In the wake of several incidents and near misses, Obama fired his National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair. Blair's job lay in coordinating information and action among sixteen separate agencies that have the task to either gather and analyze intelligence, launch operations, or both.
Without understanding the particulars of the job (and few people probably actually do) the idea that Blair holds total responsibility for the Times Square near miss, the Fort Hood attack, etc. seem ludicrous. I cannot imagine trying to coodinate sixteen different people, much less sixteen agencies.
The problem is not Blair. The problem is this administration.
It does not take seriously the reality that Moslems seeking residence or government jobs must be checked over with a fine toothed comb and rigorously watched. Methodists have not sworn to blow up American sites. Italian immigrants have not tried to attack American soldiers on bases. When you have US Army majors with ties to terrorism, something is not right with military policy. Toss out the PC and admit that Islam is a more potent threat to this country than Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc.
It does not take seriously the international situation. When it softens its stance on terror and terror supporting nations, it does not encourage friendship, it encourages more violence. You cannot reason with terror. You must destroy terror and relentlessly pursue it until it gives up or is killed.
Obama's appeasement policy has weakened our security. Islamic fundamentalist terror is emboldened by our weakness, not deterred by offers of friendship and cooperation. They do not believe they can coexist with American notions of rights. We cannot coexist with their notions that rights must be erased. They want a revolution that will install the brutal Sharia law worldwide. America must stand firm against this and reaffirm our support for rights and democracy. Obama has not indicated in any way that he stands for the spread of democracy anywhere. He coddles Chavez and rudely snubs the British and other allies of freedom.
Blair didn't apologize for American actions defending itself, Obama did.
Obama didn't fire the right guy. If he was honest about who was at fault, he'd offer his own resignation.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Everybody Draw Mohammed day
A couple of months ago, a cartoonist in Seattle became so incensed at the threats made against those around the world who had dared to draw Mohammed that she declared May 20th to be "Everyone Draw Mohammed Day."
Although Arab artists painted Mohammed early in the Middle Ages, the brutal Islamic law code known as Sharia prohibits any visual representation of the Islamic founder. The television program "South Park" which has run Jesus Christ as an ongoing character was not permitted to portray Mohammed in a bear suit. A fanatical Moslem attempted to blow up a truck near the Viacom building in Times Square anyway.
Everyone Draw Mohammed Day is not meant to insult peaceable Moslems. It instead is aimed at those that try to use threats and violence to force Western nations and individuals to bow to their cultural demands. In the United States the First Amendment protects freedom of expression. Networks have the right to censor, but any attempt by a Moslem to avenge himself on a drawing of Mohammed will be dealt with severely by our legal system. They came to the West. They need to respect the laws and culture here. We do not have to tolerate barbarism.
The best way to attack this intolerance is to ridicule it, just as Charlie Chaplin and Mel Brooks ridiculed Nazism.
By the way, the picture below is Mohammed.
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xx xx
x xx xx x
x x x x
x x x
x xxxx x
xx xx
xxxxxx
Although Arab artists painted Mohammed early in the Middle Ages, the brutal Islamic law code known as Sharia prohibits any visual representation of the Islamic founder. The television program "South Park" which has run Jesus Christ as an ongoing character was not permitted to portray Mohammed in a bear suit. A fanatical Moslem attempted to blow up a truck near the Viacom building in Times Square anyway.
Everyone Draw Mohammed Day is not meant to insult peaceable Moslems. It instead is aimed at those that try to use threats and violence to force Western nations and individuals to bow to their cultural demands. In the United States the First Amendment protects freedom of expression. Networks have the right to censor, but any attempt by a Moslem to avenge himself on a drawing of Mohammed will be dealt with severely by our legal system. They came to the West. They need to respect the laws and culture here. We do not have to tolerate barbarism.
The best way to attack this intolerance is to ridicule it, just as Charlie Chaplin and Mel Brooks ridiculed Nazism.
By the way, the picture below is Mohammed.
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xx xx
x xx xx x
x x x x
x x x
x xxxx x
xx xx
xxxxxx
Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Democrat, Or Something Else?
Alan Mollohan is gone. Democratic Senator former Republican) Alan Spectre is about to be gone as well. However voters also rejected Senator Bob Bennett, a Republican from Utah. So is this a Republican revolution unfolding or a rejection of all incumbents?
Incumbents of both parties who supported massive debt expanding, budget busting initiatives are definitely vulnerable this year. Senator Bennett supported parts of Obamacare and also voted for bailouts. Utah rejected the campaign of a senator representing a small government party. It rejected a man running for his third term after promising to only serve two.
In other words voters almost everywhere are saying the same thing. They want to pull the throttle back on spending and taxes. They want officials they can trust. Regardless of party, those supporting big government are vulnerable almost everywhere.
