Scare Thine Enemy

Standard

The Enemy

We’ve heard a lot in the news lately about whether we are more or less safe as a Nation now than we were under the Bush Administration. The main bone of contention recently has been the release of memos relating to interrogation tactics used between 2001 and 2008 but as far as the Nation’s safety is concerned all that happened in the past is really a very minor issue.

The real threat to our country comes not from what we did in the past, it comes from the message we are sending the world now — and that message is: we are not going to be that aggressive any more, that we respect those who want to kill us and will treat them as if they were a legitimate army fighting under the flag of a legitimate country. That is not only a dangerously stupid stance, it’s a sure sign of our growing weakness. Those people who hate America, hate what we stand for and want us destroyed, those people who thrive on terror tactics will feed on their impression of our weakness and yearn to use it to their advantage; it makes their mouths water for another bite out of America.

Granted our country is not weak or afraid of our enemies but impressions are very important; sometimes more important than direct threats of actions.

On a personal level: if a violent person breaks into your home, confronts you and your family and gets the impression that you will hesitate before tearing his throat out (to use a violent metaphor) he will not hesitate to tear yours out immediately. I used that violent metaphor for a reason, because extreme violence is the only language that extremely violent people understand.

Its no different with America and the violent terrorist organizations that hate us. If they have the impression of weakness — if they have the impression that we will use only civilized methods to fight them they will attack with such ferocity and such confidence in their victory that they will not be able to imagine defeat. Its a dangerous man who thinks himself invulnerable.

So am I advocating the use of extreme measures against our enemy? Yes I am — as extreme as theirs! Am I advocating torture when we interrogate prisoners? Yes, if our field commanders think it justified and believe that it will yield vital, life-saving information.

Most of all I’m advocating an unrelentingly fierce public stance — a promise to the world that we will ignore all calls for civilized behavior when we are engaged with an enemy who uses uncivilized terror tactics against innocent noncombatants.

The bottom line is we have to scare our enemies — scare them so badly that their hate begins to be tempered by fear and respect for the savage nation that will not hesitate to use their own tactics against them.

This, however, will likely never happen — not until those who provide for our nations safety come to realize the truth in that age old adage: you must fight fire with fire. They no doubt WILL realize that some day but before they do, its a very real possibility that too much damage will be done to our country and far too many innocent lives will be lost.

News Links:

AlJazeera.net Bush defends “terror” policies

U.S. News & World Report: Obama’s and Cheney’s Dueling Realities on National Security

Blog Links:

Chris Simcox’s Weblog: Obama’s socialism, A weak national defense

Rhymes with Cars and Girls: How Ridiculous It Is To Think The Left Has Left-Wing Goals

My other homes for my posts are: The Blogger News Network — it’s real news from real people and Opinion Forum A Forum for Opinions on News, Politics, and Life.

Advertisements

The Politics of Race

Standard

Judge Sotomayor

Here’s the opening paragraph of a CNN.com article published Wednesday morning (5/27/09):

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Republican Party risks further alienation from Hispanics by challenging the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, who would become the first Hispanic, and third woman, on the Supreme Court.

I don’t know about you, but that analysis of the situation, an analysis that is probably spot-on, depresses me.

Here’s My Opinion:

In a normal world, a person with Sonia Sotomayor’s flawed record as a fair and impartial jurist would not stand a chance of even being nominated for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court; but the world has changed — have you noticed? In the Obama world, unless there is a BIG dark secret in her past that comes to light, Sonia Sotomayor WILL BE the next Supreme Court Justice. Why? Because she’s a minority and because to Obama fair and impartial are not attributes that are desired on the bench, he wants “compassion”.

Gutless Congressmen and Senators will vote for Sonia Sotomayor based on her minority status and beyond that, WAY beyond that, they will vote for her because they know CNN is right — they WILL loose many Hispanic voters if they don’t.

Do those Hispanic voters see a vote against a person who happens to be Hispanic a vote against Hispanics in general? Yes I believe they do! They ONLY see race.

And the ladies and gentlemen of the Congress know that votes are the coin of the realm, votes are all that matter! Doing what’s right for the U.S. doesn’t matter, standing behind the Constitution in the face of a President who despises it and a judge who they know will shred it doesn’t matter. Simply doing what’s right for the justice system and the American citizens of all races that it serves doesn’t even matter. Just going out and getting those votes, no matter which devil you have to sell your soul to, is the important thing. Getting back in that seat after your next election is all that matters! Isn’t that right Senator X and Congressman Y?

