May 2009


This post could also have been titled “And the band plays while we sink.”

This “debate” amazes me.

On one end we have Islam and its fascist ideology which turns its followers into drones who can’t wait to blow themselves up while taking scores of people with them. All in the name of Allah. Wow.

On the other end we have tyrants and insane leaders such as Kim Jong-il who seem to have no qualms about starting a nuclear war with South Korea, Japan and America. Along with him we have President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who describes the Nazi Holocaust of European Jews as a “myth”, and states that Israel should be wiped off the map. He has said on several occasions he envisions that to destroy Israel it would require perhaps only two well-placed nuclear warheads inside its borders. Awesome.

Meanwhile the U.N. seems to believe we can turn off their nuclear programs with a few well-written resolutions. The naivety is not amusing, it’s dangerous for the world – just as Obama’s is.

Somehow we have allowed ourselves to be distracted from the real threat. We appear to have this delusion that we can sit down face-to-face with Kim and Mahmoud and convince them we can play nice with each other if they would only put down their arms and change their ways of looking at the world. We have the same delusion with Islam; that it’s just another religion and we’re only dealing with a few David Koresh style fanatics in their ranks. We have failed to understand what it is we are actually dealing with which is an ideology with the goal of creating an Islamic world.

So while we seem willing to ignore the realities of the world we live in, we get all high and mighty and engage in a self-defeating debate of how to deal with the sub-human animals harboring a death wish for Americans and who would dance with glee while beheading your sister – but only after repeatedly raping her.

This ain’t dancing with the stars. This is for real boys and girls. These people want to kill us and America hasn’t the stomach to deal with them in the only way they understand and respect.

My only hope is that America wakes up to the realities of what we’re dealing with. To do that we have to put down the idea we can just walk up to one of our captives, hand him a cookie and a glass of milk while asking him nicely where he placed the bomb with the hope he tells us before it goes off.

My other hope is the if the bomb does go off, it strikes a personal chord with those who believe we can do so.

Advertisements

The fairness doctrine – the initiative which required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues – was scrapped by the FCC as unconstitutional in 1987. However, if Barack Obama has his way, it could come back in another form.

FCC commissioner Robert McDowell suggested the doctrine could be woven into the fabric of policy initiatives with names like localism, diversity or network neutrality. “According to some, the premise of any of these initiatives is similar to the philosophical underpinnings of the Doctrine: the government must keep electronic conduits of information viewpoint neutral,” he said.

For anyone out there who is not aware of the arrival of America’s version of Tass or Pravda consult the following links on the topic.

FCC’s McDowell Warns Against Fairness Doctrine.

Lynn Woolley: Obama’s planned assault on talk radio

On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine, “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.” When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied, “I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.”

On Iraq Withdrawl

Despite Pledging To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq Immediately, Barack Obama Now Says He Would “Refine” His Policy After Listening To The Commanders On The Ground.

In July 2008, Barack Obama Said He Will Continue To “Refine” His Iraq Policy. Obama: “I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed…And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.” (Jeff Zeleny, “Obama: Open to ‘Refine’ Iraq Withdrawal Timeline,” The New York Times’ “The Caucus”

On Military Tribunals

The tribunal system — set up after the military began sweeping detainees off the battlefields of Afghanistan in late 2001 — has been under repeated challenges from human rights and legal organizations because it denied defendants many of the rights they would be granted in a civilian courtroom.

In February 2008, during his presidential campaign, Obama described the Guantanamo trials as “a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict any one of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges.” Critics, including many Democrats, cited the tribunals in assailing Bush, who had pushed Congress to create the system. They accused him of violating U.S. law by limiting the detainees’ legal rights.

President Obama’s decision to re-institute the military tribunals has raised questions about whether any can be held at Guantanamo Bay prison which is scheduled to be closed in January.

The Obama administration won’t say which of the 241 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison will be tried before the commission. Only some of trials will occur at Guantanamo partly because the president is still committed to closing the prison next January.

On Releasing Detainee Photos

Citing concerns over how the release of photos depicting detainees might affect troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Obama administration is signaling it will retract its promise to allow the photos to be released.

Naive and Dangerous

Obama has flip-flopped on several issues and it indicates what I already know; he is very naive and consequently, very, very, dangerous.

Has miscalculation on these issues demonstrates a fundamental failure to grasp the politics and the consequences of his position. When the big decision comes, when it will effect all of us personally, I fear he will again miscalculate.

America needs to wake up and take the process of electing our leaders a bit more seriously. This is not America’s Idol. This is for real.

I believe introducing a bill to advance term limits into law is almost an impossible task. I think of it this way; all of them are up there in Washington riding the gravy train. Why would any of them want to essentially vote themselves out of office?

Don’t get me wrong. There was a time when I did not believe in term limits. Instead, I believed in our ability to get off our collective azzes and go out and vote every two fricking years. When I finally got a clue that America doesn’t care (i.e. Kennedy, the lifer ilk, et. al.), I woke up to the fact term limits are going to be the only way to save America. After all, the voters won’t.

Look at the current occupant in the White House.

I know that $100 million dollars is a lot of money, but when you compare that against the pile it came from, it is a mere pittance.

Obama's idea of saving.

So which should make me the most angry about this? Is it the fact that Obama did not try to save us from a mountain of debt by taking a bigger budget cut? Or, should I be angry at the fact that I’m expected to be satisfied and grateful with this symbolic effort to reduce the size of the colossal budget, and in so doing, realizing that I and every other thinking American are begin played as an idiot.