There is an infinite sea of liberal rhetoric on which to comment. So much that it's tiring. It doesn't make sense to waste my time raging against something that will never diminish no matter what I do or say. Political "consultants" hired by the democratic campaigns are some of the ugliest people I've ever encountered. Read what they say about each other. Their nasty tone isn't reserved for attacks on conservatives or republicans. It is their way of communicating - snide, mean, and cynical beyond anything I've ever heard. I can only imagine the horrors they experienced as children. Liberals must be the products of dysfunctional families. Liberal political consultants went to college.
Here we are with John McCain as the Republican nominee up against either Obama or Clinton. How in the hell did we get John McCain? I'll tell you, he was the best we had running. The elction for me will come down to a republican whom I admire but disagree with on almost everything but Iraq and Afghanistan, vs one of two grossly unqualified democrats. Unqualified?
I've written about Hillary before and if you read this blog you have an idea of my opinion there. To summarize it, she hasn't accomplished anything since graduating from law school. According to some letters I've found on her senate website, she spends a lot of time helping Africans get visa's to this country. Her senate seat was taken unopposed, so it's not like she's actually won an election.
Obama, as near as I can tell, hasn't accomplished anything since graduating from college either. He repeatedly tells his audiences that he is a man who says what he believes not what people want to hear. The problem with that is, he hasn't said anything his audiences didn't want to hear. He designs each speech to target the people assembled. That doesn't make him a liar, it just means he's full of shit.
Obama isn't a leader either. He is a smooth talker and a charismatic public speaker. His hinted at programs and policies and theories are as vacuous as the rest of his rhetoric. It sounds good, but that's it. He doesn't know how to actually do any of the things he talks about, as if anyone would go along with him if he did. Obama would fill the white house with African-Americans thin on credentials and thick on constituencies, assureing him the black vote in the next election.
John McCain is by far the most qualified, and the most apt to be a good president. He is only the only reasonable choice. Which really shows how far out of touch with America I've grown. How anyone could vote for the other two is beyond my understanding. I said the same thing about Bill Clinton, and the day after election day I was stunned by the results. People were really stupid enough to believe his "It's the economy stupid" line.
The majority of Americans did not graduate from business school and don't have a clue about the workings of an economy. If the newsmedia reports that unemployment and interest rates are up and they see businesses closing to move overseas, then it must be the presidents fault. You can't walk into an appliance parts store for a dryer timer without hearing the idiot behind the counter babbling about economics or politics, as though he has it all figured out. Maybe I'm as mean and cynical as those I rail against.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Liberal Smear Job Actually Makes Sense
I just watched the PBS documentary "Endgame". PBS once again shows it's liberal bias. They claim that the special "Muslims Against Jihad" didn't meet their editorial standards, yet this film about military strategy and policy is filled with opinions from journalists at the Washington Post and NY Times. Most of the military people who participated in the film are Colonels, Lt. Colonels, or Majors. Only one General officer was there to comment, and he was chided by the films journalists. Nonetheless, the film is a good one and it reveals just how critical mistakes were made in the prosecution of this war.
Item 1. "Not enough troops" arguments.
John McCain was one of the first to comment that we didn't have enough troops in Iraq to do the job. Like most people, I tend to place more credence in the opinions of the commanders on the ground and in the pentagon than of congressmen. Here is how we were tricked: We had enough troops for the mission as it was defined, by the president and defense secretary. What we didn't know, was that the mission definition was stupid and flawed.
If you're going to sit in a massive central complex, and make vehicle runs outside the perimeter from time to time, then it doesn't take many troops. This strategy abandoned the entire country to the insurgents and militias, and seized the opportunity to create chaos. Back home, we hear about ow the Iraqi army and police must secure their country, and our troops are only there to help them out. This sounded good to everyone. However, the police and army couldn't do the job, and we got stuck there for 3 more years, watching Iraq disintegrate into chaos.
Item 2. "Mismanagement"
This can be summed up thus: Three people and their staffs were allowed to make critical strategic decisions that sunk us. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. They had a lot of help from others, unfortunately they listened to the wrong ones.
Eliminating the Baath party and Iraqi army forced the military to start from square one building a security apparatas. Something that takes years to do.
Personnel changes killed us. Every senior military officer that invaded Iraq retired and turned the helm over to others, some of whom were unfit for the job. They were probably excellent officers at whatever they did before Iraq, but couldn't think "outside the box" when it was needed. The greatest accomplishments by field commanders came at the Battalion and Brigade level. The Generals were the ones screwing it up. It would have been nice to hear from some of them in the film, instead of a bunch of eggheads that were supposedly "in the know".
