Saturday, September 29, 2012

The Difference Between Iraq Deaths and Afghan Deaths

...seems to be the president.

Read these two stories in the NYTimes.  The first, in the Bush era, keeps making its political points, that:

  • War is pointless

  • Blacks are more likely to join than Whites

  • Shows families that are against the war, and think their childrens' service a waste

  • Military is seen as a way to make some money

In other words, the 2,000 milestone deaths are used to push the Anti-Bush narrative.  Several times, Bush is personally mentioned, as though he was the sole reason for the war.

And the racial flames are fanned in this story:
Sept. 5, Specialist Williams, a 20-year-old medic, was killed by a roadside bomb in Tal Afar, Iraq. Mrs. Williams-Smith, 42, is silent no more. Though her oldest living son is in the Navy, and her youngest son wants to join the Marines, she openly rages against the war and President Bush.

"It's time to bring these boys home," said Mrs. Williams-Smith, of Mansfield, Tex. "My feelings for Bush are harsh. He should have taken care of the needs of his own people before going across the ocean to take care of someone else's."

The anger Mrs. Williams-Smith, who is black, feels toward the war is shared by many other African-Americans, according to polls, military officials and experts.

Compare the tone of the NYTimes as the Afghanistan war hits the same milestone - still anti-war, but only 1 mention of the current president.  Most of the article is focused on using the term NATO, rather than American, for the troops.  They are off-loading responsibility for the death to the multinational force.

No references to the troops' families blaming the president personally, as in the first article.

It's amazing - I wonder what the difference could be.

It's almost like it's no longer patriotic to eviscerate the Commander-in-Chief in public anymore.


Thursday, September 13, 2012

You Want Offensive? You Want Offensive?

How about a new musical?

"Springtime for Islamicists and the Mid-East!"

Filled with the antics of those wacky head-thumpers:

  • Blocking roads to traffic 5 times a day

  • Forcing women - Muslim or not - to veil.  Those refusing will be given the "smiley" - slashing the face from mouth to ear.  They'll veil after THAT!  If they need more persuasion, rape any unaccompanied woman on sight, and invite your Muslim brothers to join in on the FUN!  Any "woman" over the age of 6 is OK for the "sport".

  • Looking for insults to the "Prophet", the Quran, and any aspect of Islam.  If they can't find an insult, MAKE ONE UP!

  • When the "insult" is uncovered, go riot in the streets, being careful to rape, torture, and kill any Christians and Jews - whether they had anything to do with the "insult" or not.

  • Burn the US flag - this is getting tiresome - can't they outsource it to Americans?  We have MANY who would be THRILLED to oblige!

  • Burn a Christian church or home - preferably with people in it.

  • Force an apology from Democratic presidents - it isn't that hard.  If not sure how to do it, check with ex-president Carter.

  • Refuse to accept that apology, however groveling, until accompanied by cash (the better for their leaders to steal it), released terrorists, and bending over for punishment.

NOTE:  As indicated, this does NOT apply to ALL Muslims - just those Islamicist radicals that participate in "street actions" like the above ones mentioned.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Who's Behind the 9/11/12 Attacks?

This article details some of the background.  As the President and Sec. of State say, "Make no mistake" - I'm anxious to see whether or not the eventual retribution gets to this level.  I'm skeptical about that.
The Salafist Nour party unquestionably carries responsibility for the embassy attack in Cairo. These two men should be questioned by authorities. One of them (Bakkar) is actually scheduled to be in the United States in the coming days. Make no mistake; the notion that these riots were spawned by an anti-Islam movie is completely and totally fallacious. It is not about the movie; it is about never letting a crisis go to waste. It is all about intimidating countries into implementing laws designed to extinguish free speech rights. The film is nothing more than a tool to be used to exploit politically correct inclinations.

In the future, pay close attention to the group:

Dar Al-Hekma (House of Wisdom)

This is the extreme group that is one of the ones that would like to make criticism of Islam ILLEGAL.


Update on the Ambassador Murder

It appears that government officials may have been involved, according to CBS News.
Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam's Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building - deemed safer - after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.

