Terror and Hate Win Another Victory

When will the Democrats stop fussing and join the fight?

Today marked a fairly monumental day in recent history with the revelation that Hamas won a massive victory in the Palestinian Parliament. In terms of world impact, I’d say that this event could easily trump Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or all 26 of this season’s storms combined for that matter. We’re talking about adding fuel to the eternal flame of mid-east conflict. Now, Isreal has sword off communication with the elected Hamas government upon installation, potential future PM Benjamin Netanyahu made particularly aggressive statements against the new government, and our President called for the old Palestinian PM to oppose the overwhelming majority vote against him and remain in power.

Yes, our formerly un-popular president (who was popularly elected the second time around, at least) has advocated the dissolution of governance by democracy. Apparently, since we’ve only just introduced democracy to the mid-east, we can’t expect them to get it right all the time. So let’s go, status quo, and try again in a few years.

I’m pretty sure FDR would have approved.

This is one place where even I will admit that the administration is clearly misleading the American public. Thankfully, the media is too wrapped up in its own distortions to show the inaccuracy of the President’s claims. In reality, the democratic process has existed in many mid-east states since well before W’s presidency. Granted, many of those elections were either rigged, suppressed, or swayed by partial suffrage by the standing government as was the case in Iraq, but the concept of democracy is about as new as sand to our mid-east brothers.

Our President’s double-speak caught me by surprise, and troubles me more so now than it has in the past. During his press conference, he noted that the people in Palestine have clearly indicated their displeasure with the standing government, and have demanded change through democratic process. In the same process, he made the aforementioned call for the standing government to resist the voter mandate, and furthermore indicated his own unwillingness to deal with a government that makes the principal part of its platform “the destruction of a neighbor nation.”

But how about local news coverage of the Hamas election? Minimal, or non-existent. How about national news coverage? On ABC nightly news, the Oprah Winfrey apology for misleading her book club subscribers earned more airtime than the Hamas election. Other networks like the BBC reported the event as a hopeful indicator—but in a different sense than Bush did. Rather than citing the success off the democratic process, their reporting staff believe that the management of day to day affairs required by an established government will force Hamas to “become more centrist.”

It is admittedly ironic. The “Islamic Resistance Movement” (or “Movement of Society for Peace” according to Wikipedia.org, your #1 source for liberal bias and distorted history) has become the establishment. So what does the established resistance movement rebel against? Perhaps they’ll follow in the model being set by Iran.

But, for those who have been living in a cave or watching network news (which is slightly worse than watching no news at all) for the past 2 months, two governments in the mid-east—Iran and Palestine—have both won majority elections on the platforms of 2 things: more jobs and health-care, and the destruction of Israel. At least one of those MO’s sounds familiar.

What I can’t understand, and was aptly pointed out on Savage’s program, is how elected Democrat senators of Jewish descent—Diane Feinstein, Russell Feingold, and Barbara Boxer—have had absolutely nothing to say in condemnation of the Iranians or this new Palestinian government. And yet Jews continue to support the Democratic Party en masse.

Historically, the best allies the Jews have been fundamentalist Christians and Zionists. Their worst enemies have been Muslims and Socialists. If you need me to read between the lines for you: conservatives support Jews people, liberals undermine them. This makes as much sense to me as the anti-Republican sentiment in the black community, when the Republicans are doing more for the black community than Democrats.

Except for that idiot in New Orleans. He’s actively seeking to kill and discredit his own. I hope he wins the next election in New Orleans.

Abortion: A Matter of Cutural Values

Perhaps I ought not listen to Springer’s radio program, because it consistently agitates me. But it also usually gives me good starting points. In lieu of the 33rd anniversary of Roe vs. Wade and speculation that South Dakota will pass legislation that prohibits all abortions. Before I go on, like many pro-life folks, I enjoy pointing out that Norma McCorvey—the Jane Roe of the Wade decision—has since voiced her disapproval of the ruling, her role as a pawn in a case she retrospectively wishes she hadn’t been involved in, and her anti-abortion views. Alas.

