Saturday, December 30, 2006
Whether Saddam Hussein deserved to be hanged or rot in jail for the rest of his life, is something people will debate for years, but one thing we should all agree upon is that he did commit major atrocities and deserved some form of retribution.
Some fear his death will escalate the violence in Iraq, others that it will bring peace to that region. Only time will tell what effect his execution will have in that country. One thing we can count on, however, is that the U.S. will probably be blamed for his demise.
Friday, December 29, 2006
The Buddhists (a peace-loving religion) in Southern Thailand have been targets of Islamic insurgents for the past few years. A recent article (in the International Herald Tribune) reports the following: "Drive-by shootings and bombings occur almost daily in Thailand's three southernmost Muslim-majority provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat, where more than 1,900 people have been killed in an Islamic insurgency that flared in January 2004. Police, soldiers and others viewed as collaborators with the government are targeted, along with Buddhists. Buddhist monks have been beheaded, Buddhist teachers slain, and leaflets distributed around Buddhist villages warning that raising dogs and drinking alcohol are offensive to Muslims." And today, 2 Buddhist Teachers were ambushed, just meters from the school where they taught. They were shot and killed and their bodies burned. (see Reuters article for details)
And Buddhists aren't the only victims of Islamic extremism. Christians, Jews and Hindus fear for their lives, as well, in predominantly Islamic countries or areas where Islamic insurgents are trying to take over. Killing others because raising dogs is offensive, is insanity! I don't drink, but I certainly don't harbor thoughts of murdering others because they do. If they don't want dogs, or decide to cover their women from head to toe, or choose not to drink, than God bless 'em, go for it. But don't tell me I have to do the same thing!
The misguided, p.c. world describes Islam as a "religion of peace", but it is actually the antithesis of that, at least in its present incarnation. It's an archaic religion of intolerance and violence with no real moral compass. By believing that they will be sanctified through martyrdom, they lack fear of moral retribution and this is why there is so much violence. They actually believe (in a very twisted way) that they are doing God's Will, so they don't fear death. Their afterlife is far more appealing than their actual lives, so why should they care who they kill, including themselves? I know there are probably many peace loving Muslims and I have met some very charming secular ones, but Muslim communities, even in democratic societies, are becoming increasingly radicalized and that is what's alarming. But I refuse to live in fear and I refuse to allow the Muslim community to dictate what I can or can not do or say, which they seem to be attempting to do with more frequency. On December 28th, the Muslim World League held a 2 day conference that took place in Jeddah, that "called for a consultative commission in order to take legal action against those who abuse Islam and its Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Islamic sanctities, at local and international courts of justice, the Saudi Press Agency said. The conference titled “In Defense of the Prophet” called upon Islamic countries and governments to stand united to defend the Islamic faith and its Prophet. It denounced the smear campaigns to tarnish the image of the Prophet and urged Muslims to make all-out efforts to project the true picture of Islam and the great divine teachings of the Prophet". To read the whole article go to Little Green Footballs or Arab News. So, what does this mean for people, like me, who happen to be critical of their religion? Are they going to sue me because I have offended them and their Prophet? And what exactly is "the true picture of Islam"? There would have to be some major shifts to make me believe it is anything other than what it appears to be, in this point in its history. Show me tolerance and pacifism and then I might re-adjust what I think is the true image of Islam.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Please help me to understand why there is so much hatred and
violence in the Middle East and within your religion? You kill each other without reservations. Shias against Sunnis. Palestinians against Palestinians. Lebanese against Lebanese. People are killed in mosques, at weddings, funerals, market places. Women, children. You can't blame that on the west. I doubt you will respond to this, but I hope you will. The Catholics and Protestants in Ireland used to do that to each other, but not to the extent it happens in the Middle East."
This was her response:
"Actually, in some manner’s the West is involved take Fatah and
Hamas for example, the United States/ Israel is against the Hamas government. Then you have the Fatah government with Abbas at the helm that is being supported by the United States/ Israel and from what I have seen, is using Abbas with the attempt to destroy the Hamas government.Then we go to Iraq, the government their as well as the police from what I have seen are paid by the United States and the government is strickly a puppet government. You are having
and upheaval going on in this country that would not have occurred without the invasion by foreign troops.There is a problem circulating by some not all, that Shia and Sunni should not like each other. In addition, I for one, while I may not always agree with what someone else does wouldn’t perpetrate harm to that person but to the contrary; but not everyone share’s my viewpoint. Furthermore, this is not just in the Middle East but seems to be an infection globally in religion’s other the Islam.As you will find that the other events you mentioned are not just violence Muslim against Muslim, for example like in Iraq because
you are dealing with different types of Propaganda cover-ups. You spoke of Ireland, where it was not just religion against religion but politics.The main thing you need to remind yourself often time’s in the instances you referred to is not religion actually at all but, as I said Politics‘. "
As you can see, she didn't really address my questions but, as expected, conveniently placed all blame for the woes in the Middle East on Israel and the U.S. She also claims that there "seems to be an infection globally in religion's other the (sic)
Monday, December 25, 2006
If you look to the past, so many of the wars and conflicts that have been such an integral part of our world history have been fought in the name of religion, and it continues to be a major and escalating problem. I find it so sad and disheartening that religion is the cause of such hatred and violence in our small world. God must be horrified to witness so many people murdering and being killed in His name.