Stevens, 52, was the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979. A Libyan doctor who says he treated Stevens told the Associated Press Wednesday that the diplomat died of severe asphyxiation and that he tried for 90 minutes to revive him.

Ziad Abu Zeid said Stevens was brought to the Benghazi Medical Center by Libyans Tuesday night with no other Americans, and that initially no one realized he was the ambassador. Abu Zeid said Stevens had "severe asphyxia," apparently from smoke inhalation, causing stomach bleeding, but had no other injuries.

SOMEBODY needs to die - and the more, the merrier.  It isn't retaliation, it is a simple recognition that if we don't, we might as well paint a target on every American's back.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Breaking News Update

From FoxNews:  The Fast & Furious report is out - it targets the persons that directed the operation - NO - Holder isn't mentioned as one of them, but I'm hopeful that the ones in the report will spill their guts.


Protestors storm US Embassy in Cairo:  I saw this, and had a sinking feeling - it all does seem like a horrible replay of the Carter Years, doesn't it?

Supposedly, the attack was due to a film that they felt insulted the Prophet - ANYTHING that is said about their "prophet" they consider a grave insult.

The US response:
An embassy operator told CNN that the facility had been cleared of diplomatic personnel earlier Tuesday, ahead of the apparent threat, while Egyptian riot police were called to help secure the area.

The U.S. Embassy said in a statement Tuesday that it "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."

"Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy," the statement said. "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

The incident occurred on the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, as crowds gathered in somber remembrance of the nearly 3,000 people killed that day.

It is not clear which film upset the protesters in Cairo.

They hauled down the US flag, and put up a black flag with Arabic writing on it.

I say - either the Egyptian authorities handle it - and by "handle it" I mean return to the embassy, crawling on their knees in apology, take the flag down, allow our people to put ours up, and clean up the grounds.

If not, send in the drones.

And, BTW, FIRE the fools that put out that apologetic bit of nonsense.

Remember That Voter Fraud That Didn't Exist?

A Democratic candidate who voted in two different places just dropped out of the race, citing "personal reasons".




Personal reasons - like she is going to face CRIMINAL charges against her person.

Lest We Forget

Who we are remembering:

They will be Forever Young

If, seeing the coverage, you begin to despair:

They Found a Safe Haven

This all didn't happen in a vacuum - let us not forget, the enemy is Jihad, and it's adherents.

Osama was NOT the only threat - removing him is NOT an end to the threat.  Eliminating him should mean more than "bragging rights".

Some unsung heroes - on 4 legs.  Another reason for Islamicists to hate dogs.

They are, indeed, man's best friend.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Convention Speech Wordles

I used Wordle to create these graphics.  What they represent is the frequency of use of all words in a body of text.

They form a graphic of what, by repetition, a person thinks is most important.

Below is Obama's Speech (the drab color is NOT a political statement - I just didn't think to change it):

Click on the image to view it in larger form and with more detail.

Here is Romney's Speech:

The contrast is obvious - Obama's speech doesn't seem to have a central focus - although several words are larger, the number of words displayed shows that Obama's message is muddled and not clear.

Romney, in constrast, shows a clear focus - the three largest words are America, American, and Americans.  He is clearly focusing on OUR country.  The word "world" is shown near the center, so he plans to engage with them, but, clearly, his major area of concentration is the USA.

Isn't it nice to have a president who sees his major job is the desires and needs of America's citizens?

Friday, September 7, 2012

Looking Back at a Sad Life

I was avoiding housework following a link, and found this GQ piece on Ted Kennedy.

It's sad to read.  Hard to believe that a man can sink so low.  Worse, that no one cared more about him than their own political well-being.  If they had, maybe there would have been a life-changing intervention before he hit bottom, and wallowed around there for the rest of his life.

The article deals fairly with the various acts and incidents of Ted's life; still, you end up feeling a little sorry for the man that made such a mess of what seemed to be a charmed life.

