<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d7626745258811529122\x26blogName\x3dOpineTree\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://opinetree.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://opinetree.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-6547004278245586123', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Because Iraq Doesn't Take American Express

February 29, 2008 |

We are constantly hearing about the cost of the Iraq war, as President Bush asks for more and more money to get the troops what they need. This has been the most expensive war in history, mostly due to the use of private contractors, hired to do jobs the American military used to.

Above: The Iraq War has been the most privatized
war in our nation's history.

But the American military isn't what it used to be. As the Clintons tried to convince us we were cashing in a 90s "peace dividend," they gutted our armed forces and virtually halved our military resources. This also led to a slew of early retirements, as military men and women refused to serve under the Clinton administration.

The cost of contractor billings has gotten completely out of control, having gone up 50% a year between 2004 and 2006. This is mostly due to lack of oversight, which is almost impossible to achieve in hostile areas. Right now, KBR (an engineering and construction company and former Halliburton subsidiary) is reportedly billing $500 million per month. Most of this money goes to salaries and benefits, which have to be taxed.

The use of private companies is absolutely incompatible with the nature of warfare, and will only escalate the cost of a war that is bankrupting our nation.

Contracted employees can just say no. A soldier can't say no; he follows orders or he goes to jail. Private employees are not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and can simply go home. The only recourse the military has is claiming a "breach of contract," which can never reverse the damage done by such a breach.

Above: Nisour Square. Eight Iraqis were killed here in a
shooting involving Blackwater private security officers.

Early in the war, a KBR truck driver named Tommy Hamill was kidnapped. After the incident, numerous KBR employees left their jobs to return to the United States. This was partly the reason for over 1,000 trucks being stuck on the Kuwaiti border, forcing the Army to ration food. Why would you want to place control of a vital trucking supply line in the hands of a private contractor?

Or have your laundry done by Halliburton for $99 dollars per load?

These companies have simultaneous obligations to the military and their stockholders, and what's good for Wall Street often isn't good for America. Maximizing profits doesn't do much for our boys. And with KBR, Halliburton, and Blackwater on the scene, why even join the military at all? After all, if you can make 6 figures working for a for-profit security corporation (taxpayer money stolen and given to you), what's so great about the army?

In war, you do anything possible against your own interests to crush your enemy. In business, the real war is to protect those interests (which means profits).


Talk Like an Egyptian

February 28, 2008 |

This week, Cindy Sheehan gave Al Jazeera the pleasure of interviewing her in Cairo. After finally filling the last sane American with utter distaste for her, she has jetted to the Middle East to protest the military trial of 40 members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

In the interview (or if you watched the Oscars, Best Comedy Screenplay), Sheehan says:

"If we really want to promote democracy in this region then we cannot silence the voices of the Muslim Brotherhood because they're the moderate voice here and they are the ones who are actually working for democracy."

Above: Still dressed like an American mom?

I cannot think of a more poignant display of this woman's ignorance. The plague of religious "terrorism" as we know it today has its beginnings in the Muslim Brotherhood. They do not denounce violence in the name of Allah -- they carry it out. The groups credo even includes the phrases "jihad is our way" and "dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

What are you doing there Cindy? I thought America wasn't supposed to meddle in the affairs of other nations. It's interesting that out of all the human and civil rights abuses in other countries, you're concerning yourself with the one you can use to vilify your own country.

"We hope this will put pressure on the Egyptian government to treat the prisoners better and to also maybe alleviate their punishment."

Can you imagine if an American mother whose son had been murdered by the Ku Klux Klan stood up and demanded that the prisoners be "treated better" and their sentences be "alleviated?" Sure, it's not a crime in America to hate your fellow man, but it is a crime to coerce a generation into killing him. There is a reason the Muslim Brotherhood remains banned in Egypt, just as there is a reason the Arab press drools over dissenting Americans. Ever wonder why the American media (and people) love Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

According to the interview, Sheehan also went to the Egypt's National Council of Women to request a meeting with First Lady Suzanne Mubarak. Again, America's favorite "peace mom" further illustrated the pointlessness of her visit to Cairo:

"I didn't really understand a lot of what was going on. There was a lot of yelling in Arabic."

