Friday, July 22, 2005

Of Glass Houses and Stones...
That odd, almost shrilly whistle-like sound you've just heard was John Kerry (Idiot-Massachusetts) is opening his mouth again. Either that, or Teddy Kennedy (Drunk-Massachusetts) has a very bad case of gastrointeritis.

Kerry wants the President to turn over all documents which the White House might possess with regards to John Roberts, the new Supreme Court nominee. The following was lifted from

Now I sorta kinda remember Mr. Kerry proimising to release all of his military records during the 2004 campaign, especially since many questions were asked about his wartime service, awards and medals he somehow managed to get, and as to why he was not prosecuted as a traitor to his country (for his subsequent actions in protesting the war while still in the Naval Reserve).

As of this date, John Kerry has noit signed the waiver allowing the Navy to release those records.

So, when John Kerry asks President Bush, or John Roberts, for any documents, he should be ready to reciprocate. Since it's a given that Kerry never will release his Naval records, it stands to reason that both the President and Mr. Roberts should tell him, politely, to go piss up a rope.

It's bad enough democrats have to resort to fishing expeditions in order to justify their automatic "no" reflex. Neither the nominee or the White House should have to supply the bait. If Mr. Kerry is so worried about truth and honesty, he would do well to clean up his own back yard first before hurling brickbats someplace else.
Tom Tancredo: Dr. Stranglelove...
Winning this week's award for "Oratorical Hyperbole" is Representative Tom Tancredo (Republican -Colorado), who responded to the question "What should the US do if it is attacked by Muslim terrorists again?" with the sure-to-ignite-controversy answer "We should nuke Mecca".

Now Representative Tancredo is a personal favorite of mine. He's a staunch opponent of unchecked illegal immigration and has spent years trying to get the government to pay attention to immigration matters. When he speaks on the subject he has an authority which comes from years of close experience with the problem. However, when he speaks about nuking another city on another continent, I believe he's swimming out of his depth.

Granted, I have advocated the same thing quite a number of times on this very webpage. True, there was a time when I believed the solution to the problem of radical Islam was a carefully-planned-and-executed program of genocide. I'll also admit to having rethought that premise many times over. I'll also plead guilty to vacillating on the subject. I go back and forth about whether or not I want all Muslims dead. Part of the problem is that I'm human, and often my anger and fear get the better of my mental process. I won't apologize for that. The second half of the issue is that genocide doesn't require all that much effort by the West these days; the suicide bombers all over the word are depleting the Muslim gene pool by two's, three's and four's all on their own. With any luck, the next Muslim anyone will see will be freeze dried, stuck upon a post in some sort of action-figure like pose and behind glass in a museum. Right next to the "Ted Kennedy is an extinct bloviator" display.

But I digress.

As for Mr. Tancredo, while he may be mimicking the exact thought process of many a red-blooded American male, he should understand that someone in his position is immediately considered an expert and possibly in the know about any potential government policy in this regard. When he's speaks of such things he's merely giving the other side ammunition. I'm sure bin Hidin' read this little blurb in his morning paper (The Pakistan Cave Times and Tattler) and danced a Hitlerian-type jig of pure delight. "See?" he will say to his cronies, "the infidel wishes to attack the Holy sights. We must redouble our efforts".

Probably a case of "things better left unsaid". Even if I do happen to agree with it. Well, for today, at least.
London "Bomber" Shot...
The news this morning is all abuzz with a report of a "suspect" being shot to death on the London subway. The only information that I have at the moment is that an "Asian" man, in a padded coat, hopped a ticket barrier, was chased by undercover police (who had been watching him for some reason) onto a stationary train, where he was tripped, tackled and had five bullets pumped into him.

These reports have come to me courtesy of Fox News' English sidekick, Sky News.

First thing I would like to say: I'm going to assume the police had good cause to kill the man. One does not wear padded jackets (assumedly winter-type clothing) in London in July. That would be suspicious enough, and the attempt to run from the police also raises red flags. I'm not sure how such things are handled in Britain, but I do know that police officers here would be grilled to death for every available detail, and probably dragged through courtrooms for the next 17 years. They would be sued for everything from "use of excessive force" to "violation of the victim's civil rights". By the time it was all sorted out, we'd know exactly what transpired and what the appropriate response would be. If they were right and the man was involved in something nasty, then I would like to see these officers decorated and given every possible reward --- they saved lives.

Secondly, I hate the British use of the word "Asian" in place of "Arab". Geographically speaking, most Arabs do not live in Asia, they live in the Middle East. The Middle East has not been called "Asia" since the Roman Empire. This is politcal correctness run amok. When I hear "Asian" I immediately think of China or Japan, not Pakistan. I'm sure most Koreans, Tibetans and Thais also do not wish to be lumped in with the fanatical followers of bin Hidin'. Let's, to coin a phrase, call a spade a spade. It would go a long way towards eliminating any confusion. Right now, I'll guarentee you there is a moron in New York right now, loading his shotgun, preparing for a foray into Chinatown, looking for trouble, because an Arab was identified as an "Asian". I have no doubt there's an imbecile in Luton doing the same thing.

Finally, I hope to God this finally wakes the Europeans up to the danger that exists within their own backyards: millions of unassimilated Arabs with nothing to do but nurse grievances. Either a concerted effort is made to remove the second-class status of most Muslims in Europe and make them part of civil society or they will have to be deported, or possibly, violently dislodged from the European continent. It's your choice: you can have more Londons, Madrids, Theo Van Gogh's, Rome Airports and Achille Lauros or you can defend yourself, your culture and your institutions.

To do nothing in the face of such a challenge shows cowardice and immorality.