There's one thing that isn't in the article; Jacqueline Kennedy always spoke kindly about Ted.  That was, in part, due to the way that he assisted her and other family members with helping their children adjust to the sudden deaths of their JFK and RFK.  We sometimes forget that their deaths left 13 children fatherless.  Jackie appreciated that Ted would spend hours on the phone with his nieces and nephews, helping them to cope, as well as the childrens' mothers.

I think of it as one lonely virtue in a world of sins.

Let's Have Some FUN With the Video of Obama's Speech!

Here's the link.

I want everyone to visit it, and hit the Thumbs DOWN button.  It has less than 2,000 votes, so, if we do so, then send the link to everyone on our Facebook pages, and our personal email list, we can probably move that ranking to more DISLIKES than LIKES.

Wouldn't THAT be FUN!

I watched it today (I fell asleep waiting for it to come on - well, the convention was boring, but also I had an early - 7:30 am - interview). I noticed several things:

  • Obama's got only a few gestures - he twirls his hands around his wrists, he puts his fingers against his thumbs and uses the whole hand as a pointing gesture of emphasis,  sometimes he separates the fingers and thumb, but does the same gesture, and he puts his flat palms about 6-10 inches apart, and does a karate chop (sometimes karate chops with fists).  He uses all of them a bit too much - he's clearly been coached by a "speech doctor".  Who wants to make a drinking game - a shot or chug for each time he does his hand calisthenics?

  • I never saw anyone - Black or White - look more Nixonian when he frowns.

  • When he's talking about something that is arguable (some would use the word LIE), he closes his mouth and runs his tongue over his teeth before continuing.  An unconscious indication that he knows he is telling an untruth?

  • Again, he makes that tongue-moving gesture right after he claims that he cut taxes for small businesses.

  • Again, he make that same gesture right after he says, "you elected me to tell you the truth".  I really do think we have our "tell".

  • The applause and cheers, through most of the speech, seem tepid and obligatory.  This is not the frenzied, over-the-top enthusiasm of the last campaign.  This is:  I HAVE to cheer for this guy - the alternative is worse (for me).  Looks like the "spontaneous" excitement of a crowd in a Communist state.

How does imposing new regulations MAKE cars go further on a tank of gas?  MAGIC?  Imposing a regulation simply sets the goal - if it's not achievable, it could KILL the auto industry.

"LESS dependent on foreign than anytime in the last 2 decades"?

This from Forbes:
U.S. crude oil consumption is roughly 7 billion barrels per year, of which approximately 4.5 billion barrels is imported.  Based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 24 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year would be needed to replace the 4.5 billion barrels per year we import.

The U.S. currently produces just under this amount each year.

From the LA Times:
U.S. net petroleum imports have fallen to about 47% of the nation's consumption, down from a record 60.3% in 2005, Energy Information Administration statistics show. It's been 15 years since the nation's reliance on foreign oil has been this low.

Finally, from, who analyzed a campaign making the same claim:
Obama "boasts that U.S. dependence on foreign oil has declined to below 50 percent, as a net share of total demand, for the first time in more than a decade. That’s true, and increasing U.S. oil production is a factor (despite Republican criticisms that Obama is anti-drilling). But economists say the chief factor is reduced oil consumption, brought on by the recent economic recession."

I'll have more later - I can only take so much of this bilge at one time.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Some Interesting, Funny, and WTF Moments Today

Interesting:  the following graph of costs under different scenarios.

The Funny:  Watching Democrats try to justify their absolute affirmation of women's "Right to Choose", when confronted with other ways people might want to have rights to choose.


And, finally, WTF?



Wednesday, September 5, 2012

The DNC Convention

8:47 pm - a Sister is talking about how Obamacare is a GOOD thing.  Sister Simone Campbell, from the Nuns on a Bus tour.

I'm sure that she is a good-hearted person.  I don't believe that she is the last word on how Catholics need to vote.  I don't agree that the Romney/Ryan budget plan is "immoral".

Funny how she worries about the budget, but not about forcing abortion & birth control on people who are morally opposed to it.

It is NOT immoral to plan your spending so you can avoid debt.

