy as the enablers of the no-border policy and the obstructionists of all that truly protects us.

But I digress.

How is the immigration bill surrender? It is the attitude that you cannot deport 12,000,000 law-breaking, illegal aliens. It is true that you can’t if you don’t try. John McCain, in defending this crappy bill in typical government fashion, has said that deporting 12,000,000 people would overwhelm the legal system. Oh, so it IS possible, then Senator?

What does private industry do when faced with a sudden, temporary, overwhelming, necessary project? It quickly creates a large, temporary organization where everyone understands that there is a defined end to the project and after which their employment will end. It streamlines the process by which it achieves the necessary production (like military tribunals to deal with the invading force) and does not allow it to overwhelm the remainder of its organization. Mitt Romney knows how to do it. He did it in business, he did it in the Olympics, and he just can’t wait to do it in Washington – his words on his commercials. Well Governor, can/will you do it?

In addition, we are currently all up in arms about the irresponsibility of a tuberculosis patient, Andrew Speaker, who endangered hundreds of people by defying a CDC no-fly order repeatedly. Many believe, as I do, that he should be in jail. Not one of us believes his plea of ignorance or his sincerity in apologizing after the fact and after being apprehended. It doesn’t help that he is a lawyer either. His activity could well be dwarfed by what could be coming across the border while we turn our heads the other way.

What does the CDC know about the dangers crossing our borders? How many Americans have already been killed by illegal aliens either while committing crimes or driving with or without a license?

I take back my previous statement about Bush having American blood on his hand if WMDs are used. He and the Congress already have blood on their hands – innocent blood. The only question is “How much more blood do you really want on your hands?” Don’t tell me. Show me – now.

Honoring the Fallen on Memorial Day

We honor by our actions, not our words. Through our actions we honor those or dishonor those who made us, those who taught us, those who invested in us, those who shaped us.

As we make the politically correct noises on this Memorial day, we ask ourselves why the fallen fell, why they were willing to fall, how we feel about why they fell, and what we are willing to do to keep their dreams alive. Are their dreams our dreams?

Every soldier who has taken up arms has known all too well that their death was part of the equation. They knew it in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War (1991), and the Iraq War (2003). They knew it equally well during the many preparatory operations, other battles and skirmishes, such as the various rebellions, interventions, and unanswered attacks such as the attack on the USS Cole. Those of us who were not asked to pay the ultimate price knew it and honor our comrades by remembering it always.

They served in all cases to preserve and strengthen the United States. We honor them when we do everything we can to continue that goal, assuming we believe it a worthy one. I believe it to be.

I believe that all who fight to achieve these goals (soldiers, politicians, and citizens) honor them by acting. I believe that all who don’t fight to achieve these goals (soldiers who refuse to fight, politicians who surrender and signal weakness to the enemy, newspapers who report state secrets unauthorized on their front pages, citizens who remain uninformed, refuse to vote, and demean the leaders who have stepped up in the hour of America’s – and, by extension, our – need) dishonor them.

Remember that on your Memorial Day picnic on your day off and reflect whether it is just another paid holiday or something more meaningful. Honor them as you would your parents, your favorite teachers, your God. Honor them by doing those things that they valued, taught, and sacrificed for. And not just on Memorial Day – from this moment on.

Suicide Bombings Are Apparently OK Now?

I guess all is right with the world then, isn’t it? According to the Pew Research Center poll of 1,050 young Muslim adults in the United States, 26% said that suicide bombings are an acceptable tactic to defend their religion.

When you break that number down, 2% say that it can be justified often, 13% say sometimes, and 11% say rarely. That 2% is still a lot of potential suicide bombers, and that is cause for concern.

This same poll shows 5% expressing favorable views of Al Qaeda with about 25% abstaining. Why abstain? There is only one reason that I know of, and that is fear of the 5% becoming 30%, which I now must assume to be the real number. Additionally, only 40% believed Arab men carried out the attacks of 9/11/2001, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The implication is that we need to resume strip-searching little old lady grandmother types. Yeah, right!