Is it too late? I'm not sure, but a lot of people think it is. Here is why: The only way to secure Iraq is to put a Battalion of soldiers in every neighborhood inside Baghdad. Hence "The Surge". Only by holding territory that they clear can they ensure the safety of Iraqi citizens. With a Congress that wants out, elections on the way, it's hard to see how we can get the boots on the ground that John McCain called for 3 years ago. People are tired of it and just want out.
With Rumsfeld gone and a new strategy, there is hope if we stay the course. The problem is, how many more idiots do we have over there now or on their way? What guarantee do we have that they won't screw this one up just as bad or worse? We don't have one. Getting this right is important to our country, and it must be done. I don't see any choice but to persevere.
Item 1. "Not enough troops" arguments.
John McCain was one of the first to comment that we didn't have enough troops in Iraq to do the job. Like most people, I tend to place more credence in the opinions of the commanders on the ground and in the pentagon than of congressmen. Here is how we were tricked: We had enough troops for the mission as it was defined, by the president and defense secretary. What we didn't know, was that the mission definition was stupid and flawed.
If you're going to sit in a massive central complex, and make vehicle runs outside the perimeter from time to time, then it doesn't take many troops. This strategy abandoned the entire country to the insurgents and militias, and seized the opportunity to create chaos. Back home, we hear about ow the Iraqi army and police must secure their country, and our troops are only there to help them out. This sounded good to everyone. However, the police and army couldn't do the job, and we got stuck there for 3 more years, watching Iraq disintegrate into chaos.
Item 2. "Mismanagement"
This can be summed up thus: Three people and their staffs were allowed to make critical strategic decisions that sunk us. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. They had a lot of help from others, unfortunately they listened to the wrong ones.
Eliminating the Baath party and Iraqi army forced the military to start from square one building a security apparatas. Something that takes years to do.
Personnel changes killed us. Every senior military officer that invaded Iraq retired and turned the helm over to others, some of whom were unfit for the job. They were probably excellent officers at whatever they did before Iraq, but couldn't think "outside the box" when it was needed. The greatest accomplishments by field commanders came at the Battalion and Brigade level. The Generals were the ones screwing it up. It would have been nice to hear from some of them in the film, instead of a bunch of eggheads that were supposedly "in the know".
Is it too late? I'm not sure, but a lot of people think it is. Here is why: The only way to secure Iraq is to put a Battalion of soldiers in every neighborhood inside Baghdad. Hence "The Surge". Only by holding territory that they clear can they ensure the safety of Iraqi citizens. With a Congress that wants out, elections on the way, it's hard to see how we can get the boots on the ground that John McCain called for 3 years ago. People are tired of it and just want out.
With Rumsfeld gone and a new strategy, there is hope if we stay the course. The problem is, how many more idiots do we have over there now or on their way? What guarantee do we have that they won't screw this one up just as bad or worse? We don't have one. Getting this right is important to our country, and it must be done. I don't see any choice but to persevere.
More Immigration
The stupidity surrounding this issue is really wearing on me. The reason 20 million people have sneaked into the US illegally is that nobody is guarding the border. Congress could pass a hundred new laws but until the border is guarded effectively, the insurgency will continue. Nothing in the current crop of legislation will change that.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Immigration
There are a few things wrong with our immigration laws, but nothing that can't be easily fixed. According to our representatives in Washington, from both sides of the aisle, it's a total travesty and we need a new set of laws.
Congress wonders why it's approval rating is at an all-time low (13%). Most of them just don't get it. It doesn't take a lot of education or experience to solve this problem. The first problem is that congress can't seem to figure out what the problem is. Depending on who you listen to, the problem may be too few immigrants from Mexico, racism, inadequate health care for the poor, or a substandard minimum wage (just to name a few). Our congressional leaders are so far out of touch with reality that they can't see the elephant in their living room.
In case you are confused by all of this nonsense caled "Immigration Reform", I'll try to explain in the simplest terms.
Most illegal immigrants are from Mexico and are poor. They come here looking for jobs because there aren't many in Mexico. Most of these workers have little education or skill, and fill three basic types of job descriptions:
1. Service - Housekeeping/cleaning/janitorial, restaurant workers, etc.
2. Construction - Day labor at construction sites, roofing, flooring, drywall, etc.
3. Agriculture - picking fruits and vegetables, working in fields on farms.
Since they have no money, education, or skills, the only places they can afford to live are in low income districts. This phenomena increases the burden on hospitals and other social services that cater to the lower-income demographic.