8:55 pm - Rahm Emmanuel is being interviewed.  When asked why donors haven't contributed to the Obama campaign, he started stuttering, and made a lame, incoherent answer.

Rahm is implying that Republicans, after the elections when Clinton was president, caved, and the legislation that passed was ALL Clinton's idea.


Boy, is he trying to spin.

He says that Obama will have a "broad-stroke, vision" speech, that will totally change this election.  Somehow, the more detailed speeches of Romney and, even more so, Ryan, are NOT visionary.

Rahm is complaining that the Republicans impeached Clinton, voted against the American involvement in Bosnia (he even admits that the vote took place when the troops were "in the air" - so, that would be NOT asking the Congress to declare war?), and "obstructed" Clinton by sending bills to be signed - but were vetoed - that were not acceptable to Clinton.

Rahm is claiming that Obama voted to implement "welfare to work" as a state senator.

I checked, and I thought Rahm was wrong.
President Obama had a convenient change of heart regarding welfare reform when it was time to run for President. In 1998, when he was an Illinois state senator, Obama said:  I was not a huge supporter of the federal plan that was signed in 1996. Having said that, I do think that there is a potential political opportunity that arose out of welfare reform. And that is to desegregate the welfare population—meaning the undeserving poor, black folks in cities, from the working poor—deserving, white, rural as well as suburban.

The same year, he reiterated that “the 1996 legislation I did not entirely agree with and probably would have voted against at the federal level.”

Well, he voted against it, with an executive order this year.


Just Who Are the H8rs?

It's not Republicans screaming "bigot"!

It's not Republicans smearing ALL Democrats as "H8rs".

It's not Republicans sneering that "you ALL hate women".

It's not Republicans implying that your chosen candidate is a "felon".

Don't bother Democrats, or their allies, with the FACTS.  They'll TELL you what the "facts" are.

An example of "fact-checking" is this:
A case in point: a perfectly correct statement by Sen. Rand Paul that the average federal employee makes $120,000 a year, while the average private-sector employee makes $60,000.  This was labeled "FALSE," by PoliFact because the figures included benefits.  On salary alone, the folks on the federal payroll only made $31,000 more than their counterparts.

Bold-face mine.

Another instance of "fact-checkers" bias:
If you want a clue about the objectivity of "fact-checkers," take a look at what has to say about Barack Obama's claim to have visited 57 states.  It turns out this "a mixture of true and false information."  Why?  Because Barack was obviously tired and meant to say 47, and some obscure, anonymous blogger somewhere claimed that he used this number because there are 57 Islamic states.

If Obama had been a Republican, this would have been labeled as FALSE. 

In the past, I've recommended for checking forwarded email's veracity.

No more - their political bias is clear.

Debate Ideas to Consider

I've been watching the DNC convention (yes, it was occasionally painful), and have noticed some talking points that are likely to come up in the debate:

  • Obama talks about "free" contraception.  It is NOT free, as Mitt should point out, but "taxpayer-paid" contraception, as those who don't pay for their own contraception through their insurance premiums will receive them thanks to the taxpayers.

  • Those "tax subsidies" for oil-producers - does Obama mean "reductions in taxes" for legitimate expenses?  Instead of requiring government to "invest" in alternative energy start-ups, why not let the PRIVATE sector do the investing, since that's what they're good at.

  • BTW, IF any money is to be given to alternative energy, it should come from NEW oil and gas leases of public land.  That should encourage the federal government to open up land to oil producers.  And, in effect, the old energy will fund development of new energy.

  • On suspending deportation of "youngsters" who were brought here by their parents - instead of funding new give-aways, how about pointing out that they already received, free of charge, an education through high school?  And that we are willing to let them leave, without penalty - they will have equal opportunity to get a LEGAL visa in the future, the same as any other person in their home country.

  • On gay marriage - is the president willing to stipulate that this will increase the number of people eligible for spousal benefits?  On what grounds?  The real reason for spousal benefits was that, in the past, child-bearing and child-caring responsibilities made a woman temporarily unable to work.  The major cause for special treatment of women in those cases was that pregnancy was unpredictable and could occur without conscious effort to conceive.  That isn't so in any gay relationship - pregnancy has to be planned and specifically desired.

