Friday, August 08, 2008
Thursday, July 12, 2007
This has got to be the most irresponsible “news” reporting I’ve EVER seen. I usually criticize both liberals and conservatives on their bias (mostly liberals though), but this beats it all:
I saw you made a post about Jennifer Loven once before, so I thought you might be interested in this. Read the first couple paragraphs – it’s obvious bias front and center with very little effort to hide it.
Thanks, Damian- it's nice to know that people are out there paying attention to what Jennifer Loven and her AP conspirators are trying to do.
For the benefit of anyone who might be new to this little conspiracy, here's how it works- they want you to believe that you are about to read a "legitimate" news article, but as soon as you breeze through the first few paragraphs there will be no doubt- it's nothing but tired old editorialized liberal ranting. Don't believe us? Read it:
President Bush always said he would wait to talk about the CIA leak case until after the investigation into his administration's role. On Thursday, he skipped over that step and pronounced the matter old news hardly worth discussing.
"It's run its course," he said. "Now we're going to move on."
Despite a long history of denouncing leaks, Bush declined to express any disappointment in the people who worked for him and who were involved in disclosing the name of a CIA operative. Asked about that during a wide-ranging news conference, the president gave a dodgy answer.
"It's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House," he said.
He didn't even acknowledge the undisputed fact that someone working for him was the source, saying only that "perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person."
And this is my favorite part:
But the president appeared eager Thursday to put the entire case in the past. It was costly for his presidency, denting his image as someone who had pledged to restore integrity to the White House.
Yep- just the facts. No opinions there at all.
It's seriously hard to believe. Seriously. And there's so much more. Call me crazy, but I have a sneaky gut feeling that she doesn't like the President! It's almost as if she's married to a former Clinton staffer or something...
Friday, July 06, 2007
The silly Plame Game looks like it finally flamed out last week. A little more drama than I expected, given the lameness of it all. What an unbelievable waste of time and money. I read quite a few articles about this farcical chapter of what is now US History, and I have to believe that none got it better than did Jack Kelly of RealClearPolitics:
"Scooter" Libby will serve as much time in prison for lying under oath to a federal grand jury as Bill Clinton served for lying under oath to a federal grand jury.
Mr. Libby, who was chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted in March of lying about from whom he learned that Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA. Last month Judge Reggie Walton sentenced him to 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine.
On Monday, President Bush commuted the prison sentence. His conviction still stands, and Mr. Libby still must pay the fine.
Democrats were outraged. "As Independence Day nears, we are reminded that one of the principles our forefathers fought for was equal justice under law," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. "This commutation completely tramples on that principle."
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. said President Bush should be impeached for "crimes against the Constitution of the United States."
So were liberal newspapers. "President Bush's commutation of a pal's prison sentence counts as a most shocking act of disrespect for the U.S. justice system," said the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in an editorial.
"In this case, Mr. Bush didn't sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice," said the New York Times. "He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell."
These worthies were outraged in the fall of 1998, too. But then they were outraged because President Clinton had been impeached for committing perjury.
With so many others piling on, Hillary Clinton should have had the good sense to hold her tongue. But she said "this commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
That's rich, as in Marc Rich, the financier who fled the country to avoid prosecution for tax evasion, fraud and "trading with the enemy." On his last day in office, President Clinton pardoned Mr. Rich after his ex-wife, Denise (with whom Mr. Clinton reportedly had been sleeping) donated $1 million to the Democratic party and $10,000 to the Clintons' legal defense fund.
That day Mr. Clinton also pardoned four Orthodox Jews who had bilked the government out of some $40 million. They were leaders of the Skver sect in New Square, N.Y. Members of the sect usually vote Republican, but broke heavily for Hillary in her senate campaign after she invited the group's spiritual leader to the White House.
Others among the 140 Mr. Clinton pardoned on his last day in office were Henry Cisneros, his former Housing secretary who was convicted of lying to federal officials; Susan McDougal, his former partner in the Whitewater land deal, and his former CIA Director, John Deutch, convicted of mishandling national secrets.
