30 May 2004

Something on Memorial Day to think about.

Christ came down from heaven, where he had everything, and all power. He humbled himself and gave his own life to give us freedom from sin. When we look at our history, consider the soldiers who likewise gave up so much to bring freedom to others. Our Minutemen died to found our free country and give us freedom. Our soldiers stained the fields of the South with their blood to bring freedom to the enslaved. The French were liberated not once, but twice. Men unthreatened by fascism and living comfortably in the US gave up their comfort and their lives to bring freedom and peace to others. Likewise, in this war against militant Islam, men are leaving the most prosperous nation on Earth...even the most humble American soldier has given up a lifestyle of what the world would see as luxury and affluence. They go to fight and die in a strange land for people who sometimes are grateful, and sometimes are not. The price of freedom is exacted in blood, sadly, and we would do well to be grateful. As a speaker at my church noted recently, it is not the media moguls and news anchors who give us freedom of the press, nor the anti-war activists who give us freedom of assembly, nor the "courageous" dissenting Hollywood elites who give us freedom of speech. It is the soldier...the one who goes and gives his life, literally or metaphorically, to serve and protect our nation, our people. All this without a voice, without reporters licking their boots for a soundbyte, without a great deal of individual care or concern for them. They do it because it is right and it is their duty. Let us respect, honour, and pray for them.

As a irreverent sidenote my friends, I just saw the crime rate statistics for Chicago in 2002. 648 murders!!! IT'S A QUAGMIRE!!! GET US OUT OF CHICAGO MR. BUSH!!! WHAT IS OUR EXIT STRATEGY??? WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE DON'T HAVE ONE??!!

26 May 2004

"In late August 1864, the Democratic National Convention, to much cheering, pronounced Lincoln's war 'a failure.' On Sept. 4, Gen. Sherman telegraphed that 'Atlanta is ours, and fairly won.' On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, Lincoln won 55 percent of the votes." -Tony Blankley

Great article by Mr. Blankley...nice comparison of Lincoln and Bush. God willing this might be the case...onward to victory! I for one see many comparisons to be made to an unpopular war from 140 years ago...one that could have been much more easily referred to as a "quagmire".

24 May 2004

Liberal Compassion

Showing his true colours...a haughty, arrogant, condescending, rich Massachusetts lib. What a pansy...he loses it on a street, whereas Bush was out on a 17 mile mountain bike path. Big difference. Of course, I don't bike at all, so, oh well!

As a side note, its a shame that a few degenerate miscreants who somehow managed to get into our uniforms cast this unsightly and dishonest image of American soldiers...and also, its quite a shame that the brunt of this has been inappropriately laid on the shoulders of a courageous, noble man with an impeccable record of serving his country. Even for those who don't buy into the Leftmedia's lies, Donald Rumsfeld is too closely identified with these hideous travesties to line up for 2008...but then again, he never was the type. Condi 2008? vs Hillary???

As for the abuse scandals, I have always been halfway on this. Part of me knows these abuses are nothing to cry over. Scaring, shaming, or even mildly beating captured Jihadis is fine with me. These are men hellbent on our collective death, and to save lives we might have to rough them up a bit. I understand the soldiers desire for revenge. Many of these men probably shot or shot at American soldiers. They see their comrades dying in the streets...all of this while we try to establish peace and restore their country with historically rare altruism...and there are few words of thanks, only sniper bullets, bombs, demonstrations, and hatred. I understand their desires to hurt these men.

However, the perversions, especially between soldiers and the gleeful and undisciplined revelry in such things, should be fiercely punished. Drag these reprobates into the street and execute them...show the world that American blood is not so rich in value that we would not spill it ourselves for the cause of justice.

21 May 2004


Wow...a little common sense. Rev. Jackson and Mr. Mfume are probably in a tizzy about this...
Sweet Jiminy Crockett!


Good grief, a tax that I agree with???!!! It makes perfect sense as he explains it. Either Krauthammer is just a brilliant wordsmith who can sweet-talk an old hardcore conservative into anything, or this is a really good idea (something I'd rarely say about a tax increase!).

