I guess this isn't all that new as reports reveal from captured documents describing Al Qaeda's determination to bring the world population under the control of Islam or kill all those that won't submit.
Mao had a similar vision for China with the "long March" which saw million murdered to bring the nation to heal. And, of course, it failed, as all socialist and Communist ideologies do. Systematic terror on the other hand, is another story all together.
This article points out how this can happen, and will. If we take the time to watch what is happening in Brittan and France with the Muslim populations, it is not hard to envision the same thing happening here. A large portion of the American population is ready to accept any inconvenience to accommodate divergent agendas as being "inclusive".
I have always maintained when the noose is around some people's neck, they will refuse to believe that it is happening and will willing allow it to happen. I believe a large portion of our society would accept Islam and all of it's restriction on their personal freedoms. Even when faced with lose of all rights that they demand and enjoy today, they will still refuse to recognize they have been enslaved.
We are on the track as we speak to allowing a large federal government to dictate every aspect of our lives. Just listen to the candidates - what do you here? More government, more taxes, more sacrifice for the greater good, take from the rich, i.e. the productive, suing oil company executives (who's next), tax profits, enable the weak, ignorant and unproductive among us.
Remember this little phrase, " it takes a whole village to raise a child"? Income Redistribution? Where do you think this is headed? More freedom for us - think again!
So again, keep the faith, watch what's going on around you, listen to the rhetoric and then decide how the battle should be fought! You have the power to make a difference.
AL QAEDA'S PLAN B
By AMIR TAHERI/July 1, 2008/ --
NO one should feel safe without submitting to Islam, and those who refuse to submit must pay a high price. The Islamist movement must aim to turn the world into a series of "wildernesses" where only those under jihadi rule enjoy security.
These are some of the ideas developed by al Qaeda's chief theoretician, Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji, in his new book "Governance in the Wilderness" (/Edarat al-Wahsh/). Middle East analysts think that the book may indicate a major change of strategy by the disparate groups that use al Qaeda as a brand name. The Saudi police seized copies of the book last week as they arrested 700 alleged terrorists in overnight raids.
Naji's book, written in pseudo-literary Arabic, is meant as a manifesto for jihad. He divides the jihadi movement into five circles - ranging from Sunni Salafi (traditionalist) Muslims (who, though not personally violent, are prepared to give moral and material support to militants) to Islamist groups with national rather than pan-Islamist agendas (such as the Palestinian Hamas and the Filipino Moro Liberation Front).
All five circles are at an impasse, says Naji. Some accept the /status quo/ while hoping to reform it. Others have tried to set up governments in a world dominated by "infidel" powers, and have been forced to abandon Islamic values. Still others failed because they didn't realize that the only way to win is through total war in which no one feels safe.
NAJI claims that the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the abolition of the Islamic Caliphate in 1924 marked the start of "the most dangerous phase in history." Those events put all Arab countries, the heartland of Islam, under domination by the "infidel"- who later continued to rule via native proxies.
In Naji's eyes, it is impossible to create a proper Islamic state in a single country in a world dominated by "Crusaders." He cites as example the Taliban - which, although a proper Islamic regime, didn't survive "infidel" attacks and opposition by Afghan elements.Instead, he says, the Islamic movement must be global - fighting everywhere, all the time, and on all fronts.
SINCE 9/11, Islamist terror movements have been debating grand strategy. Osama bin Laden had theorized that the "infidel," led by the United States, would crumble after a series of spectacular attacks, just as the Meccan "infidel" government did when the Prophet Muhammad launched deadly raids against its trade routes. Yet the 9/11 attacks didn't lead to an "infidel" retreat. On the contrary, the "Great Satan" hit back hard. That persuaded some al Qaeda leaders that a new strategy of smaller, slower but steadier attacks was needed.
Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2, has advocated such a strategy since 2003, arguing that the jihad should first target Muslim countries where it has a chance of toppling the incumbent regimes. Now Naji takes that analysis a step further - suggesting that low-intensity war be extended to anywhere in the world with a significant Muslim presence. Islamists in the "wilderness" must create parallel societies alongside existing ones, Naji says - but not set up formal governments, which would be subject to economic pressure or military attack.
These parallel societies could resemble "liberated zones" set up by Marxist guerrillas in parts of Latin America in the last century. But they could also exist within cities, under the very noses of the authorities - operating as secret societies with their own rules, values and enforcement. But they could also take shape in Western countries with large Muslim minorities:
*The jihadis are to begin by giving areas where Muslims live a distinctly Islamic appearance, by imposing special styles of dress for women and beards for men. Then they start imposing the /shariah/.
In the final phase, they create a parallel system of taxation and law enforcement, effectively taking the areas out of government control. The "wilderness" will provide the cover for bases for jihad operations. Jihad would be everywhere, rather than in just one or two countries that the "infidel" could hit with superior firepower.
IN a notable departure from past al Qaeda strategy, Naji recommends "countless small operations" that render daily life unbearable, rather than a few spectacular attacks such as 9/11:
The "infidel," leaving his home every morning, should be unsure whether he'll return in the evening. Naji recommends kidnappings, the holding of hostages, the use of women and children as human shields, exhibition killings to terrorize the enemy, suicide bombings and countless gestures that make normal life impossible for the "infidel" and Muslim collaborators.
Once parallel societies are established throughout the world, they would exert pressure on non-Muslims to submit. Naji believes that, subjected to constant intimidation and fear of death, most non-Muslims (especially in the West) would submit:
"The West has no stomach for a long fight."The only Western power still capable of resisting is the United States, he believes. But that, too, will change once President Bush is gone.
NAJI makes it clear that the United States is the chief, if not the exclusive target, of jihad at this time. He mentions Israel only once, as "America's little female idol." His only reference to Palestine is in a historical context.
Naji asks jihadis to target oilfields, sea and airports, tourist facilities and especially banking and financial services. He envisages "a very long war," at the end of which the whole world is brought under the banner of Islam. He identifies several Muslim countries as promising for establishing "the governance of the wilderness": Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Turkey, Jordan, Libya, Tunisia and Morocco. The implication is that "wilderness" units already exist in nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Somalia and Algeria.
Naji's theory is built on the concept of terror as the main organizing principle of the mini-states he hopes to set up everywhere in preparation for the coming Caliphate. He claims that the Prophet himself practiced the tactic by making his enemies in Medina, where he ran his version of the "wilderness," pay "the maximum price" for any deviance, and through constant raids on trade caravans belonging to his enemies in Mecca.