Voters are anti-big government, anti-tax, and anti-compromise. They are angry at a government that is spinning out of control and seems bent on prusuing policies that will curtail growth, raise bills and taxes, and generally interfere in people's lives. Some prominent liberals, like Woody Allen, have seen the writing on the wall and advocated that Obama assume dictatorial powers. Alan Mollohan tried to make proposals for modest administrative cuts look like slashing Social Security checks.
The future is in our hands in November. Vote for the party and the candidates that will deliver massive cuts in the government and its spending. Nothing short of tremendous reform in how we look at government and its role will save this situation.
Incumbents of both parties who supported massive debt expanding, budget busting initiatives are definitely vulnerable this year. Senator Bennett supported parts of Obamacare and also voted for bailouts. Utah rejected the campaign of a senator representing a small government party. It rejected a man running for his third term after promising to only serve two.
In other words voters almost everywhere are saying the same thing. They want to pull the throttle back on spending and taxes. They want officials they can trust. Regardless of party, those supporting big government are vulnerable almost everywhere.
Voters are anti-big government, anti-tax, and anti-compromise. They are angry at a government that is spinning out of control and seems bent on prusuing policies that will curtail growth, raise bills and taxes, and generally interfere in people's lives. Some prominent liberals, like Woody Allen, have seen the writing on the wall and advocated that Obama assume dictatorial powers. Alan Mollohan tried to make proposals for modest administrative cuts look like slashing Social Security checks.
The future is in our hands in November. Vote for the party and the candidates that will deliver massive cuts in the government and its spending. Nothing short of tremendous reform in how we look at government and its role will save this situation.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Another Case From the Glorious Health Care Paradise of Britain
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,593111,00.html
Doctors accused of trying to save time and money by not taking victim seriously. And Obama wants us to have the same system.
Doctors accused of trying to save time and money by not taking victim seriously. And Obama wants us to have the same system.
David McKinley Releases Statement on EPA Regulations Against Coal
From McKinley for Congress campaign e mail.
"The EPA is out of control. Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrats in Congress are doing everything they can to stifle the coal industry in West Virginia and ruin our economy. Our people are losing jobs because of this war on coal and it must stop. Someone has to stand up to the EPA and say 'enough is enough.' I plan on watching this debate very closely."
************************************************************
Here's my thoughts on the EPA. Until next year when Republicans control Congress, the states themselves need to hold the line and erect legal defenses. That means throwing down the gauntlet and challenging the constitutionality of regulatory law. Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution is clear. Only Congress can make law. States cannot nullify federal statutes, but they can attack regulations passed by the EPA and others.
"The EPA is out of control. Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrats in Congress are doing everything they can to stifle the coal industry in West Virginia and ruin our economy. Our people are losing jobs because of this war on coal and it must stop. Someone has to stand up to the EPA and say 'enough is enough.' I plan on watching this debate very closely."
************************************************************
Here's my thoughts on the EPA. Until next year when Republicans control Congress, the states themselves need to hold the line and erect legal defenses. That means throwing down the gauntlet and challenging the constitutionality of regulatory law. Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution is clear. Only Congress can make law. States cannot nullify federal statutes, but they can attack regulations passed by the EPA and others.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Asks You to Just Read the Law
Attorney General Eric Holder recently admitted that the Arizona immigration law that he publicly blasted was never read by him. He had simply been listening to and reading liberal media complaints. Here is the law so that you, Eric Holder, or anyone else can actually read it.
http://www.securetheborder.org/uploads/SB1070AmendedByHB2162.pdf
http://www.securetheborder.org/uploads/SB1070AmendedByHB2162.pdf
Monday, May 17, 2010
Another Conservative Movie Recommendation
I don't watch movies in the theatre all that often because frankly I cannot afford it. However I like to pass on a recommendation when I catch up to a good one.
Today I watched the movie "Rocky Balboa." It was a far cry from the formula driven Rocky II, III, IV, and V and resembled more the first hit in the series. It resembled the 1976 materpiece because Sylvester Stallone once again had a story to tell and something to say. Stallone will never get his due as long as he lives for creating two enduring characters in American fiction, John Rambo and Rocky Balboa. He will not get credit for his artistic genius because his creations took place after the 1960s. They came into existence after Hollywood started shying away from the John Waynesque or James Stewartesque American male hero.
Rocky Balboa works on many levels, as a story and a metaphor. Rocky is aging. His wife died of cancer, but he remains devoted to her memory through the entire film. Stallone breaks the Hollywood mandate that unrelated male and female leads must eventually have sex or at least look like they want to. The female lead remains a friend and Rocky remains wedded to the memory of his wife. It was refreshing that a male and a female could be friends in a movie. Anyway, Rocky gets a chance to fight an exhibition against the world champion, Mason Dixon. Dixon is undefeated but has never been tested. Rocky is given (of course) no chance and is treated as kind of a joke.