Not that Sonia Sotomayor doesn’t have experience or intelligence — she has those too but every record of her decisions screams that her entire point of view is based on race. Sonia sings the same song as the NAACP, LaRaza, LULAC and the ACLU about the failure of the “system”, the inequity built into our society, and all those racist whites who don’t want them to succeed. The vast majority of Pakistanis, Indians, Koreans, Japanese, Chinese and many, many other minorities here don’t seem to have that problem — they work hard, they study, they do whatever it takes to succeed and they either do succeed or fail but they don’t whine if they fail, they just keep trying. They understand that a failure is THEIR failure, not the fault of a racist “system”.

Sure there are some individuals who are textbook racists, who believe that any race but theirs is inferior, but there are so few of those individuals that they really don’t matter in the bigger picture. Sonya Sotomayor is, herself, being accused of being a “reverse racist.” Why? Because of the decision she made (it’s still being litigated) to throw out a firefighters test because the majority of minorities who took it failed. If I had been confronted with that fact I’d say that the majority of people who failed didn’t study hard enough; Sotomayor’s opinion is that the test was too hard — the obvious implication is that minorities aren’t smart enough to take difficult tests! (Hey! SHE implied that, I didn’t; I know better!)

Well Sonia, tell that to the millions of minorities who HAVE succeeded, some of whom live a lifestyle the majority of those ‘discriminatin’ white people could only wish for but will never see. They didn’t get where they are because of their color! They got there because they worked hard, used their brains and talent in the right way and because they refused to give up when they hit the rough spots. They got there because all that crap about the system being rigged against them is just that — crap! That’s a lesson those “Hispanic voters” should take to heart.

News Links:

CNN.com: GOP walks fine line on opposing Sotomayor

Washington Post: Secretly Selling Sotomayor

Blog Links:

A Patriotic American Speaks: Liberal Cardsharps Play Race Card YET AGAIN

The Sin City Siren: 10 Things to Know about Judge Sonia Sotomayor (From MoveOn.org)

My other homes for my posts are: The Blogger News Network — it’s real news from real people and Opinion Forum A Forum for Opinions on News, Politics, and Life.

The Catholic Paradox

Standard

An excerpt from a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer dated today (5/21/09):

“LONDON – For more than a half century, thousands of children in church-run orphanages and reform schools in Ireland were severely abused by priests and nuns, a government commission said yesterday in the first official accounting of a scandal that has wrenched the deeply Roman Catholic nation.

The 2,600-page report, which capped a nine-year investigation, said rape and sexual abuse were “endemic” in boys’ institutions funded by the state but run by the church. “A climate of fear, created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most of the institutions and all those run for boys,” it said.

In general, the commission found, the severe physical and sexual abuse that occurred in boys’ schools was absent in girls’ schools. It said “emotional abuse,” including humiliation and denigration, was common in institutions for girls.”

It sickens me and has for many years!

I’ve been hearing about abusive “brothers”, “sisters”, priests and nuns from friends who attended Catholic schools since I was a very young boy (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth — LOL!). I’m sure we all have and I’m sure many of you suffered under the belt, hand or stick of some overzealous (My word for them is ‘sadistic’) priest or nun.

“Why are they like that?” I asked my young friends occasionally. Either “I don’t know!” or “They’re just mean!” was the usual reply.

As we got older, however, it became more clear. These people (Catholic clergy) who are supposed to be representatives of God, who are supposed to symbolize God’s teaching have been placed in a position (by men, not by God) that God’s creations were never meant to be in — they have chosen a chaste existence, denied any normal physical contact with the opposite sex and, in fact, convinced that they would be turning their backs on God for even considering it.

Many (if not most) can’t handle this lifestyle and the result of that is all too clear in reports of their physical and sexual abuse of the innocent. The innocent who they know will grow up and be able to enjoy the ‘pleasures of the flesh’ that they have chosen to deny — and the innocent are punished for this.

Notes to readers:

  • The above is theory, based on a logical evaluation of fact, but theory nonetheless.
  • I am not a religious person now but was brought up in a religious but other than Catholic environment.
  • I have no intention of insulting Catholics, the Catholic laity or the clergy — but realize I probably have insulted quite a few. Sorry!
  • My theory is NOT, however, based on religion — it is based on human nature.)