Springer relies on one primary argument in supporting abortion: the female’s 9 month physical responsibility to the child trumps the reproductive rights of males—a right that he never recognizes or calls by name. It’s so clearly contrived when liberals, who talk about all our various ‘rights,’ the evidence of which is interpretive at best (privacy, free speech, free religion, etc.), ignore basic biological rights that have nothing to do with our Constitution.

But to say that a female’s ‘right to an abortion’ demands she be able to have one regardless of the consent of the male further indoctrinates the most corrupt cultural values that have grown in our United States. To say that a male has no sentiment of legal consequence in the decision of abortion marginalizes the male’s reproductive role to the extent of making it trivial. Any sound biologist will tell you that a male’s role in reproduction is anything but trivial.

It takes two adult members of either sex to create life. They do so as equals—no one sex plays a greater role in the creation of life than the other. To say so denies basic biological certainties. Thus, looking at the responsibility to the child in a nine-month window is entirely too short-sighted and unfair. Parents are not responsible for their children for a mere 9 month window at the beginning of life. Parents are responsible for their children for whatever period of time necessary to prepare that child to become a functioning, contributing member of society. This timeframe is determined by parents of every child over time, and in some cases requires more time or less time, more responsibility in one arena or another, and could involve a lifetime commitment. Indeed, the decision to become parents is not one that ought to be taken lightly.

That being said, why is it that the essential act leading to parenthood—sexual intercourse—should be regarded as trivial? I don’t understand why appreciating the sanctity of the act of creating life makes someone an unreasonable, or irrational ‘crazy right-winger.’ It is as though Americans are regarded as being incapable for exerting and degree of self-control whatsoever, that abstinence is so impractical that public schools and non-profits need to establish and ingrain birth control methods as sex is inevitable.

Sex is inevitable. That is exactly the mentality with which individuals like myself take issue. Indeed, sex is pleasurable, enjoyable, and sates a number of basic human desires. Indeed, so does heroin. So does a pint of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. So does taking the life of an animal. Another person. Lots of base and unbalanced activities provide people pleasure and fulfill basic human desires, but are not treated as inevitable in the eyes of the law, or the eyes of society.

By espousing the message that sex is inevitable, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The longer you take responsibility and accountability away from people, the less likely the are to regard it as ever having been theirs in the first place.

I am against abortion not only because I feel it is wrong to terminate an innocent life merely because it is convenient for one person, but equally because it further indoctrinates amoral values constantly espoused by our culture, and the denial of sexual equality. Without venturing onto another tangent, if the goal of the civil rights movement brings all parties to equality, shouldn’t the laws be set up to respect equality, rather than flipping the system to oppress another group?

Hillary Maligns Republicans, Shows Own Ignorance

Mark Belling made some fantastic points on Rush Limbaugh’s program earlier today that I believe need to be reinforced. Belling found the comments made by Senator Hillary Clinton yesterday particularly infuriating—and rightly so. Senator Clinton, who compared the Republican led House of Representatives to a “plantation,” during a Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration in Harlem. Democrats supported her remarks, and this story co-led most nightly news programs alongside former Vice President Al Gore’s remarks on the Bush administration’s “domestic spying program”—a title that is as misleading as basically everything else reported by major media outlets.

But Senator Clinton is clearly incorrect. Incorrect to the point she either must be: 1) vapid, unintelligent, incapable of coming up with logical ideas and concepts, or 2) lying specifically for the sake of advancing a specific agenda for the purpose of asserting her own political power.

What’s the evidence to support those claims? Let’s compare party leadership roles of the “Plantation Republicans” and the “Opportunity Democrats.” In the last election, around 90% of blacks aligned themselves with Democrats, and about that same percentage voted for Senator Kerry for President. So the Democrats should look to roughly 90% of blacks as a major portion of their constituency. Now, how many blacks are in major positions of leadership in the Democratic party? Senator Baraq Obama of Illinois, unelected leaders like Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton, and some governor positions like Mayor Ray Nagin, whose name is only known because of his ignorant remarks and inept and uninspired leadership in the face of crisis. If you look back at the Clinton administration, now 5 years in the history books, minorities held cabinet positions including: Sec. of Labor, Sec. of Veterans' Affairs, Sec. of Energy, and Sec. of HUD. Naturally I had to look these up, because no one ever talked about any of them except lauding Clinton for appointing ‘so many minorities.’

