Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Obama Files Stolen Thunder Report

Friday, August 29th, 2008

     John McCain picked his VP today under a cloud of secrecy the likes of which seems impossible in today’s society. The speculation swirled around the “usual suspects”, men who were vanquished in the campaign and more men who seemed like good choices for vice president based on credentials of leadership. McCain surprised all of them, and all of us, by picking a running mate with all of those qualities, only in the body of a woman. Take that, Obie and Hill.     Joe Biden was brought on as Obama’s running mate not only to lend some foreign policy experience to the ticket (since the Candidate himself has none), but also to serve as the crust on the bread of Obama. Biden was chomping at the bit, eager to attempt to eviscerate his male counterpart in any debates. He now faces a conundrum in that he must be gentle with the “lady”, at least if there is any modicum of consistency in how the main stream media views men attacking women. It was that very perception that shielded Hillary through much of her solo career, despite her auto-biographical image as tougher and smarter than anyone else.

     The really good news is this, however; Sarah Palin brings much more to the plate than merely being McCain’s “beard”. She has much more to offer than simply neutralizing Biden. She’s smart, she’s tough, she’s self-made and she’s more of a man than most inside the Beltway, in a strictly colloquial sense, of course. And most important of all, she’s already more qualified on her own to be President than the Democrat’s nominee. Which is why there is such delicious irony in the attacks already emanating from Camp Obama.

     That camp is, with straight faces, already saying that McCain’s pick is a bad one because Palin has only been the Governor of Alaska for two years. That’s two more years of executive experience than the combined Democrat ticket. Further, before being Governor, Palin was the Mayor of Wasilla, AK and was later elected as President of the Alaska Council of Mayors. It seems she knows a thing or two about being in charge. So for the Obama Camp to complain that McCain essentially put an inexperienced person a heartbeat away from the Presidency is more than feeble, it’s pathetic.

     McCain has the edge over them all in foreign policy experience, and he’s the candidate for President, which would make the ticket properly top-heavy. The Democrat ticket more closely resembles Hillary Clinton’s figure, and the top man on that ticket is young enough to stick around for a full two terms. Maybe he’ll learn a bit on the job, but that would depend on how quick our enemies are to curtail his education.

     Sarah Palin would be ready to take the reins if, God forbid, something were to happen to President McCain. The fact that she already has executive experience thus lends more balance to the Republican ticket than the bowling pin that is the Democrats’. And, as someone I know who is personally familiar with Ms. Palin said, she will tie Biden up in knots at the debates and stand him on his head in the corner. (Kudos, AK).

     This campaign season just decked the halls and I am ready to party.

-Woody

Line In The Sand

Wednesday, August 6th, 2008

     It has been said that good fences make good neighbors. While there may be a modicum of truth to that phrase, it has been proven that a strong, collaborative community bears much sweeter fruit than an isolationist mentality. I maintain that the latter is true, but only to a greater degree than the former, rather in contrast thereto. Both have their merits if practiced properly. Likewise, neither works well exclusively.     Boundaries have been the nature of man since time began, but cooperation has always been their companion. We have always felt more comfortable in our own personal domiciles, but eager to wander out into the community to interact with our neighbors when the need or desire arose. Everywhere in-between the dwellings of those who gathered for either productive or leisurely purposes was considered common ground. What America has succeeded in nurturing in her people was a comfort level in these regards based on a mutual understanding of our land. In other words, we felt completely at ease in a pseudo-neutral setting solely because, while it was conducted in “common land”, the very definition of the phrase was universally understood; we were Americans.

     The previous century for America saw an unprecedented influx to a particular country. To be simple, this was the place to be. One would expect nothing short of chaos in such a situation, but that did not happen. What did happen was that all of these new arrivals cared for nothing more than to embrace America’s culture and to blend in as quickly as possible. Our culture was enthusiastically adopted, our language was studied and self-enforced, and our laws were embraced and obeyed. Of particular note: at that time, there was no DHS, as there was no need for it. People came here for a better life and they actually wanted to become Americans.