News Links:

Associated Press (at Yahoo): Thousands beaten, raped in Irish reform schools

UK Guardian: Irish Catholic church child abuse: ‘A cruel and wicked system’

Blog Links:

Honest Reporting: Ex-nun’s confessions set to rock Kerala Church

Business News Blog: Scarred for life

My other homes for my posts are: The Blogger News Network — it’s real news from real people and Opinion Forum A Forum for Opinions on News, Politics, and Life.

Stupid Laws Have Tragic Consequences

Standard

Janice and the children

They had been together for 18 years and had three adopted children but neither that fact or the legal documentation presented to the hospital (living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents) was sufficient to allow 39 y/o Lisa Pond to have her family at her bedside when she was dying at the Ryder Trauma Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami.

Although it sounds like the hospital was wrong — LEGALLY they were right. Lisa Pond’s family, according to the law, was not a “real family.” No, Lisa and her partner were not legally married — they would have been if the law had allowed it — but in Florida a long term, loving relationship and three children is not sufficient under a law that supposes that only a man and a woman can be a true married couple. Lisa Pond and Janice Langbehn were a gay couple and, to quote a Charles Dickens character:

“If the law supposes that, the law is a ass, a idiot.

Janice Langbehn was finally allowed a five minute visit, by herself, as a priest administered last rites to her life partner and later, Lisa Pond’s children finally did get to see her — she didn’t know that however. After she had slipped into an unconscious state that she would never awake from, they were allowed a visit. They all, no doubt, told her during their visit that they loved her and all, no doubt, cried and, as children do, they no doubt begged her to get better; its a shame their words fell on deaf ears; a shame that Lisa Pond could not reach out her hand ans assure them. 10-1/2 hours later Lisa Pond was pronounced brain dead.

This happened over two years ago but Janice Langbehn and her children (Danielle, 15; David, 13; and Katie, 12) are as devastated now as they were then over their losses. Janice has filed a Federal lawsuit; she and the kids are being represented by Beth Littrell, a lawyer with Lambda Legal, a gay rights group. From what I’ve read, they aren’t asking for monetary damages, what they want to send a message Ms. Littrell said, so that in the future, hospitals all over the country have a legal responsibility to “let patients define their own circle of intimacy and give them the dignity and care to be with their loved ones in this sort of crisis.”

News Links:

The Olympian: Love, loss underscore woman’s fight

Sarasota Herald Tribune: Kept From a Dying Partner’s Bedside

Blog Links

Today’s Letter: A Gay Dad asks Governor Schwarzenegger for the Freedom to Marry

The Perimeter Progressive: Love makes the world go ’round . . . Unless you’re in the hospital.

(NOTE: I always try to find opposing viewpoints in my News and Blog Links but, in this case, I was unsuccessful.)

My other homes for my posts are: The Blogger News Network — it’s real news from real people and Opinion Forum A Forum for Opinions on News, Politics, and Life.

Giving Back?

Standard

'You give it back now!

The Libertarian sage (and I use that term seriously) Neal Boortz makes a point in a current column that points out the danger in the ideology of the far-far Left — where the Obamas reside.

When Michelle Obama spoke at the commencement ceremonies at UC Merced over the weekend she made the following statement:

“You will face tough times. You will certainly have doubts, and let me tell you because I know I did when I was your age … Remember that you are blessed.”

This wasn’t Boortz’s main point, but the assumption that graduating from a university is a “blessing” strikes me as being a bit over the top — at least the way Ms. Obama means it. Each graduate in that auditorium worked hard and studied long to obtain his or her degree; if they are blessed it is because they were born with fully functioning brains, they developed lots of will power and dedication to the task at hand and, in most cases, they were indeed blessed by hard-working, devoted parents who helped them get to this stage of their life. They were also blessed by living in the United States. But acknowledging that they were blessed by nature or blessed to have great parents or blessed to live in a great nation was not where Ms. Obama was going with that statement.

Ms. Obama continues:

“Remember that in exchange for those blessings, you must give something back. You must reach back and pull someone up. You must bend down and let someone else stand on your shoulders so that they can see a brighter future.”

She was not asking the students to “give back” to those professors who did their best to give them a good education! She was not suggesting that they give back to their parents who helped them get to where they are. She was not even suggesting that they give back to America — the land where their real blessings lie — by giving their service to their country. She was stating that they now owe a debt to ‘society’; that they MUST help those who are not in their situations.