This group also favors the Democratic Party by six to one. What does that tell us? Let’s see. 86% of a group deluding itself about the worst attack ever by foreigners on American soil and has a 30% favorable view of Al Qaeda favors Democrats. That tells me that the Democrats are perceived as BFFs (Best Friends Forever) of Al Qaeda by the Muslim community. I agree with that, incidentally, and I don’t come to that conclusion lightly or based only on the Pew Survey.

Recall the interview of left-wing producer Michael Moore by libertarian Bill O’Reilly. During that interview, Moore at one point asked O’Reilly if he would sacrifice his child to go die in Iraq. Ignore for the moment the incredible irrelevance of the question (since the fate of O’Reilly’s child is in the child’s hands – not O’Reilly’s) and focus on the implication. The tactic is one common among anti-war interviewees. Could that indicate a dearth of actual logic? Let me save you the trouble; the answer is yes.

The trap is to fall for an irrelevant premise, another indication of just how stupid we here at the bottom are perceived by the left-wing in America. Say “No” and you are a hypocrite. Say “Yes” and you are a hateful, unloving parent, but at least you have a conviction and may be respected for it. The 26% of the Muslim community as represented in the Pew poll has said yes to their Iraq-equivalent question, and are therefore, by implication, worthy of respect from the left wing. What does that make the left wing? In my view, it makes the left wing Al Qaeda’s BFF.

Other indications are there as well, ranging from the retreat from fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, to protests that blame America for 9/11.

There is one more troublesome point about the Pew poll. It does not define what constitutes an attack on Islam. I think we can safely assume that Osama bin Laden would be among that 26% suicide bombing enthusiast number. In his view, not being what most of us consider to be radical Muslim fascist would constitute an attack on Islam. What is the definition for this 26% - make that about 273 potential suicide bombers? That’s a lot of potential innocents’ death, and it’s just a small statistical sample. And as for that 2% - about 21 people – look out. That’s more than it took to kill 3,000 innocents in the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11.

Still, let’s all join the lunatic conspiracy theorists and the Muslim community that denies that 9/11 was executed by Arab men despite the crowing by the Arab men who executed it. And while we’re at it, we had better leave our borders open for a few more decades and step up our strip searches of grandmas before it’s too late.

What’s Wrong with Iraq Again?

Call me stupid if you must and think you are able to defend it, but what is the problem with the Iraq war again? As far as I can see, Iraq is THE right war at THE right place and THE right time. All the criticisms I hear daily are hollow, oft-repeated lies and/or irrelevancies that gain traction with weak politicians incapable of fighting for principle any more and people stuck in the sixties. Live in the now, people.

Let’s review the criticisms one by one.

• Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction: So what? That wasn’t the basis for the attack. The basis for attacking was that the dictator who lost the first Gulf War that he started 12 years earlier ignored the terms of his surrender. Prior to being invaded, he led us, and the world, to believe that he would retaliate with WMDs in hopes of preventing the enforcement of 17 U.N. resolutions. Anyway, we know he had WMDs because he used them on the Kurds in the 1980s. Verdict: criticism is an irrelevant lie.
• Saddam was not in league with Al Qaeda: Again, so what? That wasn’t the basis for the attack either. Besides, who says that Al Qaeda is the only enemy we should attack? In any case, they follow the same philosophy of ruling the world through terror. It’s a little like the triple-Axis of WWII where if you pay too much attention to Germany, Japan would come after you. Yeah, we should have waited for that to happen (heavy sarcasm). Verdict – the criticism is irrelevant, but given past human history, would probably have become a lie given a few more years.
• We should be going after Al Qaeda; they are the ones who attacked us: You might want to wake up and see that Al Qaeda is who we are fighting in Iraq. Oh sure, there is the Iranian influence aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, but without Al Qaeda, the Iranian government is nothing. Verdict – the criticism is a denial of what we are already doing – a flat-out lie.
• Soldiers are dying in Iraq: That’s right. Soldiers die in wars. The only way to prevent soldiers from dieing in a war is to surrender. The real issue is whether the current engagement and risk of lost treasure is worth the cause. The cause is the survival of civilization since there is no civilization on earth that does not violate Islamic law as interpreted by Al Qaeda. Verdict – True, but irrelevant, fact based on all the other factors on this page and elsewhere.
• We are less safe now than on 9/11/2001 – 3,000 Americans died on 9/11/2001; 0 since then to-date. Verdict: A lie told to you by people who believe you are a retarded, cool-aid drinker. Don’t be.
• The world is less safe now than on 9/11/2001 – Since 9/11/2001 there have been a number of attacks around the globe by terrorists in Madrid, London, and elsewhere. Most of the socialist governments in Europe have lacked the balls to deal with internal threats and many have paid the price. If they haven’t had an attack yet, they will. Russia has seen the terrorist threat to the United States as an opportunity to attempt to revive the old Soviet Union, by making our task more difficult, blocking efforts at every turn. Vladimir Putin, like all socialists, is just not smart enough to realize that he also is a target of Al Qaeda. Verdict: This one is true, but not because of the Iraq war.
• World opinion is against us – Who gives a rat’s ass? Do we have the moral courage to stand up for what is right and, in the process, our own survival or not? The United States is the greatest country the world has ever known, and it did not get to be that way by following world opinion? We ought to be ignoring the U.N. like Saddam did. We, except for the liberal Democrat leadership, are unlikely to attack ourselves over U.N. resolutions, and nobody else has the resources or the guts. Verdict: irrelevant.
• If we stopped the aggression in Iraq, everything would be OK: Yeah, because that worked so well in the days leading up to 9/11/2001 (heavy sarcasm). Incidentally, what is going on in Iraq is not aggression; it is the enforcement of 17 UN resolutions. If you like the U.N., you should be happy that someone is giving it teeth. If you don’t, then let me hear you argue for U.N. dissolution. Verdict: doesn’t deserve a response, but here is one anyway. Try not to criticize while on hallucinogenic drugs from now on.

So I ask again, what is the problem with the Iraq war? It is none of the above for sure. The only real problem is that the Iraqi people have not yet won it. And if WE surrender, THEY never will win it and we all lose.

Wake up and defend your world while you still have one to defend.

The Iraqi Parliamentary Vacation

So the Iraqi Parliament wants to take a vacation. From what, exactly are they taking this vacation? I’ve seen some blogs implying that they have been on vacation for the past few years. I have seen others calling this a “2-month, Bush-style” vacation. Well you all might just want to take a step back and grow up for a few minutes.

Let’s talk about Bush first. It doesn’t matter how long his “vacations” are. They aren’t vacations as we at the bottom know them. They are work-at-home days. The press camps out on his lawn, not far from where Cindy Sheehan protests, while his staff and cabinet prepare him for a press conference every few days. If any of you out there do any less that that on YOUR vacation (and you and I both know you do a lot less) then please just shut up about Bush’s vacations. However, Bush is not entirely without fault in the Iraq vacation matter, as we will see shortly.

As we try to Americanize the Iraqi government, what is the example the U.S. Congress provides? It took a 2-week Easter vacation. The Democrat-led Congress left town after half-passing a bad surrender bill that everyone in the world knew had no chance at all of being signed into law. Anyone care to guess who the first people were to whine about the Iraqi Parliament following suit? Yup. It was leaders of the Democrat-led Congress. Score one more for the U.S. Congress.

Now back to Bush. As I wrote in my 3/31/07 article “Congress Doesn't Even Disgrace Itself Well” the President could have called an emergency session of Congress to get this urgent work done, thus depriving Nancy Pelosi of her Syrian vacation. He didn’t. His de-facto support of the Congress’ disgraceful vacation further sent the message to Iraq that this is an OK thing to do.

I would be curious to know when the founding fathers of the United States went on vacation. I doubt that there were many during the revolutionary war and was unable to find any, although I am not enough of a scholar to say definitively that there were none. If anyone knows, please share.

Perhaps the poetic justice on the subject of an Iraqi Parliamentary vacation is found in the following question(s) to Parliament members. Where will you go on vacation? Syria (You might want to get some tips from Nancy Pelosi)? Iran (I think Vladimir Putin might have some info you could use.)? Israel (You might get killed by your fellow mosque-goers.)? Please let us know where you went and how that worked out for you, especially if you were able to make it back alive.