Since they don't have valid social security numbers, or a legal right to work in this country, they'll accept lower wages, and are easily exploited by unscrupulous businesses. The immigrants that have papers, are willing to work for minimum wage wherever they can get it.
Republicans want this cheap labor for their businesses. Democrats want these cheap votes in their low income districts. Liberal do-gooders jump at every opportunity to help the poor, expecially when those poor aren't caucasion Americans. It's fashionable to help people from other countries by giving them aid, adopting their orphans, etc. People in business want the cheapest labor possible, no unions, no benefits, etc. This is how they maximize profits.
These issues have created a climate that has lured some 20 million illegal aliens to cross our borders and spread out throughout the country. They are now in every state. Las Vegas and other resort communities love them, as long as they don't bother the tourists. Farm corporations that grow crops that must be harvested by hand love them. Contractors and builders that need cheap jobsite labor love them.
75% of American citizens are pissed off about this. When we call our bank we first have to press a number to select English or Spanish. If you want a summer construction job, you'd better know someone in the business, because without skills, any jobs you could do will go to Mexicans. If you're willing to clean floors or bus tables to get a start in a ski resort, forget it unless you're Mexican. What good is a military when our country can't secure it's borders? All a terrorist has to do is get to Mexico or Canada and they can walk right into the US. 90% of the illegal drugs in this country are coming across the Mexican border.
Yet, George Bush wants to streamline the process so trucks won't even have to slow down at the border. Truckloads of crystal meth and cocaine can whiz right in at 55mph. If they can do that, how hard would it be to bring in WMD? Explosives?
Mexicans come from a culture of corruption and dishonesty. There are many decent law-abiding Mexicans, but they aren't the ones sneaking into the US under cover of darkness. Every single one of them in this country illegally is one too many. Each and every one of them thumbed their nose at our laws, snuck across the border, and is in violation of our laws with every breath they take. We cannot let the US become like Mexico, a third wold country. If this tide of refugees isn't stemmed, that's what we will become.
I know a lot of people whose families came from Mexico, legally, and they are warm, friendly, honest neighbors and coworkers. There are hispanic families in this country that have been here longer than my own. They aren't a problem. It's the millions of poor illegals that are flocking here in the dead of night that are creating the problems and dragging us down.
The problem is this: Our borders are porous. The holes must be plugged immediately. Our nation will be at risk until the problem is solved.
Nothing currently proposed by congress or George Bush addresses this problem. It's all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
In 2004 Congress passed a bill that provided money for a fence along our southern border, but nothing has been done.
We have a Border Patrol and INS department. They are supposed to protect our borders. They cannot because they are under staffed.
Walls worked pretty well for Hadrian and the Chinese. Walls, fences, and border guards did a pretty good job of keeping people out of the Soviet Union also. Anyone who claims a guarded fence or wall won't work is a fool. That is the key -- it has to be guarded.
The guards on our border need the authority to shoot anyone trying to cross the border anywhere other than a checkpoint. Illegal immigration will stop overnight when we have a well guarded wall.
Once we have the wall and the guards, then we can do something about the illegals already here. Eventually, most of them will be discovered through social security records, routine traffic stops, etc. When they are, we need to determine whether or not they are an American and if not, deport them IMMEDIATELY. We don't need to house or feed them while we "process paperwork". All that's needed is to drive them to the gate and force them to cross at gunpoint. If the Mexicans want to shoot or arrest them who cares, it's not our problem.
Congress wonders why it's approval rating is at an all-time low (13%). Most of them just don't get it. It doesn't take a lot of education or experience to solve this problem. The first problem is that congress can't seem to figure out what the problem is. Depending on who you listen to, the problem may be too few immigrants from Mexico, racism, inadequate health care for the poor, or a substandard minimum wage (just to name a few). Our congressional leaders are so far out of touch with reality that they can't see the elephant in their living room.
In case you are confused by all of this nonsense caled "Immigration Reform", I'll try to explain in the simplest terms.
Most illegal immigrants are from Mexico and are poor. They come here looking for jobs because there aren't many in Mexico. Most of these workers have little education or skill, and fill three basic types of job descriptions:
1. Service - Housekeeping/cleaning/janitorial, restaurant workers, etc.
2. Construction - Day labor at construction sites, roofing, flooring, drywall, etc.
3. Agriculture - picking fruits and vegetables, working in fields on farms.
Since they have no money, education, or skills, the only places they can afford to live are in low income districts. This phenomena increases the burden on hospitals and other social services that cater to the lower-income demographic.
