Category Archives: People

double-standard, anyone?

Posted on by

I couldn’t help but laugh at the recent kerfuffle regarding the supposed comparison of Barak Hussein Obama to a Nazi-appeaser. (I also laugh at the anger arising anytime someone uses Barack’s middle name… but I digress). In an interview, Bush said:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along… We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’

“We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Never mind the fact that Barack was not mentioned at all–he still used the opportunity (as any good politician would) to get in front of the media and defend himself.

“George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

But you have advocated for this very thing, Barack! (or does the Iranian regime fall outside your definition of a “terrorist”… which, if true, is about as revealing as anything Bush has said). The funny thing is that Bush is routinely called, well, a NAZI, by many on the left… and not even a finger is lifted in response. When accused of being something quite tame in comparison (i.e. an appeaser), Barack looses it with outrage. How is it that those on the right can be called anything with impunity, but those on the left must be shielded from even the softest criticism??? Is it not funny how the standards of political correctness change from party-to-party?

If anything can be garnished from this small forray, it is that Bush has a much greater grasp of history than Barack does. Those who do not see the similarities between Iran, or other terrorist-sponsoring regimes will undoubtedly make the same mistakes.

FITNA

Posted on by

Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician and member of the Dutch Freedom party has just released a documentary CRITICAL of radical Islamists called FITNA.  As expected, muslims around the world have condemned Wilders for releasing the film–threatening Wilders personally as well as the lives of any internet site complicit in its broadcast.  LiveLeak.com, a site famous for airing controversial footage was forced to remove the clip from their servers citing “very serious threats“.

If this were not distressing enough, WESTERN leaders also joined with the exreemists in condemning the film.  The EU’s Slovenian presidency said the film only “inflaming hatred”.  The U.N. Secretary-General, Mr. Ban, “condemned” the film “in the strongest terms”.  He also said that, ”The right of free expression is not at stake here… Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility.”  Even the Dutch Prime Minister Mr. Balkenende said the film ”serves no purpose other than to offend”.

Mr. Wilders has just proven himself to be one of the gutsiest men alive.  The threats directed at him and at the free press outlets of the world only reinforce and validate his criticisms.  Mr. Ban just doesn’t get it:  Because those exercising free speech are being threatened with violence, free speech is VERY MUCH at stake here.  The basic message of the film film-that radical islamic terrorists are a very real threat-is what terrorists are affirming at every turn and what European leaders are in denial about.  As Eric Cartman so poignantly pointed out, using fear to get people to do what you want isn’t like terrorism, “it IS terrorism”.  I applaud Mr. Wilders for standing up for these principles… not many people do anymore.

Hilldog on blogstitutioNBC. (an interview)

Posted on by

hilldog[Me]: Welcome, today I have the pleasure of interviewing Hilldog on today’s issue of BlogstitutioNBC.  Yesterday, Hilldog wrote a really interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal explaining her vision for the future of the country.  To be quite honest, I thought the article was really well written.   Would you mind if I discuss the article with you, Hilldog?

[Hilldog]:  Of course, Joel.  Thanks for having me on your show.

[Me]:  Ok, let me start by reading portions of your latest op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.  You begin by saying: 

Throughout my campaign, I have been listening to the voices of people across America. 

A great introduction.  The message is clearly that you not, in fact, an ideaologue, but a reasonable person who has been molded by the input of thousands of common Americans.  You continue:

I met one man who told me, “I don’t know what I did wrong.  I got my education and I worked hard.  I’ve been at the same company for 12 years now, but I’ve just been asked to train my successor because my job is moving to another country.”

Before I let you jump in here I must say; what a great followup to a great introduction.  Here we immediately are exposed to the stereotypical plight of the common man in it’s utter horror.   Playing on a reader’s emotions for their common man is a sure-fire way to garnish sympathy for a cause.  

[Hilldog]: Yes, Joel; there are just so many people out there that are hurting because of evil corporations.  I think you would agree with me that the French model forbidding firing is clearly the better model. 

[me]: You continue:

Another woman said to me, “I just can’t make ends meet.  My health care premiums have doubled, college tuition is up.  How am I supposed to make it as a single mom?”

Never forget to include plight of the single mothers out there.  Powerful stuff.  A man loosing his job of 12 years, a mom who’s health care premiums doubled… it’s truely horrible.  

But… dare I ask why this man should be guaranteed a job by his current employer?  (the implication is that the employee is owed more).  Why shouldn’t the woman pay the fair market rate for health care?  Why is she footing the bill for her child’s education when other alternatives such as scholarships, loans, and work-study are available for her daughter?  It’s just that none of these questions are presented for our consideration. 

[Hilldog]:  Well DUH!  Why would I want people thinking beyond the immediate problems in our society?  This kind of stuff doesn’t require my constituients to think, only act on emotion.  I don’t have the highest popularilty among the uneducated by accident, you know.