IN a simple language, Naji offers a synthesis of the themes that appeal to different jihadi groups. With anti-imperialist sentiments, missionary dreams, ethnic and class grievances and puritanical obsessions, he mixes a deadly cocktail.
Naji's message is stark: Western civilization is doomed. Its last bastion, America, lacks the will for a long war. The "infidel" loves life and treats it as an endless feast. Jihadis have to ruin that feast and persuade the "infidel" to abandon this world in exchange for greater rewards in the next.
/Amir Taheri's next book, "The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution," is due out this fall./
Monday, July 07, 2008
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Chose To Enjoy The Day
Here is something to think about when you believe you don't have enough 'things' or you think you can't afford to enjoy life without more 'things'.
"There is no man so poor as he who only has money" (author unknown)
Matthew 16:26
"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?"
Take a break and enjoy the day - by keeping the faith you've earned it.
"There is no man so poor as he who only has money" (author unknown)
Matthew 16:26
"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?"
Take a break and enjoy the day - by keeping the faith you've earned it.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Nuclear Power - Clean and Efficient Energy Source
The nonsense that is global warming has invaded almost every aspect of our lives and, what is worse, it is a total fraud, a scam, a tool from a minority to gain power over the rest of us by denying us adequate energy to sustain our economy and therefore how we live.
Without adequate fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources, our economy will diminish in strength and vitality, which means we will have to change how we think about the future. In reality we won't have a future that will support life styles like our parents or even our grand parents had.
In reality, America will depend on fossil fuels, and nuclear energy, as a major sources of energy for the expansion our economy for the next thirty or fifty years. Wind, Bio and solar will account for less than 20% of needs by 2030. To deny this is ignorance of history, real science and life in this country.
Do we need alternate sources of energy - absolutely - but with realty screaming in our ear saying we need more energy now, and I mean right now, we have to move forward with known sources, i.e. oil and nuclear energy.
Oil sources in this country alone can provide our energy needs for the next 60 to 80 years. Coal for the next 200 years. Where's the common sense? Drill Here - Drill now - Pay Less.
I can not even bring in Ethanol as a viable source as it is on the way out already. This was the nonsense that ever one knew was a mistake from the beginning, but never the less, went ahead with it's development. The reason? Government intervention in the free market.
As we all know now, first hand, Ethanol has cause monumental problems with our and the world food supply.
This article lays out the reality of our power needs and the good reason for moving forward with nuclear energy. I can't agree on the global warming nonsense, green house gases, CO2, but still it is a must for our present and future energy needs and it is affordable.
Always keep the faith in America, the battle goes on for Freedom to chose.
Low-emission Power Source Gaining Attention
After the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, safety concerns and skyrocketing construction costs put the brakes on nuclear-power development. But concern over how the United States can generate large amounts of baseload power without increasing carbon dioxide emissions—combined with streamlined construction methods and enhanced safety features—has positioned nuclear power for a comeback.
Next to coal, nuclear power plants are the primary generation source for large amounts of reliable baseload electricity. Even better, nuclear reactors can help curb emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, blamed for contributing to global warming.
In 2007, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a non-profit utility-sponsored organization whose members include electric co-ops, released a study showing how electric utilities could help significantly reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by taking several aggressive steps. One includes increasing nuclear power to 25 percent of market share.
Expanding Existing Plants
Currently, nuclear power provides 19 percent of the nation’s power supply, behind coal at 49 percent and natural gas at 22 percent.
“The country already has 100,000 megawatts of nuclear power capacity,” says Tom TerBush, EPRI manager of nuclear market strategy. “We project adding 24,000 megawatts of new nuclear by 2020 and then 4,000 megawatts a year after that to reach a total of 64,000 megawatts by 2030—an achievable, but ambitious goal.”
The new plants will include significant safety improvements over the reactors used today. “For starters, they won’t rely on active components to shut things down in an emergency,” says John Holt, senior principal for generation and fuel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). “To reduce human error, the plants will feature more passive systems that can open and close valves automatically using gravity or water flow to cool reactor cores, multiple backup power systems, and digital control rooms. And they will incorporate enhanced post-9/11 security measures, including hardened concrete exteriors that can better withstand the shock of events such as an airplane strike.”
Modular, Modernizing
To keep work on the fast track, most new nuclear plants will rely on standardized design and modular construction.
Contractors such as General Electric claim they can construct an entire facility from the ground up in approximately 36 months.
Adding time spent gaining approval to site a plant, however, would likely stretch the total development of a new plant to 10 years.
Nuclear power’s contribution also depends on the continued safe and reliable performance of existing plants. Most of the nation’s 104 reactors were licensed during the 1960s and 1970s, with roughly half having had their licenses extended from 40 to 60 years, and the remainder filing extension applications with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Discussions are also underway with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and NRC for additional 20-year extensions.
“We believe that with sufficient maintenance, refurbishment, and upgrades, today’s nuclear power plants could operate quite safely for many more decades,” says Dave Modeen, EPRI vice president of the nuclear power sector.
Additionally, the NRC expects to receive up to 29 applications from utilities to build new nuclear power plants in 20 states, chiefly in the South. Applications for licenses—the first in three decades—have just started rolling in.
Costs and Storage
The nation’s nuclear plants in 2007 produced electricity for an average of 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh), according to the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Energy Institute. That compares with 2.37 cents per kwh for coal and 6.75 cents per kwh for natural gas-fired plants. “Unlike fossil fuels, like coal and natural gas, a rise in uranium prices to power nuclear facilities has only a minimal effect on the price of electricity,” comments Holt. “And uranium is a natural resource in plentiful supply.”
Nonetheless, construction costs for all types of power generation have risen significantly, and nuclear will be no exception.
To expand nuclear power generation, a long-term strategy for storing nuclear waste must also be put in place. Nearly 60,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste sit at 126 “temporary” sites—commercial nuclear power plants, defense installations, and national laboratories—in 39 states, all of it in aboveground cooling pools or dry casks.
“These on-site facilities were designed to handle nuclear material only for a short time,” states NRECA CEO Glenn English. “For nuclear power to stay viable, electric co-ops believe that permanent storage is necessary.”
The best option at present is a facility eyed for Yucca Mountain, Nev., a remote spot located about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas near former nuclear warhead testing grounds. But countless problems, such as ongoing lawsuits and political resistance by Nevada officials as well as inadequate congressional appropriations, have put Yucca Mountain in a state of limbo—even as DOE contractors continue to drill tunnels and conduct scientific tests.