Why We Put Up with Hollywood

Americans are the most generous people in the world, despite what the decidedly anti-American Kofi Annan claimed in late 2006 in a particularly idiotic moment – even for him. There is good reason for Americans to be generous. We have been the most blessed in the world as far as material things are concerned, and the breathtaking vistas in many part of the United States cannot help but make the most ardent atheist wonder whether God dwells in their majesty (or at least has a vacation home there).

But the statistics on how much Americans give to charity is incomplete. By most standards, big government, pushed by bleeding heart liberals since the 1960s to give our tax dollars to the poor, has screwed this up as it does with everything that falls outside its three real jobs. It has also skewed the picture dramatically, by taking away some of the money we used to give to the charities we deemed most worthy, and giving to those that liberals deem most worthy.

So what does this have to do with Hollywood? Everything. Hollywood is filled (mostly) with liberal, high-income, entertainment industry types who most of us at the bottom recognize as having unique talent. Most of us also don’t believe that it’s really worth $20 million per movie. But we do pay the ticket and DVD prices that give them that money. So why?

There is a piece of the American psyche that sympathizes with the socialist principle of “from each according to their ability; to each according to their need.” It’s not a huge portion of the American psyche, but it is there. That portion is heavily represented by the entertainment industry.

We conservatives might get extremely irritated with the likes of Rosie and others from time to time, but it is hard to deny that there are many (including Rosie) who do good, noble, and spiritually uplifting work outside the political arena.

Their role in American society is to redistribute a portion of income. That’s what socialism does; it redistributes income. That is what people in Hollywood do. They earn large sums of money from people who can afford their services and redistribute it to those they deem worthy. It is, essentially, the socialist arm of our capitalist society.

Adam Smith’s invisible hand has guided the course of Capitalism in the United States for the 200+ years representing the greatest (and by greatest I mean the most successful and most far-reaching) economic and political experiment the world has ever known. The genius of the invisible hand continues to exert its influence in the charitable sector of our society as well as it reflects the American psyche in matters of money, whether we utilize that money to improve our lives through the enterprise that earns more money or use it to improve our lives through helping our neighbors.

The rants and raves of Rosie O’Donnell, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, and on and on are part of the price we pay to run the socialist arm of American Society. We need to remember that when we observe them behaving in this fashion.

I desperately wish that I could formulate the same sort of cost/benefit analysis that would allow me to tolerate the bad behavior of liberals in Congress and the media. I can’t.

The Politically Correct Alphabet

It’s not going to be long now before we face a threat more threatening to civilization than global warming. We’re going to run out of alphabet due to political correctness. In the beginning, there was the “N-word” – OK. As we have “progressed” through the PC evolution, we have unspeakable words for most of our letters. We have a few particularly naughty letters for which we have multiple words, the most notorious of which is “C.” When someone refers to the “C” word, I sometimes think about it for a minute or two just for kicks and then guess which “C-word” they were referring to rather than waste even more of my life continuing a counterproductive mini-quest.

In the past few weeks we have, thanks to Don Imus and Al Sharpton, added a new wrinkle to the politically correct alphabet - another “N” word – “nappy”, another “H” word – “Ho”, and 2 “N” phrases “nappy-headed” and “nappy-headed ho.” I assume a word or phrase has been added whenever someone loses a job over the word or phrase.

So let’s see how much of the alphabet we have left for use. A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T are taken. So far as I know we still have E, I, K, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z available. I can actually think of a word or two for some of those remaining letters, but they haven’t been mainstreamed by actual news stories, documented offenses, or firings yet, but they will – never fear.

Although, PC-ness has always been a pain in the A--, at its beginning, it had a noble purpose – to keep from unnecessarily and unfairly offending people. It has, of course, like all noble endeavors, been turned over to the lunatic fringe to take too far. How can you possibly take a noble endeavor too far?

For one thing, you can decide that you don’t want to offend the lunatic fringe, who will take over given the slightest opportunity. Let’s get one thing straight – the lunatic fringe deserves to be offended. Why? - Because they are lunatics. I really shouldn’t have needed to explain that. However, if that’s not enough of a reason, the nature of the lunatic fringe is to make absolutely certain that their interests are served – fully and to the exclusion of all others’ interests – much like radical Islamic terrorists. That will, by definition offend all moderates at some point and “PC” will become a “PITA”, and it has. It has also become a tool for hiding truth and logic as well as delaying or blocking the addressing of real issues – like a doctor who prescribes cough medicine for lung cancer.