Seriously, this is very highly recommended reading. Especially this bit, my friends:

"The low oil prices of the '80s and '90s gave us an epidemic of gas-guzzling tanks on wheels. Americans have every right to shop for groceries in vehicles built for hunting elephants, but then they should stop whining about the inevitable oil price crunch that follows. Especially when they drive their SUVs to environmental rallies to prohibit drilling in the largest untapped oilfield in North America because of an exquisite sensitivity for the mating habits of Arctic caribou."

18 May 2004

The Truth Hurts

A painfully insightful article about the failures of Bush. Now, come on, my liberal amigos...you can't say we don't criticize our own. With all his faults he's still miles ahead of Kerry in terms of exactly how safe our country will be with him as president, but its unpleasant to note how he has fallen short...primarily, in government spending.

17 May 2004

Could It Be?

Could this be the first insurgent attack on US troops that the media is reluctant to show???!!! Hmmm...an artillery shell packed with a nerve agent used in an attempt to bomb a US convoy. Well, Ted Kennedy, there's your answer...a bona fide weapon of mass destruction. You're lucky it didn't end up in your office mail; although no intelligent jihadi would dare bomb such a valuable ally. Besides, he's working on becoming a casualty of chemical warfare anyway; as far as vodka goes he's our very own weapon of mass consumption. Badump-bump ching.

I leave you with the wisdom of Thomas Sowell:

"No one in World War II demanded that President Roosevelt present them with a timetable for the end of the war, much less for when our military occupation would end in Europe. Nor did anyone demand to know how much the war would cost in dollars and cents. But the maturity to think beyond the moment has apparently become far more scarce today than it was in the days of the greatest generation. Will future historians call us the childish generation? How much today's childishness will cost this country in the long run only the future will tell - and it may tell in blood."

14 May 2004

One more post for today, my friends. Read an article detailing some of the exploits of a few of the miscreants at Abu Ghraib (no, not the inmates, the miscreants guarding them).

Swift military justice is what we need here...a swift court-martial and a firing squad. Make it public that we are not afraid to shed our own blood, that we do not view our blood as exclusively sacred. Years ago, it was taken for granted that men were hung for simply running away from battle. Nowadays we have perversion and violence in our ranks that will cost us dearly in lives; let us not be unduly concerned about "fair trials". These are military men and women. They are subject to a different code of honour, and different justice. Let them pay for their criminal behaviour with their own blood. How else could we hope to gain any respect from even the moderate Moslems?

String these bastards up in the streets, let our people know what we will and will not tolerate, and let their people know we are a nation of integrity who deals with its own problems.

Such negativity is really in need of an emoticon or something. :D :D :D :D :D
Condi Makes a Good Point

Jihadis the modern-day Klansmen? An interesting proposition, and one the Lefties, who have long tried to paint themselves as the polar opposites of sheet-wearing cretins (somewhat at odds with history, given a traditional opposition to civil rights in the Democratic Party)(also consider the man and the party behind the Emancipation Proclamation), will not readily accept. The Left is attempting to paint the Jihadis as someone we must understand, tolerate, and make peace with, and for God's sake, not offend! In the words of a rather coarse foreign exchange student friend of mine, "joda la calle arabe!"

Dr. Rice is absurdly qualified, a prime example of someone getting where they are by merit. The liberals should love her, a self-made minority woman who has achieved more than most anyone in spite of fierce challenges. But they hate her, they call her a liar and a slut, they reserve their coarsest derision for such a woman...because of what she represents...that skin colour in and of itself means nothing. Its just circumstance.
Krauthammer Nails It

Another brilliant analysis of the situation. As ludicrous as it sounds hearing people compare this war to Vietnam, from one perspective they are right. Like few other wars, our war against militant Islam is tempered by a subversive domestic culture seeking to hamper our efforts and counteract victory at every turn. I've heard it said that we were winning Vietnam, having never lost a major battle, but that the war was lost on the home front, where John Kerry was the field marshall! Perhaps again?

We just need to stay the course and win this war. For the sake of Americans, for the sake of the vast, peaceful majority of Moslems, for the world.

Phew, I'm glad to put that last post off the "front page". What tripe.