Differences in religion have created a multitude of sins from the Muslim and Christian Crusades to the current troubles in the Middle-East, Africa and Asia ( and elsewhere). For the most part, the Christians have left that 'dark' side behind. They seem to have evolved beyond the need to violently force people to believe as they do. Unfortunately, the Muslim faith seems to have progressively worsened. They wage Jihad on unbelievers; they even indiscriminately kill other Muslims, women and children included. I realize that there are secular and moderate Muslims who don't actively participate in the violent aspects of that religion, and that it's the fundamentalist radical faction that does, but it's not as small a group as they would have us believe. And it seems that the religion is becoming increasingly radicalized. I ask those Muslims, who might be reading this, to please help me understand their religion. If Islam is truly a, so called, 'religion of peace' why are you killing each other? Why is there so much violence in the Islamic regions of the world?
My hope for 2007, is that they, whose hearts and minds are filled with such darkness and hatred, are somehow able to find (and embrace) the light and love that is GOD.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!
Peace and blessings to all.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
If Iran does not comply (which it won't) the U.N. Security Council has cautioned that it will adopt other non-military sanctions. Oooooh. I can just see Ahmadinejad quaking in his boots, or whatever he wears. This is such a joke, as is the U.N. organization itself. I've lost count the amount of times Iran has declared it would be willing to talk and then changed its mind. One day yes, one day no. They're just buying time, which is a very clever maneuver, considering it has worked so well in the past. How many U.N. resolutions were passed before we invaded Iraq? They had plenty of time, in the interim, to transfer all their WMD to other countries. Iran has absolutely no intentions of complying. Never has never will. Its desire for nuclear power far outweighs its fear of any wimpy sanctions the Security Council might impose. Besides, Iran knows the U.N. will never follow through. It also knows the world is in no position, militarily, to engage in any kind of conflict, nor is it willing to. They know the western world has no stomach for prolonged warfare.
There is, however, some potential 'light at the end of the tunnel', so to speak: many of Ahmadinejad's opponents ("moderate conservatives" and "reformers") gained political ground in Iran's recent elections, and there are escalating student protests in Tehran. Granted, it was a student movement in the 1970's that helped usher in the Islamic Revolution there, and students who seized the American Embassy in 1979 (under good old Jimmy Carter's watch!) taking 53 people hostage, for 444 days. However, students this time have aimed their criticism at Ahmadinejad and not the West, calling for "Death to the Dictator" and complaining that he is not doing enough for the Iranian people. We'll see where this all leads, if anywhere. Perhaps dissatisfaction will galvanize the Iranian youth into action and, this time, they will help usher in a new era of freedom and democracy for that country. One can only hope!
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Iran has just hosted a Holocaust Conference where deniers from all over the world gathered to debate the Holocaust issue and whether it actually occurred. Granted, there were only 60 plus nutso participants (whose theories range from complete "exaggeration" to total "myth"), but how many other people in this world share their mindset? I might expect this from an Arab Muslim population that has been indoctrinated, since early childhood, that the Jews are evil and must be decimated; but from Americans, and Europeans, Brits and Australians and even other Jews? What makes their reasoning so defective?
With the massive amount of information that was gathered (including photos, film, personal testimony, War Crimes Trials, etc.) documenting the horrors of that particular act of genocide, how can you not be totally convinced that something horrific happened? French academic Robert Faurisson believes the Holocaust to be a hoax and the gas chambers a myth, he is joined in this delusional thinking by ex-KKK leader David Duke who claims he is merely a "Holocaust questioner" (oh, please!) and was at the conference to "defend freedom of speech". Duke praised Ahmadinejad for holding a conference "to offer free speech for the worlds most repressed idea: Holocaust revisionism." (What possessed the Republicans to let him represent the GOP in Louisiana in 1989??) Then you have Michele Renouf, an Australian socialite (former model, dancer) who has described herself as an actor and the Jewish religion as "repugnant and hateful" (though she claims she is not anti-Semitic. Huh?). She went so far as calling Ahmadinejad a "hero" for hosting the conference. The most surprising of all those who attended, was a delegation of anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews (Neturei Karta) who believe that, although a "crime" did occur, the Holocaust numbers were exaggerated by Zionists to further their aim of creating a sectarian State and that "the entire concept of a sovereign Jewish state is contrary to Jewish Law."
What makes all these people unable or unwilling to see proven facts as Truth? Is their hatred of the Jews so powerful and poisonous that it has actually clouded their judgement and distorted their mental processes?
As for the adherents of a '9/11 Conspiracy': what planet do they come from? I'm embarrassed, but not surprised, that several in the entertainment industry have joined the fray in voicing their opinion that 9/11 was some vast governmental conspiracy to justify engaging in war with Iraq. James Brolin (Mr. Barb Streisand) recently revealed, on the TV show 'The View', that he doubts the official version of events and believes that the Twin Towers and Building 7, were brought down by controlled demolitions. Director David Lynch, apparently told Dutch TV that the crash sites in both Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon were suspicious because there was a lack of evidence. Hmmm. Wonder who all those dead people were?! Extras from Central Casting? And they're not the only celebs who share those suspicions. There's Ed Asner, Charlie Sheen, Richard Linklater, Jesse Ventura, Matthew Bellamy (English alternative Rock musician). And that's only the entertainment industry line-up that has actually fessed up. There are probably many others. Then you have the rest of them: academics, economists, engineers, writers, reporters all with varying versions of what they think happened and why. None of which have any basis in reality. Google '9/11 conspiracy' (or anything similar) and you'll come up with more sites and blogs than you could ever find time to read. Thankfully there are many sites that debunk these kook theories, which helps re-affirm my faith in humanity.