Since they don't have valid social security numbers, or a legal right to work in this country, they'll accept lower wages, and are easily exploited by unscrupulous businesses. The immigrants that have papers, are willing to work for minimum wage wherever they can get it.
Republicans want this cheap labor for their businesses. Democrats want these cheap votes in their low income districts. Liberal do-gooders jump at every opportunity to help the poor, expecially when those poor aren't caucasion Americans. It's fashionable to help people from other countries by giving them aid, adopting their orphans, etc. People in business want the cheapest labor possible, no unions, no benefits, etc. This is how they maximize profits.
These issues have created a climate that has lured some 20 million illegal aliens to cross our borders and spread out throughout the country. They are now in every state. Las Vegas and other resort communities love them, as long as they don't bother the tourists. Farm corporations that grow crops that must be harvested by hand love them. Contractors and builders that need cheap jobsite labor love them.
75% of American citizens are pissed off about this. When we call our bank we first have to press a number to select English or Spanish. If you want a summer construction job, you'd better know someone in the business, because without skills, any jobs you could do will go to Mexicans. If you're willing to clean floors or bus tables to get a start in a ski resort, forget it unless you're Mexican. What good is a military when our country can't secure it's borders? All a terrorist has to do is get to Mexico or Canada and they can walk right into the US. 90% of the illegal drugs in this country are coming across the Mexican border.
Yet, George Bush wants to streamline the process so trucks won't even have to slow down at the border. Truckloads of crystal meth and cocaine can whiz right in at 55mph. If they can do that, how hard would it be to bring in WMD? Explosives?
Mexicans come from a culture of corruption and dishonesty. There are many decent law-abiding Mexicans, but they aren't the ones sneaking into the US under cover of darkness. Every single one of them in this country illegally is one too many. Each and every one of them thumbed their nose at our laws, snuck across the border, and is in violation of our laws with every breath they take. We cannot let the US become like Mexico, a third wold country. If this tide of refugees isn't stemmed, that's what we will become.
I know a lot of people whose families came from Mexico, legally, and they are warm, friendly, honest neighbors and coworkers. There are hispanic families in this country that have been here longer than my own. They aren't a problem. It's the millions of poor illegals that are flocking here in the dead of night that are creating the problems and dragging us down.
The problem is this: Our borders are porous. The holes must be plugged immediately. Our nation will be at risk until the problem is solved.
Nothing currently proposed by congress or George Bush addresses this problem. It's all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
In 2004 Congress passed a bill that provided money for a fence along our southern border, but nothing has been done.
We have a Border Patrol and INS department. They are supposed to protect our borders. They cannot because they are under staffed.
Walls worked pretty well for Hadrian and the Chinese. Walls, fences, and border guards did a pretty good job of keeping people out of the Soviet Union also. Anyone who claims a guarded fence or wall won't work is a fool. That is the key -- it has to be guarded.
The guards on our border need the authority to shoot anyone trying to cross the border anywhere other than a checkpoint. Illegal immigration will stop overnight when we have a well guarded wall.
Once we have the wall and the guards, then we can do something about the illegals already here. Eventually, most of them will be discovered through social security records, routine traffic stops, etc. When they are, we need to determine whether or not they are an American and if not, deport them IMMEDIATELY. We don't need to house or feed them while we "process paperwork". All that's needed is to drive them to the gate and force them to cross at gunpoint. If the Mexicans want to shoot or arrest them who cares, it's not our problem.
A break from blogging
I haven't posted anything in awhile, mainly due to apathy. There is so much going on that needs attention, that it is a little overwhelming. I could write a book about the immigration reform scandal. If I added some commentary on the 2008 candidates, I'd be griping for the next two years. Im back now, at least for awhile.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Gun Control
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million
people including Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up
and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenceless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:
56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!; In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are nowup 300 percent.
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them;in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns! As the late Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen said: "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns..."
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the evening news or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note before it's too late, that is, if it's not too late already!The next time someone talks in favour of gun control, please remind them of it's history. With guns, we are 'citizens'.Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew that most Americans were ARMED!
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million
people including Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up
and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenceless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:
56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!; In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are nowup 300 percent.
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them;in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns! As the late Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen said: "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns..."
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the evening news or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note before it's too late, that is, if it's not too late already!The next time someone talks in favour of gun control, please remind them of it's history. With guns, we are 'citizens'.Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew that most Americans were ARMED!
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Rosie O'Donnell Fired - Thank God
What else can I say? Unless it would be "What took so long?". I don't care why, as long as she goes and does it quickly.