Electric co-op consumers who receive electricity from nuclear power plants have already paid $700 million to build the Yucca Mountain storage facility.—
Jennifer Taylor, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Without adequate fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources, our economy will diminish in strength and vitality, which means we will have to change how we think about the future. In reality we won't have a future that will support life styles like our parents or even our grand parents had.
In reality, America will depend on fossil fuels, and nuclear energy, as a major sources of energy for the expansion our economy for the next thirty or fifty years. Wind, Bio and solar will account for less than 20% of needs by 2030. To deny this is ignorance of history, real science and life in this country.
Do we need alternate sources of energy - absolutely - but with realty screaming in our ear saying we need more energy now, and I mean right now, we have to move forward with known sources, i.e. oil and nuclear energy.
Oil sources in this country alone can provide our energy needs for the next 60 to 80 years. Coal for the next 200 years. Where's the common sense? Drill Here - Drill now - Pay Less.
I can not even bring in Ethanol as a viable source as it is on the way out already. This was the nonsense that ever one knew was a mistake from the beginning, but never the less, went ahead with it's development. The reason? Government intervention in the free market.
As we all know now, first hand, Ethanol has cause monumental problems with our and the world food supply.
This article lays out the reality of our power needs and the good reason for moving forward with nuclear energy. I can't agree on the global warming nonsense, green house gases, CO2, but still it is a must for our present and future energy needs and it is affordable.
Always keep the faith in America, the battle goes on for Freedom to chose.
Low-emission Power Source Gaining Attention
After the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, safety concerns and skyrocketing construction costs put the brakes on nuclear-power development. But concern over how the United States can generate large amounts of baseload power without increasing carbon dioxide emissions—combined with streamlined construction methods and enhanced safety features—has positioned nuclear power for a comeback.
Next to coal, nuclear power plants are the primary generation source for large amounts of reliable baseload electricity. Even better, nuclear reactors can help curb emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, blamed for contributing to global warming.
In 2007, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a non-profit utility-sponsored organization whose members include electric co-ops, released a study showing how electric utilities could help significantly reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by taking several aggressive steps. One includes increasing nuclear power to 25 percent of market share.
Expanding Existing Plants
Currently, nuclear power provides 19 percent of the nation’s power supply, behind coal at 49 percent and natural gas at 22 percent.
“The country already has 100,000 megawatts of nuclear power capacity,” says Tom TerBush, EPRI manager of nuclear market strategy. “We project adding 24,000 megawatts of new nuclear by 2020 and then 4,000 megawatts a year after that to reach a total of 64,000 megawatts by 2030—an achievable, but ambitious goal.”
The new plants will include significant safety improvements over the reactors used today. “For starters, they won’t rely on active components to shut things down in an emergency,” says John Holt, senior principal for generation and fuel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). “To reduce human error, the plants will feature more passive systems that can open and close valves automatically using gravity or water flow to cool reactor cores, multiple backup power systems, and digital control rooms. And they will incorporate enhanced post-9/11 security measures, including hardened concrete exteriors that can better withstand the shock of events such as an airplane strike.”
Modular, Modernizing
To keep work on the fast track, most new nuclear plants will rely on standardized design and modular construction.
Contractors such as General Electric claim they can construct an entire facility from the ground up in approximately 36 months.
Adding time spent gaining approval to site a plant, however, would likely stretch the total development of a new plant to 10 years.
Nuclear power’s contribution also depends on the continued safe and reliable performance of existing plants. Most of the nation’s 104 reactors were licensed during the 1960s and 1970s, with roughly half having had their licenses extended from 40 to 60 years, and the remainder filing extension applications with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Discussions are also underway with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and NRC for additional 20-year extensions.
“We believe that with sufficient maintenance, refurbishment, and upgrades, today’s nuclear power plants could operate quite safely for many more decades,” says Dave Modeen, EPRI vice president of the nuclear power sector.
Additionally, the NRC expects to receive up to 29 applications from utilities to build new nuclear power plants in 20 states, chiefly in the South. Applications for licenses—the first in three decades—have just started rolling in.
Costs and Storage
The nation’s nuclear plants in 2007 produced electricity for an average of 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh), according to the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Energy Institute. That compares with 2.37 cents per kwh for coal and 6.75 cents per kwh for natural gas-fired plants. “Unlike fossil fuels, like coal and natural gas, a rise in uranium prices to power nuclear facilities has only a minimal effect on the price of electricity,” comments Holt. “And uranium is a natural resource in plentiful supply.”
Nonetheless, construction costs for all types of power generation have risen significantly, and nuclear will be no exception.
To expand nuclear power generation, a long-term strategy for storing nuclear waste must also be put in place. Nearly 60,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste sit at 126 “temporary” sites—commercial nuclear power plants, defense installations, and national laboratories—in 39 states, all of it in aboveground cooling pools or dry casks.
“These on-site facilities were designed to handle nuclear material only for a short time,” states NRECA CEO Glenn English. “For nuclear power to stay viable, electric co-ops believe that permanent storage is necessary.”
The best option at present is a facility eyed for Yucca Mountain, Nev., a remote spot located about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas near former nuclear warhead testing grounds. But countless problems, such as ongoing lawsuits and political resistance by Nevada officials as well as inadequate congressional appropriations, have put Yucca Mountain in a state of limbo—even as DOE contractors continue to drill tunnels and conduct scientific tests.
Electric co-op consumers who receive electricity from nuclear power plants have already paid $700 million to build the Yucca Mountain storage facility.—
Jennifer Taylor, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Friday, July 04, 2008
Thank God For The American Dream
What a great country we have - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - it was a long time ago that someone used those words to some up what they saw as the very foundation of their new world. They sacrificed everything to make it happen, including their lives.
Today we remember those founding individuals that had the vision and courage to forge a nation that would protect and sustain individual freedom to choose one's own destiny. They were successful.
God bless our country and the American way of life - we have everything God intended us to have. What more is there to want?
We have the faith - we know the battle will be won!
Today we remember those founding individuals that had the vision and courage to forge a nation that would protect and sustain individual freedom to choose one's own destiny. They were successful.
God bless our country and the American way of life - we have everything God intended us to have. What more is there to want?
We have the faith - we know the battle will be won!