     So what has happened since? Why do we have such tumultuousness? The answer is not simple. The recent revocation of the Labor Day Holiday at a Tyson Foods plant in Shelbyville, TN in favor of the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr is cause for concern. It is a clear case of the invited guests suddenly rearranging the furniture in the home of their gracious hosts. Long before we became too timid to risk insulting our guests, there was a time when we would have made it clear who owned the home, and who set the rules therein.     It has been a tried and true practice of civilized peoples to draw a line in the sand, indicating phantom fences before we envisioned their actual construction. It has served well as a civilian law-enforcement technique. It was a mark one crossed at their own peril, and it was a cognitive act either way the decision went. Now, however, it seems that the line has been drawn in the sand at the shoreline of America, and no one has been minding the tide, which has washed away that line without cognizance of any sort.

     It may ultimately fall to me and me alone, but someone needs to get down to the beach and maintain the line. If not, we may find ourselves homeless in the world.

-Woody

The American Family

Monday, July 28th, 2008

     The great divide in politics and overall civility in America, fueled by the incendiary properties of instant communications, i.e., the Internet, would have many conclude that our society is on the brink of collapse. It is an argument that, to be certain, is difficult to refute. Click on any given message board and witness the viciousness with which people tear one another apart, and you’ll see what I mean. Yes, I have engaged in this practice personally. So what does it all mean? Are we ready to flee as the walls collapse behind us? I think not, and here’s why… 

  

     For one thing, the attacks of September 11th, 2001 were a shining example of what our people are made of when we are pushed to our limits. Despite our in-fighting and constant accusations of racism against one another, we pulled together that day and saw nothing but a fellow human in need and helped that person without reservation. There were no ulterior motives and no preferences, we just helped one another. I have also seen words of encouragement and consolation in difficult times shared between sworn enemies on those same message boards. Humanity, at least in western culture, is alive and well.

     What of the Middle East and our Muslim counterparts, then? We’re all well aware of their worst moments, but what about their best moments? To be fair, we have not been treated to too many of those. We have not seen massive, press-covered rallies by “moderate” Muslims denouncing the violence perpetrated in their names. We have been deprived of anything remotely resembling a sound condemnation of the tactics employed by those who share the religion. Are these moderates too intimidated to exercise their authority over the crazies to speak out publicly? My theory says no. Be prepared…

     I had sincere reservations over publicizing these thoughts, but I ultimately decided that they were better for society if exposed to the light of day. Let me know if you agree.

     I have always been perplexed at the absence of suicide bombings in places like New York City and other large cities. Logistically, such attacks are virtually impossible to stop. Why then have they not happened? We know that jihadists would love to inflict such terror on our populace and yet, they have as yet to even attempt it. Certainly any member of a group that would gleefully kill themselves in the hopes of taking out as many Americans as possible would not be deterred by law-enforcement. What would be the fear if the perpetrator was dead after the act?

     Family. See, these cells come here and must develop relationships in order to blend in with society, and even a bomber leaves people behind. Couple that with the fact that many moderate Muslims living in America like their new home (even if they view the new place as a hot bed of decadence), and what we have is a recipe for deterrence. But again, what could deter a bomber from…bombing?

     Here is my theory in a nutshell: One thing about Americans that is widely presumed (and to a lesser degree, KNOWN first-hand) is that we are wild and crazy. Sure, we exercised incredible restraint after 9/11, but does anyone doubt the reaction of your garden variety country boy if we had delis and pizzerias across the country being subjected to daily bombings and carnage? There would be signs posted everywhere declaring open season on Daffy al-Duck.

     So I maintain that our moderate Muslim population, while not being as outspoken as I’d prefer regarding terrorist attacks, has been instrumental in thwarting the insane notions of anyone who may have been harboring thoughts of granduer by jihad. Have they been doing so for selfish reasons? I suppose, but don’t we all perform in the same manner? Nevertheless, I’m not concerned with motive in this regard, just results. Perhaps as the frightened among the moderates get more acclimated to the American way, they will begin to dilute the pool to a point that they actually learn to love America. I know I do.

-Woody

Selective Indignation and Outrage

Friday, June 13th, 2008

     We Americans live in a country that has been commandeered by the insane. The inmates are truly running the asylum now. How else would one explain the trajectory on which we find ourselves? What possible explanation could there be for the inexplicable?     We have gone completely ’round the bend in an hysterical (and knee-jerk) effort to “protect the children” as a result of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and other tragic events. The by-product has been the implementation of ridiculous “zero tolerance” policies that have produced some of the most bizarre stories, which are then defended by the bizarre people who made them possible to begin with.