The London Police, SAS, MI5 or whoever it was that shot this man this morning, should be considered the first actors in the great new play of Europe in this age of terrorism. Will this scene have a reprise?

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Those Were the Days...
Been watching a ton of reruns in the last few weeks, primarily because it's the only entertainment to be had between Incendiary London, Natalee Holloway's Aruban Murder Mystery and 24/7 coverage of the Tour Du France. One 1970's icon show, however, has really awakened a new interest for me though.

All in the Family was way ahead of it's time. It was also still very relevant. Why, you may ask? Because a good number of the serious subjects of the 1970's which were "examined" in the 30-minute morality plays in the Bunker residence are still with us, in slightly diluted form. Most of the regurgitated platitudes we hear today once erupted from the mouth of Rob Reiner, a.k.a. Meathead.

In the last two weeks, I've heard Meathed spout about a coming ice age, overpopulation, the ozone layer, finite natural resources, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

The same arguments are still being used today in defense of subjects like global warming (in the 70's were all supposed to freeze to death, either due to ozone depletion or nuclear winter, now we have worry about being fried to death), overpopulation (birth control and abortion --good, people taking responsibility -- bad), hunger (in the 70's people believed there was no way to grow enough food, but somehow they managed to discount technology and scientific advancement), poverty (despite 30+ years of the welfare state, it's still here, and always will be), racism (now it's fashionable, provided you're black), and a host of others.

Don't get me started on M*A*S*H*. Alan Alda (Hawkeye Pierce) is/was an even bigger blowhard than Meathead.

They say that thje more things change the more they stay the same. Take a walk down memory lane these days and watch some of those old TV shows, and take a minute to think about what you've just watched. You'll be amazed at just how much 2005 sounds like 1972.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

John Roberts: In the Crosshairs...
President Bush has just announced his nominee to occupy the Supreme Court seat just vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor, it's a gentleman by the name of John Roberts.

Truth to tell, I know nothing about the man except what I've heard on the news already. I'm not going to make any judgements about the man's judicial philosophy or whether the court just tilted right or whatever.

What I will pontificate about is the assisnine statement made just a minute after the Prez got off the air by the dimwitted tag-team of Patrick Leahy (Communist - Vermont) and Chuckie Schumer (Moron - New York), the two ranking democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee.

Let's start with Patty, who appeared as if he was just smakced across the nose with a frozen trout --- he actually looked as if he was about to cry. I guess he was hoping for a nominee that raised enough red flags to make political hay out of. Then again, he might have just been showing his pre-press conference martinis.

Moving on to Chuckie, it was vintage Schumer: a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (as the immortal bard once wrote). Chuckie made it clear that Roberts could blow him at high noon in Times Square and pay for the priveledge, and there was no way he was gonna get a fair hearing. It was just Chuck being Chuck --- a whining, panty-waisted, communist in democrat's clothing.

They say the most dangerous place to be is between Chuck Schumer and a television camera. That's how he stays in business. He's a suck up to all the usual suspects: pro-choice groups, race hustlers, the ACLU, the labor unions. We'll hear the words "advise and consent" coming from his mouth many times in the coming weeks, but he's not out to advise anyone and he sure as hell will not consent.

But then again, Chuckie was always a political kamikaze, the type that would super-glue himself to the Titanic if it got him on the evening news and kept the checks coming in from Planned Parenthood. Do not be fooled by Schumer and his "responsible senator" routine: we already know who signed the campaign contribution checks.

However, it should be fun watching Ted Kennedy ask a potential Supreme Court judge his views on the death penalty when he has a murder on his own hands. I'm making popcorn already.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Battling Leviathan: The Aftermath...
A few weeks ago, I ranted a bit on my battle with the Fed'ral Gubmint to get that to which I felt entitled, i.e. disability benefits. It was my impression that the Government would do it's damnedest to ensure that I, a heterosexual white boy, would be pounding sand at the end of the day, regardless of what evidence I presented. Fortunately, I can report to you, dear reader, this did not come to pass.

What did in fact happen, is MUCH more interesting.

First, there was the judge in my case. I apparently lucked out in this arena. My judge is of a particular type which has not been seen in the northeast since Revolutionary War times. He was possessed of common sense and well-versed in the law. It's unfortunate that I had to travel back to Charlotte, NC in order to find him.

My judge (he'll always be MY JUDGE) was quite ticked off when he learned that my case was on his calendar. According to him, this case was a huge waste of time. As to why, that was cleared up within the first 5 minutes. My Social Security Examiner (a third-rate social worker) never even investigated the problem I originally complained about. Instead, she tested me for a completely unrelated malady and threw my file on the "create work for more bureacrats" pile.

Which is why it took so long to get this thing completed. There were at least three layers of bureaucracy that had to be fed, providing jobs for people who normally wouldn't have a chance at one. My Judge saw through it right away.

The next thing that drew my attention was the trouble the federal government has in trying to track people down, even when they VOLUNTARILY provide their addresses and telephone numbers. Imagine my suprise when I found out (because I called, thankfully) that the Social Security Administration was alls et to send my benefits check to an address I haven't lived at for two years. In the meantime, I provided my current address during the court proceedings, and provided the address PRIOR to that in several letters between me and the Administration in the course of getting the case heard.

On the one hand, it was reassuring: the federal government cannot find me, a native-born citizen, even when I help them. That should help when the FBI or IRS come looking for me. On the other hand, it's terrible to know that when the government cannot find the natives, how the heck are they gonna find the illegal immigrants? Actually, it proves something even more important about government: they know how to find you when you've broken the law or something, but can't seem to find you when they have to actually give you something.