[me]:  Good point, I hadn’t considered that.  You really know how to appeal to your base, that’s for sure.  Ok, moving on.  You discuss in your article the reasons why you want to be president.  You write: 

I am running for president to bring those voices to the White House and give people a chance to achieve the American Dream: having a good job, owning their own home and living with financial security.  That means tackling our toughest challenges–rising inequality, stagnating wages and a growing sense that too many middle class families are just one pink slip away from financial devastation. 

so, are you saying there are no personal reasons why you are running for office?

[Hilldog]: Re-capturing the power of the oval office?  I resent the implication!  No, it is for your voices to be heard, for the realization of the American dream that I run!  Terrorism, bah!  Iranian Nukes, meh!  9.2 trillion in federal debt, merely a diversion from our real challenges my good fellow!  Yes, I truly believe the hardest thing we can overcome as a nation is our “sense” of impending financial doom.  

Continue reading →

The most important event in U.S. history

Posted on by

I wanted to pass along a really amazing piece in the Wall Street Journal by Thomas Fleming.  The historical story is revealing in 2 ways.

Washington's ResignationFirst, it is amazing to see the parallels with the War in Iraq and the revolutionary war. Washington was metaphorically knifed in the back by a handful of his generals… he was smeared, lambasted, and under-funded.  Many in congress openly opposed his leadership.  Funny how things don’t change much in 200 years of American military engagements.

Secondly, It is self-evident how important of a role Washington played in the formation of our Country.  It is further evident how his faith and belief in God shaped his life and his character.  Washington was a man completely removed from the desire for power… even after winning the Revolutionary War, he humbly stepped aside and resigned his power as commander in chief.  Fleming believes the moment of his resignation to be “the most important moment in American history.”

Addressing this scandal-tarred enemy, Washington drew a speech from his coat pocket and unfolded it with trembling hands. “Mr. President,” he began in a low, strained voice. “The great events on which my resignation depended having at length taken place; I now have the honor of offering my sincere congratulations to Congress and of presenting myself before them to surrender into their hands the trust committed to me, and to claim the indulgence of retiring from the service of my country.”

He continued: “I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last solemn act of my official life by commending the interests of our dearest country to the protection of Almighty God and those who have the superintendence of them [Congress] to his holy keeping.”  

For a long moment, Washington could not say another word. Tears streamed down his cheeks. The words touched a vein of religious faith in his inmost soul, born of battlefield experiences that had convinced him of the existence of a caring God who had protected him and his country again and again during the war. Without this faith he might never have been able to endure the frustrations and rage he had experienced in the previous eight months.

Washington then drew from his coat a parchment copy of his appointment as commander in chief. “Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theater of action and bidding farewell to this august body under whom I have long acted, I here offer my commission and take leave of all the employments of public life.”

I wish I could have been there for that moment.  How powerful. 

 

 

 

Hitchens D’souza Debate

Posted on by

[flv]http://www.mmisi.org/flv/lectures/v000187_cicero_102207.flv[/flv]

Unfortunately, I seem to have stumbled across this debate after-the-fact… but that in no way makes it any less pleasurable for the first-time viewer.  As they say… if you haven’t seen it… you get the drift.  Anyway, here’s a quick teaser:

Christopher Hitchens (a favorite personality of mine) debates Dinseh D’souzda on the topics of Christianity and Faith.  Hitchens gave his usual “rationality alone provides all the answers we need” montra… which was not entirely un-persuasive… and Dinseh countered with scientific metaphysical arguments for a creator and the moral foundation Christianity has given Western culture — a foundation Hitchens almost entirely hijacks for his own purposes.  Dinesh pretty much destroys Hitchen’s premise that Christianity has been behind the horrible evils of the past mellenia… but at the expense of allowing Hitchens to counter with effective attacks on the “vindictive” and therefore undesirable nature of God– criticisms I wish D’souza would have more fully addressed.  

Denish deserves kudos for even attempting this battle and I think he performed very well all things considered.  He is definitely on my radar now as someone to follow closely.

I highly recommend spending 90 minutes and watching this debate in its entirety; it is quite an education to say the least.

I wish I could write like this…

Posted on by

I hear what you’re saying but, with all due respect, it’s not exactly rocket science. Basically, at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is you have got to be able to tick all the boxes. It’s not the end of the world, but, to be perfectly honest with you, when push comes to shove, you don’t want to be literally stuck between a rock and a hard place. Going forward we need to be singing from the same songsheet but you can’t see the wood from the trees. Naturally hindsight is 20/20 vision and you have to take the rough with the smooth before proceeding onwards and upwards. The bottom line is you wear your heart on your sleeve and, when all is said and done, this is all part and parcel of the ongoing bigger picture. C’est la vie (if you know what I mean).

read more like this here…