I think it's fair to say Cindy Sheehan doesn't ever "understand a lot" of what's going on, and that the Iraq generation has found its Jane Fonda. So what's next Cindy? Exercise tapes and a remake of Barbarella?

Labels: ,

Greenpeace Will Surely Save Our Children

February 27, 2008 |

We all know that breaking the law is the best way to spread environmental awareness. London's Heathrow airport had a security breach Monday, during which four Greenpeace "activists" climbed on top of a plane, and unfurled a banner reading "Climate Emergency -- No 3rd Runway."

You've got a climate emergency, Britain! But what about your demographic emergency? What about the waves of immigrants who aren't assimilating? What about your suicidal birthrate?

What about your failing health care system? What about the 1 in 5 British men who will die from prostate cancer while simply waiting for treatment? What about the gradual disintegration of your personal freedoms? No, you're right. The real emergency is the carbon apocalypse.

Above: It's funny how they didn't choose any
Muslim activists to "breach security."

According to the article, the "activists" were on top of the plane for about an hour and a half. So, let's get this straight. Four people were allowed to "breach security" and sit atop an airplane for ninety minutes at one of the world's busiest airports, in the era of jihad, and at the center of Londonistan? Were they even armed?

Anna Jones, a Greenpeace member participating in the protest, said:

"I am standing on this plane because our planet and the people who live on it are in danger."

Yes, they are in danger. They're in danger of having clowns like you manage their lives. Still think conservatives are they only ones who play "the politics of fear?" Here is some wisdom from a statement posted on Greenpeace UK:

"Security threat? Yes, we've exposed a security hole at Heathrow, but we've done it to expose the gaping hole on Brown's climate change policy. Brown's carrying on as though climate change has never happened."

You're right, climate change did happen. You know when? When there were no airplanes, because there were no humans.


Tokhis Oyfn Tish, Israel

February 26, 2008 |

It’s time to ready yourself, Israel. You’ve got war on the horizon. You are surrounded by nations who want to dissolve you, and your corrupt government is even less popular than that of the United States. You are no longer an independent nation. You cautiously measure each step, afraid of angering your puppeteers in Washington.

Iran wants you gone. Iran props up Shi’ite Hezbollah, who wants you gone. Hamas is at your doorstep, and they want you gone. The Americans are war-weary and might be on the verge of surrender in Iraq, but not before handing a strategic victory to the Hitler of Iran.

Above: Hezbollah fighters await a televised
speech by leader Hassan Nasrallah.

And now, after the assassination of Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyah in Syria, you should have some increasing concerns. Who are you going to turn to – Condi?

We know you’re on alert. You’ve sent reinforcements to the Lebanese border, and you’ve deployed anti-missile batteries near Haifa. But Hezbollah and its fighters are also ready for conflict, having said:

"We are ready for another war and it will come...you will see a very different kind of fighting.”

UN peacekeeping forces are saying the situation in the region is “so dangerous that the tiniest spark can start a new war." You have also been issued a personal warning by Hezbollah's Nasrallah: "We will kill you in the fields, we will kill you in the cities, we will fight you like you have never seen before."

You have the capacity to turn the south of Lebanon into a parking lot, which is why the Lebanese people do not want another war any more than you do. You must create revolutionary tension between Lebanese Shi’ites and the extremists of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah. Every time you bring a war of survival to Lebanon, increased support for Hezbollah will be the result.

You must remember, you are not fighting an isolated warring faction, but the violent hand of your true enemy – Iran.