Few Democrats or journalists said those pardons sent "the clear signal" that in the Clinton administration "cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." Few Democrats or journalists said anything about them at all. Hillary Clinton could get away with her blatant hypocrisy because she knew her fellow hypocrites wouldn't call her on it.
And no complaints were heard from these worthies when Sandy Berger, who had been President Clinton's national security adviser, received no jail time -- and only a $50,000 fine -- for stealing classified documents from the National Archives.
We still don't know why Sandy stole those documents, or why he destroyed some. The news media aren't pursuing the story. For most journalists, a scandal isn't a scandal unless a Republican is involved.
Mr. Bush also took flak from the right for commuting Mr. Libby's prison sentence. The editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post blasted him for not pardoning Mr. Libby outright.
It wasn't a crime to disclose Ms. Plame's identity (she hadn't been covert for more than five years), and it was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who outed her, not Mr. Libby. But Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald demanded he be sentenced as if he had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
I'm suspicious of verdicts handed down by DC juries, and I think Mr. Fitzgerald is the federal equivalent of disgraced Duke rape prosecutor Michael Nifong.
But I think the president got it right. There was no underlying crime, but Mr. Libby might have lied to the grand jury. If so, he should pay. But the loss of his job, his reputation and the $250,000 fine are greater punishment than similarly situated Democratic offenders ever receive.
Yep- that about says it all. I like the Nifong analogy...
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
People keep sending me this little clip from Lee Iacocca's new book, asking me what I think about it. To be honest, it's hard for me to read it without laughing. It's one of those things where it's funny, but it seems like it might be wrong to laugh- like if you were to go into an asylum and start making fun of people. You can find his ridiculous little rant here if you're so inclined. He may be qualified in some things, but last I checked, he hasn’t spent much time in Iraq. My favorite part is where he says "I've never been a Commander-in-Chief, but I HAVE been a CEO." Don't believe me? I'm serious, he actually wrote that- or at least dictated to some co-author. As someone who has been on both sides of the green machine, I can't even begin to describe how laughable that statement really is. But there's so much more. Here’s how his rant would play out if he had the guts to spew his cowardly diatribe in a two-way discussion over dinner-
Enough of What?
Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."
I’m sorry, Lee- I can’t get mad about our inability to build a hybrid car. I’m sure I should be furious, but I just can’t seem to get myself there. I’m not sure what “stay the course” has to do with Hurricane Katrina, corrupt tycoons, or even car-making. You’ve thrown a lot of different things into one bag here. Is that why you’re so angry? Because you can’t sort out all of the things that piss you off? Well, let me tell you- my outrage is right where it should be, Lee. I’m outraged about the myriad of beheadings that keep popping up on the internet. I’m pissed off at the islamofascists who keep blowing up our soldiers while they bring education and freedom to places that have needed it for centuries. I’m pissed off at the way women and children are TARGETED and systematically slaughtered by an uncivilized culture of hatred that promises good sex in return for their horrific misdeeds.
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!
I guess I would have to ask you what “stay the course” means to you, Lee. I think it means we have to keep fighting these maniacs while we do everything we can to change the obvious defects in their culture (promote education while curbing religious extremism, treatment of women, etc). If you have a better way, then I would love to hear it. Pretending that the problem doesn’t exist is a cop-out. Don’t try to convince me that if we just leave the terrorists alone, then they’ll stop killing people. That’s a very weak argument. What’s the right answer, Lee? How did your buddy Bill Clinton deal with terrorists? Get “serviced” by interns while jihadis enrolled in flight school? Wow- that’s a pretty effective method. Maybe we should have stayed THAT course! As far as your “sound bite” goes- you’re right on! Throw the bums out! We took care of Saddam, Uday, Qusay, Zarqawi, and many others- now let’s continue to go after bums like bin-Laden and Zawhiri!!
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have.
Yes- you have.
But someone has to speak up.
Okay, but maybe it shouldn’t be you. But it’s a free country so screech on, brave warrior…
I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies.