For example, it is unacceptable to say the actual “N” word, but it is acceptable to say “the ‘N’ word.” It means the same thing, except that saying “the ‘N’ word” conveys the message that you yourself are offended by the actual “N” word, which is usually BS. So PC-ness has, in a very real sense, created a lie and forced you to tell it. You have not really addressed the issue, which should have been to accept and value people for their uniqueness, including those differences that are not under their control and don’t matter in anything other than a Darwinian evolutionary context. In many instances it has exacerbated the problem by delaying a real solution; problems not addressed, get worse.

For another, PC-ness assumes that people are less tolerant than they otherwise would be. When you lower expectations of tolerance, some people in every offend-able group will live down to your expectations as well as demanding that you lower your expectations even more. If you do, you will offend moderates who you will never, ever lower you expectation of tolerance for. If you don’t, you will offend those demanding that you do. Either way, “PC” will (and has) become a “PITA.”

So in closing, let me say that I JCHFS with my OL and HAB, and if you spend more than a microsecond trying to figure that one out you’re an F’ing Idiot, or should I say FI. Oops, there went another letter. We certainly don’t want to offend idiots.

Translation: I just came home from shopping with my old lady and had a blast. I’m pretty certain that will offend somebody, somewhere.

Virginia Tech Tragedy - Ready for Profiling Yet?

The first thing to do is to acknowledge the tragedy at Virginia Tech and to extend my best wishes and condolences to the families of the Virginia Tech students whose lives were senselessly cut short as they approached their prime and to those who, although they survive, may be physically scarred for life.

To those who survived, you often hear that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. This is where it really applies, and this didn’t kill you. Indications from the convocation on Tuesday are that it won’t kill Virginia Tech either. You have, unfortunately and through no fault of your own, been burdened with a glimpse of the experience of many in our military – the violent and sudden loss of friends, colleagues, and family. You didn’t deserve that burden, but from what I have seen, I am confident you will survive it and draw strength from it in the future.

Fully realizing that I might (unjustifiably in my mind) be accused of advancing a political agenda, I offer the following logic in the interest of lowering the odds of this type of tragedy, not only on an American campus, but anywhere else. I think that all reasonable people recognize that the killing of 33 innocents is a tragedy no matter where it happens.

The 24/7 news coverage at the time of this writing is concentrating on this very task, specifically a detailed profiling of the killer after the fact. The logical question to ask would be, “Wouldn’t it have been better to profile the killer-to-be prior to the mass murder?” This must not be merely an academic exercise, but, unfortunately, it is likely to be just that, ultimately.

The questions of why more couldn’t be done to prevent this will inevitably lead to calls for action. This will, in turn lead to procedures that will infringe on someone’s “rights.” The question will be whose, and by how much. The ACLU will, predictably, attempt to block any action just because of this. The net result, in the absence of elected officials standing up for a change, is likely to be a lot of air time wasted on a lesson not learned and, sadly, a further expansion of the trend of escalating violence we have seen over the decades.

It isn’t as though we have to look very hard to find these people. The flags were all up, just like the flags were up on the 9/11 hijackers. We just need to interpret the flags and act on them – like we didn’t with the 9/11 hijackers and like we didn’t with Cho.

Isn’t the profile of the sad loser, who closes his/her eyes to society’s benefits, blames society for it, and embraces hopelessness, the same profile that would constitute the ideal recruit for a terrorist suicide attack, and wouldn’t the result be the same. If you profile one, you are, by default, profiling the other.

Are we ready yet in America to deal with the practicalities of life and death in 2007? If not, how many more dead innocents will it take until we are ready? I’m ready now.

Profiling is the right thing to do. The first people on the list should be the copycat bomb scare idiots appearing in the wake of Virginia Tech right after they spend 10 years in a high-security federal prison. If they are capable of the threat, they are capable of the deed. Track and treat the disturbed personalities of potential mass killing just as we should be doing with the convicted sex offender.

