Friday, December 30, 2005

A true story of suburban violence and murder

A wealthy and influential man was walking down a suburban street. Passing one particular house he heard the sounds of an argument and bloodcurdling screams coming from within the house. Looking up, he noticed that this was the notorious house of Wild Billy. It was a fairly large house with a reputation for welcoming many of the seediest and undesirable individuals ever seen on the block. The revolving door of comings and goings was notorious and even included some well known felons.
Billy, the owner of the house had been forcibly removed from a neighbor's house a few years back. He had broken into the house uninvited, tried to steal things and attempted forgery on the deed of the house to claim it as his own. Police units were called from around the entire city to remove him.
You see, Billy had a history of violence and anti-social behavior. Often he had said openly that he wanted to blow up the neighborhood, and he had built pipe bombs and such in order to carry out his plans. He had unleashed a number of these pipe bombs on a different neighbor years before the breaking and entry incident, and had very publicly threatened even the wealthy man himself.
The police removed Billy from the neighbor's house and the City Council gave him little more than a slap on the wrist.
Numerous families in the community had told the wealthy man that Billy was coming after him next. Although the wealthy man had always had his suspicions, to have Billy's own neighbors warning him clearly ratified the man's own beliefs.
Now this man, knowing about Billy's violent past and having been warned by Billy's neighbors finds himself in a situation of decision.

Someone is screaming inside the house. Every time the police have been called on previous situations, Billy successfully covers up what he's been doing. He takes them into the basement to search, while the cops hear frantic footsteps upstairs. He takes them upstairs and the scuffling is now heard in the basement. The cops are never going to catch him red handed in what he's been doing, he's too smart and crafty.

So the question is....... does he go in to the house, save whomever is screaming, apprehend (or even kill) Billy... in short take action... or does he continue walking along?


Taking action would not only save the unseen victim, it would most likely remove Billy from the neighborhood and would certainly remove the threat of Billy against the wealthy man. There were a growing number of burglars and murderers in the neighborhood, some of who had attacked the man, himself not so long ago. There was a real possibility that by removing Billy, it would be a huge disruption to the seemingly steady path of ruffians coming in and out of Billy's house.


As it turns out, the man does take action. He knocks on the door, waits quite awhile and enters. Once inside, he finds a gruesome site! Evidence of murder, rape, and brutality are EVERYWHERE! Billy has killed a number of his own family, and their bodies lie around the house. There are pipebombs here and there, enough to do terrible damage to the neighborhood, but not in enormous quantities. He finds a number of thugs who he immediately incapacitates or kills.
Searching the house, he notices how horrid the living conditions are. Some rooms have electricity, most don't. Some have running water, others don't. Only Billy's bedroom is livable. In fact, it's incredibly ornate and tech'ed-out. The latest in everything, and the best of everything.
The wealthy man finds Billy, subdues him. The police come and Billy is now standing trial.

It's too late for the dead family members who lie in puddles of blood, or the female family members who have been clearly raped before being killed and mutilated.

But Billy is out of the house, and out of the neighborhood. The new occupants are rebuilding the house as we speak.

And how did the wealthy man turn out? The local homeowner's association is accusing him of entering the house without justifiable cause.

If you didn't catch the allusion, Billy = Saddam and The Man = George W. Bush

Happy New Year's all!

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

The change of definitions continues...

Under President GW Bush, the libs, the Dems, and the media have felt it desirable to change definitions...

The current row over warrentless NSA wiretapping of foreign suspects talking to individuals within the United States was defined by liberals/democrats/media as acceptable on February 9th, 1995 when Clinton okayed similar measures. On may 23rd, 1979 Jimmy Carter likewise approved wiretapping without court orders. Keep in mind that under Clinton and carter we weren't even CLOSE to being in the state of war that we are in now.

But there is a long history of the libtards changing definitions in the last 7 years......

The outing of Valerie Plame is defined as a scandal by liberals who didn't bat an eye when Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca collected OVER 1000 confidential FBI Files in 1993 and 1994. Furthermore they are noticeably silent in not defining who "outed" the supposed Eastern European CIA prisons and the "outing" of confidential wiretaps mentioned above as equally scandalous.

What was once defined as a "success" is no longer recognized as such. Once apon a time, someone with a Rhodes Scholarship was defined as "wise" and "intelligent".... surpass that with a MASTERS DEGREE in business, and suddenly educational accomplishment means nothing.