Last night I heard her babble about Alberto Gonzalez being responsible for the "torture memo". I can't quote her precisely, but she seems to believe that our government tortures american citizens here in this country, and abroad, and it's all because of our Attorney General.
Her statement indicates that her reality is so far from mine that to try and analyze the differences would be futile. With Americans like this, who needs enemies?
Ahh what the heck, I'll make a stab at it.
1. Interrogating prisoners and criminals has been practiced forever. It isn't the invention of Alberto Gonzalez.
2. Torture, to me, is the cruel, violent, infliction of pain on a prisoner in order to extract information. If you want to see a real torture chamber, look at the pictures of those discovered in Iraq. They use meat-hooks, electrical wires, pliars, hammers, drills, edged weapons, etc.
Dripping water on someones head isn't torture. Making them believe you might torture them isn't torture. A threat isn't torture. People from cultures where torture is practiced will readily believe that such treatment is possible, and even inevitable. Prisoners taken in the war on terror know what happens in their society when one is captured by his enemy.
3. It is important that our intelligence officers interrogate prisoners, and convice them to tell all they know. As long as they don't actually maim them, I have no problem with their methods.
People like Rosie think their countrymen are the enemy, not the taliban or the insurgents in iraq. They don't accept that islamic extremism exists. They live in a fantasy world. Arguing with them is pointless.
Last night I heard her babble about Alberto Gonzalez being responsible for the "torture memo". I can't quote her precisely, but she seems to believe that our government tortures american citizens here in this country, and abroad, and it's all because of our Attorney General.
Her statement indicates that her reality is so far from mine that to try and analyze the differences would be futile. With Americans like this, who needs enemies?
Ahh what the heck, I'll make a stab at it.
1. Interrogating prisoners and criminals has been practiced forever. It isn't the invention of Alberto Gonzalez.
2. Torture, to me, is the cruel, violent, infliction of pain on a prisoner in order to extract information. If you want to see a real torture chamber, look at the pictures of those discovered in Iraq. They use meat-hooks, electrical wires, pliars, hammers, drills, edged weapons, etc.
Dripping water on someones head isn't torture. Making them believe you might torture them isn't torture. A threat isn't torture. People from cultures where torture is practiced will readily believe that such treatment is possible, and even inevitable. Prisoners taken in the war on terror know what happens in their society when one is captured by his enemy.
3. It is important that our intelligence officers interrogate prisoners, and convice them to tell all they know. As long as they don't actually maim them, I have no problem with their methods.
People like Rosie think their countrymen are the enemy, not the taliban or the insurgents in iraq. They don't accept that islamic extremism exists. They live in a fantasy world. Arguing with them is pointless.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
No flags at half-staff for soldiers
Recently, flags around the US have been lowered to half-staff in honor of the 32 victims of the VATech shootings. I don't really have a problem with that, but I find it interesting that no such honors have been observed for the real heroes in our society --the men and women who have given their lives in service to our armed forces. I'm sure those students and teachers were wonderful people, and they deserve to be remembered, by their friends, families, and co-workers.
During the same week as the shootings, two soldiers from my town lost their lives in Iraq. They were on patrol, protecting a neighborhood of families from insurgents and other evil doers. Their funerals were covered by our local press, but that is all. They died for other americans all across this country, and the world.
No flags were lowered for this man either: Wesley Batalona. He died in Falujah on March 31st, 2004, with two other Blackwater security employees. PBS told his story on Frontline, and it was reported in his hometown newspaper. Batalona didn't grow up with the privileges afforded the victims at Virginia Tech. I know this because I served with him in the 1/75th Rangers. He served our country for most of his adult life. He was never late for work, took care of his men, and did his job throughout his military career. That he died a a civilian security contractor is irrelevant. That he was paid more than a soldier for his service is irrelevant. He was protecting American civilian truck drivers, and he died doing it. They mutilated and burned his body then hung him from a bridge. He was a better man than his murderers, by several hundred times over. He took the job to help his family, and our country.
A lot of people are saying that we should give the anguished VATech survivors a pass, and that it's OK for them to vent outrage and point fingers. I tend to agree, up to a point. I'm not that hard hearted. Flying flags at half-staff is an honor we reserve for those who gave their lives in service to our nation. The victims at VATech don't qualify, and it is a slap in the face of those who really have sacrificed.
During the same week as the shootings, two soldiers from my town lost their lives in Iraq. They were on patrol, protecting a neighborhood of families from insurgents and other evil doers. Their funerals were covered by our local press, but that is all. They died for other americans all across this country, and the world.