Thursday, July 03, 2008
New Marxist Left Democrat Agenda Relies on Misinformation
Ralph Peter hits another home run - he brings to light the truth about the media and the New Socialist Progressive Party, the new Democrats. The agenda of the New Socialists is built on misinformation and out right lies. But, thanks goodness, the new media, talk radio, Fox News and the Internet, have changed how America and the world views events of the day.
For the most part, as I see it, real journalism is dead. The old media can not be trusted to deliver the truth about anything.
The old media that gave us news that they thought we needed and flavored with their socialist agenda is on the ropes - many major newspapers are laying off hundreds of employees as the advertising revenues have fallen. Many in the business ask why is this happening? This is how we have always done things. No one has ever quesioned us before
Easy, the general public is not as stupid as the socialists in the media thought they were.
I don't read any newspaper other than the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal. The Journal must be read with an jaundiced eye, though, as it's editorial pages sometimes has a tendency to stray to the left.
Fox News is as close to the truth as you will find in the electronic media, but here also, one must us common sense when digesting their information - they too have some strange takes on events of the day.
Okay, read Peter's short essay and keep the faith - you now know the battle is joined!
LIARS' ROUND-UP
By RALPH PETERS June 28, 2008 --
THE facts about 'your' security are being torn to shreds by activist liars. And they think that you're too stupid to know the difference.
Let's lay out the worst current examples of media make-believe and election-year truth-trashing:
Whopper No. 1:
America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where's the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. 'Nothing' was done to protect us. And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11. A record to be proud of. Countless aspects of the Bush-Cheney administration deserve merciless criticism. But fair is fair:
Since 9/11, we haven't suffered a single successful terrorist attack on our homeland. Not one. Explain to me, please, how this shows we're less safe. What factual measurement applies, other than the absence of attacks? God knows, the terrorists desperately 'wanted' to strike our homeland. And they couldn't. Are we supposed to believe that was an accident?
Whopper No. 2:
Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can't launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can't show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?). Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda's been beaten down to violent-fugitive status. By what objective measurement is al Qaeda stronger today than it was when it had an entire country for its base and its tentacles reached all the way to Florida and the Midwest?
Whopper No. 3:
Success in Iraq is an illusion - the surge failed. Folks, this is something only a New York Times columnist could believe. Every single significant indicator, from Iraqi government progress through the performance of Iraqi security forces to the plummeting level of violence, has changed for the better - remarkably so. If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens.
Iraq's government is working, its economy is booming - and its military has driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every one of Iraq's major cities. And our troops are coming home. Where's the failure?
Whopper No. 4:
Iran is stronger than ever. Tell that to the Iraqis, who've rejected Iranian meddling in their affairs, who've smashed the Iran-backed Shia militias and who didn't take long to figure out that Tehran's foreign policy was imperialist and anti-Arab. The people of Iraq don't intend to trade Saddam for Ahmadinejad. Iran has 'lost' in Iraq. At this point, all the Iranians can do is to kill a handful of innocent Iraqis now and then. Think that wins them friends and influence?
Whopper No. 5:
The US-European relationship is a disaster. In fact, Washington and the major European capitals have built new, sturdier bridges to replace old ones that badly needed burning. The Europeans grudgingly figured out that they need us - as we need them. The big break in 2003 cleared a lot of bad air (there was no break with Europe's young democracies). Relations today are sounder than they were in the fiddle-while-Rome-burns Clinton era.
Oh, and NATO has become a serious military alliance - fighting in Afghanistan, patrolling the high seas and conducting special operations against terrorists. The Germans announced this week that they're sending another thousand troops to Afghanistan. France is re-engaging with NATO's military side. Where's the disaster, 'mon ami?'
Whopper No. 6:
As president, Barack Obama would bring positive change to our foreign policy while John McCain is to old to get it done. Hmmm. Take a gander at Obama's senior foreign-policy advisers: Madeleine Albright (71), Warren Christopher (82), Anthony Lake (69), Lee Hamilton (77), Richard Clarke (57) . . .If you added up their ages and fed the number into a time-machine, you'd land in Europe in the middle of the Black Death.
More important: These are the people whose watch saw the first attack on the World Trade Center, Mogadishu, Rwanda, the Srebrenica massacre, a pass for the Russians on Chechnya, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the near-sinking of the USS Cole - oh, and the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.Their legacy climaxed on 9/11.
You couldn't assemble a team in Washington with more strategic failures to its credit.
Whopper No. 7:
Our troops are all coming home as psychos victimized by their participation in military atrocities.Tell it to the Marines.
Ralph Peters' new book is "Looking For Trouble."
For the most part, as I see it, real journalism is dead. The old media can not be trusted to deliver the truth about anything.
The old media that gave us news that they thought we needed and flavored with their socialist agenda is on the ropes - many major newspapers are laying off hundreds of employees as the advertising revenues have fallen. Many in the business ask why is this happening? This is how we have always done things. No one has ever quesioned us before
Easy, the general public is not as stupid as the socialists in the media thought they were.
I don't read any newspaper other than the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal. The Journal must be read with an jaundiced eye, though, as it's editorial pages sometimes has a tendency to stray to the left.
Fox News is as close to the truth as you will find in the electronic media, but here also, one must us common sense when digesting their information - they too have some strange takes on events of the day.
Okay, read Peter's short essay and keep the faith - you now know the battle is joined!
LIARS' ROUND-UP
By RALPH PETERS June 28, 2008 --
THE facts about 'your' security are being torn to shreds by activist liars. And they think that you're too stupid to know the difference.
Let's lay out the worst current examples of media make-believe and election-year truth-trashing:
Whopper No. 1:
America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where's the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. 'Nothing' was done to protect us. And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11. A record to be proud of. Countless aspects of the Bush-Cheney administration deserve merciless criticism. But fair is fair:
Since 9/11, we haven't suffered a single successful terrorist attack on our homeland. Not one. Explain to me, please, how this shows we're less safe. What factual measurement applies, other than the absence of attacks? God knows, the terrorists desperately 'wanted' to strike our homeland. And they couldn't. Are we supposed to believe that was an accident?
Whopper No. 2:
Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can't launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can't show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?). Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda's been beaten down to violent-fugitive status. By what objective measurement is al Qaeda stronger today than it was when it had an entire country for its base and its tentacles reached all the way to Florida and the Midwest?
