Sounding like other fascists that came before her, Nancy Pelosi, current Speaker of the House, said the following on April 10, 2008 on the Good Morning America show:
“We don’t want to take their guns away, [but] we want [firearms] registered."
“We don’t want [firearms] crossing state lines.”
“We need to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means.”
What “misconceptions” are “the people” laboring under? Are we laboring under a misconception that the gun registration is the first step to prohibition?
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal".
– Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno
"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! The world will follow our lead to the future!"
- Adolf Hitler
Are we laboring under a misconception that those in power do not want an armed citizenry?
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."
- Adolf Hitler
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms."
- Aristotle
"If the citizenry disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
- Josef Stalin
We citizens would do well to recall the words of the United States’ greatest President on the matter of gun ownership.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wago,n and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
- George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress.
The liberal’s favorite commentator on original intent, Thomas Jefferson, said this about an individual's right of gun ownership:
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
America, who do you trust with protecting your liberty? George Washington and Thomas Jefferson on one side, or Nancy Pelosi and Janet Reno on the other?
There is one absolute truth that must be discerned from the whole of history as it related to the relationship between government and its citizens: Citizens must jealously guard all of its liberties against any encroachment, or the citizens will surely be robbed of liberty by the government.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Navy 3, Pirates 0
Once again, the United States of America is up against Muslim pirates. Once again, it will do us well to remember our history with the Barbary Corsairs. In 1784 and 1785, American merchant ships were being seized by North African Muslim pirates, their crews held for ransom and the cargo and ships sold. For years, these crewmembers were held as slaves.
In 1786, then-ambassadors Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, met a visiting ambassador from Tripoli named Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja in London. When Adja was asked why his government was hostile to American ships, the ambassador had told them it was written in their Koran that all non-Muslim nations were sinners and it the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave such persons. Of course, he added, for an outrageous sum of money, they could make peace.
After fifteen years of paying ransom, the United States started fighting back in 1801.
We were fighting back again this Easter Sunday. After being held hostage for five days by Muslim pirates, Capt. Richard Phillips was freed by the United States Navy by three well-placed simultaneous head shots by Navy Seals or US Marines. For the sake of symmetry and poetry, I hope it was Marines, who in centuries past brought death to the Muslim pirates on the “shores of Tripoli.”
The United States has taken a back seat in fighting the scourge of Muslim piracy off the eastern horn of Africa. Perhaps now, our considerable naval resources will be brought to bear on these Muslim terrorists and extortionists. Or perhaps, Barak Hussein Obama just wants to apologize to his fellow native Kenyans and Somali brothers. At any rate, what Obama could not bring himself to say in his statement tonight, I will state for him on behalf of the American people.
We do not negotiate with terrorists who do not possess nuclear weapons.
In 1786, then-ambassadors Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, met a visiting ambassador from Tripoli named Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja in London. When Adja was asked why his government was hostile to American ships, the ambassador had told them it was written in their Koran that all non-Muslim nations were sinners and it the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave such persons. Of course, he added, for an outrageous sum of money, they could make peace.
After fifteen years of paying ransom, the United States started fighting back in 1801.
We were fighting back again this Easter Sunday. After being held hostage for five days by Muslim pirates, Capt. Richard Phillips was freed by the United States Navy by three well-placed simultaneous head shots by Navy Seals or US Marines. For the sake of symmetry and poetry, I hope it was Marines, who in centuries past brought death to the Muslim pirates on the “shores of Tripoli.”
The United States has taken a back seat in fighting the scourge of Muslim piracy off the eastern horn of Africa. Perhaps now, our considerable naval resources will be brought to bear on these Muslim terrorists and extortionists. Or perhaps, Barak Hussein Obama just wants to apologize to his fellow native Kenyans and Somali brothers. At any rate, what Obama could not bring himself to say in his statement tonight, I will state for him on behalf of the American people.
We do not negotiate with terrorists who do not possess nuclear weapons.
Stalinist Quote of the Day
What is more important than being right? For the dangerous and disingenuous supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the answer is: being quoted approvingly by foreign courts.
In a Saturday speech at Ohio State University, supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg demonstrated her lack of understanding about what is wrong with using foreign cases to help decide cases before the United States supreme Court.
“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law.” “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?”