No flags were lowered for this man either: Wesley Batalona. He died in Falujah on March 31st, 2004, with two other Blackwater security employees. PBS told his story on Frontline, and it was reported in his hometown newspaper. Batalona didn't grow up with the privileges afforded the victims at Virginia Tech. I know this because I served with him in the 1/75th Rangers. He served our country for most of his adult life. He was never late for work, took care of his men, and did his job throughout his military career. That he died a a civilian security contractor is irrelevant. That he was paid more than a soldier for his service is irrelevant. He was protecting American civilian truck drivers, and he died doing it. They mutilated and burned his body then hung him from a bridge. He was a better man than his murderers, by several hundred times over. He took the job to help his family, and our country.A lot of people are saying that we should give the anguished VATech survivors a pass, and that it's OK for them to vent outrage and point fingers. I tend to agree, up to a point. I'm not that hard hearted. Flying flags at half-staff is an honor we reserve for those who gave their lives in service to our nation. The victims at VATech don't qualify, and it is a slap in the face of those who really have sacrificed.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Left-wing wants to blame tragedy on guns
When I heard of the massacre in Virginia, one of my first thoughts was that within hours, the left would be pointing to the 2nd Amendment as the cause. These slimeball opportunists have no shame, and as much as I resent the timing, I feel an obligation to point out a few inaccuracies being reported by the media.
1. Worst Massacre in US history?:
300 Lakota Sioux were murdered by the US Army at Wounded Knee, South Dakota on December 29th, 1890. The murderer's celebrated afterwards, and posed for photographs with the bodies. That number far eclipses the number 32 by a factor of 10. The massacre at Virginia Tech pales in comparison. More recently, our federal government murdered 74 men, women and children by setting their house on fire in Waco, Texas on April 19, 1993. The guns they had were legal. The local sheriff investigated and found no basis for complaints against them. These were law-abiding American citizens, even if they thought differently than most other folks. They trusted the U.S. Constitution to ensure their political rights, but they were murdered by agents acting under the authority of the U.S. government. The 2nd amendment was drafted to protect us from tyranny and oppression, and yes, criminals too.
2. Blaming the gun or high capacity pistol magazines:
It takes less than one second to reload a semi-automatic pistol. Carrying an extra magazine or two would have been a minor nuisance for the gunman, and 32 people would still be dead today.
It takes less than 2 seconds to reload a revolver, and with practice, the feat can be accomplished in under 1 second also.
A 9mm pistol cartridge is the lowest power pistol cartridge considered effective for self-defense. It will shoot through sheet rock, but not through a steel door, boards, or bricks. I've heard the pistols used by the gunman were a 9mm Glock and a .22. Both are deadly in the right circumstances, but they are on the low end of the "deadly"scale.
I've heard reports that these were incredibly deadly, serious firearms --as though they are in some way more dangerous than others. That's ridiculous. No firearm is more dangerous than any other, unless circumstances exist that render one weapon or another completely ineffective.
The reason some of the kids are alive is because the gunman tried to shoot them through a door they were holding closed. Surprise, that 9mm isn't going to do the job. It takes a big-boy pistol to shoot through a solid door --like a .357 Magnum, a .44 Magnum, or larger.
Once again everyone wants to lay the blame on society, the 2nd Amendment, and campus security procedures -- anywhere but where it belongs. The real problem is that a screwed-up whacko committed 32 murders. We have a lot of firearms in the US. Making them illegal might slow someone down a bit while they locate one on the black-market, or wait for someone to advertise theirs for sale, but it will also insure that the victims (innocent people who obey the law), will be ill prepared for criminal when he comes knocking.
The numbers of students killed each year by impaired drivers is staggering. Drunks and drug addicts routinely kill with near impunity. A person can have multiple DUI convictions and yet manage to get behind the wheel. Yes there is outrage over the statistics, but has that outrage gotten us anywhere? Are there less drunk driving fatalities now that we have stronger laws? No, there are more of them.
Blaming guns instead of criminals is foolish. We live in a society of over 300 million people. This isn't Canada. Guns don't make people do anything. A simple home-made bomb could do just as much damage (or more). Bombs can be made with one trip to Wal-Mart. Are we going to ban science and the Internet? Bleach and Hydrogen Peroxide? Bans aren't going to keep someone bent on mass murder from committing their crime.
It's understandable that in a time like this, we ask ourselves "what can be done?" Here are a few thoughts:
1. Buy a bulletproof vest.
2. Buy a small pistol and learn how to use it.
3. Get a carry permit for your state and don't leave home without it.
4. Practice, practice, practice until you can reliably make head-shots over a distance of 25-35 feet, under stress, with either hand.