And what makes all these people question and, in some cases, deny the horrendous events of 9/11, in spite of obvious factual evidence? Is their hatred of G.W. Bush (and the U.S government) so potent and toxic that it clouds their judgment and thinking, and forces them to grasp at anything to discredit him?
Sadly, what seems to bind these 2 groups together is their formidable capacity to 'hate'. When hatred is allowed to fester, it adversely affects our minds and bodies. It becomes all consuming and can make rational people irrational. But how do you eradicate such hatred when it is so deeply rooted in their psyches; when those particular individuals seem to revel in that hatred, for whatever sad and pathetic reason? I think, for them, it eventually becomes easier to embrace those negative and dark emotions than to make the necessary changes to bring light into their world. Many people also seem to need a 'cause' to rally around, however misguided their cause might be. Too bad they don't direct those energies toward helping eradicate world hunger or establishing world peace, rather than contributing to the hatred and strife that already exists in this world by trying to prove that the Jews and others were not massacred, in cold blood, during the Holocaust, or that GW Bush was somehow responsible for the thousands that died during 9/11.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Because you can't be both, dude! If you are 'anti-Israel' you are decidedly 'anti-Semitic'! You can not claim that you support the Jewish people and on the other hand believe that Israel has no right to exist. People conveniently forget, whether through ignorance or hatred, that the United Nations was instrumental in creating the State of Israel in 1947 (1947 UN Partition Plan), and that, historically speaking, the Jews have as much right to live in that region as anyone else. The history of the Holy Land, and who might have lived there first, is open to interpretation. We will never know the answer for sure, so one side or the other laying full claim to those lands is unquestionably wrong.
What we do know, however, is that the Holy Land is biblically important to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, and though I'd like to think that, in a civilized world, they could all peacefully co-exist, this will never happen as long as the Muslims continue to foster and embrace their hatred for all people and things non-Muslim. The call for the annihilation of the Jews (or for that matter Christians and all other non-believers or Kafirs, as they are called) is rife in the teachings of the Koran and in the mainstream Arab media. To witness how profoundly deep that hatred runs, watch some of the videos on Palestinian Media Watch or read about the Palestinian penchant for preaching hatred of the Jews here. For decades the west has tried to broker some form of peace agreement in that region, to no avail. The reason no-one has ever achieved this goal is because the Muslims in that region will never agree to live in peace with the Israelis. At a mosque in Tehran, Ismail Haniyeh (the Palestinian prime minister) vowed this past Friday that his Hamas-led government will never recognize Israel.
And it's not just the Palestinians who openly exhort destruction of the Jewish people. There are many other middle-eastern countries including Iran's Ahmadinejad who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. This virulent hatred for Jews begins in early childhood, where children as young as 3 are taught that Jews are 'pigs' and 'apes' and that "The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslims will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone. Then the tree and the stone will say: 'O Muslim, O servant of God, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.' Except one type of a tree, which is a Jew tree. It will not say this." You find this 'loathing' in Saudi Arabian elementary school textbooks, on TV shows, children's cartoons, in newspapers and in mosques. It is constant and unrelenting and prevalent throughout that region.
The anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli faction place all the blame on Israel for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, as if the Israelis have no right to be there as well, and proclaiming that the Palestinians are victims. But who are the Palestinians anyway? Arafat was born in Egypt, and most of the Palestinians who have migrated to Israeli lands, according to this article, are mostly from other Arab countries, as no other countries seem to want them. And the reason Israel is so coveted by the Palestinians is because the Israelis have transformed their tiny sliver of desert land into an oasis; something the Palestinians don't have. Jealousy breeds resentment and then hatred. Israel is the middle-eastern 'Land of Opportunity'. Most of the Palestinians live in abject poverty, but whose fault is that anyway? Certainly not the Israelis. Arafat was a multi-millionaire with Swiss bank accounts; some claim he was a billionaire and yet his people were kept poor and ignorant for a reason. In fact, many middle-easterners are kept ignorant and poor while the leaders of their countries live in opulence, and it is this ignorance and poverty that gives rise to hatred.
Anti-Semite and anti-Israel Jimmy Carter (at it again) in his new book: Peace not Apartheid, criticizes Israel for its treatment of the Palestinian minority and stupidly likens the building of fences, walls etc. around the West Bank to Apartheid. What he doesn't care to recognize is that the building of these walls is a defensive tactic not a means of oppressing or subjugating the minority population. Israel has never intentionally targeted civilians, unlike the Palestinian suicide bombers who are indiscriminate in who they target. Israelis have every right to protect themselves from potential terrorist attacks, even if that means building fences. Perhaps if there wasn't such hatred directed towards the Jews, and from all sides of their borders, they might not feel the need to protect themselves. But as long as they feel threatened with annihilation, they deserve to do whatever it takes to prevent this from happening, even if that means building barriers to achieve that goal. And Jimmy Carter should stick to building houses (with Habitat for Humanity), which is what he does best.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
20/20 (with John Stossell), conducted a test in Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, CA. They wanted to test the various myths about who "gives" and who doesn't. Liberals have always been touted as caring more about helping the poor, so they arranged for the Salvation Army to collect money in front of a Walmart in Sioux Falls and a Macy's in San Francisco, and Sioux Falls collected twice as much as San Francisco. So much for 'bleeding heart liberals'.