Remarking that the Supreme Court of Canada is quoted more widely by other foreign courts, Ginsburg said “You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”
During her speech, Ginsburg also pointed out that the US Supreme Court used to look at various foreign courts’ (generally, the courts of England and Wales) in the 1800’s, with the impression that it didn’t destroy the country.
These remarks are astounding in their utter disregard for the role of the United States supreme Court, post 1938. To understand that role, we must look to the document that created the supreme Court (and disregard foreign courts’ opinions on the matter), and the 1936 court case that puts Ginsburg’s remarks on their head.
Article. III, Section. 2. of the United States Constitution
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
--to Controversies between two or more States;
--between a State and Citizens of another State;
--between Citizens of different States,
--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
You will notice that the supreme Court has no jurisdiction on deciding matters related to foreign law. You will notice that the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction subject to the regulation of Congress (so much for the co-equal branch of government).
And, under Article 1, Section 1, you will also notice that only Congress can establish inferior courts to the supreme Court, and Congress cannot create a foreign court.
I suppose it falls upon Redwarning to point out the following:
1. Foreign courts are not interpreting the United States Constitution;
2. Foreign courts are not interpreting United States federal law; and
3. Foreign courts are not interpreting the law of one of the several States of the United States.
Of course, liberals find merely interpreting law very confining. They cannot really do “justice” as they see it by merely interpreting the laws someone else makes. Liberal judges are compelled to make law from the bench.
When judges create law by their decisions, it is called “common law”. State courts routinely make common law. In most States the common law generally follows the common law of England as described by William Blackstone’s pre-Revolutionary war treatise Commentaries on the Law of England. Recall that before the Revolutoinary War, we were under the law of England (as colonies). Post-Revolution, we kept the framework and relied on the more mature courts in England for additional guidance on the English Common law applicable to the several States.
Remember, Ginsburg helpfully points out the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts. There is no doubt that in the 19th Century United States, and before then, we were either under the law of England (as colonies) and then kept the framework and relied on the more mature courts in England for additional guidance on the English Common law adopted by the several States. That all sounds fine and good, and contributed to a body of work generally referred to as the Federal Common Law.
Ginsburg’s justification seems to be: we used to do it, why shouldn’t we do it now?
The short answer is, there no longer is a Federal common law. Federal judges have no business looking to create judge-made common law, and haven’t been since the 1938 case Erie RR v. Tompkins. Ginsburg is well aware of the rule of Erie, making her statement completely disingenuous.
The decision in the Erie case means that Federal judges do not look at facts and circumstances and create “judge-made” common law. Common law creation is limited to the courts of the several States. Federal judges must interpret the laws and statutes that they did not create, apply those to the facts of the case, and render an opinion -- not create a law.
So, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose job is to NOT make federal common law, but only interpret the Constitution, federal statutes, state law, and treaties, wants to take a look to the common law of foreign courts just like United States “law review articles.”
Why would a supreme Court judge want to look at the decisions of a foreign court? The only possible answer is because the liberal supreme Court judge wants to make some new law, and the language of the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the laws of the several States does not support their position. We call this results-based decision-making – liberals excel at this.
Put simply, Foreign Court decisions have no more relevance to a case and controversy before the US supreme Court than the lyrics of the latest Jonas’ Brothers album. By definition, foreign Court decisions are completely unrelated to any case and controversy before the United States supreme Court. At least US law review articles discuss US legal issues. Of course, a law review article does not have the imprimatur of being issued by a Jurist sitting in judgment, handing down the law to the unwashed who could not conceive of this heretofore unrecognized truth.
But liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg cannot be confined to her constitutionally-defined role. She will grasp at any reasoning that alings with hers to legislate from the bench. Reference to irrelevant foreign court decisions is just one tool in the liberal jurist’s toolbox.
In a Saturday speech at Ohio State University, supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg demonstrated her lack of understanding about what is wrong with using foreign cases to help decide cases before the United States supreme Court.
“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law.” “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?”
Remarking that the Supreme Court of Canada is quoted more widely by other foreign courts, Ginsburg said “You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”
During her speech, Ginsburg also pointed out that the US Supreme Court used to look at various foreign courts’ (generally, the courts of England and Wales) in the 1800’s, with the impression that it didn’t destroy the country.