The buzz among military strategists today is that Cho has done the research for al-Qaida. It doesn’t help to blame the crazy guy and let it go at that. We need to stop the crazy guys from killing us and from helping the enemy, however unwittingly they are doing it.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Pelosi?

You should be – whoever you are. If you’re not you should be seriously questioning what is wrong with you. If you can’t do that by yourself, then get help. Once you have completed this first step, you have a duty to ask yourself what is wrong with those who do not yet fear this woman as you do. So in the interest of providing you that help, assuming you need it, and of getting this country back to having a reasonable line of succession and having a reasonable Congress, let me help you with a few observations.

Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States. And one of those heartbeats, despite its strength of mind and character, grows increasingly fragile as time passes. You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency about the situation.

Nancy Pelosi recently visited Syria – a terrorist state and enemy of the U.S. – for what? She says she was bringing the Presidents message. Well, the President is a big boy and is capable of delivering his own message. Better yet, he has Condoleezza Rice, whose job it is to deliver the Presidents message and does it better than anyone else. Here is the message “We don’t talk to terrorists.” By going at all, she acted to rescind the message – not deliver it. We, here at the bottom, understand this message. Some at the top – like the Speaker of the House – apparently don’t. If she does, she is lying about it. Either way, she doesn’t belong in a position of power in our government. You should now have a picture of a confused, back-stabbing liar. Convinced yet?

OK, I’ll continue. She is now talking about visiting the terrorist government of Iran. Does she have a list of terrorists that she needs to contact? It would have helped if she had published that list during the campaign – more honest too. I am a little surprised that she hasn’t visited Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro yet, but we have time and Fidel hasn’t been all that well lately. You should now have a picture of a dishonest politician who did not reveal her real agenda during her campaign. Convinced yet?

No? OK. All this exists against the backdrop of refusing to pass a war-funding bill capable of being signed into law before her Middle-Eastern vacation to aid and comfort America’s enemies, which, of course could not be postponed for the purpose of passing decent legislation. Passing legislation? Yes, her job - the one that she doesn’t much care to be bothered with. You should now have a picture of a woman unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, but who is hell-bent on making sure she keeps others from doing theirs, thinking that will make her look good.

So why am I not as critical of Harry Reed in the Senate? I am; he is her partner in incompetence and publicly has supported her undermining of foreign policy at the expense of our troops and their mission. He has also pushed a similarly nonsensical bill through the Senate. But he’s not the one who is two heartbeats away from the Presidency.

Anyone who does not condemn her vacation activities is complacent in aiding and comforting the enemy, and is not worthy of any position of authority in the U.S. government. This especially applies to anyone of any party running for President of the U.S. Even if you don’t condemn her activities on ideological grounds, you should condemn them on constitutional grounds. This is not her job, and those Presidential candidates who refuse to speak up are saying that it’s OK for the Congress to have its own separate, contradictory foreign policy when they become President (Apparently, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are all OK with that.). Even if you don’t condemn her actions on a constitutional basis, you should at least be suspicious of someone who justifies her anti-American activities with a vacant, robotic stare except when she declares that “…there’s a new congress in town…” Who is the cowboy now?

You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency that a lying politician, unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, interfering with those who want to do theirs, acting like the cowboy Al Gore once accused President Bush of being, and providing aid and comfort to our enemies, is just two heartbeats away from becoming the leader of the free world. Suddenly, the freedom of the good guys appears in greater jeopardy while the freedom of the bad guys looks pretty solid.

Remove Nancy Pelosi!

Responsible politicians will work for Nancy Pelosi’s removal from her position. Republicans should work to convince their counterparts on the other side of the isle. Democrats should realize that she doesn’t represent mainstream Democrats – just the crackpots who voted to remove the U.S. military from contact with schools in San Francisco. If Nancy Pelosi became President, where would the U.S. military be removed from next? Would there be a U.S. military at all? Probably not. The U.S. military was weakened substantially under Clinton, and he wasn’t nearly as radical as Pelosi.

This is dangerous for the top, the bottom, and everyone in-between.

Illegal Alien Sneak-in Reform – Could We Be Any Dumber?

First of all, they are illegal ALIENS – not immigrants. Immigrants are legal, so stop reinventing the language for cheap political purposes, and stop allowing other to do it.

