Jonah, are you really that stupid?

Jonah Bloom, writing for the UK Guardian wrote on Monday March 6:

Is Al Gore: a) a media mogul who is using his grasp of the internet to revolutionise the TV business; b) a small business owner caught up in the red tape that snags so many would-be entrepreneurs; c) a one-time US presidential hopeful who fancies another shot at the title; d) the saviour of our broken planet?

This week the answer appeared to be all of the above.

I think the answer is E - Nut job that lost all touch with reality after losing in 2000.

Al Gore - Savior of the planet? I cannot wait to see that one on a bumper sticker...

How to to lose a war - by Ralph Peters

How to to lose a war - by Ralph Peters

November 21, 2005 -- QUIT. It's that simple. There are plenty of more complex ways to lose a war, but none as reliable as just giving up.

Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.

Forget about the consequences. Disregard the immediate encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents to keep killing every American soldier they can. Ignore what would happen in Iraq — and the region — if we bail out. And don't mention how a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam in the third round.

Forget about our dead soldiers, whose sacrifice is nothing but a political club for Democrats to wave in front of the media. After all, one way to create the kind of disaffection in the ranks that the Dems' leaders yearn to see is to tell our troops on the battlefield that they're risking their lives for nothing, we're throwing the game.

Forget that our combat veterans are re-enlisting at remarkable rates — knowing they'll have to leave their families and go back to war again. Ignore the progress on the ground, the squeezing of the insurgency's last strongholds into the badlands on the Syrian border. Blow off the successive Iraqi elections and the astonishing cooperation we've seen between age-old enemies as they struggle to form a decent government.

Just set a time-table for our troops to come home and show the world that America is an unreliable ally with no stomach for a fight, no matter the stakes involved. Tell the world that deserting the South Vietnamese and fleeing from Somalia weren't anomalies — that's what Americans do.

While we're at it, let's just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists, informing the youth of the Middle East that Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.

Whatever you do, don't talk about any possible consequences. Focus on the moment — and the next round of U.S. elections. Just make political points. After all, those dead American soldiers and Marines don't matter — they didn't go to Ivy League schools. (Besides, most would've voted Republican had they lived.)

America's security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode. So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?

For God's sake, don't talk about democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy wasn't much fun for the Dems in 2000 or 2004. Why support it overseas, when it's been so disappointing at home?

Human rights? Oh, dear. Human rights are for rich white people who live in Malibu. Unless you can use the issue to whack Republicans. Otherwise, brown, black or yellow people can die by the millions. Dean, Reid & Pelosi, LLC, won't say, "Boo!"

You've got to understand, my fellow citizens: None of this matters. And you don't matter, either. All that matters is scoring political points. Let the world burn. Let the massacres run on. Let the terrorists acquire WMD. Just give the Bush administration a big black eye and we'll call that a win.

The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.

There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.

Surrender is never a winning strategy.

Yes, we've been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies. About conditions on the ground. About our troops. About what's at stake. About the consequences of running away from the great struggle of our time. About the continuing threat from terrorism. And about the consequences for you and your family.

What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.

We won't even talk about the effect quitting while we're winning in Iraq might have on the go-to-war calculations of other powers that might want to challenge us in the future. Let's just be good Democrats and prove that Osama bin Laden was right all along: Americans have no stomach for a fight.

As for the 2,000-plus dead American troops about whom the lefties are so awfully concerned? As soon as we abandon Iraq, they'll forget about our casualties quicker than an amnesiac forgets how much small-change he had in his pocket.

If we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die.

And they won't all be conservatives.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer.

From http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/57943.htm

Then they wonder why we can't take Europe serious...

From The Brussels Journal:  http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
 
The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose "civil unions" that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.  Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal "married" both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.
 
"I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both," Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam's divorce the threesome decided to marry.
 
Victor: "A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage."
 
Asked by journalists to tell the secret of their peculiar relationship, Victor explained that there is no jealousy between them. "But this is because Mirjam and Bianca are bisexual. I think that with two heterosexual women it would be more difficult." Victor stressed, however, that he is "a one hundred per cent heterosexual" and that a fourth person will not be allowed into the "marriage." They want to take their marriage obligations seriously: "to be honest and open with each other and not philander."

No Soda for Highschoolers...

I really don't like liberals. I don't care if they are Republican, Democrat, or otherwise. There absolutely inconsistent view on life is very frustrating to me.

So now we have Governor Schwarzenegger (R & D-CA) fixing obesity amongst our children. He has decided that it is a bad idea to let a group of lazy, Internet surfin', video game playing, cell phone chatting slackers have a soda since it could lead to them being fat. Yup - and this from a so-called republican folks. I don't understand you people in California.

Maybe you should make them exercise and get off there rumps - it is amazing how much that can help. I know - you could tie them to a large grain mill like in your movie, "Conan the Barbarian", then have them crush grain for years on end, and about the time they are 20-21, they will be ready to go for the Mr. O...

