A Daily Briefing on Iran
Check out my post on March 2, titled "Terrorist Or Freedom Fighter. Read the last paragraph.
Did I call it or what?
Iran wants to restore the Persian Empire under the Shiite banner. Syria is leaving Lebanon. Hezbollah is and has been funded/sponsored by Iran. Therefore, Hezbollah will be the new power broker in Lebanon, if the world community doesn't take heed.
Replacing one form of tyranny with another, makes no sense at all. This is why Bush 41 did not remove Saddam in Desert Storm. Iran was/is poised and ready to enter any power vacuum in the Middle East, to extend its influence and political power. And Lebanon is as good a place as any, in their minds.
Regime change in Iran is the only hope, this imperialism can be stopped.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Anchors Away
Click on the title for an article about how the illegal population is draining and even in some cases, bankrupting the healthcare system in this country. Many people have no idea how much this will affect the future cost of healthcare. Illegals rarely pay taxes on their income and as a result, it is the average American who is footing the bill.
Action on this cannot wait. Plans must be implemented soon to avert a catastrophe. But so far, there are none.
Give this a read and think about it.
Action on this cannot wait. Plans must be implemented soon to avert a catastrophe. But so far, there are none.
Give this a read and think about it.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Four Dead, One Injured.
If the Fulton County Sheriff Department had not sent an inmate (that had been caught with two shanks the day prior) with one small female officer, four people would be alive today and one person would not be lying in an Atlanta hospital, with a gunshot wound to the mouth.
No doubt they will investigate for weeks (maybe months), spend loads of money, and try to figure out how much they can sweep under the rug and how much they have to own up to. In the news conference this afternoon, the Fulton County Sheriff let it be known that he has only been in office for a couple of months, laying the foundation for future blame placing.
There is some measure of either poetic justice or just plain old irony in this case, though. The DA Paul Howard was the prosecutor that made the deal with the mother that had killed two of her kids, the one where if she was sterilized she could avoid jail time. And, the dead judge was the one that approved the plea agreement. What you read into that is up to you, but at the very least, you can see that we have an inept prosecutor that could very well screw this case up.
This kind of occurence is a statistic that could have been prevented, so easily. It made no sense to handle it this way, especially with what they already knew. Highly paid and trusted officials that work in law enforcement, should know that this is a principle taught in Corrections 101. The people of Atlanta should expect more and demand more, if they want it to remain a world-class city.
No doubt they will investigate for weeks (maybe months), spend loads of money, and try to figure out how much they can sweep under the rug and how much they have to own up to. In the news conference this afternoon, the Fulton County Sheriff let it be known that he has only been in office for a couple of months, laying the foundation for future blame placing.
There is some measure of either poetic justice or just plain old irony in this case, though. The DA Paul Howard was the prosecutor that made the deal with the mother that had killed two of her kids, the one where if she was sterilized she could avoid jail time. And, the dead judge was the one that approved the plea agreement. What you read into that is up to you, but at the very least, you can see that we have an inept prosecutor that could very well screw this case up.
This kind of occurence is a statistic that could have been prevented, so easily. It made no sense to handle it this way, especially with what they already knew. Highly paid and trusted officials that work in law enforcement, should know that this is a principle taught in Corrections 101. The people of Atlanta should expect more and demand more, if they want it to remain a world-class city.
When Will We Learn?
I think it is admirable that the "politically correct/don't want to offend anyone" crowd want accused criminal defendants on trial to be able to wear street clothes, so they can lower the risk of prejudicing the jury. I am for any defendant being able to have the fairest possible trial. I am all for individual rights and will fight to the death to defend them. But as we all saw yesterday, there are reasons why it makes good sense to ignore political correctness and opt for safety/security.
The man that was caught trying to smuggle shanks into the courtroom on Thursday, should have been shackled and not allowed to change into street clothes. The judge was reportedly aware of this, but for some ridiculous reason was not inclined to increase security in any way, shape, or form. As a result, the judge and two others are dead, one is in the hospital, and a dangerous criminal is on the loose.