These remarks are astounding in their utter disregard for the role of the United States supreme Court, post 1938. To understand that role, we must look to the document that created the supreme Court (and disregard foreign courts’ opinions on the matter), and the 1936 court case that puts Ginsburg’s remarks on their head.
Article. III, Section. 2. of the United States Constitution
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
--to Controversies between two or more States;
--between a State and Citizens of another State;
--between Citizens of different States,
--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
You will notice that the supreme Court has no jurisdiction on deciding matters related to foreign law. You will notice that the supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction subject to the regulation of Congress (so much for the co-equal branch of government).
And, under Article 1, Section 1, you will also notice that only Congress can establish inferior courts to the supreme Court, and Congress cannot create a foreign court.
I suppose it falls upon Redwarning to point out the following:
1. Foreign courts are not interpreting the United States Constitution;
2. Foreign courts are not interpreting United States federal law; and
3. Foreign courts are not interpreting the law of one of the several States of the United States.
Of course, liberals find merely interpreting law very confining. They cannot really do “justice” as they see it by merely interpreting the laws someone else makes. Liberal judges are compelled to make law from the bench.
When judges create law by their decisions, it is called “common law”. State courts routinely make common law. In most States the common law generally follows the common law of England as described by William Blackstone’s pre-Revolutionary war treatise Commentaries on the Law of England. Recall that before the Revolutoinary War, we were under the law of England (as colonies). Post-Revolution, we kept the framework and relied on the more mature courts in England for additional guidance on the English Common law applicable to the several States.
Remember, Ginsburg helpfully points out the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts. There is no doubt that in the 19th Century United States, and before then, we were either under the law of England (as colonies) and then kept the framework and relied on the more mature courts in England for additional guidance on the English Common law adopted by the several States. That all sounds fine and good, and contributed to a body of work generally referred to as the Federal Common Law.
Ginsburg’s justification seems to be: we used to do it, why shouldn’t we do it now?
The short answer is, there no longer is a Federal common law. Federal judges have no business looking to create judge-made common law, and haven’t been since the 1938 case Erie RR v. Tompkins. Ginsburg is well aware of the rule of Erie, making her statement completely disingenuous.
The decision in the Erie case means that Federal judges do not look at facts and circumstances and create “judge-made” common law. Common law creation is limited to the courts of the several States. Federal judges must interpret the laws and statutes that they did not create, apply those to the facts of the case, and render an opinion -- not create a law.
So, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose job is to NOT make federal common law, but only interpret the Constitution, federal statutes, state law, and treaties, wants to take a look to the common law of foreign courts just like United States “law review articles.”
Why would a supreme Court judge want to look at the decisions of a foreign court? The only possible answer is because the liberal supreme Court judge wants to make some new law, and the language of the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the laws of the several States does not support their position. We call this results-based decision-making – liberals excel at this.
Put simply, Foreign Court decisions have no more relevance to a case and controversy before the US supreme Court than the lyrics of the latest Jonas’ Brothers album. By definition, foreign Court decisions are completely unrelated to any case and controversy before the United States supreme Court. At least US law review articles discuss US legal issues. Of course, a law review article does not have the imprimatur of being issued by a Jurist sitting in judgment, handing down the law to the unwashed who could not conceive of this heretofore unrecognized truth.
But liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg cannot be confined to her constitutionally-defined role. She will grasp at any reasoning that alings with hers to legislate from the bench. Reference to irrelevant foreign court decisions is just one tool in the liberal jurist’s toolbox.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Obama's Insidious Lies in Turkey
“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country[sic].”
So said Barak Hussein Obama in a speech to the parliament of Turkey, and referring (I think) to the United States, not Kenya.
I have parsed his language for several days, trying to peel off the layers of this onion. It is a masterful statement, which includes two lies, one a white lie, and one a truthful statement told for a disingenuous purpose.
Let me start the critique with another quote from his speech: “The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans.” Again, this is a truth told for a disingenuous purpose. It is true that more than one Muslim American has paid taxes, thus enriching the United States. It is also true that more than one Muslim American has served his country honorably in the service of the military. However, there is nothing particular to the fact that they were Muslim that makes their actions enriching to the United States. Paying taxes and serving honorably is common to all major faiths in the United States, except for the Pennsylvania Dutch Amish.
Just for fun, perform an Internet search on “great American Muslims”. The responses are Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan. The adjective “enriching” does not spring to mind.