Meanwhile, you must also understand that your enemy and its murderous tentacles do not want you to change your behavior – they want to drive you into the sea. The following is from a letter by Muhammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, written to Hassan Nasrallah after Imad Mughniyah's death:

"The cancerous growth Israel will soon disappear...we will witness the disappearance of this cancerous growth Israel by means of the Hezbollah fighters' radiation [therapy]."

Ahem..."radiation?" Is there any doubt as to what is being said here? You can’t keep kvetching to Washington, who seems to be joining the rest of the world in watching the Iranian time-bomb tick away.

America has given you her money, her might, and her blessing. But it is time for the “little Satan” to determine the future of its nation and its people. Throw out the schmucks who are corrupting and endangering your homeland, and crush the murderers who want you dead.

Labels: , ,

McCain Inherits Bush Ideology

February 25, 2008 |

We all know John McCain is hardly a Conservative. Republican voters are trying to convince themselves that at least with McCain, they're getting about 50 to 60 percent for their vote. With Hillary and Obama, it's less than zero.

If Republicans and Independents demand their representatives hold McCain's feet to the small-government-fire (is that considered torture?), he could be forced to bring true conservative reform. But on foreign policy matters, McCain has been passed the torch of ideology.

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, McCain said the following:

Yes, John. We have been in Japan, Korea, and Germany. Let's not forget 13,000 troops in Italy, 12,000 in England, 11,000 in Afghanistan, 5,000 in Kosovo, 3,000 in Bosnia, 1,600 in Qatar, 1,000 in the Philippines, and the rest of the United States military inventory consisting of 702 bases in about 130 countries.

And this is a conservative estimate; many believe the real number of American bases is closer to 1,000, including installations in North Africa, Central Asia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and the Balkans.

Casualties are not the largest problem -- just the one a nation feels the most. The problem is sustaining the entangling alliances and imperialist global troop presence necessary to carry out an impossible ideological mission: to democratize the most unstable region in the world at the point of a gun.

If the Iraq War had been presented as a mission in nation-building, the American people would have never supported it. Do you think Pakistan is ready for a democracy? The Palestinians showed they were more than ready by voting in Hamas' murderers. And why is Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive theocracies in the world, somehow exempt from the expectations Bush has for the world?

In a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, in 2003, Bush said the following:

"The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."

Global democratic revolution? Why is this America's most important mission? We have trade deficits, we borrow from our grandchildren, and Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending makes up over 40% of our federal budget. These are not the rosy times of the great American century. We are losing our country, yet we are still spending fortunes on the future of Third World nations as we sink into ever-increasing dependency and ever-mounting debt.

John McCain doesn't seem to get it. Here's his response:

We need a president to get us out of this ideological disaster with honor. We need not be defeatists, but we need to dissolve the notions carried forward by Bush's ideology and hubris.

Pat Buchanan, senior adviser to three American presidents, put it bluntly in an MSNBC interview:

"If we're in Iraq 100 years...we will be fighting 100 years of war just as the British, if they stayed in our country 100 years, would be fighting the Americans for a century. What John McCain is telling you is what he is promising you."

American casualties are not the only problem with positioning troops in the heart of the Arab world, but they will always be a problem. The slogan "democratize or I'll shoot" does not resonate well in the Middle East, yet is never scarce in Arab media.

There will always be evil people in the world, and we need to build our military might back up to the level it was in the mid 20th century, so that when confrontation comes, we can end it swiftly and powerfully. We don't need to perpetuate the imperial overstretch currently straining our fighting forces, putting more of our boys in harm's way, and ignoring the real culprits and nerve centers of radical Islam.

You can bankrupt your country with four more years of wars or you can do it with universal health care and endless entitlement spending. Make a choice, America.

Labels: , ,

Politicans Make Lousy Friends

February 24, 2008 |

"You want a friend in Washington? Get a dog."
-Harry S. Truman

The unprecedented groundswell of enthusiasm for politicians on the Left (read: Obama) has left me both encouraged and concerned. It's refreshing to see young people "out-voting" older citizens (or illegal immigrants; Democrats tend to strike down voter ID laws), but it's worrisome when these young people are coming out of the Marxist incubators our universities have become.