You will no doubt hear the pundits opine for days and the official investigation will drag on for weeks, but the fact remains this whole thing could have/would have been prevented with a little common sense.
When will the ACLU and others begin to see that some policies and procedures are necessary for the overall public good and should supercede political correctness? When will they take up the causes of the vast amount of those in prison for minor drug offenses, and stop taking up the causes of thugs like this, thus freeing up valuable jail bedspace?
When will we stop the policies of being reactive instead of being proactive? When will we realize that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, is more than just an old saying?
When will we stop dropping the stack of plates to catch the one that is falling? When will we consider the rights of the law abiding masses over the rights of criminals?
When?
The man that was caught trying to smuggle shanks into the courtroom on Thursday, should have been shackled and not allowed to change into street clothes. The judge was reportedly aware of this, but for some ridiculous reason was not inclined to increase security in any way, shape, or form. As a result, the judge and two others are dead, one is in the hospital, and a dangerous criminal is on the loose.
You will no doubt hear the pundits opine for days and the official investigation will drag on for weeks, but the fact remains this whole thing could have/would have been prevented with a little common sense.
When will the ACLU and others begin to see that some policies and procedures are necessary for the overall public good and should supercede political correctness? When will they take up the causes of the vast amount of those in prison for minor drug offenses, and stop taking up the causes of thugs like this, thus freeing up valuable jail bedspace?
When will we stop the policies of being reactive instead of being proactive? When will we realize that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, is more than just an old saying?
When will we stop dropping the stack of plates to catch the one that is falling? When will we consider the rights of the law abiding masses over the rights of criminals?
When?
Friday, March 11, 2005
A Daily Briefing on Iran: Why Europe is Soft on Terror?
A Daily Briefing on Iran: Why Europe is Soft on Terror?
Here is another article on the relationship between the old grand dame that allows abusive men into her life, without seeing the obvious warning signs.
Here is another article on the relationship between the old grand dame that allows abusive men into her life, without seeing the obvious warning signs.
A Daily Briefing on Iran: Death and the Salesmen
A Daily Briefing on Iran: Death and the Salesmen
Europe could be such a valuable ally and return itself to some of the greatest levels of class, grandeur, and (most of all) world leadership. If only they would wake up and realize that they are enabling the defiance of oppressive, intolerant nations that threaten their neighbors and sponsor terrorism.
Self interest has guided Europe since the early days of the Holy Roman Empire. Methods change, but motives seldom do.
Today, Europe has a self esteem problem, so she is flirting with a man that has the capabilities of making their relationship, an abusive one. They are just like the women that are only attracted to men that are domestic tyrants. They charm at first and once they have manipulated their way into a position of trust, they start the abusive cycle.
I recommend this article from the Regime Change Iran (RCI) weblog. RCI is a site that I read daily and is a valuable source of information on the Iranian situation, as well as other areas of importance in the Middle East.
Europe could be such a valuable ally and return itself to some of the greatest levels of class, grandeur, and (most of all) world leadership. If only they would wake up and realize that they are enabling the defiance of oppressive, intolerant nations that threaten their neighbors and sponsor terrorism.
Self interest has guided Europe since the early days of the Holy Roman Empire. Methods change, but motives seldom do.
Today, Europe has a self esteem problem, so she is flirting with a man that has the capabilities of making their relationship, an abusive one. They are just like the women that are only attracted to men that are domestic tyrants. They charm at first and once they have manipulated their way into a position of trust, they start the abusive cycle.
I recommend this article from the Regime Change Iran (RCI) weblog. RCI is a site that I read daily and is a valuable source of information on the Iranian situation, as well as other areas of importance in the Middle East.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
What Is A Centrist?