     There have been a few of these stories of late, in the news, that fit to a tee the definition of insanity. Most recently we had the story of the Ohio first-grader, suspended for keeping the plastic knife the cafeteria distributed to him in the first place. This case is a bit of an anomaly since it is laced with a modicum of sanity, in that the parents are threatening to counter-sue the district for distributing dangerous weapons to children if they don’t rescind the suspension. Kudos to them.     Then there is the New Jersey second-grader suspended for drawing a stick figure of someone shooting his friend with a water pistol. Zero tolerance was once again violated in this case, and the kid is in the news. Great.     Right about now, some liberal-minded person is reading this and thinking that these suspensions are a good thing since we can’t have the children growing up in a “violent culture”. That’s all well and good, but I would remind such a reader that our species is, by nature, a violent one, but we have done a remarkable job at suppressing that urge in large measure, save for a handful who never got the memo. Or is it a handful?

     For most of the civilized world, that question could be answered in the affirmative. For a very large segment of the psuedo-civilized, it would be a no.

     So why do the very same people who clamor to remove weapons or the mere mention of them from our society turn a blind eye to a real threat? And why, oh why can’t they see the clear and present danger in schools located in Alexandria and Fairfax, VA?

     There was a story a while back about the teachings in a school called the Islamic Saudi Academy. It was alleged that the school was teaching hate, which it denied, of course. So The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, asked for textbooks to examine, a request that was denied. The commission was able to acquire 17 textbooks nonetheless, through other channels. What they found was disturbing.

     The Associated Press reports that Textbooks at a private Islamic school in northern Virginia teach students that it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from Islam, according to a federal investigation released Wednesday.”     And an even more troubling excerpt:

    

The commission said it obtained 17 of the academy’s textbooks through a variety of channels, including from members of Congress. The texts did appear to contain numerous revisions, including pages that were removed or passages that were whited out, but numerous troubling passages remained, according to the panel:
_ The authors of a 12th-grade text on Koranic interpretation state that apostates (those who convert from Islam), adulterers and people who murder Muslims can be permissibly killed.

_ The authors of a 12th-grade text on monotheism write that “(m)ajor polytheism makes blood and wealth permissible,” meaning that a Muslim can take with impunity the life and property of someone believed guilty of polytheism. According to the panel, the strict Saudi interpretation of polytheism includes Shiite and Sufi Muslims as well as Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists.

_ A social studies text offers the view that Jews were responsible for the split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims: “The cause of the discord: The Jews conspired against Islam and its people. A sly, wicked person who sinfully and deceitfully professed Islam infiltrated (the Muslims).”

     One must wonder what was “removed or whited out” if those three examples were left in the text books. Nevertheless, this story will probably get minimal attention in the media, and the minimal coverage will be limited to publications that liberals denounce and therefore will not believe that there is a threat at all.

     But they will continue to persecute 7 year-old school kids who draw innocuous pictures, and feel that they have served justice while ignoring a virtual curriculum of hate and depravity.

     Insanity.

-Woody

The Big Iraq War Lie

Friday, June 6th, 2008

     Yes. I have finally decided that I can no longer live with the lie that is the Iraq War and am ready to speak out against that lie. Many people are now feeling the effects of it and are struggling in their day-to-day lives to cope. It’s time to expose this lie and let the people know once and for all that they have been duped.

     Many will be angry with me from this point forward, but I truly believe that the cost is worth my conscience and so will not lose too much sleep over the anger of others. Sorry. The suffering of my fellow Americans is at the hands of their very own government, and I find that fact unconscionable. How our elected officials can sleep at night with the knowledge of what their lies have inflicted upon its citizenry is something I will wrestle with until the pain finally ceases.

     A barrel of oil today surpassed the mark of $138/bbl. It rose by nearly ten percent, in one day. Gas prices in the next week, if this is a sustainable record, will top $5 per gallon, without question. And yet, we have been led to believe by our elected Congresspersons that this war was a war for oil. Despite the fact that we kicked the virtual shit out of the vaunted Iraqi Republican Guard in record time and are still waging an ongoing battle with a ragtag contingient of well-armed, so-called insurgents (funded and trained by a sovereign neighbor), we have not reaped the spoils of war. Those spoils would ostensibly equate to cheaper oil for the victorious conquerors.