Huh?

We should all, of course, be good citizens and help those who WE FEEL need our help and give to charities that WE CHOOSE but that is not repayment of a debt to society, it is simply good citizenship. And in this great free country we can, of course, choose to be miserly — or at least very selective about who we help.

Neal Boortz’s point, in his own words was:

“Michelle Obama, and every other looter who has an eye on the wealth you produce, and who uses this “give back” line, will be completely negating every amount of effort you have put into your livelihood. Remember, they’re not asking you to “give,” they’re telling you to “give back.” The very premise of that phrase is that your wealth was a gift, not earned. Since your wealth was given to you, when you make some sort of a donation to a charity you are not “giving,” you are “giving back.”

It may seem to some like nitpicking over a phrase but it goes much deeper than the first lady’s words at a commencement ceremony (or oddly similar words used by her husband days later at Notre Dame); this idea was present in every one of President Obama’s speeches when he was running for office and has been a consistent theme since he won the office.

Just days after President Obama became President-elect Obama, I wrote this in a blog post, refering to a YouTube speech:

“So President-elect Obama gave a speech about the American Dream and assigned it the characteristics of the American Spirit: one being a personal set of goals and ambitions and the other a national spirit that kicks in when our country is in peril. Was this just a poor choice of words; a simple confusion of terminology? I sincerely doubt it.

What I take away from what the president-elect is saying is that he wants us on the road to a collective American Dream in which we give up our personal dreams and ambitions for “the greater good.” That has been the president-elect’s theme since he started running for the presidency: the greater good! Every American should have heard him say it and, since they elected him, we must assume that the majority of Americans are OK with that!

The purpose of this post is to say loudly and clearly that THIS American is NOT OK with that! The president-elect wants us to adopt this “for the greater good” attitude, he wants us to “sacrifice” (another favorite word in Obama’s dictionary) our aspirations so that those with fewer aspirations (or ambition) can have a richer life.

Are you ready for that America? Are you really going to go along quietly into Obama’s dark night?”

Barack, Michelle and, it seems, the majority in Congress are working hard to turn our country into a collective (The doctrine that land and capital should be owned by society collectively or as a whole; i.e., communism.) — we cannot allow that; we cannot allow that yoke to be placed around our necks!

News Links:

Associated Press: Michelle Obama urges graduates to give back

Chicago Sun-Times: Michelle Obama’s early alienation from the University of Chicago. UC Merced speech transcript

Blog Links:

Danishova: In graduation speech, Michelle Obama perpetuates myth of underprivileged childhood

Tradition of Excellence: Michelle Obama tells California graduates to remember who helped them

My other homes for my posts are: The Blogger News Network — it’s real news from real people and Opinion Forum A Forum for Opinions on News, Politics, and Life.

Parental Rights or Government Rights?

Standard

Daniel Hauser

A disturbing case of parental neglect (or perhaps parental rights) has arisen in Minnesota; the report is in the Digital Journal

Daniel Hauser is 13 years old, he is now in 5th grade (three years behind) but he cannot recognize the simplest written word — Daniel is illiterate. Daniel also as cancer! Daniel was diagnosed with stage IIB nodular sclerosing Hodgkin’s disease, a treatable cancer. He received one chemotherapy treatment after he was diagnosed and his cancer seemed to respond but, according to the article, “Daniel refuses to receive additional chemotherapy.”

There were some bad effects from that first chemotherapy session, as there are in almost every case. The family consulted 5 doctors and each recommended that Daniel receive additional chemotherapy but, Daniel continues to refuse further treatment.

It is, of course, Daniel’s family that is doing the refusing and the influencing of Daniel’s decisions. They are American Indians (oops! Native Americans) and believe in their traditional healing practices called Nemenhah.

Where it stands right now: A Minnesota judge has found that “Daniel Hauser is a child in need of protection or service (as) has been proved by clear and convincing evidence.” Daniel has been assigned a Guardian ad Litem and has been ordered to undergo a complete X-ray exam and the case will be back in court on May 19th.

The question stands before the court of public opinion (on which you are a jury member) should parents have the right to deny treatment for their child based on their religious beliefs?