Many people believe that a moderate or centrist is a flip-flopping, wishy-washy, ambivalent type that has a hard time making a decision about where they stand on the issues. While this may be true of a few, many have very strong convictions and opinions, in a wide range of issues.
There are fiscal conservatives that are social liberals and fiscal liberals that are social conservatives. There are those that lean a bit to the right and those that lean a bit to the left. There are those that do not trust either party, even to the point of wanting a third party and there are those that trust both, believing that both parties have their good points and bad points.
But many (like myself), take each and every issue, weigh it out completely, and give serious thought as to how they will form their opinion. Each case stands alone and I (like many others) will not be hemmed into a corner and drink either party's kool-aid. I will agree with both at some point in time, other times I will agree with neither.
But rest assured, the opinions I do form will be based on several factors:
1. How does the issue affect me, personally or professionally?
2. How do the solutions proposed, stack up with my personal value systems?
3. How will it affect those that disagree with me?
4. How much will it cost and is the cost worth it?
5. Why does the other side disagree?
6. Is there a compromise solution?
(These are but a few, there are many others)
There are fiscal conservatives that are social liberals and fiscal liberals that are social conservatives. There are those that lean a bit to the right and those that lean a bit to the left. There are those that do not trust either party, even to the point of wanting a third party and there are those that trust both, believing that both parties have their good points and bad points.
But many (like myself), take each and every issue, weigh it out completely, and give serious thought as to how they will form their opinion. Each case stands alone and I (like many others) will not be hemmed into a corner and drink either party's kool-aid. I will agree with both at some point in time, other times I will agree with neither.
But rest assured, the opinions I do form will be based on several factors:
1. How does the issue affect me, personally or professionally?
2. How do the solutions proposed, stack up with my personal value systems?
3. How will it affect those that disagree with me?
4. How much will it cost and is the cost worth it?
5. Why does the other side disagree?
6. Is there a compromise solution?
(These are but a few, there are many others)
Voting is also a deliberate process. When I vote for or otherwise support a candidate (for any office), I do so because I believe that candidate is what is best for that particular moment in time. I weigh what the needs of the city, county, state, or nation are at that given moment with what each candidate has to offer, and I make my decision accordingly. I have only voted one straight ticket in my life, only as a protest vote.
Whether you call us centrists, moderates, or whatever; it is our independent spirit that drives us to think our way through and form opinions based on what we consider sound reasoning, sound logic, and free thinking. We are independent voters. We swing elections.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Some Thoughts On Some Complex Issues
The Terri Schiavo Case
Terri Schiavo is the woman who is being sustained by a feeding tube in a Florida nursing home.
The conflict is between the husband (who wants the tube removed because she allegedly told him she didn't want to live in a vegetative state) and the parents (who are still holding out hope for some form of recovery).
The parents claim the husband received over a million dollars for her care in some kind of settlement, which if she were dead, would go to him. He lives with another woman and has two children with her. He refuses to divorce Terri because he would not get the money, when she finally does die. Furthermore they allege that he has purposefully and willfully ordered treatments and therapies be withheld. These are such that could have helped Terri progress much further than she has.
The husband claims that the parents are clinging to what amounts to a fantasy. They are not being realistic and besides, Terri allegedly told him that she didn't want to kept alive by any artificial means, but there is no living will on file anywhere. Yet the courts that have heard this case so far, have favored him.
This is a tough one.
I understand the quality of life issue and firmly believe that a person should not be kept alive for the sake of the family. But I also see a husband that stands to gain somewhere around $1.4 million, if his wife dies. I see a husband that has established a new life for himself, which I cannot completely blame him for. But I also see a husband that may have not have Terri's best interests at heart, especially if he in fact did withold valuable therapy and treatment in order to speed the dying process, as her parents also claim.
I see those things and more. But the main thing I do not see is a written living will, signed by Terri Schiavo. What we have here is a legal system that is taking a husband's word for it. If I went to small claims court to recover some money, I had better have a written or printed receipt to prove that I really did purchase the product, where I said I did. Otherwise, my claim would be dismissed instantly.