Well, I guess it’s all in the words, Lee. You see, I would argue that the President has finally been given the power to protect us against terrorists- something the prior administration deemed a bit low on the priority stack. I’d prove that if I could, but Sandy Berger accidentally stuffed a bunch of documents in his underwear during a recent visit to Archives- no biggie, though. He apologized. I think he had to pay a fine or something. But, yes- Bush now has broad sweeping powers that give our intel folks the means to go after the real baddies- if this means that some criminals might have a tougher time getting away with certain things, then I’ll accept that. My conscience is clear- they can look at my phone records all day long. Tap my phones. Come search my house. I don’t care. Do you have something to hide, Lee? Do we have some tax shelters out there that might come up a little bit soft under scrutiny? A pack of lies, huh? How about these direct quotes from some of your favorite people:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
-Sandy "Pants" Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
-Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Wow, Lee- that’s a lot of lies!!! If you want Bush to stop making decisions that are based on packs of lies, then tell your crazy Democrat friends to stop lying to him!!!!
Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it).
Of course you don’t need it, Lee- but are you really saying that our hard-earned money should be spent by financial wizards like Marion Barry and Duke Cunningham? I thought you just said you didn’t like politicians! You’ve been bashing them like piñatas up to this point, and now you’re saying that we should trust them with our money? Sure, it’s easy to just hand your cash to the government and trust them to do good with it- but I think that’s crazy!!! I’d rather do my research, and give my money to worthy causes that I deem worthy- to people and organizations that I trust. Yes, it’s extra work, but I think my money is worth it. Apparently you don’t?
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs.
Okay, whose fault is that? The media outlets who publicize them or the people who watch it and drive up their ratings? Either way, I think we have bigger things to worry about...
While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do.
Whoa, big man!!!! First of all, what’s this WE stuff?? I didn’t see you over there in Iraq! And if you HAD been there, maybe you’d know that we’re not over there “fiddling.” I’m sorry, but that’s just so damn demeaning- not just for those of us who were over there risking our lives in order to help people who couldn’t help themselves, but especially to those who were killed or wounded. Now I’m really pissed off. We took down a terrorist regime, installed an elected government, rebuilt an infrastructure that was so badly neglected you wouldn’t have believed it if you’d seen it with your own eyes- and you call that “fiddling”??? Asshole! Go to Walter Reed, look a wounded soldier in the eye- and tell him/her that they were merely “fiddling” in Iraq. I’d love to be there watching.
As far as not knowing what to do- I disagree. We fight the bad people and help the good people. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Are you rattled because the enemy is fighting back? Yeah, that never happened in any other war, right? During WWII the Germans and the Japanese just took their beatings like men, and it was over quickly, right? How on this green earth is it surprising that the enemy is fighting back??? Were you expecting a much easier fight? The fact that casualties in this war are unbelievably low when viewed through a historical context shouldn’t count for anything, huh? What do YOU think we should do, Lee? It’s easy to shrug your shoulders and say “everybody is stupid!” How does that help? I’ve told you my answer to this problem- I’m waiting to hear yours…
And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions.
I haven’t seen the pom-poms. Are we talking about two different conflicts? Because the press that I’ve seen publicizes each and every tactical “success” that the enemy achieves- which is exactly what the enemy wants. I’m still waiting to see the press report about the University that my unit renovated in Mosul. I saw a whole bunch of stuff about some sick teenagers from Maryland who played naked twister with some terrorists. No pom-poms, though.
That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I don’t know, I think most of them would be proud that we still think it’s worthwhile to fight against the forces of evil, no matter where they strike from or where they choose to hide…
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.
True- if you’re not outraged by the horrific actions of terrorists, both in our own country and abroad, then yes- you are not a patriot. So pick up a rifle and head to Baghdad brave guy! However, if you think it’s best to direct your anger, passion, and energy against a patriotic man from Texas instead of a mass-murdering psycho like bin-Laden, then I promise you- you are not a patriot- you’re just another asshole who gives inspiration and hope to those who wish to exterminate us.
The rest of his ridiculous screed just goes on to explain why he is so much smarter than Republicans, Democrats, and anyone else who chooses to read his soggy load of crap.