Second: Bill and Geraldo, nice show. You’re both right; you’re both wrong. Nonetheless, you (or for that matter, Don King) could not have done more of a service to the people of the U.S., and ultimately the world, in publicizing the issue.

Of course the death of Alison Kunhardt, 17 and Tessa Tranchant, 17, in Virginia Beach at the hands of an illegal alien is an immigration issue. Of course it is also a drunk-driving issue.

The difference is that we actually DO something to address drunk driving, while we bury our heads in the sand when it comes to illegal aliens. I am doing my best to respect the request of Tessa’s father Ray, who requested that this tragedy not become a political football.

It should be irrelevant to the issue of immigration that lives have been taken. People who are here illegally have no right to be here. PERIOD! They should be deported NOW! The argument made by nearly everyone that it is impossible to deport nearly 12 million illegal aliens is a defeatist, self-fulfilling prophecy – like pulling out of Iraq. Call it what you will. It is blanket amnesty, a reward for bad behavior and for breaking the law. So what if you can’t get them all?! You’ll never get any if you don’t try. Get as many as you can out. 1 million, 4 million 10 million – fine! 10 million is 83% of the problem. How much have we solved by wringing our politically correct hands over the fact that we may not get the other 2 million. We have solved 0%, with 100% of the problem remaining and growing every day.

We are so concerned that an illegal alien, law breaker might die trying to cross the border. Fine! Better them that the 2 innocent, law abiding teenagers from Virginia Beach or any other innocent – including the millions who could die in a terrorist attack on a large American city.

If the border patrol, or even the minutemen, had orders to shoot to kill those who did not stop when ordered to stop, that would be fine with me. This is an invasion; it has been an invasion for a long time. The only thing lacking are uniforms on those crossing the border.

So what’s the solution? It’s easy. Let’s see if it would have the support of a huge majority of the American people – not the loudest, whiniest ones of course, but the rest of us.

• At the border. Shoot to kill anyone crossing the border who does not stop when ordered in both English and the language of the country they are attempting to cross from – in the case of Mexico, English and Spanish; in the case of Canada – English and French. We live in a post 9/11 world, where these are invaders who do not respect our laws, or they wouldn’t be breaking our immigration laws to begin with. We should assume they would be willing to break our other laws as well.
• Since there is ample evidence that the Mexican government is supportive in this invasion, the Mexican government is responsible for the cost of gathering the bodies at the border and transportation home for burial. If the Mexican government would like to come to the U.S. to do the work themselves, we should grant temporary worker permits for that purpose.
• Within the U.S. Sanctuary cities are illegal cities, refusing to uphold the laws of the land. As such, they should lose Federal funding for law enforcement, education, welfare, and health care, since we may safely assume that these funds are going to illegal aliens. I don’t want to support them. Let Virginia Beach, Los Angeles and all the others who would squander my money, squander their own for a change.
• Within the U.S. When an illegal alien is discovered they should be deported. Period! They should be fingerprinted and an FBI record kept for future reference. Of course the Mexican government should be responsible for all deportation costs.
• Within the U.S. When an illegal alien is discovered a second time – after being deported, it should mean an automatic 5 years in jail after conviction. Conviction=jail time; acquittal=deportation+time served (no bail). Each subsequent conviction of re-entering the U.S. illegally carries an additional 5 years. This means that someone convicted 3 times of re-entering the U.S. illegally after being deported would serve 3 terms totaling 30 years (5+10+15).
• Within the U.S. Anyone employing an illegal alien is subject to a fine consisting of their estimated savings + the court costs and deportation costs for that person.
• Within the U.S. Implement a strictly regulated guest worker program, similar to that proposed by President Bush.

It’s all or nothing as for as I’m concerned. When that first dirty bomb goes off in Chicago (or wherever) after having been smuggled across the border, it’s not going to half-detonate. It’s going to go of with all the force that those who hate us can muster. Then you can try to tell the survivors in Chicago (or wherever) about compassion. Do it in person if you dare, and while you’re at it, tell them how you forgot about 9/11.

If you hide your head in the sand, you are going to get your ass kicked. We have and we are. Apparently, you like it. I don’t.