Democrats define Bosnia as a "success" even though Milosovic's trial is still a quagmire of delays, incompetence, and blundering that would be considered too unrealistic for a plot in a Keystone Kops Movie. The Baltics are little better off now than during Operation Joint Endeavour. Certainly the Bosnians haven't created a new Democracy for themselves, a new constitution, a new parliament... but THAT is somehow defined a "success."

Liberals want to define the union of 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 3 women or 5 men and two women as a "marriage" even though the definition of marriage has always been the union of one man and one woman.

If Bill Clinton had been responsible for unemployment in an allied country dropping from 60% to 28% in 3 years, as it has in Iraq, it would be defined a "success."

If Bill Clinton had the balls to effect the Iraqi regime change he signed as national policy back in 1998, the media would have defined the action as a "successful completion of resolved national policy." When GW Bush did it, they defined it as "preemptive"

If Enron, Adelphia, Arthur Andersen, HealthSouth, WorldCom, and Tyco had been pursued by Janet Reno in the '90's AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, Clinton would have been praised as a President bringing low the high and mighty "big business." Again, it would have been defined as a "success of the Administration." When GW Bush's DOJ does it, it doesn't warrant attention.

After ignoring George Bush Sr.'s war record and Bob Dole's war sacrifices, not to mention supporting a draft dodger.... suddenly in 2004 "WAR HERO" became a definition of someone worthy of high office.

Adolph Hitler, George Orwell, and Aldus Huxley all recognized in one way or another a fundamental truth that your typical Libtard refuses to recognize and the Democrat leaders exploit better than Goebbels could ever dream of....

Thursday, December 22, 2005

IF the NSA is tapping Bin Laden's cell....

.... and discovers that the call is going to a citizen of the US in LA, NYC, Washington D.C.
The Democrats expect us to hang up the phone and not invade his privacy?

Enough said.

Monday, December 19, 2005


A short entry .. more later...

No suprises here! Republican, Ronald Reagan is my historical role model ... no suprises!

Republican - You believe that the free market will
take care of most things, but that the
government should be there with moderate
taxation to provide for national defense and
enforcing morality. Your historical role model
is Ronald Reagan.

Which political sterotype are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Friday, December 16, 2005

Oh Holy Night

The link is to Iraq The Model .. a blog with up to date information straight from Iraq!

As I was driving to a show tonight, my favorite Christmas carol came on the radio - "Oh Holy Night" My preferred version is Pavarotti's but this was a still stirring rendition by Josh Groban.

I happened to be thinking of Iraq as the song came on.... of their elections, of how a new future was beginning for them, their smiles as they showed each other and cameramen newly purpled fingers And with the lyrics to the song playing in the background, I nearly broke down in tears from sudden realization and emotion.

O Holy night,
the stars are brightly shining
It is the night of our dear Savior's birth
Long lay the world In sin and error pining
'Till He appeared
and the soul felt His worth
The thrill of hope,
The weary world rejoices
For yonder brings a new and glorious morn
Fall on your knees
Oh, hear the angel's voices
Oh night divine

Tonight, the stars must look ever so bright in the deserts of Iraq. Mothers and Fathers are looking up with a fullness of the events of the day. They took part in their government! They chose their representatives in parliament. They had a hand in the future of their country, their lives, and the lives of their children.

For the first time in their lives, they are realizing the worth of their souls, and their very existence as human beings. No longer are they the unworthy servants of a tyrannical master. They are worthy of choosing the path of their own country. They are free human beings with incalculable worth.

The thrill of hope is coursing through their veins. They now have a hope they have never known. Until this point, the future was what the master dictated, and if that included your child being torn apart in front of you while you watched - just because of a suspicion or whim of Uday, Qusay, or Saddam's... so be it. No longer! Now each Iraqi has a hope to change his world for the better.

A very weary Iraq... weary of conflict, of fear, of hopelessness, of helplessness... weary of the pessimistic reality of their existence now rejoices for yonder DOES break a new and glorious morn! Many Iraqis have danced today, have cried with happiness, have shouted with joy, have braved possible harm or death and voted proudly, defiantly... and tonight will fall to their knees thanking Allah for the opportunity that has been given to them.

As they face Mecca and pray, they may very well hear the voice of Michael relaying to them God's joyful praise, "well done my good and faithful servant."

Tonight in Baghdad, in Basra, in Tikrit, in Rhamadi, in Fallujia, and all the cities, towns and hovels of Iraq, Iraqis are truly recognizing the blessings of this night...