If you want to make a difference Governator, try banning technology and lazy parents - that will get the kids out and about as it was not so long ago - when the fat kid was the anomaly...

Calling the “Good Muslims” - It is time to act like men

After the bombing in Egypt on Saturday, it is beginning to look like these terrorists aren’t getting it. The only advantage to terrorism is the paralyzing effect it has on the general population. It would appear that this is wearing off. Look at the people of London. Even people on holiday Saturday aren’t giving in – and there 64 people have been killed.

Even Mark Landler has come to this conclusion. Writing in the NY Times he says, “with a drumbeat of attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Istanbul and New York, people here suggested that yet another act of terror - as tragic as it was - had lost some of its power to inspire dread.” So obvious even the Times can get this right…

The fact of the matter is folks that we should be safer now than we have been in the past - we know who the enemy is, though nobody wants to talk about it. It may not be politically correct to say, but the problem is Islam.

Here me out - We know it is not all Muslims that are the problem. That is a given. Not all Christians killed Jews in Europe on there way to attack Muslims in the name of the Pope during the crusades. It was not the people of Russia that were the problem, it was the communist government. After all, not all apples in the bunch are bad. But there is one fundamental difference – when you look at the apple you can tell if it’s bad – not so with people. The people of Russia finally stood up and demanded a new government, and they got it, and this is what must happen with Islam.

We need the “Good Muslims” to stand up and point these people out. If they are in Mosque and messages of murder are being spouted, then this needs to be publicized. You can no longer turn a blind eye to what is going on around you. It is time to act like men.

This is a situation where the old maxim, “to take no action is an action” applies. If you will not point these people out then we must conclude that you approve of them and what they do. That makes you complicit in there crimes. In this country we have the right of association, but that does not allow you to be complicit in murder.

It is time to act like men...

AFL-CIO not doing so well - even by there standards...

Looks like the Teamsters and Service Employees International Union are quitting the coalition of the lazy. That means the AFL-CIO will lose another 3 million people. That breaks my heart let me tell you.

"Democrats, a traditional ally of organized labor, are especially worried that a schism might hurt their party's chances by making labor a less potent political force." Ha - you must be kidding me? The democrats will look at this as another cause of there losing elections which is fine by me, even if that is not the case - the dems are losing because (collectively) they have no ideas worth supporting.

Either way, it was fun why it lasted...

Supreme Court nominee - will he be good for business?

You have got to be kidding me? This is the buzz amongst many of the financial punditry.

Are we that defunct as a nation? Does anyone understand the constitution these days? After reading and listening to many on the left and amazingly on the right, I must come to the conclusion that the answer is no.

Listen to this from Daniel Fisher writing for Forbes this morning:

"As corporate lawyers have learned to their chagrin under the generally conservative Rehnquist court, the justices farthest to the right--Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas --have refused to come to the aid of business if they can't find explicit authority in the Constitution."
from, http://www.forbes.com/home/business/2005/07/19/scotus-roberts-nominee-cz_df_0719court.html

Really? They didn't come to the aid of business? Since when are they supposed to? I thought they were duty bound to look at the constitution and go from there. If you want limitations "such as the 1996 decision limiting $2 million in punitive damages against BMW for selling a car with chipped paint" then you need to petition your congressman to limit it, NOT THE COURT!

I don't understand how educated people can make these outrageous statements. Works like this Mr. Fisher, the job of the court is to rule on law, not make law. That is the job of congress. Most any 7th grade civics class student should be able to tell you that - unless they went to public school, in which case they probably can't read well enough to even take issue with your article.

Scalia and Thomas were right in their ruling – they do not have the constitutional authority to speak on the BMW law suite. Unfortunately the congress is too cowardly to cap these idiot law suites. The problem is with congress, and with activist judges that let the congress sit on there hands and do nothing. As long as the courts continue on this route, and I am talking about leftwing and rightwing activists, “We The People” will have no voice.

LA Times gets it wrong again...

I am amazed at the number of staff idiots that can be contained in one place - the LA Times. In a story that ran today about the unfortunate shooting of Suzie Marie Peña, the little girl that was used as a human shield BY HER FATHER!

Listen to this crap from the LA Times:

"But many questions about the circumstances of the shooting are still unanswered, including the identity and position of the shooter who fatally hit Suzie and how the child came to be in the line of fire."

And how the child came to be in the line of fire? You must be kidding me. How could anyone ask this question? The child was in the line of fire because the child's father put her there!

What kind of an idiot must you be to ask that question? Unreal!

It is a shame that the child was killed, but the guilt of it falls fully on the nut-job father that was trying to kill police and his teenaged step-daughter.

I salute the LAPD and the good work they do. My heart goes out to this police officer and the guilt that he will feel over this unfortunate killing, though he is not to blame. The father is to blame - not the LAPD.

By the way, the word is that the family is going to sue the LAPD, because after all, nobody is responsible for there own actions, especially if you are a liberal.