As to the initial quote, there are three elements to the sentence:1. We [the United States] has a “deep appreciation for the Islamic faith”.2. The Islamic faith has done so much over the centuries to shape the world.3. The Islamic faith has done so much to shape the United States.
One of these elements is a truthful statement not told for a disingenuous purpose. It is true that the Islamic faith has shaped the world over the centuries. Too bad they stopped progressing past the 14th Century.
Now to the white lie about a deep appreciation of the Islamic faith. Clearly he is saying this to be nice and curry favor with people who really cannot and do not help the United States. Most United States citizens do not understand the tenants of the Islamic faith, have never read the Koran, and do not understand Islamic history. What they know about Islam, they do not like at all. And, the mainstream media continues to lie about the so called “Religion of Peace” at every turn, so what Americans might appreciate about the Islamic faith is really not true Islam.
But the third phrase is the insidious lie, in that is the truthful on its face, but is implied that the truth is positive. In fact, Islamists HAVE worked to shape the United States, almost exclusively to the detriment of the United States and its citizens. Here is a little history:
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian Islamists seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were held for 444 days and released only after President Carter agreed to pay ransom.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
1993
Jan. 25, a Muslim gunman named Mir Amal Kansi killed two people and injured three others outside CIA Headquarters at Langley in Fairfax County, Virginia.
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. Islamists Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and at least 9 others carried out the bombings.
1995
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 and injuring thousands more. The bombing was carried out by Islamists who had received training at Islamist camps in Afghanistan.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives was detonated alongside the ship. 17 US sailors were killed.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: Muslim hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into the World Trade Center; another jet was hijacked by Islamists was crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth jet was hijacked by Muslim terrorists and crashed into a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered: 2,992. The World Trade Center’s twin towers and other buildings were destroyed.
Since September 11, 2001 no successful Islamic terrorists attacks have occurred in the United States, but attacks to US locations and citizens persists overseas.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Muslim homicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners.
2004
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Muslim terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Muslim suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57.
2008
Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. Islamic terrorists conducted the attack.
President Barak Hussein Obama may enjoy going overseas to bow and scrape to Islamists and apologizing for the United States offending Muslim sensibilities, but the American citizens do not suffer from such warped thinking. Obama has been one embarrassment after another to the United States. In time, this embarrassment will be shaken from this great nation as the earth shook off the dinosaurs.
So said Barak Hussein Obama in a speech to the parliament of Turkey, and referring (I think) to the United States, not Kenya.
I have parsed his language for several days, trying to peel off the layers of this onion. It is a masterful statement, which includes two lies, one a white lie, and one a truthful statement told for a disingenuous purpose.
Let me start the critique with another quote from his speech: “The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans.” Again, this is a truth told for a disingenuous purpose. It is true that more than one Muslim American has paid taxes, thus enriching the United States. It is also true that more than one Muslim American has served his country honorably in the service of the military. However, there is nothing particular to the fact that they were Muslim that makes their actions enriching to the United States. Paying taxes and serving honorably is common to all major faiths in the United States, except for the Pennsylvania Dutch Amish.
Just for fun, perform an Internet search on “great American Muslims”. The responses are Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan. The adjective “enriching” does not spring to mind.
As to the initial quote, there are three elements to the sentence:1. We [the United States] has a “deep appreciation for the Islamic faith”.2. The Islamic faith has done so much over the centuries to shape the world.3. The Islamic faith has done so much to shape the United States.
One of these elements is a truthful statement not told for a disingenuous purpose. It is true that the Islamic faith has shaped the world over the centuries. Too bad they stopped progressing past the 14th Century.
Now to the white lie about a deep appreciation of the Islamic faith. Clearly he is saying this to be nice and curry favor with people who really cannot and do not help the United States. Most United States citizens do not understand the tenants of the Islamic faith, have never read the Koran, and do not understand Islamic history. What they know about Islam, they do not like at all. And, the mainstream media continues to lie about the so called “Religion of Peace” at every turn, so what Americans might appreciate about the Islamic faith is really not true Islam.
But the third phrase is the insidious lie, in that is the truthful on its face, but is implied that the truth is positive. In fact, Islamists HAVE worked to shape the United States, almost exclusively to the detriment of the United States and its citizens. Here is a little history:
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian Islamists seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were held for 444 days and released only after President Carter agreed to pay ransom.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
1993
Jan. 25, a Muslim gunman named Mir Amal Kansi killed two people and injured three others outside CIA Headquarters at Langley in Fairfax County, Virginia.