This night divine!

C A N Y O U R E A D T H I S ??

So, 11 MILLION Americans are illiterate in the English language.
30 MILLION Americans have "below basic" skills.

Is it any wonder the Democrat party can hoodwink so many?

No wonder so many members of the Democrat party falsly consider their party as "the party of color" when history shows it was the Democrats who fought against Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, fought against the Civil Rights Bills in Congress, formed the Jim Crow Laws in the south, placed the Confederate "Stars and Bars" on many state flags and drafted thousands of poor, young blacks into their (Johnson - D) Viet Nam war! And let's not forget that the only member of Congress who is/was a member of the Ku Klux Klan is Senator Robert Byrd, a Democrat!

No wonder the Democrat leaders hoodwinked so many in the party by saying the Clinton impeachment was all about sex, sex, and sex. Only the literate could read into such complex issues as perjury and obstruction of justice. The witness tampering charge must have meant too much reading for the Dems.

No wonder the Dems have no grasp of the history of these United States. Otherwise they would know that what they are asking for in Iraq is EXACTLY what allowed South Vietnam to fall to the North after we cut tail and ran.

Ironicly - or maybe it's not so ironic - Black rates of literacy are shown to be making gains... at the same time that Blacks are turning in greater numbers to the Republican Party.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Things are turning around for the USA and GWB

Just sit back and enjoy the show!
Iraq is going forward with its democratic elections - on schedule, with overwhelming participation and with limited interference! The Americans are standing back and all immediate security is being handled by (gasp!) the Iraqi security forces!
Ray Nagin (The New Orleans Mayor who has a problem using his noggin) took time away from his Dallas home to go to Washington and spent a good portion of the morning praising President Bush on television for actions the President and Congress are taking towards rebuilding New Orleans.
Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld spoke this morning With General Pace and made an unbelievably obvious, but heretofore unmentioned observation - (I'm paraphrasing, when I get the exact transcript, I will edit this post)
"If we pull out of Iraq, the enemy will focus their attacks on our troops in
Afghanistan. If we pull out of Afghanistan, they will attack our friends
in the region. If we pull out of the region, they will once again focus
their attacks here at home"

Why hadn't anyone thought of this? Or if they had, why haven't they explained it clearly to the American public? If I have one grievance with the Bush administration it has been this bigotry of high expectations (to put a spin on a GW phrase.) The Bush Administration expects the American public to be smart enough to put together the dots of some complex, multi-leveled situations. For many of us (particularly on the right side of the aisle) we can connect the dots easily once they are shown. For those on the left who spout unfounded cliche's like "Bush lied, kids died", they never look into history or present FACTS and therefore connect dots that don't exist. I just wish the administration would point out the true dots more often instead of expecting everyone to be ambitious enough to find them.... but I digress.....

No wonder the President's opinion poll numbers are going up... GREAT economy, Iraqi starting to stand on its own, Katrina relief moving forward, the cut-and-run Democrats being exposed for the yellow belly anti-Americans that they are (have you heard from Cindy Shitcan lately?).. the good news just keeps rollin' in!

Mark my words... by November of '06 when the mid-term elections roll around.......
Iraq will be nearly free-standing
Hundreds of thousands of American troops will either be home or out of harm's way
Gas prices will be around $2 a gallon or less
Reconstruction will have been well started in New Orleans... along with a huge growth in additional jobs
Unemployment will be in the 4%'s
We STILL will have had no terrorist attacks on American soil
Seniors will have been enjoying their prescription drug benefits for 11 months...
And GW's approval ratings will be in the mid- to high-50's (excellent for any 2nd-term president)

No wonder the Democrats are in such a delirium of panic!

Just a quick note to the DNC from Agent GW~
"You hear that? That is the sound of inevitability. It is the sound of your doom"

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Mommy Party, Daddy Party

Today I happened to catch the House speeches on C-SPAN and they were discussing social security. One conservative Congressman referred to the Democrat band-aid fix as one more attempt to postpone real reform by "kicking the can down the street."

It was then that I thought of just HOW typical a liberal modus operandi "kicking the can" is!

During every conflict, from the civil war to WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, and now regarding the war on terror, the Dems put the unpleasant off... and off... and off.... until it reaches a crises stage and then blame the GOP for not doing anything sooner.