I confess I am torn — at least up to a point! I violently object to the government inserting itself into health issues but this is a case the issue is a child’s health — a child who’s parents have apparently withheld a good education from him, have had him (as you will read in the linked article) sign affidavits that he can’t even read and have given the court the name of a doctor who has never even met Daniel as Daniel’s “primary physician. Clearly these are parents who are either too ignorant to understand that their son may die very soon without treatment (it may already be too late) or they are so devoted to their religion that the are positive that their version of alternative medicine will cure him.

For the welfare of a child, in a case where the child needs medical treatment and is not receiving it, I would have to fall on the side of forcing the treatment on him. I, if I were the judge in this case, would also be strongly inclined to remove the child from the home unless the parents allowed a qualified doctor to recommend treatment and they then complied.

News Links:

Digital Journal: Judge rules and orders treatment in religious child neglect case

Star-Tribune: Jon Tevlin: Boy with cancer should not be a casualty of ignorance, too

Blog Links:

Calvin Palmer’s Weblog: Judge overrules family’s alternative medicine to treat boy, 13, for cancer

Zionistgoldreport: Zionist Judge rules family can’t refuse chemo for boy

My other homes for my posts are: The Blogger News Network — it’s real news from real people and Opinion Forum A Forum for Opinions on News, Politics, and Life.

Those Hateful Hate Crimes

Standard

Hate and Go To Jail

A small article in a recent USA Today mentioned that, on the previous day, the State of Maryland added homeless people to their growing list of people who are protected under hate crimes legislation. What this means is, if you commit a crime against a homeless person because they are homeless or a crime against a person because of their race, religious beliefs, national origin, disability gender or sexual orientation you will wind up with extra time in jail or an extra large fine — depending on the nature of the crime. If you commit the same crime against an old, Caucasian blogger like me, however, or against someone’s non-minority mother the punishment would not be that severe.

George Orwell drafted the first hate crimes legislation in his book 1984 when he introduced the “thought police”. That is essentially what hate crimes legislation is all about — what you were thinking when you committed the crime. It’s sad we have degenerated as a society to that point.

Sadder still, we will never get back to the day when all people were protected equally and none were considered special cases — legislation never seems to go away, it is just amended!

If you hate homeless people and go out and assault the first homeless person you see — that’s a hate crime (at least in Maryland). OK, I’ll buy that! Buy why the harsher sentence for the offender? Someone who would do that doesn’t need an extra year in jail or an extra $10,000.00 fine, someone who does that needs psychiatric treatment or perhaps that person needs to be waterboarded until he sees the error of his ways.

Seriously though, a harsher sentence will do little to make that offender change his mind and history has proven that harsher sentences that relate to “crimes of passion” have nearly zero effect on other offenders. When a person commits a crime bred by hatred, their brain is not fully engaged in the process, it all happens in the loins.

In spite of all that, here’s some news you might not have read in your local paper; this is from an article by Nat Hentoff, originally published in Real Clear Politics:

“Why is the press remaining mostly silent about the so-called “hate crimes law” that passed in the House on April 29? The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed in a 249-175 vote (17 Republicans joined with 231 Democrats). These Democrats should have been tested on their knowledge of the First Amendment, equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment), and the prohibition of double jeopardy (no American can be prosecuted twice for the same crime or offense). If they had been, they would have known that this proposal, now headed for a Senate vote, violates all these constitutional provisions.

This bill would make it a federal crime to willfully cause bodily injury (or try to) because of the victim’s actual or perceived “race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability” – as explained on the White House Web site, signaling the president’s approval. A defendant convicted on these grounds would be charged with a “hate crime” in addition to the original crime, and would get extra prison time.”

Hate crimes, in spite of the obvious Constitutional restrictions, will now, you can be 99% sure, become Federal law.

My conclusion is, the only hope for this country is to vote out every member of the Senate and House of Representatives, vote out Barack Obama and start over again. Maybe next time we can get people in these offices that have something inside their heads except greed, power and political correctness.

News Links:

Real Clear Politics: ‘Thought Crimes’ Bill Advances

Iowa Independent: Politifact: King’s statements on hate crimes bill are ‘pants on fire’ lies

Blog Links:

Beetle Blogger: Shepard vs. Shephard — Why Unnecessary Hate Crimes Laws Deny Equal Protection

The Kansas Progress: Special Protection or Special Consideration?

My other homes for my posts are: The Blogger News Network — it’s real news from real people and Opinion Forum A Forum for Opinions on News, Politics, and Life.