I think this video should be broadcast by every news station in the country. This country is obsessed with the Iraq prisoner "abuse" scandal, but couldn't care less about this horrific murder. A murder that illustrates the real face of the enemy.
This is for all the morons that live, work, and drive in the Kansas City metro area.
Update: 5/19/2004:
The average intelligence of the Kansas City driver is inversely proportional to the amount of rain we've had. Since we've had a considerable amount in the past two days, this translates to incredibly stupid. You people aren't just idiots, you're [expletive deleted] idiots!
We are told continually that the Arab Muslims that attacked this country on September 11, 2001 are a minority of Muslims worldwide. We are told that Islam is a religion of peace and that we should not construe the actions or opinions of the radical Muslims to be those of the Muslim community as a whole.
When it comes to America, however, another standard is applied.
The actions of a few soldiers and their commanders in Iraq in the abuse of prisoners of war are being used by the Arab world to impugn the entire U.S. military and the U.S. as a whole. In his weekly radio address, President Bush said, What took place in that Iraqi prison was the wrongdoing of a few, and does not reflect the character of the more than 200,000 military personnel who have served in Iraq since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Certainly the words of the President of the United States have more weight than those of the Muslim advocacy groups that tell us that the actions of a small minority of radical Muslims are not representative of all Muslims.
The President's words, however, have done nothing to calm the swell of anger of the Arab Muslim world towards the United States. To understand this, you have to realize that the Arab Muslim world has never been fond of the United States. To suggest that their feelings toward us have changed is wrong. To them, this is just another excuse to hate us in an already long list of reasons. I think that the damage can be repaired, or at least appear that way for diplomatic reasons, but the views of the die-hard radical Muslims will not change.
The views of Arab countries are not the only ones we have to examine, though. The Democrats in Congress, in their quest to regain power, are using this scandal to undermine President Bush, his administration, and the war on terror. They are supposed to support the country that they represent, but instead they are, in my opinion, allying themselves with those who want to destroy us. There is at least one voice of reason, however. That of Senator Joe Lieberman:
"The behavior by Americans at the prison in Iraq is, as we all acknowledge, immoral, intolerable and un-American ... I cannot help but say, however, that those responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, never apologized. Those who have killed hundreds of Americans in uniform in Iraq, working to liberate Iraq and protect our security, have never apologized. And those who murdered and burned and humiliated four Americans in Fallujah a while ago never (apologized)....
That's worth remembering as we scourge ourselves. Meanwhile, let's also remember the rest of Lieberman's wisdom: "I hope as we go about this investigation we do it in a way that does not dishonor the hundreds of thousands of Americans in uniform who are a lot more like Pat Tillman and Americans that are not known, like Army National Guard Sgt. Felix Delgreco, of Simsbury, Conn., who was killed in action a few weeks ago, that we not dishonor their service or discredit the cause that brought us to send them to Iraq, because it remains one that is just and necessary."
You don't like my opinion? Rest assured that I don't like yours either.
So please, take your arrogant leftist ideology to a country that cares. Oh, I'm sorry, it looks like I own you another dollar. Send me a SASE and I'll be sure you get it. I'll take out all applicable taxes, of course.
Opponents argued that the proposal would reward lawbreakers and perhaps even aid terrorists.
"If terrorists come to get a pilot's license at a Kansas university, at least we gave them in-state tuition before they used it against us," Rep. Scott Schwab, a Republican, said sarcastically, drawing boos from some in the chamber.
Yeah, terrorists would never use planes to attack us.
Chants bashing Wal-Mart filled the St. Sabina Church auditorium Saturday as more than 300 people attended a Chicago Workers' Rights Board protest of the retail giant's attempt to move into Chicago.
Speaker after speaker -- from religious and political leaders to labor and community activists to current and former Wal-Mart employees -- accused the company of providing low-paying jobs with meager benefits, gobbling up competitors and running roughshod over women and illegal immigrants. Wal-Mart disputes the claims, saying it has been unfairly maligned.
"I think we have to get away from the mentality that we're just glad to get a job," said St. Sabina's pastor, the Rev. Michael Pfleger. "We've got to stop accepting crumbs as if it's the only thing we're meant to eat. A slave job is a slave job."