Islamofacism is a cancer of the earth, and GW Bush has begun serious, invasive surgery and started the process of eradicating the cancer wherever it festers or is enabled. This is how one handles a cancer. If you had lung or bone cancer would you honestly say "Well, that operation is risky, awful painful, expensive and inconvenient... I think I'll just up my pain meds for right now."? That will give me a good fix for the time being.

Although not necessarily cancerous, the problems with Social Security are also growing with time. The Dems see a 3 trillion bill for the fix and somehow think that by putting off the serious corrections needed that the bill will somehow decrease.

Why is it only in retrospect can we say "Ya' know, that ultimate hawk General Patton was right... we SHOULD have gone after Stalin in '45! It would have saved millions of lives and nearly 5 decades of Cold War in which billions were spent on weapons, bases, and troops that (thank God!) were never used."?
Stormin' Norman said in '91 we should have gone all the way to Baghdad. If we had, 600,000 Kurds would still be alive today, and the liberation of Iraq would have been much less bloody.

But it was the Mommy party of the Democrats that put off the inevitable because of their fear of the short term pain, anguish, and cost - not to mention their unending loyalty to the self-serving UN.

Now we are reaping the spoils of our cowardice.

Putting off unplesantry until later is NOT, however, a characteristic of a mature Mommy. It is the characteristic of a child; a child that doesn't understand that challenges only get worse if they are not confronted. The Dems time and again put off.... ending communism, reforming welfare, liberating Iraq, even the welfare reform of the '90s was put off until a GOP Congress brought Clinton screaming and kicking to the signing table.

The time has come to recognize that the Democrat party is NOT the mommy party... it is the immature, childish, dependent Child Party!

Tuesday, December 06, 2005


Okay, so it's the 25th Anniversary of John Lennon's death.
Musically I love what John, George Paul and Ringo created, and I even love the music John created after the break up. Paul, too for that matter.

But John insisted on becoming a politico, a voice, and a outspoken public figure instead of staying purely a musician, and that opens him up for fair criticism in regards to his thought process and beliefs.

Now, I know there are many of you (particularly on the left) that feel ANY criticism of an individual with a pained or tragic story in their lives
is somehow callous, cold, heartless, and inhumanly brutal. In short, you feel that any liberal who has experienced tragedy - for instance the death of an estranged child with whom a "mother" has had little or no contact,
or a loving, caring musical peacenik who was brutally and coldly gunned down such as Mr. Lennon... ANY such liberal is above reproach or even criticism.

Well, TOUGH!

You who defend the freedom of speech so wholeheartedly can hear some speech you don't enjoy.... DEAL with it! I have the 1st amendment same as you!

JOHN LENNON was the PRIME example of what's wrong with every Cindy Sheehan loving, communist, socialist, American hating cowardly leftie out there! Had he not been a pacifist, he'd be alive today!
Turning his other cheek to Mark David Chapman didn't solve anything for John Lennon. It cut short a promising life, it cut short the time two young boys would have with their father, and ended a still productive musical career. What good was turning the other cheek?
I am not saying one should NEVER turn the other cheek... but in a matter of life and death... turning the other cheek or being a pacifist will only end up getting you killed! Pacifism is nice on paper. And if there weren't any Hitlers, Saddams, Idi Amins, Stalins or Chapmans out there, it would probably work outside of theory as well. In the meantime, the Lennons and appeasement happy Bubba Clintons out there will only get themselves or others (respectively) killed! It was the 8 years of Bubba's turning the other national cheek that allowed Al Queda to grow to massive proportions, advance technologically, and train (for 60+ months on American soil) for the 9-11 Attacks. And it was John Lennon's turning the other cheek that left Sean and Julian without a Dad and left the world without his angelic chord progressions.

In short, one might argue that John Lennon got what he deserved, no less than some Aryan Nation freektoid marching up Adam Clayton Jr. Blvd. yelling "All niggers should be enslaved again!" He practiced pacifism, and received EXACTLY what pacifism ALWAYS gives - death and subjugation.

Somebody marching through Harlem yelling vulgar racist epithets deserves what he gets, and ANYONE too naive, ignorant, or stupid to realize that pacifism HAS NEVER... DOESN'T... and NEVER WILL protect ANYONE from ANYTHING gets what he deserves.

And guess what? If you boomers in your cowardly peacenik ways get us to pull out of Iraq before the job is done... it will be YOU pacifist idiots who will have allowed Al Queda, the Islamic Jihad, and every other terrorist group to fill the void in Iraq and build a TRUE Al Queda (base of operations) in Baghdad.
And when they come after us again, with a home base in Iraq, and a willing neighbor in Iran, and proceed to rain horrors across this nation the like of which we've never before seen...