13 May 2004

Endless Reams of Bad Prose

I pause to reflect on this blog's subtitle, lifted from Camille Paglia's sweeping indictment of the weblogging scene. What amazing arrogance we bloggers have, to think that we can shirk the disciplines and standards of conventional writing and spew out our thoughts in jumbled, unedited text with no thought of self-restraint, or of even retaining the interest of the reader! The sad fact is that there are far more avid bloggers than avid blog readers. Granted, my blogs and some others flirt with self-mockery, realizing and even celebrating the ludicrous self-importance of blogging, but at its core, it's a pathetic venture, a public exposé on a massive scale of what would previously be confined to our diaries and journals. Of course, to be fair, I am much like a person writing about his disgust at corporate embezzlement using stationary from his office...as I say, this is yet another chapter of Neufeldian Bad Prose.

I find blogging to be the ideal compromise for me; lacking the discipline to commit myself to the construction and writing of columns, I confine my less organised thoughts here where perhaps someday I will be able to gather them together into more professional pieces of writing. Also, blogging is a wonderful thing for my wife, as I tend to spend a bit less time ranting to her about the latest political news, when I've already ranted to you!

But in the end I know that little to no material posted here is original, and few thoughts I put forward are unique, new, or exceptional...this is a haven for a muddled rehash of thoughts, and I can offer little else. But in the end, the purpose is still entirely selfish...it documents my ideas and thoughts like a journal, nothing else. Any readers who wander on here are most MOST welcome, but my goal is not to enlighten the masses.

A great example of what I'm talking about? I hate these few paragraphs, I think its terrible, longwinded writing. Do I delete it? Nooooo. Do I even edit it? Not at all. Rubbish, I tell you, all RUBBISH!!!

One of these days I'll just go completely stream-of-consciousness on you all and then we'll see...

11 May 2004

On Hate Speech

A very simple thought for all of you today. One of the most beloved of all rights (interestingly enough, especially to liberals) is our Freedom of Speech listed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I propose to you, that this protects all speech. Annoying speech. Angry speech. Dissident speech. Boring speech. And yes...hate speech. Hatred is value-based...it is the estimation of value, a mere thought. Just as we cannot mandate love, we cannot outlaw hate. Governments and societies are leaning this way these days, and the world inches towards the classic Orwellian nightmare. So just as liberals trumpet their right of free speech to justify criticism of America and denunciation of Bush as Hitler Incarnate, they must accept the hate speech of others as well. It is no crime. It could be unwise in our estimation, but the espousal of thoughts and opinions is entirely within the liberty of any American, regardless of what those thoughts or opinions may be.

I will take this to its extreme to provoke some reflection. Racism...not racism in policy or practice, but purely the inner sentiment and opinions of racism...is constitutionally protected, lawful, and within the rights of all of us as Americans. I greedily await your well-thought out responses to this seemingly horrendous statement!

10 May 2004

Dearest Activists and Naysayers, listen, please, to these voices of reason regarding why we went to war in Iraq:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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 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

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." --Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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
Rumsfeld Should Stay

A great article from Bill Safire. It shows the foolishness of these calls for a Rummy resignation.

05 May 2004

Sorry for the multiple posts, but this from The Federalist brightened my day up considerably. Idiots are one of the world's cheapest and most plentiful sources of humour:

"The last thing I want to say is that I’m a victim, but I am. I believe it’s a trickle down from Bush."

-Courtney Love, in an interview with Rolling Stone explaining why she is facing felony drug charges, why she could lose custody of her daughter, and why she is reportedly broke.
Thus I semi-reluctantly wrestle, as promised, with the issue of moral relativism. A few times I've fought this battle online with liberal Xangans, but it usually ends up either in tepid compromise or the outright disappearance of individuals to defend the opposing viewpoint. Since none of you (devoted readers) exist, I don't have to worry about that.

Understand, dear phantom readers, that my selection of gay marriage as the backdrop for this discussion is purely arbitrary, determined only by its recent prominence in current affairs. These concepts are deeper than any one situation, and my views on gay marriage are irrelevant to this discussion, although I will say, states' rights get my vote over any sort of federal or judicial action any day. Power to the people...oooh, funkytown. Excuse me.