It worries me when Americans lose what we used to get regular doses of: a reasonable and patriotic distrust for the government and its politicians. This is especially concerning with young people; It used to be a badge of honor for the college stoner to question the establishment, default to distrust, and trust no one wearing a suit.

Politicians have a job to do. Just because a politician has to keep you happy doesn't mean he's doing it for the right reasons. They're an interesting breed, and one whose morality, transparency, and interests should be closely monitored.

But they are not your friends. Do you think George Bush loses sleep over his personal beliefs on abortion, gay marriage, or stem sell research? Do you really think his closely held spiritual beliefs have anything to do with his decisions on religious matters?

It's no secret that Bush enjoys his more favorable support in the Evangelical Christian community. Follow the votes. A vote is to be seen as a unit of power, to be reluctantly handed off as a fragment of your sovereignty. Politicians need them, and if they're any good, they know what to do to get them. The sooner you realize that this is true for any politician in any party at any time in history, the better off you'll be.

Above: Hillary, Barack, and indeed all politicians
will take advantage of a weak nation.

You have to question your leaders and do your own thinking. Politicians would love to do your thinking for you. Remember, their power means nothing without your knowledge, awareness, and involvement. They take advantage of your weakness as a people.

A smaller government is a more efficient and manageable government. Don't you ever wonder why you seem to trust your mayor or city councilman a lot more than you trust your senator or even your president? Your mayor knows what it's like to be you. He reads your paper, he drives on your roads, and he gets rained on when you do. But there is a disconnect and a disenfranchisement that grows the closer you get to Washington, as politicians start to care less and less about the nuances of your existence.

Who honestly likes politicians? I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept, but you can't let your admiration or infatuation with a public official's good work get in the way of good old fashioned American skepticism. Democrat voters aren't afraid of Democrats, and they aren't afraid of a larger government with more control over their lives. They see Republicans and the Bush albatross, and they see nothing but hollow old white men chasing a corrupt dream of getting rich while screwing the American people. They see Democrats and they see real people with real feelings. It feels good to help poor people by giving them money that someone else worked for. It feels good to hear that everyone in America will have health insurance.

Above: They play the very same game.

But there is one thing holding them together, and that is the need for your vote, which becomes the need to manipulate you.

It's foolish to say there is no difference between the parties. There are undeniable ideological differences; we are the most polarized we have ever been. But while Washington may never agree on the score, these two teams are playing the same game they've always been playing.

Labels: ,

Video of the Week

February 22, 2008 |

Laredo is a Texan border town facing some of the worst effects from our lack of border security. This week, Ted Kennedy had a message for the Hispanic people of Laredo.

Ay Jalisco No Te Rajes

This is really more depressing than anything. Instead of butchering the language of your prized constituents, could you instead tell us one area in which you, a 76 year old lifetime politician, differ from Barack "Mr. Change" Obama?

Labels: ,

Communist News Network Memo Leaked!


The internet is abuzz with the news of a leaked internal memo from CNN, the network with which this writer shares a city. The memo is intended to "guide" (dictate) the reporting of the end of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro's reign of power. I present to you now that memo.

From: Flexner, Allison
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:46 AM
To: CNN Superdesk
Cc: Neill, Morgan; Darlington, Shasta
Subject: Castro guidance

Some points on Castro - for adding to our anchor reads/reporting:

Please say in our reporting that Castro stepped down in a letter he wrote to Granma (the communist party daily), as opposed to in a letter attributed to Fidel Castro. We have no reason to doubt he wrote his resignation letter, he has penned numerous articles over the past year and a half.

Please note Fidel did bring social reforms to Cuba - namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration. in addition to being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech.