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. Islamists Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and at least 9 others carried out the bombings.
1995
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 and injuring thousands more. The bombing was carried out by Islamists who had received training at Islamist camps in Afghanistan.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives was detonated alongside the ship. 17 US sailors were killed.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: Muslim hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into the World Trade Center; another jet was hijacked by Islamists was crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth jet was hijacked by Muslim terrorists and crashed into a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered: 2,992. The World Trade Center’s twin towers and other buildings were destroyed.
Since September 11, 2001 no successful Islamic terrorists attacks have occurred in the United States, but attacks to US locations and citizens persists overseas.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Muslim homicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners.
2004
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Muslim terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Muslim suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57.
2008
Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. Islamic terrorists conducted the attack.
President Barak Hussein Obama may enjoy going overseas to bow and scrape to Islamists and apologizing for the United States offending Muslim sensibilities, but the American citizens do not suffer from such warped thinking. Obama has been one embarrassment after another to the United States. In time, this embarrassment will be shaken from this great nation as the earth shook off the dinosaurs.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Some of the MSM are starting to get it
Stuart Varney, a refugee of European Socialism and Fox Business News commentator, describes in the Wall Street Journal how President Obama is behaving like a Statist.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
Thursday, April 2, 2009
GOP members voting for Statism
The following House members of the GOP voted in favor of legislation that will allow a Government bureaucrat to determine “reasonable” wages for each and every worker in any industry that receives Government money. This is old-style Soviet central control of the economy. The Government has no business regulating salaries to be determined by employers and employees.
I cannot imagine that even the Dems’ precious Unions like this legislation. The UAW better hope that no Government bureaucrat reviews how much lug nut turners earn on the line at GM.
At any rate, here are the names of the RINOs, further demonstrating why a philosophy-free GOP is a minority party.
Bilirakis
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cao
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Jones
McHugh
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
I cannot imagine that even the Dems’ precious Unions like this legislation. The UAW better hope that no Government bureaucrat reviews how much lug nut turners earn on the line at GM.
At any rate, here are the names of the RINOs, further demonstrating why a philosophy-free GOP is a minority party.
Bilirakis
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cao
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Jones
McHugh
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
RIP -- Life on Mars
If I may digress, tonight I will watch the end of yet another brilliantly-conceived, well-acted, smart, funny, entertaining television series. Life On Mars (US/ABC) was the one new television series this year that stuck with me. I loved everything about it, the back-story, the setting, the cast (what a marvelous cast!), the props, the story lines, even the soundtrack.
However, smart series are not able to compete with “reality” programming. Most US television viewers would rather feel superior to the trash typically on display in reality a series than watch a television series that requires active listening and the ability to follow a plot from week to week. A populace that is the result of homogenized public education may not have the ability to enjoy any entertainment that may require them to think and focus. A smart series does not have immediate gratification for the viewer.
Of course, this may explain why the U.S. was given such a poor choice of presidential candidates from which to choose last November. National elections have taken on the aura of a reality TV show on the Short Attention Span Network. Good looks and smooth talking are better than intelligence and experience. Little effort is used to discover what a candidate’s philosophy is, or even if he or she has a philosophy.
So tonight, I will watch the last episode of a television series set in the past. What was in many ways a more complex, more interesting, and certainly a more intelligent time than that in which we presently find ourselves.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
However, smart series are not able to compete with “reality” programming. Most US television viewers would rather feel superior to the trash typically on display in reality a series than watch a television series that requires active listening and the ability to follow a plot from week to week. A populace that is the result of homogenized public education may not have the ability to enjoy any entertainment that may require them to think and focus. A smart series does not have immediate gratification for the viewer.
Of course, this may explain why the U.S. was given such a poor choice of presidential candidates from which to choose last November. National elections have taken on the aura of a reality TV show on the Short Attention Span Network. Good looks and smooth talking are better than intelligence and experience. Little effort is used to discover what a candidate’s philosophy is, or even if he or she has a philosophy.
So tonight, I will watch the last episode of a television series set in the past. What was in many ways a more complex, more interesting, and certainly a more intelligent time than that in which we presently find ourselves.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