Whopper No. 3:
Success in Iraq is an illusion - the surge failed. Folks, this is something only a New York Times columnist could believe. Every single significant indicator, from Iraqi government progress through the performance of Iraqi security forces to the plummeting level of violence, has changed for the better - remarkably so. If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens.
Iraq's government is working, its economy is booming - and its military has driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every one of Iraq's major cities. And our troops are coming home. Where's the failure?
Whopper No. 4:
Iran is stronger than ever. Tell that to the Iraqis, who've rejected Iranian meddling in their affairs, who've smashed the Iran-backed Shia militias and who didn't take long to figure out that Tehran's foreign policy was imperialist and anti-Arab. The people of Iraq don't intend to trade Saddam for Ahmadinejad. Iran has 'lost' in Iraq. At this point, all the Iranians can do is to kill a handful of innocent Iraqis now and then. Think that wins them friends and influence?
Whopper No. 5:
The US-European relationship is a disaster. In fact, Washington and the major European capitals have built new, sturdier bridges to replace old ones that badly needed burning. The Europeans grudgingly figured out that they need us - as we need them. The big break in 2003 cleared a lot of bad air (there was no break with Europe's young democracies). Relations today are sounder than they were in the fiddle-while-Rome-burns Clinton era.
Oh, and NATO has become a serious military alliance - fighting in Afghanistan, patrolling the high seas and conducting special operations against terrorists. The Germans announced this week that they're sending another thousand troops to Afghanistan. France is re-engaging with NATO's military side. Where's the disaster, 'mon ami?'
Whopper No. 6:
As president, Barack Obama would bring positive change to our foreign policy while John McCain is to old to get it done. Hmmm. Take a gander at Obama's senior foreign-policy advisers: Madeleine Albright (71), Warren Christopher (82), Anthony Lake (69), Lee Hamilton (77), Richard Clarke (57) . . .If you added up their ages and fed the number into a time-machine, you'd land in Europe in the middle of the Black Death.
More important: These are the people whose watch saw the first attack on the World Trade Center, Mogadishu, Rwanda, the Srebrenica massacre, a pass for the Russians on Chechnya, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the near-sinking of the USS Cole - oh, and the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.Their legacy climaxed on 9/11.
You couldn't assemble a team in Washington with more strategic failures to its credit.
Whopper No. 7:
Our troops are all coming home as psychos victimized by their participation in military atrocities.Tell it to the Marines.
Ralph Peters' new book is "Looking For Trouble."
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Second Amendment Rights to Armed Defense Upheld
What a great day for our side - this case, for the right to own a fire arm for our personal protection, was originally intended, as our forefathers understood 250 years ago, to prevent a government, not representative of the people, from taking away the basic rights of the people to determine their own destiny. The founding fathers came from such an repressive environment.
With a fire arm in every home, it becomes much more difficult for those in power to force the population into uncompromising positions. That is, a total loss of individual rights and freedoms. Under such conditions, an armed population can rise up against the repressive government.
The most basic fundamental principle of the Marxist socialist agenda is to disarm the population mentally and physically.
It surly doesn't take rocket science to see and understand why the liberal Marxist Democrats, and the 'anti-gun lobby', have the same goal in mind when they demand total gun control and ultimately gun confiscation. An unarmed population is much easier to control.
The Heritage Foundation presents a good basic narrative on how important this decisions is to the future of our country.
Keep the faith, the battle is progressing.
Second Amendment victory
In a landmark decision released Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to bear arms by striking down the District of Columbia’s onerous prohibition on handguns and its strict controls on long guns.
“The U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to keep and bear arms, recognized in the Second Amendment, is an individual right of all Americans unconnected with service in a militia,” explains Todd Gaziano, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “Americans may use arms like handguns for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Writing on Human Events online, Heritage legal scholar Andrew Grossman says Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, “decimates the gun control crowd’s contention that the Second Amendment guarantees only a collective right, having to do with states’ militias, making it all but irrelevant in the modern age.”
» Read the decision in PDF format.
Heritage has been an effective advocate for a common-sense understanding of the Second Amendment. When Heller came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Heritage legal scholars helped the winning side prepare its arguments.
With a fire arm in every home, it becomes much more difficult for those in power to force the population into uncompromising positions. That is, a total loss of individual rights and freedoms. Under such conditions, an armed population can rise up against the repressive government.
The most basic fundamental principle of the Marxist socialist agenda is to disarm the population mentally and physically.
It surly doesn't take rocket science to see and understand why the liberal Marxist Democrats, and the 'anti-gun lobby', have the same goal in mind when they demand total gun control and ultimately gun confiscation. An unarmed population is much easier to control.
The Heritage Foundation presents a good basic narrative on how important this decisions is to the future of our country.
Keep the faith, the battle is progressing.
Second Amendment victory
In a landmark decision released Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to bear arms by striking down the District of Columbia’s onerous prohibition on handguns and its strict controls on long guns.
“The U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to keep and bear arms, recognized in the Second Amendment, is an individual right of all Americans unconnected with service in a militia,” explains Todd Gaziano, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “Americans may use arms like handguns for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Writing on Human Events online, Heritage legal scholar Andrew Grossman says Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, “decimates the gun control crowd’s contention that the Second Amendment guarantees only a collective right, having to do with states’ militias, making it all but irrelevant in the modern age.”
» Read the decision in PDF format.
Heritage has been an effective advocate for a common-sense understanding of the Second Amendment. When Heller came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Heritage legal scholars helped the winning side prepare its arguments.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Foreign AND Domestic Terrorists Have NO Rights
What does it say about our society when we allow mass killers to enter our legal systems as equals to our own citizens? What also does it say about us when our own high court decides they have rights and benefits that many of our own citizens don't have or can't afford?
We're not talking about disadvantaged peoples or the poor that pour into our country for medical treatment and or just a way to not starve to death - we are talking about people that want to kills all and have tried to do just that on the battle field. These are people that have dedicated their lives to killing anyone that disagrees with their way of life - they have a philosophy of death to all nonbelievers.
A large majority of Americans know the difference between right and wrong and live their personal lives under laws that were established two thousand years ago. This fantastic country was founded under those same laws and has become the most powerful and free country in the world and in all history.
How can five people decide for me and you what is right and what is wrong? That is what the five liberal Supreme Court justices have done granting terrorists rights and benefits that hundreds of thousands have died to preserve for us over the years since our founding. Now they have decreed that anyone that wants to kills all of us and fails in their task, is captured will get a free ride back to freedom and another chance to kill us again.