  • Obama still hasn't justified ignoring bankruptcy laws and giving special treatment to the auto unions - one of his BIG campaign contributors.

  • The economy still is teetering on the verge of collapse, with minorities suffering the worst effects.

  • The housing market is still horrible, with many in foreclosure, and mortgagees underwater.

  • Although Obama plans to complete closing down the Afghanistan operation, the region is LESS stable than when he took office.  The Mideast is a volatile mess, and the radical Muslims are in charge.  I'm still flying, but the level of threat makes me very uneasy, and the TSA gives me little confidence that they can handle the threats.

  • The border is still unsecured; the threats are not just Mexican gangs and illegals, but also reports of Islamicists paying coyotes to assist them in crossing the border.

  • Don't forget Fast & Furious.  Obama seems to have.

Reflections on DNC's 1st Night

Most of the speakers were a relative snooze, with a few exceptions:

  • Tammy Duckworth - she's running for Congress, and is a VERY impressive disabled vet.  On the positive side, she should be a strong voice for vets.  On the negative side, she supports the Democratic platform.  Still, a really good speaker, and apparently a remarkable woman.

  • Julian Castro - a good choice for the keynote address.  As he has only been the mayor of San Antonio for 3 years, it will be difficult to predict how he will prosper in the future.  He is a good, although not excellent speaker (he is polished in how he presents his lines, waiting effectively for responses, but, in general, he has little to say that isn't a slogan for the Democratic platform).  I heard no new ideas, or fresh strategies.  Oh, and unlike Christie, little of substance.

  • Michelle Obama - that dress!  As the fashionable would say, FABULOUS!  For once, she left off the boob belt, and the results were great - AND slimming.  Also, she didn't go for her favorite full skirt, and it really minimized her hips and butt.  This is how a First Lady should dress all the time - not trying to set a style, with over-the-top accessories, but with classic lines that actually work with her figure.  As to her speech - VERY well-delivered.  She talked not only about Barack the man, but supported his policies in a positive way.  Unfortunately, the effect will be lost once people realize that the speech wrapped dogs**t is gold wrapping paper.  The economy still sucks, SS and Medicare are broke, and Obamacare will bankrupt the US into dissolution.

The entire night should be used as an example of how to train the noobs.  Generally, they used their time effectively, and spoke with polish.

The polls should show an upward movement for Obama; in contrast, Romney isn't showing much of a post-convention bounce.

I'm not totally trustful of those polls.  They favor those with land-lines - younger people often don't even own a home phone, instead using their cell for all purposes.  So, it's over-sampling the home-owners.

Republicans are probably NOT answering most polls, judging from the people I've talked to - I know that I refuse to answer polls.  I suspect that this election will be fought right down to the finish line, with the results uncertain until the last.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

The American Dunkirk

One of the more amazing incidents in WWII was the make-shift, volunteer-led evacuation of British troops at Dunkirk.  If you've not read about the rescue, click here.

We, in America, on 9/11, had our own volunteer effort to rescue civilians fleeing Manhattan after the attack.  Here's their story.

The Boatlift

You will have tears in your eyes, I promise.

Monday, September 3, 2012

My Blood is Boiling!


Irritated at Muslim kvetching about our American troops not treating their Koran respectfully enough (they were burning some papers and terrorist materials, and approximately 100 Korans were mixed in by accident - hey, it IS written in Arabic, which few soldiers read).  The Kabul Press wrote an angry editorial, which is printed here.

My response is in the comments (also written below).
Angry? Bitter that Americans would not give YOUR holy book more respect than Muslims give OUR holy book - which they have burned, confiscated, and torn up. Heck, we shouldn’t give more respect to the Koran than is given to Christians in Muslim countries - where they are kidnapped, raped, beaten, burned alive, and killed via the most horrifying means.

Tough. Their job is to provide military assistance. They do that. They do that, even with the restricting Rules of Engagement (ROE) that they have been forced to follow.

You don’t like it? Too bad.