I'm tired of this crybaby attitude that people have about jobs. These people that are complaining are the kind of people that want to do as little work as possible and get paid as much as possible. Working at Wal-Mart isn't rocket science, you're not going to make $100,000 a year at the check-out stand. As far as their benefits, if you don't like them, don't work for Wal-Mart. You have no right to tell Wal-Mart how they should do business, how much they should pay you, and what their benefits package should be.
Rev. Pfleger isn't helping anyone with his statements, he's just encouraging a victim mentality. People in this country complain about being unemployed, but when a job is dropped in their lap, they complain because it isn't good enough.
I almost forgot, Wal-Mart is running roughshod over women and illegal immigrants? Illegal immigrants should not be in this country anyway!!!
"I'm for jobs in this community, but I have an insult level," said state Rep. Mary Flowers (D-Chicago). "People need a livable wage. As an African-American woman, I once worked for $1 an hour. I'm not talking about what I don't know."
Well, Ms. Flowers, I'd like to take the opportunity to welcome you to the 21st Century. There is a federal minimum wage and it is significantly higher than $1 an hour. It may not be as high as you would like it to be, but it's fair. Just what do you mean by a livable wage? Do you mean that an employee should be paid more than what can be reasonably justified by his experience and skills? You don't have a "right" to a livable wage. You don't have a "right" to live whatever lifestyle you want to live and then expect your employer to compensate you based on what you want rather than your qualifications.
If you guys want to shut Wal-Mart out then go right ahead. Just don't expect any sympathy from me when you complain about being unemployed.
These guys are protesting changes to their unemployment benefits. Did it ever occur to them that they could go find another job while they're not working in the entertainment business?
In a post on 12/6/2003 I mentioned that I had joined a few left-wing groups. Well, they are groups that I consider left-wing. My goal was to see how many other groups would get my name and address. I'm happy to report that my experiment was a success. Below is the current list of groups that have sent me mail.
I apparently have a reader. He decided to post his own version of my last post, so I'm responding. He says he reads my blog religiously. That's scary :).
While I do support President Bush, I don't always agree with his policies. He's hardly a conservative President; he spends like a Democrat. I oppose his Medicare prescription drug plan that is going to wind up costing people like me way too much money. I oppose his desire to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Let's just let all of the criminals out of jail if laws don't mean anything. The fact is that he has done some things I have liked, and other that I haven't, but when it comes to the security and safety of America, I'm going to trust the people who's job it is to secure it. Please don't bring up September 11th as it is clear that current and past administrations share the blame.
Regarding taxes, those who earn more pay more. It is only natural that tax cuts will benefit higher income workers more than it will lower income workers. Just because someone has a well paying job doesn't mean that they don't have as much right to a tax cut as someone who works at Wal-Mart. Cutting the taxes of someone who makes $30,000 a year and not cutting those of someone who makes $80,000 is unfair. It's as unfair as taxing the $80,000 a year worker at a higher rate than the $30,000 a year worker. You earn what you earn. It doesn't do any good to complain about people who make more because they are still going to make more. And quite frankly, who cares if someone's tax cut amounted to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars? The largest percentage of taxes in this country are paid by the wealthy. Do you really think this country runs on the taxes of people who make $20,000 and $30,000 a year?
Regarding education, Senator Edward Kennedy (D - Mass.) wrote the education bill. The problem is not money (except with regard to teacher salaries), as private schools do a lot better with a lot less. The problem is that education is no longer about learning.
Do you ever wonder why the National Education Association (NEA), the country's largest teachers union, has a legislative agenda? If they truly cared about education, they would be focused on education. You don't need a federal law passed every other week to improve schools.
I saw a story recently where a school district was no longer going to hold students back if they weren't competent to move up to the next grade. Is that really in the best interest of the student?