Apparently, of the top 25 states that 'give' the most, 24 were 'red' states, at least in the last presidential election.
They also found that those who give the most are the 'working' poor and the rich. The middle class, apparently, gives the least amount.
And as for Americans in general, we are the most generous people in the world, according to Dr. Carol Adelman at the Hudson Institute. We give more, as individuals, than any other country. We give, annually, billions of dollars in foreign aid through private organizations. Even more than the U.S. government does.
And so much for the myth that Americans are cheap.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
So in other words, the "values voters" punished the GOP by voting Democratic or not at all? Can someone please explain the rationale behind this kind of reasoning? What did they think that would accomplish? Corruption and scandal is not an exclusively Republican activity, even though the mainstream media, Hollywood and the liberals love to portray it that way. In TV and films, every sleazy, evil, corrupt government official (or Judge) always happens to be a conservative. The Dems have had their fair share of corruption, past and present, and voting for them was like the proverbial 'cutting one's nose...'. I don't understand that kind of mentality. Did they stop to think about the repercussions? Granted, many of the elected Dems are Blue Dog Democrats, but we will still have to deal with people like Pelosi, who is now Speaker of the House. And with a Democrat majority, what does that bode? What kind of judges are going to be nominated? Did they happen to think about that? I think not. You have to look at the bigger picture, which people rarely seem to do. I hope they change their outlook before 2008, or we're in major trouble!
For more of Dobson's interview on Larry King Live, check out this Newsmax article.
So we're not perfect. Which country is?! We have our problems. But in spite of all our shortcomings, and as often as foreigners vehemently claim to hate and despise us, the U.S. is the country most people dream of coming to. Because this is the "land of opportunity" where, with a little effort and sometimes no effort at all, anyone can be anything they choose to be. Where education is encouraged for both men and women. Where a woman can do a man's job and vice versa. Where we can criticise our government and politicians without being thrown into jail and tortured or killed. Where our politicians are (usually) held accountable and we can vote, in or out, for whomever we choose, and we do and have. Where we have access to news that is not censored. Where we can demonstrate, if we choose to, against or about pretty much anything we choose to. Where women can wear what they want without being beaten and stoned for showing their arms or a tuft of hair. Where we can worship in a temple, church, synagogue, mosque or wherever we choose to commune with God, or not worship at all. Where we have access to alternative medicine and our supplements and herbs are not rigorously and overly regulated. Where we can travel, without restriction, throughout this country and abroad. Where life is what you make of it, and you can make anything of your life. Where we don't live in fear of daily suicide bombings.
This is what freedom and democracy are all about. The freedom to choose what we want for our lives. Not to have those choices dictated by militant religious or political dogma. This is the "land of the free" and "the home of the brave."
God Bless these United States of America and those brave men and women who serve in our armed forces who fight to maintain the freedoms that we have!
We have much to be thankful for!
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Source: United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui (Criminal No. 01-455-A), Prosecution Trial Exhibits, Exhibit number P200336
You bet I'm going to wonder if that person praying to Allah before boarding the plane, or on the plane, is perhaps saying his last prayer. Irrational, perhaps, but it's going to cross my mind, regardless.
There are, of course, differing versions about what actually occurred. What we do know is that a passenger handed a note to a flight attendant voicing their concerns about what they felt was suspicious activity by the Imams, which then prompted the removal of the 6 Muslim men. Reports claim the Imams refused to leave the plane and that they were also heard chanting "Allah" and spouting anti U.S. sentiments, however the men deny these accusations. Who knows what the actual truth is, but I do know that Muslim/Americans are first and foremost Muslims and therein lies a major problem, which I will go into in another post.
Until the moderate and secular Muslims start criticizing and disowning the radical element of their own religion, people will continue to profile, and with good reason.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
But just remember what hangs in the balance.
And don't cheat!! That goes for both sides. Last night I heard that some people involved with ACORN were doing just that. Unfortunately, you don't hear much about Democratic voter fraud in the main stream media. Had this been Republican cheating it would have been plastered everywhere.
Friday, November 03, 2006
And an interesting sidenote, apparently Kerry's GPA was actually lower than GWB's. I think I heard our Prez say on TV last night that even those with a "C" can become President! And I know there are many in our military who have higher GPAs than Kerry and Bush, who at least acknowledges his "C" average.
I wrote about this back in September. At the time it appeared as if everyone was in agreement that it was the best thing to do, however, it seems that even government officials were critical of manager Kirsten Harms' decision to cancel. Chancellor Angela Merkel called it: "self-censorship out of fear." I had no idea there was such a backlash, as the article I read made no mention of this. I guess I should have read several other articles before commenting.
Good for them!!
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Why don't politicians think before they speak..... or act, for that matter? Seems to be happening a lot lately and, to be fair, in both parties. Are they too stupid to realize that being in the public eye exposes them to greater scrutiny and judgment, or are they just too darn arrogant to believe that anyone will hold them to a higher standard (befitting their office) simply because they happen to be who they are.
John Kerry finally (albeit begrudgingly) apologized for his idiotic remark denigrating the intelligence of our troops, but only after being pressured by the White House and fellow Democrats to do so. Had the Dems not piped in as well, he would have dug in his heels and refused. As it is, it took him a while to acquiesce and even then it was far from an apology. In his supreme arrogance he blamed the listener (and primarily those offended by it) for misunderstanding his intentions. As with most Dems, blame always has to be placed elsewhere.