Where is the common sense in this? Who in their right mind would allow this to happen? What law maker could possibility believe the founding fathers had this in mind when they wrote the Constitution?
Well, actually this should be easy enough to answer - the United State Senate and the Supreme Court has very few members that have their right mind. Their complete lack of responsibility to the American people and to the Constitution precepts is made evident every time they open their individual or collective mouths.
They embarrass us all and they desecrate all those that gave their lives for this country.
Keep the faith while we attack this ignorance and duplicity among our anointed royalty - then we will know how to advance the battle for Freedom and Democracy.
DON'T CATCH - KILL
By RALPH PETERS
June 24, 2008 --
THE first beneficiary of Bar ack Obama's promise to expand health-care access could be Osama bin Laden.
The senator would rather see Osama captured, not killed, then put into our federal system for trial. That means the terror master would get better medical treatment - for free - than many Post readers can afford.Is that 'really' what Americans want? To spend millions of dollars protecting a captive bin Laden and millions more treating his kidney problems?Is 'that' an effective reply to 9/11? Does it pass 'any' common-sense test?
Recent events should have made it clear - again - that captive terrorists are overwhelmingly a liability. The meager intelligence we get interrogating them is rarely commensurate with the array of financial, moral and legal costs involved in keeping them locked up. Worst of all (as I've repeatedly argued), a jailed terrorist, not a dead one, is the true "martyr."
Incarcerated terrorists become celebrated causes for our domestic left and rallying points for foreign fanatics. The dead just rot.
A few weeks ago, a well-planned terrorist assault on a prison in Kandahar, Afghanistan, freed dozens of Taliban midlevel managers and perhaps 200 terrorist foot soldiers. What benefit had we gained by taking these butchers prisoner instead of killing them on the battlefield? They merely lived to fight another day.
Almost simultaneously, our Supreme Court ruled that terrorists who slaughter Americans should enjoy legal protections meant for US citizens. I respect and admire the Supremes, but this decision drives home the truism that "Only God is perfect."
A dead terrorist is a good terrorist.
Keeps costs down, too.To be clear: I do not advocate executing prisoners. We should treat any terrorist we capture rigorously, but with basic decency. I would only condone forceful interrogation methods in the most exceptional cases (there are always exceptions in real life, once you leave the rarefied air of the law library or the campus).
But it 'is' my belief that our conventional military and special-operations efforts should emphasize killing terrorists on the battlefield or in their lairs - conditions where it is entirely legal to do so. Taking these murderers prisoner should be an accident, not a goal. Once a terrorist raises his hands in surrender, we must honor the pertinent conventions. But effective military and intelligence operations shouldn't give him the chance to wave a white rag.
Certainly, we should do all we sensibly can to avoid harming the innocent. Effective targeting demands sound intelligence work (ours has gotten much better). And, once in a great while, we'll decide that a senior terrorist 'should' be taken alive for interrogation. But the left-wing arguments against killing those who do all they can to kill us are simply wrong. You 'can' kill your way out of terrorist challenges - it's been done countless times through the centuries. (That's what's happening to Al Qaeda in Iraq today.)
And killing terrorists doesn't put us on a "slippery slope." Killing Osama or Ayman al-Zawahiri wouldn't inevitably mean that our Special Forces would then turn to assassinating Iowa aldermen or Alabama church deacons.
The greatest left-wing fallacy in the War on Terror is the conviction that protecting the rights of terrorists is more important than protecting the rights of the innocent. It is utterly wrong to imagine that, by according exaggerated legal protections to terrorists, we strengthen the legal basis of our society.
Our government's basic justification for existing is the protection of its own citizens.There is nothing heroic or noble about defending a fanatical mass murderer's "rights." The nobility lies in protecting the masses of innocent human beings who obey the law. When anyone chooses the path of terror, he or she leaps beyond all constitutional guarantees.
Over and over again, our military has found that escaped or released terrorist prisoners kill again. And hard-core terrorists can't be rehabilitated:
The redemption of human monsters is a myth.
No terrorist captured abroad should ever set foot on American soil. No terrorist taken overseas should ever enter a US courtroom. And no terrorist of any kind should ever receive free health care that working Americans can't afford for their families.No special diets, either. Let 'em eat corn dogs.The greatest weapon we could apply to fighting terrorists is common sense.
Ralph Peters' new book, "Looking for Trouble," hits stores next week.
We're not talking about disadvantaged peoples or the poor that pour into our country for medical treatment and or just a way to not starve to death - we are talking about people that want to kills all and have tried to do just that on the battle field. These are people that have dedicated their lives to killing anyone that disagrees with their way of life - they have a philosophy of death to all nonbelievers.
A large majority of Americans know the difference between right and wrong and live their personal lives under laws that were established two thousand years ago. This fantastic country was founded under those same laws and has become the most powerful and free country in the world and in all history.
How can five people decide for me and you what is right and what is wrong? That is what the five liberal Supreme Court justices have done granting terrorists rights and benefits that hundreds of thousands have died to preserve for us over the years since our founding. Now they have decreed that anyone that wants to kills all of us and fails in their task, is captured will get a free ride back to freedom and another chance to kill us again.
Where is the common sense in this? Who in their right mind would allow this to happen? What law maker could possibility believe the founding fathers had this in mind when they wrote the Constitution?
Well, actually this should be easy enough to answer - the United State Senate and the Supreme Court has very few members that have their right mind. Their complete lack of responsibility to the American people and to the Constitution precepts is made evident every time they open their individual or collective mouths.
They embarrass us all and they desecrate all those that gave their lives for this country.
Keep the faith while we attack this ignorance and duplicity among our anointed royalty - then we will know how to advance the battle for Freedom and Democracy.
DON'T CATCH - KILL
By RALPH PETERS
June 24, 2008 --
THE first beneficiary of Bar ack Obama's promise to expand health-care access could be Osama bin Laden.
The senator would rather see Osama captured, not killed, then put into our federal system for trial. That means the terror master would get better medical treatment - for free - than many Post readers can afford.Is that 'really' what Americans want? To spend millions of dollars protecting a captive bin Laden and millions more treating his kidney problems?Is 'that' an effective reply to 9/11? Does it pass 'any' common-sense test?
Recent events should have made it clear - again - that captive terrorists are overwhelmingly a liability. The meager intelligence we get interrogating them is rarely commensurate with the array of financial, moral and legal costs involved in keeping them locked up. Worst of all (as I've repeatedly argued), a jailed terrorist, not a dead one, is the true "martyr."