5. Write your US congressmen and state legislators let them know you demand the right to carry a concealed firearm everywhere you need to go.
6. Demand enhanced security for schools and public buildings. If you can't get into the courthouse with a gun, then you shouldn't be able to get into a college classroom building with one either. Schools need to put up the money for secure buildings, metal detectors, and guards to man them.
1. Worst Massacre in US history?:
300 Lakota Sioux were murdered by the US Army at Wounded Knee, South Dakota on December 29th, 1890. The murderer's celebrated afterwards, and posed for photographs with the bodies. That number far eclipses the number 32 by a factor of 10. The massacre at Virginia Tech pales in comparison. More recently, our federal government murdered 74 men, women and children by setting their house on fire in Waco, Texas on April 19, 1993. The guns they had were legal. The local sheriff investigated and found no basis for complaints against them. These were law-abiding American citizens, even if they thought differently than most other folks. They trusted the U.S. Constitution to ensure their political rights, but they were murdered by agents acting under the authority of the U.S. government. The 2nd amendment was drafted to protect us from tyranny and oppression, and yes, criminals too.
2. Blaming the gun or high capacity pistol magazines:
It takes less than one second to reload a semi-automatic pistol. Carrying an extra magazine or two would have been a minor nuisance for the gunman, and 32 people would still be dead today.
It takes less than 2 seconds to reload a revolver, and with practice, the feat can be accomplished in under 1 second also.
A 9mm pistol cartridge is the lowest power pistol cartridge considered effective for self-defense. It will shoot through sheet rock, but not through a steel door, boards, or bricks. I've heard the pistols used by the gunman were a 9mm Glock and a .22. Both are deadly in the right circumstances, but they are on the low end of the "deadly"scale.
I've heard reports that these were incredibly deadly, serious firearms --as though they are in some way more dangerous than others. That's ridiculous. No firearm is more dangerous than any other, unless circumstances exist that render one weapon or another completely ineffective.
The reason some of the kids are alive is because the gunman tried to shoot them through a door they were holding closed. Surprise, that 9mm isn't going to do the job. It takes a big-boy pistol to shoot through a solid door --like a .357 Magnum, a .44 Magnum, or larger.
Once again everyone wants to lay the blame on society, the 2nd Amendment, and campus security procedures -- anywhere but where it belongs. The real problem is that a screwed-up whacko committed 32 murders. We have a lot of firearms in the US. Making them illegal might slow someone down a bit while they locate one on the black-market, or wait for someone to advertise theirs for sale, but it will also insure that the victims (innocent people who obey the law), will be ill prepared for criminal when he comes knocking.
The numbers of students killed each year by impaired drivers is staggering. Drunks and drug addicts routinely kill with near impunity. A person can have multiple DUI convictions and yet manage to get behind the wheel. Yes there is outrage over the statistics, but has that outrage gotten us anywhere? Are there less drunk driving fatalities now that we have stronger laws? No, there are more of them.
Blaming guns instead of criminals is foolish. We live in a society of over 300 million people. This isn't Canada. Guns don't make people do anything. A simple home-made bomb could do just as much damage (or more). Bombs can be made with one trip to Wal-Mart. Are we going to ban science and the Internet? Bleach and Hydrogen Peroxide? Bans aren't going to keep someone bent on mass murder from committing their crime.
It's understandable that in a time like this, we ask ourselves "what can be done?" Here are a few thoughts:
1. Buy a bulletproof vest.
2. Buy a small pistol and learn how to use it.
3. Get a carry permit for your state and don't leave home without it.
4. Practice, practice, practice until you can reliably make head-shots over a distance of 25-35 feet, under stress, with either hand.
5. Write your US congressmen and state legislators let them know you demand the right to carry a concealed firearm everywhere you need to go.
6. Demand enhanced security for schools and public buildings. If you can't get into the courthouse with a gun, then you shouldn't be able to get into a college classroom building with one either. Schools need to put up the money for secure buildings, metal detectors, and guards to man them.