     So one must ask this of their “public servants”, as well as the willing dupes who echo the tripe emanating from the lips of those servants: If this was an evil act perpetrated on the Middle East by a crazed oil man and his cohorts for nothing more than oil…why are we being subjected to the whims of those people who control that oil to this day?

     With the resources America has beneath its own soil, it would stand to reason that the “oil barons” could have exploited their own land without shedding a drop of blood, save for the occassional dropping of an irate and charging female moose or caribou, however unfortunate and even more pertinent, rare, that scenario may have been. The reason this has not happened is not because those “oil barons” didn’t think of it. It’s because our own elected officials care more for their coveted positions than they do for the people.

     The people have been clamoring for cheaper fuel since before anyone can remember. Bureaucrats have used that demand as a leveraging tool for equally as long. Are the lies a new tactic? Probably not, but the acceptance of them as validation for a political stance is relatively new, since people seem more willing in these times to slit their own throats to promote a belief contrary to their own best interests so long as it is fed to them by a lying government.

     The Iraq war was not about oil. The ideological war is, and it may well be our undoing. God bless America.

-Woody

Newt (Inadvertently) Gets It “Wright”

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

     The big news of the day is the sudden attacks, if you will, by Jeremiah Wright on Barack Obama and the retaliatory remarks by the candidate flung back at the Reverend. The news wires, the blogosphere, the talk shows are all having a field day with this. I must admit, it is quite enticing to have something of this magnitude rocking the democrats’ primary race. But there is much more to this story than a mere spat between pastor and parishioner.

     The buzz and the speculation stemming from Wright’s interview with PBS’ Bill Moyers, as well as his speech before the NAACP, is about his possibly feeling “shunned” by Obama and has therefore been lashing out at him for that reason. I had other ideas but was not quite sure how to broach the subject in a sufficiently sensitive manner until my thoughts were validated this morning.

     Considering Reverend Wright’s thoughts and his affinity for Louis Farrakhan, I began to think yesterday that perhaps Wright was cut from the same cloth as our so-called “Black Leaders” and as such, had the same risk-of-loss factor as the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. There is a specific reason that he would so blatantly jeopardize the chances of America electing her first Black President. It would weaken their mantra that America is still inherently racist.

     Newt Gingrich was on Good Morning America this morning. Later he was on The View (something I thought incredibly novel until I heard that Hillary was to appear on The O’Reilly Factor on Wednesday, but that’s for another day), and it was actually Barbara Walters who set the question up. Part of the transcripts from Newsbusters:

WALTERS: Why would he try to hurt if, if he’s trying to- just to get back to that, if he is trying to, to have more rights for black people, why would he deliberately harm the first candidate for a black presidency? Why does he matter?

GINGRICH: A good friend of mine, Vivian Berry Hill, is the spouse of an African-American minister in Mississippi and has organized a nationwide organization of spouses of ministers in the African-American community. She sent me an e-mail this morning and she said, you know- after the show she had watched us on “Good Morning America.” She said, “you know, if you look at Reverend Wright’s hostility to people becoming middle class and the sense that they were selling out the African-American community,” she said “it’s almost as though Senator Obama became more acceptable to white America.” He suddenly began to peel away from being acceptable to Reverend Wright’s version of America. And the Reverend Wright’s investment is in a very, very deeply afro-centric model. And he said this a lot if you look at some of his sermons. I mean, he legitimately believes if you become a Bill Cosby, if you become somebody who’s successful in mainstream America, you have deserted the community.

     There it is in a nutshell. Reverend Wright and his ilk have decided that if Obama is elected president of this country, it will remove some of the ammunition used in the “struggle” and vindicate every black person who has dared to leave the reservation, as it were, to pursue the American Dream, and to join the community of America and throw off the stigma, once and for all, of victimhood.

     How ironic is it, that Barack Obama is such a threat to the Black Leadership that they would attempt to sabotage his chances at the nomination?

-Woody

Land Of The Free?