Also the Cuban government blames a lot of Cuba's economic problems on the US embargo, and while that has caused some difficulties, (far less so than the collapse of the Soviet Union) the bulk of Cuba's economic problems are due to Cuba's failed economic polices. Some analysts would say the US embargo was a benefit to Castro politically - something to blame problems on, by what the Cubans call "the imperialist," meddling in their affairs.

While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftist in Latin America, for standing up to the United States.

Any questions, please call the international desk.

Some things you should note:

CNN is the only American TV news network with a permanent bureau in Cuba, and among this email's recipients is Morgan Neill, the chief of that bureau, and Shasta Darlington, a CNN Havana correspondent. Or, if you're a Facebook junkie, do a search for an Allison Flexner and check her networks.

Now, you’ll notice how there are no references (in the memo or any CNN broadcasts) to the murder and political incarceration that took place during Castro's rule. You'll also notice the decision not to reference Castro’s mandatory nation-wide AIDS testing, or the Isle of Pines where the cigar sucker quarantined all AIDS-infected Cubans.

Above: Fidel Castro and Che Guevara
have a man-to-man in 1959.

Remarkably, in much the same way there are no homosexuals in Iran, there are no AIDS sufferers in Cuba. Diane Sawyer was right this week when she called him a "dashing revolutionary" -- he certainly brought some "much needed change."

No one in the mainstream media is running this story; It is being buried under Obamamania and Bush’s African vacation. America's media is not a collection of private and objective news outlets, but rather a neighborhood of conglomerates with colliding interests and loyalty to any nation but their own.

"Despised by some?" Fidel Castro was as tyrannically evil as any dictator in history. The Castro-Che regime murdered more people during their first three years in power than Hitler and the SS did in their first six, and the percentage of Cuba’s population imprisoned by Castro was larger than the percentage of Soviet citizens incarcerated and sent to labor camps under Joseph Stalin. A revolutionary hero, or a brutal tyrant?

In the government-media complex, it doesn’t matter; their only concern is protecting their interests -- interests which apparently have nothing to do with accurate reporting and everything to do with manipulating the American people. Why would they ever want to associate Leftist policies with violence and oppression?

Can you imagine the media frenzy that would erupt if the following FOX News memo was leaked when George Bush left office?

Sent: January 20th, 2009 7:46 AM
Subject: Bush guidance

Some points on Bush stepping down - for adding to our anchor reads/reporting:

Please say in our reporting that Bush stepped down because "his work was done." We have no reason to believe his presidency has produced an open-ended array of exacerbated problems threatening our security and prosperity.

Please note that Bush did bring social reforms to America, including improving "natural disaster relief" programs, increasing supplies of "printed money," and enlightening America with the knowledge that Islam means "peace."

Also, Americans blame a lot of Iraq's problems on an initial lack of strategic planning, and while that has caused some difficulties, the bulk of Iraq's military hurdles are due to a lack of domestic "support for the mission."

While despised by some, he is seen as a champion of democracy, especially among people in the Middle East, for standing up to "tyranny and evil in our lifetime."

Any questions, please call Rupert.

If you live in Atlanta, the next time you see Ted Turner strolling about in front of those giant, glowing, red letters...join me in asking him what they stand for.


Such Crude Ignorance

February 21, 2008 |

When Exxon-Mobil reported profits of $39.5 billion in 2006, Democrats were feeling faint. In 2007, when those profits were $40.6 billion, the wall of noise coming from the Left was even louder. Since most Americans were educated by our government and the concept of "profit margins" is never discussed in the mainstream press, Democrats have been able to keep doing what they do best: demagogue and manipulate.

Hillary's words just don't have the same bite when printed, so here's a quick refresher:

Let's start with "I want to take those profits" and work our way backwards. Hillary's alarming belief is that it is the government's right to seize legally-earned profits from a private business. I'm not sure if I'm more frightened by the statement or the applause it received.

When corporate taxes are raised, the corporation can simply calculate its projected sales and factor in the higher tax rate as it does with any expense. Because of this, higher taxes on a corporation ultimately lead to higher consumer prices. Corporations do not pay taxes. You do.