75th Ranger Memorial
A memorial is being built to honor the men of the 1/75th Ranger Battalion that have given their all in service to our country. This memorial will be dedicated in an October, 2007 ceremony in Savannah, Georgia - the 1/75th's home. We would like to notify the families of all Rangers whose names will be on this memorial. The US Army does not track the whereabouts of next of kin, and the families of some of the men cannot be located. If you know the families of any of these men, please leave a comment with some form of contact information. As soon as I see it, I'll remove any email addresses so your address won't get spammed. You may also contact the email address given below, by removing the appropriate words from the email address. We are looking for the families of these men:
PFC FIRST CLASS MARKIN MAYNARD – KILLED IN COMBAT, GRENADA - 1983
SGT MARK RADEMACHER – KILLED IN COMBAT, GRENADA 1983
PFC FIRST CLASS RUSSELL ROBINSON – KILLED IN COMBAT, GRENADA 1983
SPC MARK YAMANE – KILLED IN COMBAT, GRENADA 1983
PFC FIRST CLASS JAMES MARKWELL – KILLED IN COMBAT, PANAMA 1989
SPC JAMES QUICK – KILLED IN TRAINING
CSM HENRY CARO – KILLED IN TRAINING
MAJ JAMES BRYAN – KILLED IN TRAINING
SPC WILLIAM MCTIGUE – KILLED IN TRAINING
PFC MICHAEL SANDERS – KILLED IN TRAINING
PFC GILBERT ALANIZ – KILLED IN TRAINING
SPC VINCENT BARCLAY – KILLED IN TRAINING
SGT JOHNNY DANFORD – KILLED IN TRAINING
SPC ROBERT FORTUCCI – KILLED IN TRAINING
SPC WILLIAM HAYES – KILLED IN TRAINING
PFC FIRST CLASS SHAWN LAU – KILLED IN TRAINING
SPC FRANCIS ELDER – KILLED IN TRAINING
PFC MICHAEL RUDESS – KILLED IN TRAINING
SGT FRANK WINTERS – KILLED IN TRAINING
LTC KENNETH STAUSS – KILLED IN TRAINING 1992
1SG HARVEY MOORE – KILLED IN TRAINING 1992
SGT BLAINE MISHAK – KILLED IN TRAINING 1992
SPC JEREMY BIRD – KILLED IN TRAINING 1992
PFC GREG BELLETTI – KILLED IN TRAINING
SGT BRADLEY CROSE – KILLED IN COMBAT, AFGHANISTAN 2002
CORPORAL MATT COMMONS – KILLED IN COMBAT, AFGHANISTAN 2002
SPC MARK ANDERSON - KILLED IN COMBAT, AFGHANISTAN 2002
SPC BRANDON MILLER – KILLED IN TRAINING 2003
Email: Dudleys[AT]soc[DOT]mil or hmor1999[AT]aol[DOT]com
PFC FIRST CLASS MARKIN MAYNARD – KILLED IN COMBAT, GRENADA - 1983
SGT MARK RADEMACHER – KILLED IN COMBAT, GRENADA 1983
PFC FIRST CLASS RUSSELL ROBINSON – KILLED IN COMBAT, GRENADA 1983
SPC MARK YAMANE – KILLED IN COMBAT, GRENADA 1983
PFC FIRST CLASS JAMES MARKWELL – KILLED IN COMBAT, PANAMA 1989
SPC JAMES QUICK – KILLED IN TRAINING
CSM HENRY CARO – KILLED IN TRAINING
MAJ JAMES BRYAN – KILLED IN TRAINING
SPC WILLIAM MCTIGUE – KILLED IN TRAINING
PFC MICHAEL SANDERS – KILLED IN TRAINING
PFC GILBERT ALANIZ – KILLED IN TRAINING
SPC VINCENT BARCLAY – KILLED IN TRAINING
SGT JOHNNY DANFORD – KILLED IN TRAINING
SPC ROBERT FORTUCCI – KILLED IN TRAINING
SPC WILLIAM HAYES – KILLED IN TRAINING
PFC FIRST CLASS SHAWN LAU – KILLED IN TRAINING
SPC FRANCIS ELDER – KILLED IN TRAINING
PFC MICHAEL RUDESS – KILLED IN TRAINING
SGT FRANK WINTERS – KILLED IN TRAINING
LTC KENNETH STAUSS – KILLED IN TRAINING 1992
1SG HARVEY MOORE – KILLED IN TRAINING 1992
SGT BLAINE MISHAK – KILLED IN TRAINING 1992
SPC JEREMY BIRD – KILLED IN TRAINING 1992
PFC GREG BELLETTI – KILLED IN TRAINING
SGT BRADLEY CROSE – KILLED IN COMBAT, AFGHANISTAN 2002
CORPORAL MATT COMMONS – KILLED IN COMBAT, AFGHANISTAN 2002
SPC MARK ANDERSON - KILLED IN COMBAT, AFGHANISTAN 2002
SPC BRANDON MILLER – KILLED IN TRAINING 2003
Email: Dudleys[AT]soc[DOT]mil or hmor1999[AT]aol[DOT]com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