And for those of you who have been asking what I think about Tenet's new book, I don't really know enough to comment on it. But Christopher Hitchens does. I don't like Mr. Tenet. While serving under the Clinton regime, Mr. Tenet came to Korea and flew around in my Black Hawks. He didn't like one of my Hawks, because he thought it was "dirty." We caught a lot of heat for that. That kind of prima-donna BS was so typical of the Clintonians. SECDEF Cohen wouldn't even get out of the aircraft until the rotors came to a complete stop, lest it blow away his hairpiece. But I digress...
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Wow, John. I didn't think even you could be that stupid. Sure, you've been an opportunistic elitist all your life- but usually you're a little more controlled than this. Was it really necessary to publicly dump all over the "little people" that you so poorly pretend to represent?
Let me ask you, John- Did I not study hard enough at West Point? Is that how I wound up being stuck in Iraq?
How about those people that you send to the Service Academies every year? What do you tell them when you call them with the good news? "Congratulations, Mike- I've decided to make you my primary nominee for the Air Force Academy this year! Now make sure you study hard, because I'd hate to see you end up in Iraq..."
You say that you're sorry, but be honest- what are you sorry for?
Are you sorry that you accidentally exposed your elitist, holier-than-thou persona to the entire world with one unfortunate moment of honesty?
Are you sorry that your pathetic attempt at a cover story ("I meant to say that George Bush is a jerk, but I just screwed up the punch-line") has solidified your status as a world class liar?
Are you sorry that your political career is over? Are you going to miss it? How about the Swiftees? Will you miss them? Yeah- I thought you would.
Well, it's time to go, Johnny. It's time to abandon that dream of becoming JFK the 2nd. Your "war-hero" status that you tried so hard to cultivate- gone. Too many people know about your fake write-ups that led to your unearned medals.
Your dreams of being a "man of the people" who will lead our great nation to peace and prosperity- not going to happen. It was never going to happen. You're spineless. You command zero respect. Nobody likes you. Just walk away, man. Just walk away.
Friday, September 29, 2006
This is an excellent interview that I found on Pedestrian Infidel. A French guy, even! His ideas and theories go hand-in-hand with Haim Harari's teachings, but I like the way this guy takes everything a bit further beyond the PC barrier. Very gutsy and very insightful. I'd like to see his film...
The Psychology Behind Islamic Suicide Bombings
On July 15, 2005, MSNBC's "Connected" program discussed the July 7th London attacks. One of the guests was Pierre Rehov, a French documentary filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre's upcoming film, "Suicide Killers," is based on interviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to a request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new film.
Q - What inspired you to produce "Suicide Killers," your seventh film?
A - I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up.
Q - Why is this film especially important?
A - People don't understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem, showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has become their only certitude.
Q - What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know?
A - I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil. Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on Earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution.
Q - What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings?
A - It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying "Thank God, my son is dead." Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize. This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement goal is to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny, namely to be a Shaheed or the family of a shaheed. They (Muslims) don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy.
Q - You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power?
A - Not death as an end, but death as a door opener to the after life. They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the ultimate authority, above all human laws. They therefore experience this single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since they become God's sword.
Q - Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology.
A - Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don't see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the afterlife in Paradise.
Q - Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction?
A - Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do.
Q - Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way?
A - All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and there is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their lifetime, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists.
Q - Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers.
A - Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior.
Q - What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings?
A - Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations. But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are also supporting the same organizations through different networks. The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of the money comes through financial support from the Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the West (mainly symbolized by Israel).
Q - Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision?
A - There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein ($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide.
Q - Why are so many suicide bombers young men?
A - As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a sure way to become a hero. The shaheeds are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman?
Q - What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation?
A - The U.N. is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or ex-communist countries. Their hands are tied. The U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi. By behaving this way, the U.N. leaves a door open by not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through UNRWA, the U.N. is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas, representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestinian refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the U.N. has maintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to "return" into Israel for more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which still live in deplorable conditions. Four hundred million dollars are spent every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject, and in my film "Hostages of Hatred").
Q - You say that a suicide bomber is a 'stupid bomb and a smart bomb' simultaneously. Explain what you mean.
A - Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform representing interests which are not his, but he doesn't know it.