Since 2004, Exxon-Mobil has paid roughly 41% of their total taxable income in taxes, an average of $27 billion per year. 2004 is also the last year for which complete data regarding taxation at various income levels are available. That year, 130 million Americans filed individual tax returns. The total number of taxes paid by the bottom 65 million (50%) was $27.4 billion.

So in one year, the government takes as much from Exxon-Mobil as they do from the entire lower half of individual tax payers.

Now, as for "the highest profits in the history of the world," it's obvious Hillary doesn't think you understand the difference between a profit and a profit margin (and maybe you don't). Profit margin accounts for the relationship between the amount of money you make (profits) and the amount of money it took to earn those profits.

Let's say you're selling "War Is Not The Answer" t-shirts. The shirts cost you $5, and you sell them for $7. Your profit is $2 (for every $5 you spend). Now, the cotton used to make these shirts is buried under a desert on the other side of the world, you've got textile mullahs salivating over a nuclear cotton gin, and global demand is through the roof. Pretty soon, the price of your precious resource has doubled to $10, and you start selling your shirts for $14.

Wow, you've doubled your profits! You used to make $2 per shirt, and now you make $4! But are you twice as rich? No, because production is also costing you twice as much.

You're still making $2 for every $5 you spend, so your profit margin remains the same. Exxon's profit margin has remained around 10% for the last 4 years, while the profit margins for financial institutions, retailers, and other areas of the economy have been much higher.

Hillary and Obama believe (and want you to, as well) that there is such a thing as "too much profit," and will never mention oil companies' idle profit margins or the fact that profits are directly tied to employee benefits, pensions, and stock earnings, impacting thousands of working individuals and families -- not just whether a CEO gets a new mini-bar in his Gulf Stream.

Labels: ,

Wisconsinstock 2008

February 20, 2008 |

The rock star Obama has stolen the show. Amid fainting girls and cheering masses, voter turnout was higher than Barack in high school. Upon reading an ABC News article detailing exit polls from the Wisconsin primary, the following truths have been revealed to me:

"Turnout by independents in the Republican race looks to be down from the last primary for which we have comparable data, in 1996."

Really? Maybe because they were too busy sitting on their hands, frozen with the knowledge that no matter what happens, they're pulling the GOP lever in November. Or for readers in Florida, impregnating the GOP chad. Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians should understand that politics is never about purity, but always about choices.

And speaking of choices, you don't seem to have many. You have to recognize your future is wrapped up inside a bitter little pill -- one which you're eventually going to have to swallow. There are seemingly two doses at this point: President Obama, or President McCain. When the moment comes, Conservatives better swallow with some semblance of unity or they're done for.

McCain gave no one the surprise of their life as he shuffleboarded into an easy victory.

"On candidate attributes...someone who can 'bring about needed change' is tops by far for Democrats; among Republicans, as in previous primaries, it's someone who 'shares my values.'"

I think this is one of the most accurate sentences I've seen in the media in a long time. Too bad it goes without saying. This spells the end for Hillary Clinton. Liberal voters are just squirming for "change," and to them, playing a game of National-Twister with the compass needle of American destiny seems infinitely more appealing than giving McCain four years at the helm. It's a scary thought for me too.

Hillary put all of her eggs (including those hatched with her "husband") into the "experience" basket instead of the "change" basket. Obama didn't have this option...obviously. This mistake has been primarily responsible for her collapse, and now she's going down faster than a lightheaded Obama supporter. And on the subject of fainting, is Barack the new Beatles?

Above: Barack. More palatable than Hillary.
More popular than Jesus.

Hillary's experience is meaningless if not an obvious indicator that she is not to be trusted with power. This we all know. But her support seems to be dwindling, having gone the way of the Dodo. Or rather, the way of the Rose Law Firm billing records. Remember that, girlfriend?