And the obvious reason the Dems that did join forces with the White House in demanding an apology was out of fear that this could turn off those undecideds who might possibly vote Democratic on November 7th. And we know how desperately they want the majority.
defends Kerry calling what Kerry himself claimed was a "botched joke": a "blooper". Blooper, joke .. I call it stupidity, and Dean and Kerry: 2 peas in a pod. Regardless of one's stance on the war in Iraq, supporting the troops has always been something everyone has agreed upon. So when Kerry, at a campaign event at Pasadena City College for gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides, says: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq" , our troops deserve a sincere apology. Unfortunately Kerry, in all his arrogance, is incapable of that.
And Kerry was the man half the U.S. population wanted as President!
As for Florida Rep. Ralph Arza-R, he claims he was drunk when he left some obscenity filled messages (along with racial slurs referencing Miami-Dade School Superintendent, Rudy Crew, who is black) on fellow Republican Rep. Gus Barreiro's voicemail . Barreiro, who like Arza is Hispanic, apparently filed a complaint which then resulted in calls for his resignation. He has complied and since resigned, although he claims he never used a racial epithet when referring to Crew. There is also talk about witness tampering, but I'm not sure of the details.
Drunk or not, there are consequences for our actions and maybe our politicians will start thinking, for a change. Yeah, right!
Thursday, October 26, 2006
In a recent sermon, Sheik Taj Aldin al Hilali (an Australian Muslim cleric) claimed, "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... without cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's?" "The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." So, in other words, men are merely animals who have no control over their animal instincts and are therefore entitled to rape any woman who does not wear a hijab (a Muslim headdress)? They have no inherent sense of right or wrong and so it is understandable, if they do rape, because it was the woman's fault anyway because she tempted the man with her bare head? Oh, for Goodness sakes! This is so representative of the pre-historic mentality that these Islamic/non secular Muslims have. Women as chattel. Women as nothing more than conduits for childbearing or fulfilling a 'man's' sexual pleasure.
I had just been thinking about this issue recently. I remember traveling around Europe several years ago, during a particularly hot summer, and noticing that many of the female Arab tourists were dressed in full Muslim regalia (some even in niqabs), and yet their men were in jeans and t-shirts. I was incensed at the inequity and felt terrible for the women. Here the men were nice and cool in their western clothing and their women, I knew, must be sweltering under their heavy robes.
I'll admit, a certain amount of modesty is commendable. Frankly, the way some of our young women dress today I find almost obscene and overly provocative. Jeans down to below the navel could provoke some sexual predator to rape, but to say that a woman's bare head is like meat to a cat is truly asinine!
Hilali claimed he was not condoning rape after his comments elicited many complaints and demands for his resignation. We shall see if this happens!
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
The same thing is happening in Vietnam, another lovely communist regime, where internet users are being arrested for engaging in political debate. If you look at the list of Cyberdissidents who have been imprisoned (on the Reporters Sans Frontiere (Reporters without Borders) website) notice which countries have the most listed. China has, by far, the most followed by Vietnam, and the rest listed are Islamic countries.
Here we go again! I wrote about this in yesterday's post. A system that can't withstand a little criticism and attempts to silence those who do, does not deserve to exist. Freedom is a God given gift and should be vigorously defended at all costs.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Now there are reports that the foreign witnesses and their sherpas are being tracked down to silence them. It's not surprising, really, as this is so typical of totalitarian political systems, and reminiscent of another oppressive ideology, albeit a religious one: Islam. Silence or kill anyone who happens to be critical of their actions. They might have different approaches, but the end result is the same.
I have always argued that if communism is such a great system why are people forced to remain under its rule and murdered for trying to leave?! The same thing happened to the poor East Berliners from 1949 until reunification in 1990; they were shot, like animals, as they attempted to escape into West Berlin. And what I find truly frightening is the steady increase in leftist leaning politicians being elected to office, in South and Central America; and I have to wonder what that current trend will lead to, in the long run.
It also amazes me how the U.S. is still constantly condemned for its purported 'imperialism' , yet countries like China, which invaded Tibet and has been there illegally since the 1950s, are never criticized. And look at the history of the Russian Empire and that of Britain, Spain, France, and the list goes on. Comparatively speaking, America has been tame.
However, what I really want to know is why it has taken so long for this information to make it to the mainstream media? I don't recall reading anything about the September 30th shootings until recently!
For up to date information on Tibet and to donate, visit Savetibet.org.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Venezuela might be oil-rich, but I know which country I would want as an ally, if I happened to be a foreign country.
He also talks about U.S. hegemony, he needs to take a good look in the mirror.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Apparently he votes both sides of the coin. Maybe more people should do that: consider the candidate not the party, but liberals seem unable to see past their hatred of anyone or anything Republican and usually vote party line. Tsk. Tsk.
Friday, October 06, 2006
What Foley did was despicable, but there is no proof he actually had sexual relations with any of the congressional pages he emailed or instant messaged. On the other hand, Rep Gerry Studds, a Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts who served from 1973 until 1997, was censured in 1983 for having sexual relations with an underage 'page' and was subsequently rewarded by being re-elected 5 more times!