Q - How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general?
A - Stop being politically correct and stop believing that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Naziism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people.
Q - Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East?
A - Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists. Everywhere Islam expands there is regional conflict. Right now, there are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men who cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the beginning.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
This is a great piece- packed with common sense information, and perfectly concise. I always tell people that there were two wars in Iraq- the first was to oust Saddam (we won it in three weeks) and the second (and much more difficult) was to prevent the terrorists from coming in and filling the power vacuum. This guy argues that there are in, in fact, FIVE wars in Iraq, and after further review- I agree with him.
America's five Iraq wars
September 21, 2006
America has fought five wars in Iraq -- not merely one. And we’ve won or are winning four of them. Winning the last war, however, is all that counts. To cut and run now would leave America less safe than when we started.
War One: Battling Saddam. The United States waged war in Iraq for one reason -- to remove Saddam from power. This was really a continuation of Desert Storm. After all, we halted the first Gulf War based on a host of promises that Saddam made but never kept. Few doubt that the United States, the peoples of the Middle East, and especially the Iraqis are better off with the Butcher of Baghdad swept from power.
War Two: Combating chaos. Despite the scenes of rioting that arose when the regime collapsed, America and its coalition partners managed to quickly avert a wide-scale humanitarian crisis. Although Iraq was (and is) hardly a danger-free zone, there was no mass starvation, floods of refuges, or disease outbreaks that usually accompany the aftermath of conflict.
War Three: Confronting al Qaeda. In the wake of the war, lacking any real success elsewhere in the world, transnational terrorists leapt into the vacuum in Iraq. In the first years following the collapse of the regime, they accounted for the lion’s share of murdering -- killing primarily innocent Iraqis. Even insurgent groups within Iraq that initially cooperated with al Qaeda in Iraq soured on the indiscriminant slaughter. Indeed, al Zawahiri (bin Laden’s deputy) warned that the terrorism in Iraq was alienating Muslims both inside and outside the country from the cause of al Qaeda. Arguably, al Qaeda has lost in Iraq. Its most senior leadership has been killed or captured. Its popularity is low. And it no longer commands a significant following among the Iraqi insurgents.
War Four: Handling the Sunni insurgency. The Sunni minority in Iraq largely abstained from the political process established to form a legitimate government. Democracy went on without them. Led by the other major groups, the Shia and the Kurds, the Iraqis wrote a constitution, held a series of successful elections, and seated an interim government. A Sunni insurgency first rose up to forestall the march of democracy. That failed. The insurgents then tried to force more compromises on the government. Over the last year, it appeared that key Sunni leaders were giving up on the insurgency and were increasingly interested in negotiating a more equitable seat at the table and resolving key power-sharing issues.
War Five: Fighting the proxy war. Unfortunately for the United States, the wavering of the Sunni insurgency coincided with a decided increase in attacks by Shia militias. These provocations have resulted in an increasing cycle of retaliatory sectarian strikes between Sunnis and Shias, as well as concerted efforts to kill more American soldiers using more deadly and accurate improvised explosive devices. This latest war may be the toughest to win because its principal authors are probably not inside Iraq. They are in Iran.The most recent uptick in violence in Iraq parallels closely U.N. efforts to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear programs. Instability serves Iran’s purposes well. It diverts attention from the issue and undermines U.S. interests in the region.
There is a good deal of evidence to make this case. Weapons and funds to fuel the Shia insurgency are coming across the border from Iran. In addition, Hezbollah, Iran’s stooge in Lebanon, initiated a violent confrontation with Israel which also has shifted the focus away from what Iran’s mullahs are up to.
Cutting and running in the face of this latest threat would yield only one result: It would empower Iran and make its radical government more aggressive, more reckless and more dangerous. That’s obviously not in America’s interest.
What the United States needs to do is finish the job in Iraq -- and that means strengthening Iraq’s security forces so they can handle the insurgency. At the same time, it needs to focus on the other threats to regional stability -- helping empower the Lebanese government to disarm and defang Hezbollah and marshalling the international community to isolate and punish Iran for its adventurism.
That way, we can ensure that War Five ends the same way the first four did.