In the end, Barack Obama blessed the blissful with another victory:

  • More women voted for him. (51-49)
  • More whites voted for him. (53-46)
  • More white men voted for him. (59-38)
  • All age groups under 65 voted for him.
  • All education levels voted for him.
  • All regions of the state voted for him.
I imagine every one of those bullet points as a nail in Hillary's coffin.


You Got a License For That...Fag?

February 19, 2008 |

Health England, a government health advisory body in the UK, is pushing for the introduction of a "smoker's license," which would require those wanting to buy tobacco products to pay £10 for a permit to do so. The chairman of Health England, Julian Le Grand, has said the plan would "make a big difference to the number of people giving up smoking."

Since when is it the government's responsibility to try and get people to quit smoking? Since the introduction of government health care. So while tobacco taxation is at record levels, smokers are essentially being taxed yet again.

The chairman continued:

"You've got to get a form, a complex form - the government's good at complex forms; you have got to get a photograph. 70% of smokers actually want to stop smoking. So if you just make it that little bit more difficult for them to actually re-start or even to start in the first place, yes I think it will make a big difference."

Smoker's rights advocate Simon Clark warned that the government advisor pushing the plan forward is "not only adding to the red tape and bureaucracy we already have in this country...he is openly bragging that he wants to make the form as complex as possible to fill in."

He added, "We are becoming not just a nanny state but a bully state."

Now come on. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you, so why not make it illegal altogether? If we don't want people smoking, isn't it as simple as outlawing tobacco? Where does this stop? Alcohol kills more people annually and is responsible for more crime than almost all illegal drugs combined. Should we require a permit to drink beer, wine, or liquor?

When was the last time you heard of someone abusing their children because they smoked too many cigarettes? What about a license to eat junk food? Maybe Britons can offset eating all those crisps by purchasing "Carb-Credits." Al Gore, are you reading this?

When the government is in the business of health, your health becomes the government's business. And that includes control over what you eat, drink, smoke, swallow, snort, or inject. Personal liberty means the freedom to choose what you do with your body, and to make your own decisions, good or bad. After all, you're the one paying to take care of yourself, right?

Oh that's right, you aren't -- it's free! Too bad you can no longer say the same about yourself.


Obama: Hopes, Dreams...Plagiarism?

February 18, 2008 |

Barack Obama is being accused by the Clinton campaign of molding one of his key arguments around speeches by Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts during his 2006 campaign. The contention made by both men is that their rhetoric amounts to much more than empty yet inspiring words. But did he "plagiarize?" You be the judge.

Well, he did choose most of the same quotes, with the exception of "Ask not what your country can do for you..." from JFK's inaugural address. This is because Obama's motto is the opposite: "Step right up and tell me what your country (ahem, government) can do for you!"

It seems Governor Patrick was following the Obama formula of Hopes + Quotes = Votes. I had never heard of Deval Patrick, but then again, no one had heard of Barack Obama before he announced he was running for president. Some of us are still wondering exactly who he is.

While the speeches are very similar, it seems a few things are going on. After being propped up and given life (some would argue by the Clintons themselves), Mary Shelly's Obama is slowly being exposed to those who pay attention as the empty-promises-anything-for-a-vote politician he is. This is one reason why many can't wait to see him debate a Republican. But give the guy a break, at least until the convention.

In the YouTube generation, follies like these can circle the globe in moments. Someone should have told Hillary that before she used this "borrowed" line:

And how many of her lines have come straight from Karl Marx? She's built on "borrowing" ideas because she doesn't have any of her own. The consensus seems to be that the Clintons are grasping at straws at this point. Are we about to see Hillary go negative? Is the Wicked Witch of the East River going to unleash her army of flying monkeys?

If this is the best dirt her team of campaign excavators can dig up, we are probably witnessing the spiraling downfall of Hillary Clinton – a downfall which will be undeniably exquisite.