No-one ever seemed to care much about Clinton's lies re. his liaison with Monica Lewinsky or his other sexual dalliances, for that matter. My liberal friends and colleagues vehemently defended him, claiming that what he did in private was his own business in spite of the fact that, as an authority figure, he should have been above reproach. No-one seemed to mind, either, that his blatant lies, in front of the whole world no less, made him and the U.S. laughing stocks. I have spoken with foreigners who have all mentioned this fact.
As for sexual harassment. Consider the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill controversy versus the Clinton/Paula Jones controversy. I recall both Thomas and Paula Jones were the vilified ones.
Republicans are held to an unfair, higher moral standard than Democrats and just demonstrates how hypocritical liberals can be. Moral decrepitude, should be condemned as such, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat!
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Although there is a wide discrepancy regarding how many practicing Muslims there are in France, the estimate ranges between 3.1 million and 5 to 6 million.
France has the largest Muslim community in Europe and it is ever increasing. As of 2000, there were approximately 1 million Protestants, 0.6 million Buddhists, 0.53 million Jews, 0.15 million Orthodox Christians.
They are slowly flexing their muscles and no-one is doing a thing about it, which further empowers them.
We should look at France's problems and take heed!
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Can you guess which religion precipated the decision to cancel? Berlin security officials felt that in light of the reaction (over-reaction in my mind) to the Danish cartoons they did not wish to risk fanning the flames once again. And we know how easily that can happen!
Frankly anyone's severed head, and particularly those of religious figures, is rather offensive, but I will always defend the right to free speech.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Safia Ahmed-jan, the provincial director of Afghanistan's Ministry of Women's Affairs, was murdered on her way to work on September 25th, 2006. Retribution for her efforts to educate women.
I found the following on Wikinews:
"Safia Ahmed-jan taught at a girls' school and was a high-school principal in
Khandahar prior to the Taliban's 1996 rise to power in Afghanistan. When the
Taliban regime banned education for girls and forbade women from working outside
the home, she ran an underground school for girls at her home, said her son
Naqibullah, speaking to the Associated Press.
After the Taliban government
was overthrown in 2001, Ahmed-jan became the provincial chief for women's
affairs in 2002, when the ministry was established and has since then held that
position, worked for women's rights and particularly, championed the cause of
educating girls. Her secretary, Abdullah Khan told Associated Press that among
her most successful projects were the vocational training schools she opened in
Khandahar, where almost 1000 women were taught baking, tailoring and other
Ahmed-jan has also been fiercely critical of the repression of women
during the Taliban rule, in a region that has remained conservative and emerged
as a hotbed of the Taliban's insurgent activity. Her requests for personal
security guards and transport went unheeded by the government, according to
local media reports, though her nephew, Muhammad Asif told the New York Times
that Ahmed-jan preferred to keep a low profile and used a taxi or public
transport even though her office maintained cars and drivers."
A truly courageous woman!
How can you respect a religion that holds no regard, whatsoever, for their women? And that applies to any religion or religious sect that represses women. I certainly don't!
Not very Republican, I know, (see my profile) but I'm a proud member of SAG (Screen Actors Guild), AEA (Actors Equity Association) and AFTRA (American Federation of TV and Radio Artists). Without our unions we would probably be working 24 hour days for no pay. And yes, it can happen. I worked a 22 hour day on a commercial shoot once. However, thanks to SAG, we were well compensated when you factored in all the penalties and overtime payments. If it had been a non-union shoot the actors would have been paid a flat rate, no matter how many hours they worked.
The actor unions are there to make sure that we work in safe and sanitary conditions, and that we are compensated fairly for our time. The SAG website includes a section that explains the history of how actors became unionized.
That said, the idea of a Pizza Delivery person's Union seems downright crazy. Granted Jim Pohl, the guy who was instrumental in 'organizing' his fellow pizza delivery guys at this particular Domino's Pizza in Pensacola, Florida , was compelled to do so when the drivers were "declared as tipped employees" and were therefore not eligible, any longer, to be paid Florida's minimum wage of $6.40 an hour. I probably would have been angry, as well. $6.40 isn't much to begin with, although the 37 year old Pohl had obviously been happy working there for that amount of money for the 12 off and on years he was with the company. Who knows what they were offering as a base salary and how much do you tip a pizza delivery guy? But, a Pizza Delivery Union? What are they going to negotiate? Seems like overkill to me, but we now have... drum roll....
The American Union of Pizza Delivery Drivers! The first in the nation.
Some Unions are worthwhile, like ours, others are useless, like the Union for secretaries I was forced to join when I got a job at a Film Studio in Los Angeles when I lived there decades ago. They collected their dues from each paycheck and that was it.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Friday, September 22, 2006
Originally produced as a collection of stories with a moral bent based on Christian principles, it started airing on NBC several weeks ago, with certain references to God edited out.
According to NBC spokeswoman, Rebecca Marks, they were edited out, "... to reach as broad an audience as possible with these positive messages while being careful not to advocate any one religious point of view." Since when is the word "God" exclusively Christian??
In the original format two of the characters, Larry the Cucumber and Bob the Tomato, ended each episode with, "Remember kids, God made you special and he loves you very much," supposedly this is no longer the case. Do only Christians tell their children that God loves them? I think not. Perhaps if the word "Christ" was used instead of "God" then I could understand NBC's logic, but "God" is a universal concept and part of most world religions, yes, even Islam, so it shouldn't offend anyone other than an atheist. And I can't imagine atheists watching a faith-based programme, anyway, so they don't count.