Now, the Bush administration: 2 black secretaries of state, 1 black Sec. of HUD, Asian Sec. of Transportation, Asian Sec. of Labor, Hispanic Sec. of Commece, and Hispanic Attorney General. Also note that the one black Supreme Court Justice—Clarence Thomas—was appointed by the elder President Bush.

So, in other words, the white Democrat leadership claims to support issues important to blacks, and the Republican leadership does not support blacks, because they put blacks in prominent positions where they can affect changes on their own behalf.

So how about that Hillary in ’08? I hope people remember this kind of stuff when that campaign wheel starts rolling.

Gettin’ Silly With It

I don’t feel that many comments on the Alito confirmation hearings are necessary. He will likely gain approval of the Senate the same way other Justices have—refusal to commit themselves to rulings before hearing cases. It’s a logical, and reasonable strategy, given the circumstances of any hypothetical trial are strictly hypothetical and irrelevant.

But let’s see how much further the media wants to continue their campaign claiming ‘the seriousness of the allegations warrant some degree of credibility and investigation’ when the following rumors hit the AP wire: the Clinton’s filmed child pornography in the Lincoln Bedroom, Senator Feinstein performs coat hanger abortions for needed South Dakotans, and Senator Reid frequently transmits STDs to his elderly rape victims from Las Vegas prostitutes.

So, yeah, Judge Alito wants women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Senator Kennedy also wants to eat your babies. Shall we play another round?

The Growing Iranian Threat

Though there have been a number of articles that indicate some of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad somewhat outlandish claims and Muslim beliefs, but this article from the UK Telegraph is quite indicative of how his beliefs may impact a coming international confrontation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html

If, like me, you stay up till odd hours of the morning listening to AM radio, you catch George Noory’s globally broadcasted and syndicated radio program, where he explores some of the wildest beliefs and predications of President Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad’s statements, which range from the destruction of Israel, to the movement Israel to Germany or Alaska, and the Iranian ‘right to nuclear research,’ hint the development of Iranian nuclear weapons could spell disaster in the middle-east. Noory and his guests note that Ahmadinejad’s statements concerned with mysticism and the Muslim faith sound dangerously similar to the brand of Muslim extremism that gives rise to terrorism, the kind that convinces otherwise potentially rational people to blow themselves up with bombs or drive passenger planes into buildings. Not that I am going to condemn Islam here, rather, extremism in almost anything can have disastrous ramifications.

Many Americans question the hypocrisy of maintaining an arsenal of nuclear warheads, while preventing other nation-states from researching the development of such weapon technology. Where some see hypocrisy, I see common sense. The U.S. and other nations with nuclear weapons technology have consistently shown restraint from utilizing such weapons since they became well-developed and effective. As a result, the threat of nuclear devastation on a day-to-day basis is relatively low. But, when placed in the hands of terrorists or religious extremists, threat of nuclear attack seems substantially more plausible. Especially if you’re living in Israel.

To put it in another context: would you give Rev. Pat Robertson the authority to launch nuclear weapons? Rev. Robertson is a lunatic and threatening in his own right, but at least his threats lack the capacity to instantly extinguish the lives of millions of people. Here differ Rev. Robertson and President Ahmadinejad.

Iraq’s oppressive and ruthless regime, led by Saddam Hussein, had the potential to wreak havoc on the Middle East. In reality, and in retrospect, it is probably more likely that Hussein would have used nuclear warheads to strengthen his stranglehold in the region, further his own wealth, and entrench his government as the dominant leaders in Iraq for years to come. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn’t appear to exhibit the same concern for wealth and power—rather, President Ahmadinejad appears more interested in a kind of religious victory of Judaism and other religions. As we’ve seen time and time again with atrocities like the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Crucifixion, Judeo-Christian extremism causes massive death and suffering. September 11th and the endless stream of suicide bombers have showed us that Muslim extremism is no different, and implicates the same source of fundamentalism.

The worst aspect of the situation lies in the unconvincing case for war in Iraq, which originally proved to be based upon faulty information and rationale, has left the U.S. military somewhat strained in terms of resources, and the American public with flagging confidence in the Bush administration’s ability to ‘smell a rat,’ as it were.