Essentially, we've got one group, the religious conservatives, arguing against gay marriage for many reasons...the most salient and simple being that it is just *wrong*. This particular idea really gets the opposing faction's goat (whatever that means). The liberals heatedly resent the idea of someone applying their moral standards to someone else...they adhere to the doctrine of moral relativism, that is, that right and wrong are personally defined, not absolute. An attractive and seemingly logical concept, admittedly.

The problem is, no liberal has the bollocks to see it through completely, to its logical end. They want to take a smattering of moral relativism, and apply it here, apply it there, without adopting the concept in its entirety.

The quickest way to expose this is to start pointing out the maligned stepcousins of homosexuality, what could be considered "fellow perversions". Bestiality...still quite frowned upon, and not about to be legalised!!! Polygamy...still illegal, even in Utah. Please, stretch your minds a little...even pedophilia. Necrophilia. ET CETERA ET CETERA ET CETERA. PETER CETERA. Woo yeah. Again, excuse me.

Right about now, the liberals are frothing in panicky rage, HOW-DARE-YOU-COMPARE-HOMOSEXUALITY-WITH-THOSE-THINGS!!! Why is there such a response? Because these things are still viewed by the public...yes, even those open-minded liberals...as grotesque, immoral, and perverse. As homosexuality once was, by collective society. These "relativists" will hypocritically claim that such actions are morally wrong. By whose standards? You can't, with any degree of integrity, force your morals onto these polygamists and necrophiliacs...their morals are their own, and according to your creed of relativism you have no right to tell them their chosen "alternative lifestyle" is wrong.

Here is where the liberals pull out their wildcard. Some of those things can hurt another person. Apparently morality is relative "up to a point". The "consenting adult" thing is fine, but where that condition is not met, it is morally wrong. This is silly...if morality is relative why is it really wrong to hurt someone? Seriously, a true moral relativist has to admit that this is only a society's assertion, since there is no absolute truth. If you respond in exasperation, "it's just wrong" you have proven my point, and thus abandoned your stance on moral relativism, from which you were defending gay marriage.

Liberals want to live in a world that allows them to intermingle absolute and relative morality at their discretion, but the philosophies that underlie these concepts are like oil and vinegar. This half-hearted, partially applied relativism is riddled with fallacy. You cannot make the case for moral relativism until you deny absolute truth.

If you have a response to this you would like posted on here, I will gladly do so and respond to it. Please email me and specify whether or not you would like to remain anonymous. Thank you!

04 May 2004

Swift Boat Veterans For Justice

[Related article]

Interesting to find a majority of the officers who served with Kerry would openly disapprove of his presidential bid. Kerry, ever eager to shed the liberal stigma of his Senate and post-Vietnam career, is campaigning on the basis of a few months he spent in Southeast Asia. Apparently not all of his comrades held him in as high of a regard as his campaign likes to portray.

I still find it amazing how he trumpets his service in war...like no other veteran I've known. There is honour in what he did, but not in what he has done since. In 1996, was Bob Dole chattering non-stop about his heroics fighting the Nazis? Read about it here. Or in 1992, with George Senior, was it ALL WWII ALL THE TIME? His story is here. I do not think honour is a permanent thing, it can be annulled by further action. Kerry served honourably as did thousands and thousands of men, many of whom I know personally. His treasonous Jane Fonda style actions post-Vietnam, as well as his shameless capitalization on his Vietnam record for political gain, abate what honour he earned, in my book.

02 May 2004

Breaker Morant

This movie is highly, highly recommended to you all. It's a somewhat unknown Australian movie from around when I was born, but its a brilliant work, something to let one's mind chew on in this time of war. Like anyone else I was disgusted by the prison abuses perpetuated by our soldiers here recently, but thinking of the court-martial of these reservists to shield the Army from the blame...it did add some "food for thought". This is one of my favorite movies I've seen and it brings to light some very pertinent concepts most civilians never consider when passing judgement on soldiers. So many quotes I could paraphrase, but suffice to say, the tragedies of war are not committed by abnormal men, but by normal men under abnormal circumstances. Like the English empire at the end of the 19th Century, we desire a clean, fair, gentleman's war. I'm afraid they do not exist. Watch this movie in context of current affairs, and I believe you'll find it valuable to reflect upon. Besides, its just a smashing good movie! Brilliant writing and acting...and all the Lee Enfields you could want!!!