The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - Returns!

Just wait for it. Before long Hillary Clinton will bust out that Vast Right Wing Conspiracy again. Only this time, expect her to be the poor victim of the vicious GOP attack dogs. Poor Hillary. I'm sure that America feels her pain at being 'obsessed' over. And I can only imagine how being in the public eye and on the news all the time just terribly upsets her.

The reason I warn you of this is because of Sen. Clinton's comments today that Karl Rove (the evilest of all evils) "spends a lot of time obsessing about [her]" and her political future. What sparked this was Mr. Rove's comments that Hillary was going to be the Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2008. Anyone who thought otherwise was "kidding themselves" according to Karl. Best of all was when Hillary claimed that Karl thought more about her political future than she did!

First off, no one thinks about Hillary's political future more than Hillary because, let's be honest, Hillary Clinton is one of the most self-centered, power-hungry, underhanded politician since....well.....Stalin? (They are both Communists, although Stalin wasn't big on feminism.....). Mrs. Clinton spends all of her time thinking about her and her political future, so Karl Rove is light years behind her in that department.

Finally, how exactly is Karl Rove wrong? Who, in their right mind, doubts that Sen. Clinton will, at the very least, make a serious run for the Democratic Nomination? We've all known she wanted to become President since, well, since we first heard of her. Saying that Hillary is going to be the Democratic Nominee in '08 is simply playing the odds. It's like betting on the 1992 Dream Team to win the Olympic Gold, it might not happen, but, you know, pretty darn good odds.

Hillary Clinton just wants some media headlines in order to make herself the victim again; just like she tried to do with her husband during his Presidency. Further, it was a great opportunity to bash Republicans and how they have made "hundreds" of mistakes in Washington. Although by now, her gig is getting old, and most of main-stream America tends to ignore it, a trait which could prove fatal in the 2008 election. For now though, Hillary's diatribes will only matter to the idiotic Democrats who support her and those of us on the Right who sporadically forecast the '08 election and who just plain enjoy making sarcastic, satirical critiques of Madame Clinton.

Tide Turning on Abortion?

The 1973 decision in the now infamous Roe vs. Wade case began the era of legalized abortion here in the U.S. Recently, however, events seem to be pointing towards a slow but admirable trend to reverse this decision.

First, of course, we have the new appointees to the Supreme Court: Roberts and Alito. Both of these men are unlikely to demonstrate the activist tendencies that led to the Roe vs. Wade decision. Assuming Roberts votes like his predecessor Rehnquist, Justice Alito should prove to be the swing vote on future abortion cases that pro-lifers didn't have in Sandra Day O'Conner.

Furthermore, it appears that an important case on partial-birth abortion is about to come before the Supreme Court. This could be a landmark case in the fight against legalized abortion and the Roe vs. Wade precedent. Indeed, it seems that at a state level things have already begun to pick up. Take this recent ban out of the South Dakota Legislature. It seems that in South Dakota, pending the, expected, Governor's signature, abortion will become illegal except in cases where the mother's life is at risk.

The pro-life movement seems to be gathering steam in the political arena, which might mean that the elimination of all abortion, except in cases of rape and when the mother's life is in danger, is in America's future on a not-so-distant horizon.

Ahoy There.......Muawiya?

National Security is an important issue. Obviously. And in the aftermath of 9/11 border and internal security has become quite an issue. Given all of that, the proposal in this article is just outrageous. It appears that there are plans to turn over control of 6 of America's most important ports to Duabi Ports World, a United Arab Emirates company. That's right, the same U.A.E where much of the operational planning for the 9/11 attacks took place.

Wow, talk about a stupid decision. American Ports have already been declared as one of the most vulnerable and likely next targets for terrorism in the USA. But the Department of Treasury (which is what controls the committee that authorized this deal) clearly missed that memo. As the article points out, key security information about the ports will be given to these Emirations (assuming that's what they're called), which of course just makes all kinds of sense. For the terrorists.

I don't really need to add much to what is mentioned in the article other than the fact that this is an utter atrocity. All I can think of is that this is some sort of 'globalization' or 'outsourcing' deal gone terribly wrong.