How much more important is a document that determines whether a person lives or dies?
Forget the moral implications and the arguments, the fact remains there is no legal basis to allow the husband to have the tube removed. There is no living will and Terri is incapable of making that kind of decision. When something of this magnitude is considered, don't you think that the judges that we all depend on to interpret the law should err on the side of caution? Shouldn't they err on the side of life?
If the husband didn't care about the money, he would divorce her and I doubt anyone would think much of it. If he truly cared about her well being, he would let her parents care for her; he would let them use that money that was awarded to pay for her care, as it was intended. Unless there is another side I am not seeing, this guy seems like a major jerk.
The feeding tube should remain until we can be assured that this is not a diabolical plot by a greedy man, to eliminate his wife to gain fortune.
The Death Penalty
I am ambivalent on the death penalty.
On one hand I understand the need to punish and deter heinous crimes on the level of the Oklahoma City bombing. On the other hand I see that killing for revenge will not bring those people back.
Killing a murderer also lets him/her off the hook too easy. Would you rather be spend the rest of your life in prison, with no chance at parole, or would you rather be executed? But more than anything I have stated, I believe that the state should not have the decision to say who gets to live and who gets to die. That is best left to the Almighty.
Abortion
I believe that abortion is wrong. In my opinion, it is comparable to murder. But there is one problem I have with making it illegal. It is very difficult (if not impossible) to make something illegal that was once legal.
Take Prohibition, for instance. They outlawed booze, which was once legal. But the black market took over distribution and people got it anyway. The demand never went away and people like Joe Kennedy made fortunes supplying it. As a result, the mob was allowed to grow because of Prohibition.
In the case of abortion, make it illegal and watch the back alley butchers reappear. Gone will be sterile technique and back will be the high numbers of infections and sepsis leading to death. I don't know about you, but I would rather have my daughter get one in a clean, sterile environment and deal with her conscience later, alive.
Want to stop abortion? Do it from the demand side, it's too late to do it from the supply side. The only outcome that will come from outlawing it is, you will drive the suppliers underground which in turn will impose far greater risks. Give women more options and stop making unwanted pregnancies in single women, the scourges of the earth. It may not be an optimal situation and no doubt better decisions could have been made, but there are far worse things that can happen.
Terri Schiavo is the woman who is being sustained by a feeding tube in a Florida nursing home.
The conflict is between the husband (who wants the tube removed because she allegedly told him she didn't want to live in a vegetative state) and the parents (who are still holding out hope for some form of recovery).
The parents claim the husband received over a million dollars for her care in some kind of settlement, which if she were dead, would go to him. He lives with another woman and has two children with her. He refuses to divorce Terri because he would not get the money, when she finally does die. Furthermore they allege that he has purposefully and willfully ordered treatments and therapies be withheld. These are such that could have helped Terri progress much further than she has.
The husband claims that the parents are clinging to what amounts to a fantasy. They are not being realistic and besides, Terri allegedly told him that she didn't want to kept alive by any artificial means, but there is no living will on file anywhere. Yet the courts that have heard this case so far, have favored him.
This is a tough one.
I understand the quality of life issue and firmly believe that a person should not be kept alive for the sake of the family. But I also see a husband that stands to gain somewhere around $1.4 million, if his wife dies. I see a husband that has established a new life for himself, which I cannot completely blame him for. But I also see a husband that may have not have Terri's best interests at heart, especially if he in fact did withold valuable therapy and treatment in order to speed the dying process, as her parents also claim.
I see those things and more. But the main thing I do not see is a written living will, signed by Terri Schiavo. What we have here is a legal system that is taking a husband's word for it. If I went to small claims court to recover some money, I had better have a written or printed receipt to prove that I really did purchase the product, where I said I did. Otherwise, my claim would be dismissed instantly.
How much more important is a document that determines whether a person lives or dies?