James Carafano is Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org), and author of the new book “G.I. Ingenuity.”
Distributed nationally on the McClathy Tribune wire
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Since I started posting again, I've been checking the Statcounter every few days just to see if anyone actually still comes around here. I've been tracking about 80 hits per day- a far cry from the several hundred (several thousand?) per day back in 2004, but still way more activity than I would have expected given the lengthy hiatus. Well, today I checked and I was shocked to see that more than 200 people hit the site today. Of course, I wondered what was causing such a stir- and then I saw the trackbacks. Damn near every hit was coming from a Google search for none other than JENNIFER LOVEN- the most shamefully biased joke of a newsperson this country has ever seen.
After a quick investigation of today's news, I found the culprit- it seems young Jennifer was selected to be one of the two reporters to ask Presidents Bush and Karzai a question today! How that happened I'll never know. One thing I will say- at least this time she had the courage to stand up there and flaunt her stupidity right in front of his face- way to be, Jen!
Here's how it went down:
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you. We'll have two questions a side. We'll start with Jennifer Loven.
JENNIFER LOVEN: Thank you, sir. Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?
I'll translate, as I have become fluent in Lovenese:
JENNIFER LOVEN: Thanks, a$$hole. The recent National Intelligence Estimate clearly states that you suck. I happen to also believe that you suck. Since everyone now knows for a fact that you suck, why have you continued to say that you don't suck? By the way- you really suck.
Same ol' Jennifer- she's always entertaining. Hardly a news reporter, but she'd be great at stand-up!
I do think that President Bush's response was excellent- make sure to read the whole transcript if you haven't already- the best part (my emphasis added):
PRESIDENT BUSH: ...Because I want you to read the documents so you don't speculate about what it says. You asked me a question based upon what you thought was in the document, or at least somebody told you was in the document. And so I think, Jennifer, you'll be able to ask a more profound question when you get to look at it yourself -- (laughter) -- as opposed to relying upon gossip and somebody who may or may not have seen the document trying to classify the war in Iraq one way or the other.
I guess it's just Washington, isn't it, where, you know, we kind of -- there's no such thing as classification anymore, hardly. But, anyway, you ought to take a look at it and then you'll get to see.
Nice work, Mr. President. Very well stated. In case you don't speak Bush yet, here's what he really said:
PRESIDENT BUSH: Jennifer- you really suck. Your pathetic attempt at interjecting your lame-ass opinion into that stupid, stupid question did not go unnoticed. You are perhaps the worst excuse for a journalist I have ever seen- you keep asking bogus questions, and I'll continue to call you out for your complete disregard for truth and substance- sound good?
Stay tooned for more fun with Jennifer- we certainly haven't seen the last of her....
Looks like she followed up her performance with a standard hit piece. He must have really rattled her cage today? This one is especially ridiculous. Some highlights from Iraq is 'cause celebre' for extremists (my emphasis added):
The war in Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that probably will get worse before it gets better, federal intelligence analysts conclude in a report at odds with President Bush's portrayal of a world growing safer.
In the bleak report, declassified and released Tuesday on Bush's orders, the nation's most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al-Qaida, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.
Bush and his top advisers have said the formerly classified assessment of global terrorism supported their arguments that the world is safer because of the war. But more than three pages of stark judgments warning about the spread of terrorism contrasted with the administration's glass-half-full declarations.
Wow. I mean, this is truly unbelievable. In three short paragraphs, Jennifer and her friend have made it clear to us that we are losing the War on Terror. Seriously. They are saying quite clearly that no matter what Bush and his liar friends try to tell you- we are getting are butts kicked, and it's only getting worse- just look at this report. It's all there, people. We are losing, and it's your fault for putting this glass-half-full-pedaling liar into the White House!
Talk about fear-mongering for political gain...
This is an old classic that made it's way around the internet a few years ago. Not sure who wrote it, but it's right on...
The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid," "morons," and "idiots." Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American. So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid," "ignorant," "moronic" leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:
President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic reelection victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998, winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo.
Vice President Dick Cheney earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capitol Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.
Secretary of State Colin Powell was educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77.
Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was raised in a working class family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly reelected six times.
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender — Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. She resides in Washington, D.C.
So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their educations and background:
Barbra Streisand: Completed high school
Career: Singing and acting
Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade.
Career: Singing and acting
Martin Sheen: Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton.
Jessica Lange: Dropped out college mid-freshman year.
Alec Baldwin: Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal
Julia Roberts: Completed high school
Sean Penn: Completed High school
Susan Sarandon: Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. Career: Acting
Ed Asner: Completed High school
George Clooney: Dropped out of University of Kentucky
Michael Moore: Dropped out first year University of Michigan.
Career: Movie Director
Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School
Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School
Mike Farrell: Completed High school
Janeane Garofelo: Dropped out of College.
Career: Stand up comedienne
Larry Hagman: Attended Bard College for one year.
Mel Gibson: Quit college because one of his professors was Jewish
Career: Jew hater (OK, I just slipped this one in there. I made it up. Sort of- 2Slick)
While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our own military, and that of our allies around the world.
We cannot simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!!
We cannot believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders. These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood.
The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!
It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them. Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real.
We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime.
President John F. Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of immediate war if the ships did not turn around.
We did not end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH.
Critics will say "How dare you suggest that someone is stupid just because they didn't go to college!!!" And that's crap. That's not what this essay suggests. At all. Yes, there are very brilliant people who never went to college. Harry S Truman is one example. On the flip side, Jimmy Carter went to the Naval Academy (not a bad school, but not as great as West Point), and he's dumber than a box of hammers. There will always be exceptions and stand-outs- ronald Reagan was an actor, and he became one of the greatest Presidents ever. Of course, he started out as a Democrat, but grew wiser as he got older. But seriously- this essay does a great job of pinning credentials to the loudest (and least informed)voices in Hollywood. Nice job, whoever wrote it.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
I know- stupid question, right? But here's the reason I ask- I was watching Fox News this past Sunday morning when all that stuff with the Pope and angry Muslims was going on, and one of the Fox newsies (didn't catch her name) began the broadcast with:
"A nun shot dead in Somalia, and the Pope's words might be to blame. Hello everyone, I'm so and so and this is Fox News...."
I'm not kidding- she really said that. I'm not trying to single out Fox News here- it happens all the time with every major news outlet. If the person (I use the word loosely) who shot that nun were to have written the intro to that newscast, I ask you- how different would it have been from what she actually read? Not much different, I would guess. The killer probably would have dropped the words "might be," but it would have otherwise sounded exactly the same. I don't think I've seen such a clear cut example of our own media being used by terrorists as a propagnada weapon. It really is amazing. What she said is absolutely no different that starting off a newscast with:
"A suicide car bomb killed fourteen people in Baghdad this morning, and the U.S. humanitarian efforts in Iraq might be to blame."
"Radical Islamic extremists beheaded an American civilian and posted it on the internet, and our own President Bush might be to blame."
Am I the only one who sees the danger in this?
Believe me, Fox News is NOT trying to push a terrorist agenda. I don't even believe that the other network and cable news outlets are trying to push a Democratic Party agenda (okay, maybe CBS a little bit). I think every media outlet in America is merely doing what every red-blooded American company is trying to do- make a buck!!! It's capitalism, stupid!
It sounds better when they blame the Pope for murdering a nun, doesn't it? Isn't that a tantalizing way to start a broadcast?
Isn't it hard to flip the channel when they suggest that maybe- just maybe- our own President is ordering U.S. troops to play "Walk the Dog" with a bunch of terrorists in Abu Ghraib?
How about the hot air-filled talking head who says stuff like "we've been creating more terrorists ever since we started fighting them. Before we decided to fight back, everything was just peachy keen. You know, and embassy here, a USS Cole there, a few buildings in some major U.S. cities- no big deal. But now we've made them angry! And French people hate us! Bad Mr. Bush!"
Or what about the time when our President and his band of thugs endangered the life of a CIA agent in order to get back at her and her husband for being so mean to Republicans!?!? Holy Moly! Ben Affleck informed me that they shoot people on the battlefield for that sort of thing! Wow, man- Ben must have all kinds of war experience and he must know a whole heck of a lot about spy stuff, what with all his play-acting and stuff. But I digress...