How sad that the word "God" has been relegated to the cutting room floor and yet there are numerous prime-time shows with content that is so totally inappropriate for that time slot. It seems that God has become a victim of p.c.-ness. Makes me shudder.
An then he had the gall to say, "But, I place myself in the hands of God". I'd like to know whose GOD he is referring to?
So many of the world's leaders seem to be delusional, and paranoid among other things: Chavez, Iran's Ahmadinejad, North Korea's Kim Jun Il. If some of these people were institutionalized, perhaps we'd have a safer world.
What surprised me most was that 2 other idiots actually defended our President:
both Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi actually defended Bush calling Chavez a "thug". Nice to see that they were able to set partisan politics aside and react as Americans not Democrats.
But going back to Danny Glover, a fellow actor, it just re-affirms my belief that actors, on the whole, are total idiots. I, obviously, do not include myself in that assessment, but for the most part we are. Although actors will delve into researching a part, when it comes to politics etc. they can't be bothered. Or don't have the brain resources to see the Truth. Not sure which. But.... it's hard to believe that there are leaders in this world like Chavez (in Venezuela) and Ahmadinejad (in Iran) that some people actually respect.
There's a great blog on Chavez from Venezuela. Check it out for everything you want to know about Chavez. Caracas Chronicles, there are posts both in English and Spanish.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Ari Emanuel's brother, Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel from Chicago, is part of a group called 'Red to Blue' which is, as its title implies, trying to regain control of the house. Ari is kindly helping his bro with fundraising. Now that's fine, as long as you don't mix work and politics. However, as one of the founders of Endeavour Talent (one of the top Hollywood Talent Agencies) he is calling upon his staff and clients to donate money to the 'cause', and they have..........generously. Most of them, willingly, I'm sure.... considering the political bent of the majority of those Hollywood types, but what about those who might not be so liberal? What happens to them?
So, you get an invitation from your high-powered Hollywood Agent to donate to the Democratic Party but you're a Republican, and no-one knows it, what do you do? Odds are there aren't many, but what if you are just apolitical, or Libertarian, or Socialist or whatever? Is it fair to place people in a position of having to turn down your request? This is just an insidious form of coercion.
This is what would go through my mind: "If I don't give money, will I lose my job?" Or if I was a client: "Will they stop submitting me for projects if I don't donate?" I was asked to make a donation to a theatre once. A place I had not worked in a while and I wondered the same thing. If I don't donate would they ever use me again. I opted not to give them any money and I haven't worked there since. But that's neither here nor there. If Ari is so politically motivated how would he react to a client or employee who was not of his 'political persuasion"?
This is why we keep our mouths shut!
To give credit where due, though, Ari was one of those 84 high profile Hollywood personalities who placed an ad in the L.A. Times denouncing terrorism back in August, 2006. Some of the names listed are those who have had the courage to openly embrace their Republican identity, then again, they are celebrities and can well afford to. The rest are liberals, but it's good to see that at least they have some sense.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Of course, radical, fundamentalist Christians force their women to hide under tent-like clothing (I'd like to see Ms O'Donnell in a Burqa!). They groom their children as suicide bombers and arbitrarily bomb innocent men, women and children. They kidnap and behead people they consider to be 'enemies' of Christianity. Okay, so there have been a few wackos who have bombed churches and abortion clinics in this country, something I have always condemned, but "as threatening"? To the extent that radical Islam is a threat?
Oh please, Rosie! In what way, "as threatening"?? Please explain this to us.
Why don't people think before they speak?!
Monday, September 18, 2006
Memories and Reflections"
The quotes in red are Palaeologus' words and the reference to Islam being "evil and inhuman" is what sparked Islamic outrage, and yet, clearly, the violence that ensued has shown that Islam is exactly what it was criticized for being: 'evil and inhuman.'
"In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of
the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy
war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in
treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion
and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."
Since Pope Benedict XVI made his comment they have been burning down churches in Palestine and in Mogadishu, Somalia a 65 year old Italian Catholic nun was shot and killed, execution style, outside the hospital where she worked. This was someone helping that community; an innocent, elderly woman violently gunned down, from behind, no less. How savage and inhuman can you get? And cowardly. And with her last breath Sister Leonella had the grace to forgive her killers.
If you are still unable to see the larger picture read the following:
The Pope actually apologized for his comments, though in my humble opinion none was owed.
"Al-Qaida in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against
Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world, and
Iran’s supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff’s remarks on
You can read the whole story on MSNBC.
It still baffles me how people continue to be blinded to the Truth. What more do you need?
Wake up people!!
Thursday, September 14, 2006
It was a very compelling show and thankfully commercial free. For once the bottom line did not prevail, although I heard somewhere that this was more a result of the inability to get anyone to advertise rather than consideration for the subject matter.
Anyway, it was heartbreaking to witness what 'inaction' eventually led to. Frankly it wasn't favorable to either the Clinton or Bush administration, but the fact that the process started with the Clinton administration's inaction, in my mind, firmly places most of the blame on Clinton.