This is where it works as a metaphor, whether or not Stallone meant it. Stallone could represent the American heroic male as we rarely see in a movie. He is strong, tough, tries to hide the emotions that are destroying him, and faces everything with quiet courage. Stallone's Rocky in this movie is reminiscent of John Wayne's character J. B. Books in "The Shootist." This character also looked like a personalized metaphor for twentieth century fame. Rocky is an extremely kind and generous man who made his name through violence. He is a hero that we never see in movies anymore. Hollywood loves to mock and joke about the old hero images of earlier movies, just as Rocky absorbs insults and jokes in the movie.
What makes this a conservative movie? In one scene the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania denies Rocky a license to box. He replies with a monologue that attacks the government's right to deprive a man of his rights even for his own good. His son questions, at first, his decision to fight again and whines about living in his shadow. Rocky does not validate the whine or the selfish emotions behind it. He instead questions his son's courage and challenges him to be his own man, saying that nothing will hit as hard as life itself and that a man must get back up after taking the hardest hits. His son responds by quitting a job where his boss walked all over him and helps his father train.
It's a story about a good man being a hero by facing challenges laid before him by life. It attacks Hollywood's persistent undermining of male heroism by presenting a lifelike example of the figure it loves to mock more than anything, the good, even saintly, man of honor and action. Stallone pulls this movie off perfectly, making it about the characters more than the action. The exected training montage looks superfluous, but you can't leave it out.
This movie is also about Mason Dixon. He has no respect as a boxing champion because he never faced a real challenge. Stallone is saying with this character that there is no respect and no credibility unless you earn it first. You only earn it by facing a real challenge.
Rocky Balboa is a film about courage, facing challenges, and what it truly means to be a man.
It's a movie and it's a message that you never see anymore except on Turner Classic Movies. I highly recommend it.
Today I watched the movie "Rocky Balboa." It was a far cry from the formula driven Rocky II, III, IV, and V and resembled more the first hit in the series. It resembled the 1976 materpiece because Sylvester Stallone once again had a story to tell and something to say. Stallone will never get his due as long as he lives for creating two enduring characters in American fiction, John Rambo and Rocky Balboa. He will not get credit for his artistic genius because his creations took place after the 1960s. They came into existence after Hollywood started shying away from the John Waynesque or James Stewartesque American male hero.
Rocky Balboa works on many levels, as a story and a metaphor. Rocky is aging. His wife died of cancer, but he remains devoted to her memory through the entire film. Stallone breaks the Hollywood mandate that unrelated male and female leads must eventually have sex or at least look like they want to. The female lead remains a friend and Rocky remains wedded to the memory of his wife. It was refreshing that a male and a female could be friends in a movie. Anyway, Rocky gets a chance to fight an exhibition against the world champion, Mason Dixon. Dixon is undefeated but has never been tested. Rocky is given (of course) no chance and is treated as kind of a joke.
This is where it works as a metaphor, whether or not Stallone meant it. Stallone could represent the American heroic male as we rarely see in a movie. He is strong, tough, tries to hide the emotions that are destroying him, and faces everything with quiet courage. Stallone's Rocky in this movie is reminiscent of John Wayne's character J. B. Books in "The Shootist." This character also looked like a personalized metaphor for twentieth century fame. Rocky is an extremely kind and generous man who made his name through violence. He is a hero that we never see in movies anymore. Hollywood loves to mock and joke about the old hero images of earlier movies, just as Rocky absorbs insults and jokes in the movie.
What makes this a conservative movie? In one scene the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania denies Rocky a license to box. He replies with a monologue that attacks the government's right to deprive a man of his rights even for his own good. His son questions, at first, his decision to fight again and whines about living in his shadow. Rocky does not validate the whine or the selfish emotions behind it. He instead questions his son's courage and challenges him to be his own man, saying that nothing will hit as hard as life itself and that a man must get back up after taking the hardest hits. His son responds by quitting a job where his boss walked all over him and helps his father train.
It's a story about a good man being a hero by facing challenges laid before him by life. It attacks Hollywood's persistent undermining of male heroism by presenting a lifelike example of the figure it loves to mock more than anything, the good, even saintly, man of honor and action. Stallone pulls this movie off perfectly, making it about the characters more than the action. The exected training montage looks superfluous, but you can't leave it out.
This movie is also about Mason Dixon. He has no respect as a boxing champion because he never faced a real challenge. Stallone is saying with this character that there is no respect and no credibility unless you earn it first. You only earn it by facing a real challenge.
Rocky Balboa is a film about courage, facing challenges, and what it truly means to be a man.
It's a movie and it's a message that you never see anymore except on Turner Classic Movies. I highly recommend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)