Incarcerated terrorists become celebrated causes for our domestic left and rallying points for foreign fanatics. The dead just rot.
A few weeks ago, a well-planned terrorist assault on a prison in Kandahar, Afghanistan, freed dozens of Taliban midlevel managers and perhaps 200 terrorist foot soldiers. What benefit had we gained by taking these butchers prisoner instead of killing them on the battlefield? They merely lived to fight another day.
Almost simultaneously, our Supreme Court ruled that terrorists who slaughter Americans should enjoy legal protections meant for US citizens. I respect and admire the Supremes, but this decision drives home the truism that "Only God is perfect."
A dead terrorist is a good terrorist.
Keeps costs down, too.To be clear: I do not advocate executing prisoners. We should treat any terrorist we capture rigorously, but with basic decency. I would only condone forceful interrogation methods in the most exceptional cases (there are always exceptions in real life, once you leave the rarefied air of the law library or the campus).
But it 'is' my belief that our conventional military and special-operations efforts should emphasize killing terrorists on the battlefield or in their lairs - conditions where it is entirely legal to do so. Taking these murderers prisoner should be an accident, not a goal. Once a terrorist raises his hands in surrender, we must honor the pertinent conventions. But effective military and intelligence operations shouldn't give him the chance to wave a white rag.
Certainly, we should do all we sensibly can to avoid harming the innocent. Effective targeting demands sound intelligence work (ours has gotten much better). And, once in a great while, we'll decide that a senior terrorist 'should' be taken alive for interrogation. But the left-wing arguments against killing those who do all they can to kill us are simply wrong. You 'can' kill your way out of terrorist challenges - it's been done countless times through the centuries. (That's what's happening to Al Qaeda in Iraq today.)
And killing terrorists doesn't put us on a "slippery slope." Killing Osama or Ayman al-Zawahiri wouldn't inevitably mean that our Special Forces would then turn to assassinating Iowa aldermen or Alabama church deacons.
The greatest left-wing fallacy in the War on Terror is the conviction that protecting the rights of terrorists is more important than protecting the rights of the innocent. It is utterly wrong to imagine that, by according exaggerated legal protections to terrorists, we strengthen the legal basis of our society.
Our government's basic justification for existing is the protection of its own citizens.There is nothing heroic or noble about defending a fanatical mass murderer's "rights." The nobility lies in protecting the masses of innocent human beings who obey the law. When anyone chooses the path of terror, he or she leaps beyond all constitutional guarantees.
Over and over again, our military has found that escaped or released terrorist prisoners kill again. And hard-core terrorists can't be rehabilitated:
The redemption of human monsters is a myth.
No terrorist captured abroad should ever set foot on American soil. No terrorist taken overseas should ever enter a US courtroom. And no terrorist of any kind should ever receive free health care that working Americans can't afford for their families.No special diets, either. Let 'em eat corn dogs.The greatest weapon we could apply to fighting terrorists is common sense.
Ralph Peters' new book, "Looking for Trouble," hits stores next week.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
More Questions About Flood Rescue Stratgy
Here is another take on the flooding - you can see that the comparisons are not lost on the general public - the Democrats can't hide from the 60 years of control of New Orleans and the results are still there for all to see. Nothing has changed.
The self reliance shown by people of the mid-west stands so far apart from the 'people' in N.O. that were in the same situation. Also, there was/is zero looting. I have pretty much given up hope for the 'victims' of that culture.
Nothing Has Changed (author unknown)
Sad, very, very sad...Something to think about.
Where are all of the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods?
Where are the $2,000 debit cards that were spent at strip clubs?
What happened to the FEMA trailers that were stripped to the walls? Where is all the media asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved the problem?Asking where the FEMA trucks (and trailers) are?
Why isn't the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels in Chicago? When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines?
Where are Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks?
Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes and big screen television sets? When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a 'vanilla' Iowa, because that's the way God wants it?
Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of cannibalism?
Where are the people declaring that George Bush hates white, rural people? How come in 2 weeks, you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever again? Believe it, it won't take that long.
Because good people helping each other out is not news worthy, the media is full of BS!
The self reliance shown by people of the mid-west stands so far apart from the 'people' in N.O. that were in the same situation. Also, there was/is zero looting. I have pretty much given up hope for the 'victims' of that culture.
Nothing Has Changed (author unknown)
Sad, very, very sad...Something to think about.
Where are all of the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods?
Where are the $2,000 debit cards that were spent at strip clubs?
What happened to the FEMA trailers that were stripped to the walls? Where is all the media asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved the problem?Asking where the FEMA trucks (and trailers) are?
Why isn't the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels in Chicago? When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines?
Where are Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks?
Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes and big screen television sets? When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a 'vanilla' Iowa, because that's the way God wants it?
Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of cannibalism?
Where are the people declaring that George Bush hates white, rural people? How come in 2 weeks, you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever again? Believe it, it won't take that long.
Because good people helping each other out is not news worthy, the media is full of BS!
Our Creator Moves in Mysterious Ways
I don't know who the author is of this great story but it reveals just how the good Lord has a plan for all of us - all we have to do is believe that he does.
The Pastor and the Cat
Dwight Nelson recently told a true story about the pastor of his church. He had a kitten that climbed up a tree in his garden and then was afraid to come down. The pastor coaxed, offered warm milk, etc. The kitten would not come down.
The tree was not sturdy enough to climb, so the pastor decided that if he tied a rope to the tree and then to his car so that when he moved the car the tree bent down, he could then reach up and get the kitten. He did!
All the while, checking his progress in the car frequently, he figured if he went just a little bit further, the tree would be bent sufficiently for him to reach the kitten. But as he moved a little further forward, the rope broke. The tree went 'boing!' and the kitten instantly sailed through the air - out of sight.
The pastor felt terrible. He walked all over the neighborhood asking people if they'd seen a little kitten. No. Nobody had seen a stray kitten So he prayed, 'Lord, I just commit this kitten to your keeping,' and went on about his business.
A few days later he was at the grocery store, and met one of his church members that lived behind him. He happened to look into her shopping cart and was amazed to see cat food. This woman was a cat hater and every one knew it, so he asked her, 'Why are you buying cat food when you hate cats so much?' She replied, 'You won't believe this,' and told him how her little girl had been begging her for a cat, but she kept refusing.