Forget the moral implications and the arguments, the fact remains there is no legal basis to allow the husband to have the tube removed. There is no living will and Terri is incapable of making that kind of decision. When something of this magnitude is considered, don't you think that the judges that we all depend on to interpret the law should err on the side of caution? Shouldn't they err on the side of life?
If the husband didn't care about the money, he would divorce her and I doubt anyone would think much of it. If he truly cared about her well being, he would let her parents care for her; he would let them use that money that was awarded to pay for her care, as it was intended. Unless there is another side I am not seeing, this guy seems like a major jerk.
The feeding tube should remain until we can be assured that this is not a diabolical plot by a greedy man, to eliminate his wife to gain fortune.
The Death Penalty
I am ambivalent on the death penalty.
On one hand I understand the need to punish and deter heinous crimes on the level of the Oklahoma City bombing. On the other hand I see that killing for revenge will not bring those people back.
Killing a murderer also lets him/her off the hook too easy. Would you rather be spend the rest of your life in prison, with no chance at parole, or would you rather be executed? But more than anything I have stated, I believe that the state should not have the decision to say who gets to live and who gets to die. That is best left to the Almighty.
Abortion
I believe that abortion is wrong. In my opinion, it is comparable to murder. But there is one problem I have with making it illegal. It is very difficult (if not impossible) to make something illegal that was once legal.
Take Prohibition, for instance. They outlawed booze, which was once legal. But the black market took over distribution and people got it anyway. The demand never went away and people like Joe Kennedy made fortunes supplying it. As a result, the mob was allowed to grow because of Prohibition.
In the case of abortion, make it illegal and watch the back alley butchers reappear. Gone will be sterile technique and back will be the high numbers of infections and sepsis leading to death. I don't know about you, but I would rather have my daughter get one in a clean, sterile environment and deal with her conscience later, alive.
Want to stop abortion? Do it from the demand side, it's too late to do it from the supply side. The only outcome that will come from outlawing it is, you will drive the suppliers underground which in turn will impose far greater risks. Give women more options and stop making unwanted pregnancies in single women, the scourges of the earth. It may not be an optimal situation and no doubt better decisions could have been made, but there are far worse things that can happen.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
World War III
When someone mentions World War III, most people instantly visualize a nuclear holocaust. But this article (click on title for link) will make you think otherwise. After reading it, if you have the intuitiveness of a marble slab, you will see that not only can WWIII can occur without nukes, it is occurring now and has been for a long time.
This war however, does not know national boundaries and has not been officially declared. Declarations mean nothing anyway; all that is necessary for a state of war to exist is to have nations in two different hemispheres conduct hostile military operations against one another. And that we have.
It may not resemble WWI or WWII, but don't be fooled. This is the real deal. Most of the world does not know it yet, at least they don't act like it. Europe, where the other two world wars were primarily centered, has taken the appeasement approach. I believe deep down that there are many that are concerned on the continent, but their voices are not resonating as loudly as the Americans. Many believe that by coddling up to terrorists and nations that sponsor them, it will buy them time. They think that as long as they are mad at the U.S., Europe will defer the inevitable. This is known as the "Hoping the lion eats you last" theory.
As this article so states, I do firmly believe that this war began in 1979 when the Iranians wantonly and willfully violated international law, by invading our embassy. The sad thing is, this war will not be limited to just a few years. It may last many more and maybe two or more Presidents will have to continue dealing with the Islamofascists that seek to oppress the world, with their very narrow views of how a society should be.
They were at war with us, long before we were at war with them. They have been for many years. They have been allowed to grow in numbers and in boldness, virtually unchecked.
Give this a read. It is a bit long, but well worth the time. The author makes an astounding case. Take it all in carefully and think about it. He presents his claim with a lot of solid evidence. Anyone with an objective mind, will see and understand.