Saturday, April 12th, 2008

     We may still be the home of the brave, but the land of the free part is slowly slipping away. It’s happening so slowly, as a matter of fact, that it’s barely perceptible. Like grass grows, it is not noticeable until the weekend, when it needs to be mowed.     Our politicians have become much more than drunk with power, they are positively inebriated. We’ve no one to blame but ourselves, of course, for it is we who have been serving up the beverages in the form of fairness and feel-good demands. Who could have envisioned an America in which the Government would wield the power over private businesses to the extent that it does already?

     We now have a politician daring to speak of limiting how much someone can be paid. Barack Obama wants the Government to pass legislation that, in effect, would put a cap on how much a corporate CEO can be paid. In the not so distant past, this would have seemed unimaginable, nay, unthinkable! Now, however, thanks to the fabulous job our politicians have done in dividing and conquering the masses through class warfare, we will have some people applauding like seals over this idea.     We often hear of such things from Venezuela, e.g., and think to ourselves, “Thank God we’re in America”. But if people would receive the message as it should be delivered by a “non-partisan” press, they would be more inclined to oppose it. So here, I will present the message in its true form.

“America’s
federal government seeks to seize corporations.”

     There, that looks more like it. Of course the fertilizer, that is perhaps as much as half of the population, will make the grass grow by not seeing the obvious and will denounce the message as ludicrous. And come the weekend, we’ll be dragging the mower out of the shed.-Woody

Lethality Legal While Government Prospers

Monday, March 17th, 2008

     If I were to tell you that it would soon be legal to buy poison for your own personal consumption, as long as you could afford the price, you may think I’d gone ’round the bend. But that’s just what the government is already doing. They are not only allowing it, they’re seeking to make even more money from the practice. The state of New York, for example, is considering doubling the tax on a pack of cigarettes.

     The government has stated time and again that tobacco is a lethal substance that kills its consumers. Because they care so much for the health and well-being of their constituents, they feel the need to do all that they can to make us stop smoking. The problem is, they need to make some coin while they do it. How could such a benevolent entity warn us that we are literally killing ourselves while they reach into our pockets for loose change?
    
     One would think that the governments both large and small would make such a deadly product illegal immediately and arrest and incarcerate anyone caught with it in their possession. It’s done with narcotics, why not with tobacco (which, incidentally, is more addictive than most narcotics)? Some will say it’s because a person under the influence of a narcotic poses a potential danger to others around him. Fair enough, but I say that if the reports are to be believed, smokers pose an imminent danger to those around them. So again, why not cigarettes?
    
     Here’s why; because people would revolt and it would cost the government money to battle a rebellion as well as jailing and feeding the prisoners. The solution is to keep making cigarettes ever more expensive and yes, helping some to quit, but the pool of hold-outs left buying the smokes continue to die while becoming an increasingly smaller pool of revenue. The government continues to count their bounty while these people die.
    
     Think about it, people. If cigarette smoke is really so toxic and deadly, how on Earth can the government blatantly allow its continued use? It is not yet illegal to smoke, but the places available to do so are shrinking. Still, it is still permissable, albeit for the time being, to walk down the street and enjoy a cigarette. What would happen if some was walking down the street swinging a truncheon, knocking people off of their feet? He would be arrested for assault, right? Again, if reports are accurate, and second-hand smoke is so abominable, why is it not dealt with more harshly?
    
     Something is out of kilter, and yet no one sees it or bothers to question it. Anti- smokers applaud like seals whenever any punitive measure is launched against smokers, but they never question the methods.  Imagine if you were one of the victims of the fellow with the truncheon. Would you not think it very much more than odd if a policeman came along and slapped him with a hefty tax, rather than haul him off to jail?
    
     Smokers and non-smokers alike should be united in opposition to any more taxes on tobacco. For the last time, if we are to believe that it is as lethal as they insist it is, we should be likewise united in our outrage that the government is allowing our loved ones to be systematically slaughtered by smokers.
    
     Demand that tobacco be deemed a banned substance at once and made illegal to own. Either government will address our concerns and comply, or be forced to admit that tobacco is not nearly as deadly as thought.
    