So you have all these people claiming that much of the information in the film was fabricated, and on the other hand you have people claiming that what happened was true. A former Clinton aide who served as his military attache' (Ret. Air Force Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson) claims that Clinton did have several chances at nabbing Bin Laden but backed down each time. The following is an interesting article:
Former Clinton Aide Critical of Attempts to Shut Down ABC's 9/11
Special By Chad
Groening AgapePress September 13, 2006
(AgapePress) -- A national defense
analyst who served as a military attaché to President Bill Clinton says the controversial ABC miniseries that has been lambasted by the former Chief Executive and his advisers was, in fact, very accurate.
On Monday evening, ABC presented the second three-hour segment of "The Path to 9/11," a docudrama about the struggle facing America's counter-terrorism experts between the 1993
bombing of the World Trade Center and the fatal attacks on September 11, 2001.
The bombing occurred slightly more than a month after Bill Clinton first took office; George W. Bush had been in the Oval Office less than eight months when the two hijacked airliners smashed into the twin towers.
Drawn from detailed information contained in the 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, the six-hour miniseries promised to "take viewers on an unforgettable journey through the events that presaged that fateful day" so they could "understand what went right and wrong, and what can be learned from [the] crucial eight-year
period" between the two events.
Sunday's three-hour segment, however, created a furor with Clinton and members of his former administration, who wanted the entire program shelved. They accused the filmmakers of including "fictitious" and "false and defamatory" scenes of how they responded to the terror threat. But retired Air Force Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson says his former boss had several chances to nab terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. "In fact, Clinton did sign the presidential
finding saying that we needed to either kidnap him or kill him," Patterson recalls. "But just signing a piece of paper didn't result in any kind of action, because every time it came down to it and we had a chance to get bin Laden dead or alive, President Clinton chose not to."
Patterson is convinced several terrorist attacks would have been averted if Clinton had acted. "In the timeline of the movie and also [during] my time there, this was in early 1998 now," he
explains. "And if you'll recall, later in 1998 we had the two embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya that killed hundreds of people."
Those attacks and others, says Patterson, could have been prevented. "[W]e could have prevented the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, we could have prevented 9/11, and we could have prevented the bombings of the embassies in Africa if President Clinton had taken one of these opportunities," he states. "We had eight chances at least to either
nab bin Laden or to kill him."
The former Clinton aide says the former president's desire to cover up the truth about his decisions related to bin Laden will not work. "I think President Bill Clinton is responsible for 9/11 and the war on terror, personally. That is his legacy," Patterson comments. "I think
he's trying to change that legacy, which is what [he was] trying to do by not having this series shown." Instead, he believes Clinton will go down in history as the nation's worst Commander-in-Chief.
Patterson says the producer of the miniseries asked him about the accuracy of the events in "The Path to 9/11," and the former presidential aide replied it was a very accurate portrayal of the
Copyright © 2006 AgapePress -- All rights reserved
You can find more information on Ret. Lt. Col Patterson on his website. He has written some books about this subject matter.
So who do you believe: a former President who swore in front of the entire world that he "never had sexual relations with that woman" or a retired Lt. Col. I know which one I believe.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Apparently he criticized Sen. Lieberrman support for the Iraq war, on Larry King Live, claiming, "He was one of the originators of public statements that misled the American people into believing that the Iraqi war was justified," adding, "He's joined in with the Republican spokespersons by saying that Democrats who disagree are really supporting terrorism, so for all these reasons, I've lost my confidence in Joe Lieberman and don't wish to see him re-elected." This, out of the mouth of one of the most truly inept Presidents of all time. And, frankly, who cares what Jimmy Carter thinks! I know I don't. This man needs to stick to building houses and stop opening his big mouth. Even though I'm a Republican, I am praying that Lieberman wins. It's disgraceful that the Democratic Party literally abandoned him because of his support for the war in Iraq. He has voted pretty much party line on everything else, over the years, but the Dems fail to acknowledge that. Thankfully, Lieberman has the sensitivity and intelligence to see the bigger picture, when it comes to the Middle East, and it matters not if he is elected as an Independent.
And while we are on the subject of Carter, I have a confession to make. I used to support Habitat For Humanity (Carter's charitable organization). For years, as I received their donation requests, I would send a check. Not much, because regional actors don't make loads of money, but it was usually $20 to $30.00 a pop. When you are making $250.00 a week (at some Theatres), that's a chunk 'o change. But I have always felt it was important to give what you can to charity and so I have always chosen very carefully the organizations I feel are worthy of my few pennies.
Admittedly, Habitat for Humanity does some wonderful things ... building houses, helping people, etc., but I finally reached a point where I felt I could not support an organization with Carter as its figurehead. So I sent them a letter asking to be removed from their list of donors, explaining the reasons why. It took several mailings before I stopped receiving their solicitations altogether, but I haven't received a thing for several years. Whether the decision was right or wrong, it's done, and I know the paltry amounts I sent are probably not missed, but thanks to Carter's verbal antics, they lost one supporter.
Monday, September 11, 2006
We still held rehearsal later that day, but at one point in the evening we gathered some candles we had brought with us and went outside and held vigil, for a few minutes, and prayed together.
Here we are 5 years later and the 'hatred' responsible for such an horrific act continues to poison the fabric of western civilization. As politically incorrect as this sounds, Western Civilization is in a war against Islamic Fascism. The lines have been drawn and burying our heads in the proverbial sand is not going to change that fact, as the liberals seem to think.
GOD Bless the troops, our country and this poor, messed up world.
(If you want to read more about Orson Welles "The War of the World" click on the following URL: http://www.transparencynow.com/welles.htm )