This war however, does not know national boundaries and has not been officially declared. Declarations mean nothing anyway; all that is necessary for a state of war to exist is to have nations in two different hemispheres conduct hostile military operations against one another. And that we have.
It may not resemble WWI or WWII, but don't be fooled. This is the real deal. Most of the world does not know it yet, at least they don't act like it. Europe, where the other two world wars were primarily centered, has taken the appeasement approach. I believe deep down that there are many that are concerned on the continent, but their voices are not resonating as loudly as the Americans. Many believe that by coddling up to terrorists and nations that sponsor them, it will buy them time. They think that as long as they are mad at the U.S., Europe will defer the inevitable. This is known as the "Hoping the lion eats you last" theory.
As this article so states, I do firmly believe that this war began in 1979 when the Iranians wantonly and willfully violated international law, by invading our embassy. The sad thing is, this war will not be limited to just a few years. It may last many more and maybe two or more Presidents will have to continue dealing with the Islamofascists that seek to oppress the world, with their very narrow views of how a society should be.
They were at war with us, long before we were at war with them. They have been for many years. They have been allowed to grow in numbers and in boldness, virtually unchecked.
Give this a read. It is a bit long, but well worth the time. The author makes an astounding case. Take it all in carefully and think about it. He presents his claim with a lot of solid evidence. Anyone with an objective mind, will see and understand.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Terrorist Or Freedom Fighter
By now most of us have heard the cliche, "One man's terrorist is a another man's freedom fighter". The people that see the black helicopters when a Democrat is in office, used this to justify Timothy McVeigh's murderous act. The Islamofascists now use it to justify the murderous acts, they commit. So, what's the difference?
The motives, objectives, and intentions mark the contrasts.
The terrorist seeks to use guerrilla warfare terror tactics as a means of overthrowing freedom and establishing an oppressive regime. He wants to overthrow the peaceful existences that come with liberty and freedom and actively seeks to strip people of choices. He wants to oppress, not liberate. He does not care about innocent people, often targeting them.
The freedom fighter seeks to use whatever means available to him to overthrow a regime, but he does it for the purpose of liberating his people from an oppressive one. He, as best he possiblty can, targets authority and its forces, not innocents. He seeks more choices for his people, not less.
Global terrorists can trace their movement to Iran. It all began with the Iranian revolution. The Iranian people were duped into believing that freedom from the Shah and his regime meant freedom. Instead, they have been oppressed even worse and only succeeded in trading one form of tyrranny for another. If that isn't enough, Iran has been the major exporter of global terror since 1979, with the goals of implementing Islamic Law anywhere they can and seeking the destruction of Israel.
Hezbollah has been directly linked to Iran. Watch them, as the situation develops further in Lebanon. They may unleash a terror campaign to take over and install a Shiite Islamic government that curbs freedoms, instead of creating them.
The motives, objectives, and intentions mark the contrasts.
The terrorist seeks to use guerrilla warfare terror tactics as a means of overthrowing freedom and establishing an oppressive regime. He wants to overthrow the peaceful existences that come with liberty and freedom and actively seeks to strip people of choices. He wants to oppress, not liberate. He does not care about innocent people, often targeting them.
The freedom fighter seeks to use whatever means available to him to overthrow a regime, but he does it for the purpose of liberating his people from an oppressive one. He, as best he possiblty can, targets authority and its forces, not innocents. He seeks more choices for his people, not less.
Global terrorists can trace their movement to Iran. It all began with the Iranian revolution. The Iranian people were duped into believing that freedom from the Shah and his regime meant freedom. Instead, they have been oppressed even worse and only succeeded in trading one form of tyrranny for another. If that isn't enough, Iran has been the major exporter of global terror since 1979, with the goals of implementing Islamic Law anywhere they can and seeking the destruction of Israel.
Hezbollah has been directly linked to Iran. Watch them, as the situation develops further in Lebanon. They may unleash a terror campaign to take over and install a Shiite Islamic government that curbs freedoms, instead of creating them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)