     Talk about a win-win scenario.
-Woody 

Seditious Behavior

Monday, March 10th, 2008

Most clear-thinking people will eventually acknowledge, despite their vociferous protestations against any particular subject, that free speech is a precious thing and should be protected. We may wish that someone who is spouting nonsense with which we disagree would shut up, but not many would endorse a law that would force them to do so.  

     There are people and groups who do now and always have loathed the military. They have every right to their opinions no matter how twisted I may view them to be, but that right becomes seditious action when it is intended to directly impede the work of the military. Apparently shame is a thing of the past.
    
     Code Pink and those sympathetic to their cause have been busily harrassing the military recruiting center in Berkeley, California since it opened in January of last year. Chanting and singing in protest is one thing, but when the protesters blocked the entrance for three hours, there should been a police intervention. Of course, the protesters would have been screaming about oppression and the loss of their civil right to protest. That would have been pure bunk, however.
    
     To make matters worse, we now have elected officials encouraging this sort of behavior.  The Mayor of Berkeley and the City Council have branded the Marines as “unwanted intruders” and have been supportive of the protestors. If nothing else, why aren’t they supportive of the rights of the Marine Corps’ free speech? And an even bigger question would be, why aren’t the liberal protestors out there to support the rights of young men and woman to choose whether to join the military?
    
     Pro-choice is not the same without all that make-up, people. Here’s how elected officials view abortion clinics.  From the AG of Massachusetts:
“Attorney General Martha Coakley said yesterday that a new law restricting antiabortion activists from standing within 35 feet of an abortion clinic’s entrance did not violate their right to free speech.”
    
     Of course, liberals will claim that having clinics blown up justifies the tighter security and the usurpation of the rights of abortion foes to be vocal in their opposition. Then they will dismiss the bombing of the Times Square Recruiting Center as a need for the same security of the Berkeley recruiting center. Someone needs to tell them that they can’t have it both ways. And if the Massachusetts Attotney General’s position has any merit at all, we should be free to tell the Berkeley protestors to shut up. Especially since the very people that they hate so much are responsible for their right to free speech.
-Woody

Why Contested Games Are Not Replayed

Thursday, March 6th, 2008

    Michigan and Florida willfully violated the rules set forth by the Democratic party and agreed to by the candidates prior to the beginning of the primary season. Now they want to re-write those rules mid-game in the name of “fairness to the voters”.  Consider:

      Your team has lost, and you’ve seen the replay over and over again. You grow more livid every time you make yourself suffer the outrage of seeing the referee, once again, cost your team the game. Finally, the sports writers’ pugnaciousness bears fruit and the league is forced to admit they erred on the call. Ah, vindication is sweet. Or is it?
    
     So what happens now? Surely the game is replayed and your team has a fair chance to win, as you originally believed they would have, right? No. No, you’re left feeling that a game has been wrenched from your grasp and a damnable injustice has been done, and it will not be undone.
    
     It’s a matter of history that cannot be corrected, for the original conditions can never be duplicated in order to provide the same conditions that would have reaped the outcome that should have been. It could be weather or it could be an injury to a key player that would render a redux moot. So the loss stands.
    
     Howard Dean now says that a fair solution would be to have Florida and Michagan have a new vote in the primaries, based on the tight delegate counts for Obama and Clinton. What is not taken into account is the absence of Kucinich (D-OH) and Edwards, the former Democratic senator from South Carolina. Yes, they were on the ballot in Florida, but they did not campaign there because they knew the rules made it a waste of time. And in Michigan, they did not even have their names on the ballot.
    
     So what to do? Do we simply seat the delegates from those states, or have another vote? Do we bring now meaningless candidates back in the event of a re-vote? And what if these two states had abided by the rules in the first place; would either Kucinich or Edwards still be viable candidates? Or do we reset everything back to the beginning of the primary season?
    
     The entire dynamic of the primary process has already been set in stone, and it cannot be undone with any modicum of fairness to the voter. There is not enough time to bring all of the candidates back to do the whole thing over. So what’s left? Sure, there will be much wailing over the alleged “disenfranchisement” of the voters of Michigan and Florida, but if they had followed the rules from the beginning, none of this would be cause for conversation.
    
     The remaining candidates should reject Michigan and Florida’s delegates as they originally pledged. Pure and simple…
-Woody