Operation 'Back-To-The-Stone-Age'

It seems to me that the President of Iran gets loonier and loonier every day. Which, unfortunately, means the threat of Iran getting and, more importantly, using nukes grows as well. However, so as not to sound like another one of the crowd randomly shouting that 'Iran is a threat,' I thought I would distinguish myself with a few minor suggestions on how to actually deal with this threat without the use of a serious ground offensive.

To perform such an operation we need to have good relations with Jerusalem and that wonderfully sane place in the Middle East known as Israel. This, of course, isn't a problem: Israeli's are a bit more understanding of National Security matters than Europeans and even most Americans.

The key to any sort of offensive against Iran would have to center around strategic bombing: lots of strategic bombing. In other words, every site in Iran that is even thought to be even remotely related to nuclear production would have to be destroyed. Cruise Missiles, Patriot Missiles - whatever it takes. The launching of these Missiles would need to be done simultaneously from bases in Israel (assuming they have the long range capability), Navy Ships in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea, and American Bases on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The strategic command base for this operation could be either on Naval Ships stationed in the Arabian Sea, the American Naval base at Bahrain, or the US Military Base in Incirlik, Turkey. (I'd recommend the second)

Furthermore, the operation would need to have three key elements. The First is secrecy. In order to be effective this operation would have to be launched suddenly, without warning, and without any sort of public approval. That means no UN. That means no debates in the media. That means no Congressional hearings. The reason is simple: we can't afford to hash this thing out in the court of public opinion for 8 months like we did with Iraq. Giving the Iranians a heads up means giving them time to prepare for the bombs and to protect their nuclear program.

The Second key component is that the strikes from Afghanistan and Iraq will need to be conducted with the added element of Air Force bombing. This Air-bombing would be an attempt to destroy other non-nuclear military facilities and cripple any potential counter-strike measures from Iran. The use of Stealth Bombers etc. would obviously be crucial in this regard. Furthermore, it would be an added bonus if, say, one of the Air Force's bombs were to fall on the Presidential House in Tehran and perhaps kill the maniac in charge of that country.

The Third element, which has been alluded to, is the utter need for an overwhelming, unexpected, preemptive strike. The attack would need to happen so fast and with so much force that the Iranian nuclear program would be utterly crippled before Tehran ever knew what was going on. No half-assed attempts at 'limited bombing' or at 'avoiding civilian casualties.' If you're going to bomb it; take it out. (Think George Patton style)

In the aftermath of such an attack, it would need to be made clear to Iran that we would not hesitate to bomb again, were they to re-start the program. Perhaps we might even try to hint at a potential nuclear attack. (And no, we wouldn't actually have to use an H-bomb, but immediately after a massive bombardment it would hardly be an empty threat.) While bombardment probably won't make Iran completely sane, it would, at the very least, set them back over 20 years in their long desired attempt to attack Israel or America.

So in a nutshell: A preemptive, secret overpowering strike, coupled with Arial bombing would seem to be a logical way to destroy Iranian nuclear capacity. However, in the aftermath of such an attack, we should remember that they are hardly likely to turn a complete 180 in policy and thus, we should still maintain a hard-line stance. It's not much, since I obviously am no military expert, but that to me appears to be a solid starting point for dealing with Iran.

The Cartoon Prophet

Recently, as you must know, a Danish newspaper has come under fire for drawing cartoons of Islam's most sacred prophet: Muhammad. These cartoons depict Muhammad and his religion as violent and evil. One has Muhammad with a bomb for a turban, another suggests that Muhammad's religion has managed to suppress women, and another shows Muhammad at the gates of heaven telling Muslims to stop dying in jihad because he has "run out of virgins."

In the view of the Muslim world, these cartoons are blasphemous, and present an erroneous picture of their prophet and their religion. This distant observer finds that concerning Muhammad these cartoons are perhaps incorrect. In these cartoons we are not able to see the thousands of victims that Muhammad murdered in order to 'peacefully' spread his religion. We are not able to see the Arabian gangsters that Muhammad had to persuade to join his cause in order to create an army with which to conquer Arabia. We are not able to see the hundreds of women that Muhammad and his closest followers raped, nor are we able to see the excessive 'toleration' that Muhammad showed to Arabian Jews by killing or evicting every last one from Medina, Mecca, and elsewhere.