Sex education is all the rage these days. We've got to teach kids how to put condoms on, how to have straight sex, how to have gay sex, and how to masturbate. I guess you could say that I had bare-bones sex education when I was in school. I remember a thing we did when I was in sixth grade that was very basic information. In health class in eighth grade our teacher read from the approved manual on the mechanics of sex and then she answered anonymous questions. My parents provided me with some books, but we never had "the talk". While I admit that the times have changed since then, sex itself hasn't, it's still pretty much the same. I don't think that exposing kids to what in some cases amounts to soft-core porn disguised as education is beneficial to their well-being.
The debate over evolution continues to rage. A school board down south is under attack because they put evolution disclaimer stickers in their biology textbooks. Somehow saying that evolution is only a theory is a constitutional crisis. I don't recall being "taught" evolution in school. I had biology in high school and we were never lectured on evolution. We studied the different animal and plant types, kingdoms, families, phylums, species, mitosis, meiosis, onion root tips, worms, frogs, all the good stuff. I don't think that understanding evolution is necessary in order to understand how plants and animals work.
School textbooks are being systematically purged of the true history of this country. Sure, it wasn't always pretty, but there are a lot of great things and a lot of great people that are getting little notice. Rewriting history so you can make certain groups feel better about themselves doesn't help anyone. Understanding why people did what they did and learning from it does. Books are also being purged of words and phrases that could be considered "offensive". As an example, I read a story in a magazine for teachers (American Teacher or American Educator) that said that "snow-cone" is offensive. It is to be replaced with "flavored ice". Apparently it shows geographical bias and is "offensive" to people who don't know what snow is.
Teachers are not allowed to discipline students because they'll be sued. They can't fail students because they'll be sued. They can't deviate from the doctrine prescribed by the NEA without fear of being labeled an extremist and fired.
I think that the federal government is part of the problem, not the solution. States are quite able to handle education issues, and if they don't, the people need to take action. Was this country worse off before President Carter created the Department of Education, was it better, or about the same?
I'm hardly McCarthy. While Senator McCarthy may have had his faults, his goal of exposing the communists that had infiltrated our government was noble. The problem is that there are people who are honestly opposed to war, or military action in general, and they wind up at events sponsored by groups like International ANSWER. These radical left-wing groups are opposed to our constitutional republic if not the very existence of this country. I think many of them do it blindly thinking they are just joining an anti-war rally. It is the people who are members of groups like International ANSWER that I was referring to. If you are going to oppose the war, fine, oppose it, just don't hide your hatred of America behind the guise of being anti-war (And no, David, this isn't directed at you, it directed at the other people). If you want to see the hatred these people have, check out Brain Terminal for some video footage taken at several anti-war rallies, and Little Green Footballs for links to some photos taken at a recent event (You'll have to look through the postings). Here are a few:
Bush's nominees to the supreme court are dopes. They seek to push an agenda. I like my law w/o politics. Why can't GWB find someone everyone is willing to compromise over instead of pushing people through hearings. That stupidity, that's GWB.
You don't think that Clinton was pushing an agenda with his nominees? The Democrats in the Senate don't have any desire to compromise, they only want leftist judges appointed that will further their ideology. Do President Bush's nominees have an ideology? Yes, it's based in the Constitution, not on legislating from the bench and making decisions based on polls and international law (See the Lawrence v. Texas case).
I support the independence of Israel, I also support a small Palestinian state. I support peace. The Israel's are wrong sometimes too and I believe Israel has a right to exist. Everyone over there has fucked up on some way. We need someone to step in a draw a line in the sand. Or else this cycle of violence will continue for ever.
If that line in the sand is anything less than the elimination of the state of Israel, then the Palestinian Arabs and the rest of the Arab world will not accept it. This conflict isn't about land, it's about the existence of Israel. The Palestinian Arabs are nothing more than pawns that are being used to vilify Israel and to turn the world against that small nation. Arafat has money, lots of money, but he has done nothing to help the people he claims to care about. Israel has built schools and universities for Palestinians, but they are now used to teach hatred for Jews and America. Israel has built hospitals and other service facilities yet they are vilified. Arabs hold positions in Israel's government while the Palestinian Authority is lawless. You have to understand that the extermination of Israel is the goal of the PA, not peace, and there will never be peace until the radical Palestinian Arabs are subdued, or Israel ceases to exist.
On a final note, David, fix your comments, they don't work anymore.
Archives