Like John Lennon crumpling under a hail of bullets incredulously saying "I've been shot".... so will the United States crumple as you yellow bellies ask "what happened?"

Thursday, December 01, 2005

No Geneva Convention for YOU!

The link is to the UN's own commission on human rights, detailing the Geneva Convention. I would like to draw your attention to Article 4:
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (emphasis provided by me)
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

Now, if an enemy combatant does NOT comply with ALL 4 of the criteria, then that individual is NOT protected under the Geneva Convention!
End of discussion!
Not satisfied? Okay, let's look at Al Queda and the various insurgent groups in Iraq:
Point one ...There is no recognizable chain of command
Point two .... They wear no uniforms of any kind, much less uniforms "recognizable at a distance"
Point three... IED's, or Improvised Explosive Devices - home made landmines and roadside bombs concealed in discarded tires, vegetation, empty boxes and other common trash intended to do bodily harm and death to coalition forces - these are the very kinds of weapons the Geneva Convention was made to PROHIBIT!
Point four.... Beheading civilians alive and the televising of those decapitations goes against every law and custom of war!
Paragraph 3 simply states that in order to be protected by the Geneva Convention, you must actually be a signed PARTY to the Convention (which Al Queda and the insurgent factions are not) So, not only do they not fulfill ALL the listed criteria, they don't even fulfill ONE!

Now let me say something that will truly cook your noodle....


Yes, you read that right! I maybe painting the statement to the extreme side of the concept, but the underlying fact is true.

The Geneva Convention is like any other contract or treaty, it has obligations and incentives that pertain to the signatory parties and to no one else. If you wish to reap the benefits, you sign the document and abide by the criteria, otherwise... TOUGH SHIT!

Recently, the "BIG 3" car companies gave their "employee discount" to anyone and everyone who bought one of their vehicles. At that point, it made the employee discount meaningless... the employees were paying the same for a car everyone was paying.
In the same manner, if any and every enemy combatant is treated in a Geneva Convention style, then what's the POINT of having a Geneva Convention? There will be no incentives for wearing uniforms, no incentives for not beheading innocent civilians, no incentives for conducting a war in a humane and acceptable manner... after all, if the US pampers everyone, there is no incentive to sign or abide by the Geneva Convention Accords.
We therefore, in order to uphold and STRENGTHEN the Geneva Accords, must treat non-signatories and those in non-compliance as harshly as we can stomach! If they want to be treated with respect, honor, and in accordance to the accords, then by God, they can sign them and live by them first... only THEN will they get the protections they afford!

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

They never get it, do they?

Kimberly Hill tragically lost her young son in a gang shooting. Daesean was only 8 years old at the time, so it's not as if he were the target... he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got caught in the crossfire.

The death is tragic, there is no argument there.

Why is it whenever we start discussing death (be it that of a soldier in Iraq or a child in Brooklyn), there is this overwhelming instinct to apologize for disagreement before even embarking on a discussion?

If I disagree with a grieving widow, mother or orphan that doesn't mean I care less for their departed loved one. I don't denigrate their memory by expressing disagreement with a survivor. Just because I think Cindy Shitcan is full of it and a loony hippy reliving her drug induced Woodstock glory days, that DOESN'T mean I care or respect less her son's ultimate sacrifice!

Anyway back to Brooklyn. Kimberly Hill is now protesting the number of guns in New York and saying that if there were tougher gun laws on the books, her son would be alive today.

Okay, let's see ..... in New York:
Dealing drugs is illegal... VERY illegal... did that stop her son's killers from dealing drugs? Ummm... no.
Carrying fully automatic weapons is illegal.... VERY illegal.... did that stop her son's killers from possessing fully automatic weapons? Not one iota.
Shooting an innocent individual is illegal... VERY illegal... did that stop her son's killers from shooting her son?

So, in Kimberly Hill's mind, these thugs who had absolutely no regard for the laws already on the books, would have refrained from killing her son if there were only one more law on the books!

This is SUCH a liberal state of mind! Pass a law and all will be well! Of course when their own demagogues disregard laws of perjury, obstruction of justice, and sexual harassment.... welll THEN the laws are only guidelines.... but pass a law, and there will be no more shooting deaths!

Liberals and hippies live in a world of delusions and hallucinations, which is fine, until they try to dictate the real world based upon their illusions!