So, yes, it all may be a total crock of BS, but it sure gets our attention, doesn't it?!?!? And it stirs the pot, and gets people fired up and angry, and it generates all kinds of debate, and it gets ratings and sells newspapers, and the money just keeps flowing in...
The obvious problem with all this- the terrorists know exactly how capitalism works. And they know how our media works. And we are absolutely powerless to stop them. Our only hope is to somehow be smart enough to see through our own BS.
Ever since I returned from Iraq, I've been asked the age old question, "Why don't we ever hear about the progress being made over there? How come we never get the good news?" The sad (but true) answer to this question- you don't really want to hear it. You think you do, but you don't. Everybody's always screaming about the "biased" media, and everyone's always lamenting about sensationalism trumping the facts, and blah blah blah- but the numbers don't lie, people.
How many of you would watch the Fox News special about power grid reconstruction efforts in Mosul? Yeah. Well. Not too exciting, huh?
Okay, now which of you would watch the special report about the suicide bomber who killed 4 American soldiers and 20 children who were giving them candy? Yep, that'll get your attention.
Are you going to watch the 2-hour special that takes you through the entire start-to-finish construction of the newly-formed Iraqi government? No. You're not going to watch that. And you're not going to read about it in tomorrow's Washington Post. Stop arguing with me- you have no interest in that stuff. But I promise you, it's the most important thing that's happening over there...
The terrorists know what you're going to watch. So do the suits at the news bureaus. The media isn't all that biased, ladies and gentlemen- they just want your money.
Even if it means in-your-face reporting on every single terrorist act that takes place in any part of the world at any given time.
Even if it means regurgitating a nun-killer's talking points. Verbatim.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
I've been working my way through a list of emails that I had left unattended for well over a year- and I found some pretty fun ones. Before I get to the featured item, I'd just like to say thanks for all the nice well-wishes and kind words- it's much appreciated, and I apologize for taking so long to write back. Most of the emails I get are really nice and thoughtful. And then I get some like this:
----- Original Message ----
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:42:34 PM
Heard about mil blogs. your name came up. just what i expected. im not a lefty. im a veteran of our last big war on the dark skinned poor - in central america. you seem to be a part of the machine. a muscle fiber in the corporate bicep that is "redifining" american power in central asia. you are rewarded by your "fortune 500" job. horde those green backs captain before that corporate bicep outsources your ass and you find yourself teaching government classes at a community college.
xo our knight in shining gunship
or does 2slick refer to medivac?
Don't bother trying to send this person an email- the address is no longer valid. I tried to send him a response that went like this:
Cool. Thanks for checking out my site.
I think I'll start by telling you something that your parents probably told you a long time ago, but you just never liked to hear- people who are "anti-establishment" tend to be people who were soundly rejected by said "establishment." They're the ones who got beat up in school because they were always trying to be the center of attention- but never had any good reason to command said attention. Not typically the sharpest bulbs in the drawer- but really convinced that they were so much smarter than everyone else. Simply put- "anti-establishment" people (like you) are the ones that most "normal" people try so very hard to avoid.
Seriously, man- I'm sorry that nobody likes you or wants to hire you. Keep blaming "the man" for all your problems, and maybe your pain and suffering will begin to subside. Maybe- just maybe- the good people of the world will see how you've been wronged, and maybe everyone will line up to apologize to you. I know that would be really AWESOME for you!
Me? I'm just going to keep "redefining" American power with my corporate biceps while I step all over the poor dark-skinned people. You just sit there and think about what an awful and terrible person I am- I'm certain that will make you happy. See how thoughtful I am?
Seriously, though- you're right. You're not a lefty. You're just a run-of-the-mill fraud. A sad and pathetic loser who never got enough hugs.
Just what I expected....
P.S.: What's wrong with teaching government classes at a community college? Is teaching not an honorable profession? I happen to have a great deal of respect for teachers, and I certainly appreciate all the ones who taught me...
I love getting emails from these clowns!