As for the mischaracterization of Islam; in response to these cartoons that suggest Islam is a violent religion instead of a peaceful one, the pacifist, honorable followers of the Religion of Peace have done the following in an attempt to prove their point:

- Burned the Danish Embassy in Damascus
- Hurled Stones at a European Commission building
- Smashed windows and doors while storming a German Cultural Center
- 'Peacefully' called for the execution of those who both drew and published the cartoons
(these are cartoons, mind you)
- Thrown rocks and glass bottles at Danish police
- Burned Danish and German flags
- Burned the Norwegian Embassy in Damascus
- Arrested Jordanian Newspaper editors who published the cartoons (One has been fired, already)
(Once again, these are cartoons we're talking about)
- Accidentally torched the Swedish and Chilean embassies in Damascus (they were in the same building as the Danish, and thus just kindda got burned with it)
- Attempted to storm (and presumably burn) the French Embassy (but were stopped by Police)
- And, of course, blame it all on the Jews

*Note* The blogger feels that no special analysis is need for this last part. If, after reading the last paragraph and the ensuing bullets of information, you have not been able to detect the irony and determine the obvious conclusion, the blogger recommends locating the nearest copy of 'Sherlock Holmes' and reading it, in order to get a crash course in deductive reasoning

"In God Is Our Trust"

You're probably expecting this blog to be my take on the President's State of the Union Address last night, unfortunately, it's not. I didn't even watch it (I was watching My Deacs lose another ACC game.....). However, I found out something new today that I thought was rather interesting.
As you all (should) know, our National Anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, was written by Francis Scott Key during the War of 1812. It became the offical Anthem under Herbert Hoover. Contrarily, what you may not know is that nowadays, we only sing the first verse, and omit the last 3. If you wish to see all 3 verses you can check out this link here. I will however, reprint the 4th verse here, as I find it to be of extreme interest:

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Bles't with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Well that's quite a verse for everyone from James Madison to Herbert Hoover to be getting excited about isn't it? All that stuff about God, and all those references to Christian ideas. Geez, can you imagine what toady's liberals, who insist on omitting prayer, the Christian religion, and the J-word (Jesus for those of you in the dark) from public schools, would think if we sung that "In God is our trust" line every time we sang the National Anthem? Ted Kennedy's head would explode just listening to it!

As you can tell, here we have further proof that this is a Nation founded in Christian principles. They want us to omit 'Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance, yet "In God is our trust" is part of the official National Anthem of our country. And this reference has been around since the Madison administration. Yet no one complained about it or held protests about this 'religious' reference, even the 'Father of the Constitution' seemed to give it his stamp of approval!

Furthermore, when it was adopted in 1931 as the official Anthem, there weren't complaints about how our new Anthem had Christian overtones. In fact, the reason it was adopted was because it had been continually gaining in popularity ever since it had first been performed. So, if all these Americans, from all these different eras, took so fondly to this obviously religious song that they adopted it as the National Anthem, why are we constantly told to ban Christianity from public places?

This Nation was founded on Christian principles, and it was hoped that future generations of Americans would follow these same ideals. That's why we don't need 'Under God' removed from the Pledge, or (non-Muslim) prayer banned in public schools, or 'In God We Trust' taken off our money or out of the National Anthem. The Founding Fathers intended for the United States to be one nation under God, complete with a people steeped in Judeo-Christian values.

To be perfectly honest, these atheistic lefties had better stop thier assult on this Nation's 'God' references or we might not have any patriotic songs left. The Star-Spangled Banner, Battle Hymn of the Republic, The Halls of Montezuma, My Country Tis of Thee, The Army Goes Rolling On........wow, every American song I can think of has some reference to God in it! Interestingly, this phenomenon of Heavenly overtones in National Anthems is not unique to the United States. For example, the Canadians ask God to keep their 'land glorious and free,' The Italians ask to have 'The way of the Lord' revealed to them, hell, the British have been asking God to 'Save the Queen' for centuries.

It is my most sincere hope that, to put a spin on a line from the Battle Hymn of the Republic, despite these atheistic liberals, in America, 'God Keeps Marching On.'