Then a few days before, the child had begged again, so the mother finally told her little girl, 'Well, if God gives you a cat, I'll let you keep it.' She told the pastor, 'I watched my child go out in the yard, get on her knees, and ask God for a cat. And really, Pastor, you won't believe this, but I saw it with my own eyes, a kitten suddenly came flying out of the blue sky, with its paws outspread, and landed right in front of her.'
Never underestimate the Power of God and His unique sense of humor.
The Pastor and the Cat
Dwight Nelson recently told a true story about the pastor of his church. He had a kitten that climbed up a tree in his garden and then was afraid to come down. The pastor coaxed, offered warm milk, etc. The kitten would not come down.
The tree was not sturdy enough to climb, so the pastor decided that if he tied a rope to the tree and then to his car so that when he moved the car the tree bent down, he could then reach up and get the kitten. He did!
All the while, checking his progress in the car frequently, he figured if he went just a little bit further, the tree would be bent sufficiently for him to reach the kitten. But as he moved a little further forward, the rope broke. The tree went 'boing!' and the kitten instantly sailed through the air - out of sight.
The pastor felt terrible. He walked all over the neighborhood asking people if they'd seen a little kitten. No. Nobody had seen a stray kitten So he prayed, 'Lord, I just commit this kitten to your keeping,' and went on about his business.
A few days later he was at the grocery store, and met one of his church members that lived behind him. He happened to look into her shopping cart and was amazed to see cat food. This woman was a cat hater and every one knew it, so he asked her, 'Why are you buying cat food when you hate cats so much?' She replied, 'You won't believe this,' and told him how her little girl had been begging her for a cat, but she kept refusing.
Then a few days before, the child had begged again, so the mother finally told her little girl, 'Well, if God gives you a cat, I'll let you keep it.' She told the pastor, 'I watched my child go out in the yard, get on her knees, and ask God for a cat. And really, Pastor, you won't believe this, but I saw it with my own eyes, a kitten suddenly came flying out of the blue sky, with its paws outspread, and landed right in front of her.'
Never underestimate the Power of God and His unique sense of humor.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Midwest Flood : Where Are The Victims?
After seeing what the floods did here in Wisconsin and Iowa, I was sure the media would give this a lot of coverage - heh - no, not really - when I saw the first pictures of houses falling into the rushing water, I was sure the media types would do just what they had to and no more - making up stories about how the government didn't care about the Midwesterners and their problems wouldn't fly with the general public.
Nobody really cared all that much anyway because everyone knew we would do what ever we had to to fix the problem and carry on with out lives. After all what's in the Midwest that could be ruined anyway - yuk - yuk. It's not like where real smart people live.
The general consensus is the Midwest is "flyover country" and if there is a problem our here, nobody cares all that much where the "real" people live, on the coasts. Also, the media types are not stupid, totally biased for sure, but not stupid enough to try and spin this tragedy into another New Orleans. The people out here wouldn't buy that line even though the left and right coast might. A couple of days should be enough.
This little comparison between the two 'flood tragedies' reveals how different the two areas of the country are and how history could have predicted the outcomes.
The author is unknown but we will enjoy their insight while we keep the faith and rearm ourselves for the battle that's in progress.
Iowa verses Louisiana
Have you all noticed that Cedar Rapids is under 10 feet of water. Thousands upon thousands of people are displaced?
Have you noticed that nobody is looting every empty property in sight ?
Have you noticed that nobody is shooting at rescuers?
Have you noticed any victims on TV wondering where the federal government is to 'take care of them'?
Or, have you noticed victims, who have lost everything, make comments like 'life goes on', 'we'll just need to pick up the pieces and start over', and 'at least we still have our life'.
Maybe Government could help make "victims"of these survivors as well, convince them that they aren't strong enough to take care of themselves, they're not smart enough to survive.
Maybe we should subsidize their lives for the next 2+years, free housing, $2000/month to not work.... Just food for thought
Have you noticed that the media does not make nearly as big a deal of this as they did of Katrina in New Orleans? Maybe if they could find an angle that says: "Bush doesn't care about minorities" they would give the kind of coverage they did in New Orleans.
But wait, the water will eventually break through and make its way down river to New Orleans. Then we will see the coverage change. Then it will be a moral tragedy and evidence that Republicans don't care about minorities.
Then you will see Obama and Sharpton on the scene. The news will explain why the people are frustrated and that is why they shoot at the rescue helicopters and loot and steal.
Nobody really cared all that much anyway because everyone knew we would do what ever we had to to fix the problem and carry on with out lives. After all what's in the Midwest that could be ruined anyway - yuk - yuk. It's not like where real smart people live.
The general consensus is the Midwest is "flyover country" and if there is a problem our here, nobody cares all that much where the "real" people live, on the coasts. Also, the media types are not stupid, totally biased for sure, but not stupid enough to try and spin this tragedy into another New Orleans. The people out here wouldn't buy that line even though the left and right coast might. A couple of days should be enough.
This little comparison between the two 'flood tragedies' reveals how different the two areas of the country are and how history could have predicted the outcomes.
The author is unknown but we will enjoy their insight while we keep the faith and rearm ourselves for the battle that's in progress.
Iowa verses Louisiana
Have you all noticed that Cedar Rapids is under 10 feet of water. Thousands upon thousands of people are displaced?
Have you noticed that nobody is looting every empty property in sight ?
Have you noticed that nobody is shooting at rescuers?
Have you noticed any victims on TV wondering where the federal government is to 'take care of them'?
Or, have you noticed victims, who have lost everything, make comments like 'life goes on', 'we'll just need to pick up the pieces and start over', and 'at least we still have our life'.
Maybe Government could help make "victims"of these survivors as well, convince them that they aren't strong enough to take care of themselves, they're not smart enough to survive.
Maybe we should subsidize their lives for the next 2+years, free housing, $2000/month to not work.... Just food for thought
Have you noticed that the media does not make nearly as big a deal of this as they did of Katrina in New Orleans? Maybe if they could find an angle that says: "Bush doesn't care about minorities" they would give the kind of coverage they did in New Orleans.
But wait, the water will eventually break through and make its way down river to New Orleans. Then we will see the coverage change. Then it will be a moral tragedy and evidence that Republicans don't care about minorities.
Then you will see Obama and Sharpton on the scene. The news will explain why the people are frustrated and that is why they shoot at the rescue helicopters and loot and steal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