This story is getting way, way, way too much play. The facts have come out, and it's the opinion of this writer that Obama didn't "plagiarize;" you're witnessing the last act of a desperate woman (and her husband.)


I Wanna Rock Your Saudi: The Kingdom's Double Standard

February 17, 2008 |

"All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization."

-President George W. Bush, September 23rd, 2003

Whether he's drunk on something more than ideology, or simply absentminded (let's go with the latter), President Bush seems to be conveniently glossing over a rather glaring absence of consistency between what is said and what is done.

The corruption, radicalization, and throwback barbarism that takes place inside the borders of Saudi Arabia dwarfs that of pre-invasion Iraq, and is approaching that of post-Ahmadinejad Iran. Though unlike Shia Iran, the Kingdom's state religion is Wahhabism, an expansionist branch of Islam which emerged only 250 years ago. Wahhabism is one of the most brutal sects of Islam, and the Saudi-Wahhabi movement has been known for violently defeating and subjugating non-Wahhabi peoples of the Arabian Peninsula since well before the establishment of the current Saudi state.

But that's just ancient history. Saudi Arabia must be a sensible country at this point, not run by Bedouins and thugs, effortlessly gliding into the prosperity and standards of the 21st century. Right?

Let's just say, it's not Kansas. Women are secluded and veiled in kind of gender apartheid, while polygamy is as legal as it is practiced, which is regularly among Saudi elite. There is no religious freedom in the Kingdom for any faiths other than Islam, and Saudi textbooks have been found to contain material teaching that Jews were the "descendants of apes and pigs."

Above: Not an Oprah-approved book in sight.

Saudi media is made up of state-run and private-but-publicly-subsidized elements. With this torrent of government-controlled media flows the most blistering anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda in the Arab world. The only freedom of the press is the freedom to choose the best way to express hatred of the West.

There's something to be understood before going forward: Your money is Saudi money.

Saudi Oil exports make up 44% of the country's GDP, and the Kingdom is America's 3rd largest provider of crude oil. Our money is Saudi money, and Saudi money is where it all starts. Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency would hardly exist without Saudi funding and membership. In fact, Saudis are responsible for the majority of U.S. troop deaths in Iraq.

Saudi Arabia is the nerve center and womb of radical Islam. Our money pays for it, their home grown terrorists carry it out, and the kingdom's miserable masses are amused or indifferent.

Now it's time for "Guess Which One Doesn't Belong:"

A. Mohamed Atta
B. Satam al-Suqami
C. Jamie Lynn Spears
D. Abdulaziz al-Omari

Time's up. If you chose C, you're right. Jamie Lynn has never flown an airplane in her life. You must have realized that the other three people (along with 12 other Saudi nationals) all flew commercial jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Bonus points if you didn't know who Jamie Lynn Spears was.

So, if Bush thinks that governments who support terror are complicit in a war against civilization, what's so different about the Saudis? Why have we aligned ourselves with a murderous theocracy?

Above: Our friends the Saudis. Condi, is that you back there?

We are bound to the Saudis in an administration-spanning pseudo-alliance; that is to say a "you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours" arrangement, with one side scratching your back and one side self-detonating around the world.

What do the Saudis do for us, besides finance our destruction? What do we do for the Saudis to deserve any of this? What in God's name is in the middle of this precipitous relationship?


The hippie's favorite scapegoat has found new legitimacy. It should be obvious that the Saudis keep the oil flowing to the United States and the rest of the West. Every time you fill up your car with gas that began as Saudi crude (statistically, one in every five times you fill up) you're offering your contribution to a government with half an economy earmarked for "military spending."

But you're not seeing the real price of Saudi crude. The ever-changing digits at the gas station don't include an additional expense – thousands of Americans murdered at home and around the world.

Does Bush even read his speeches before opening his mouth?

This is the cost of being dependent on foreign oil. It seems hopeless, and it shouldn't be, but with the political establishment as poisoned as it is, and with Americans lacking anything resembling a common national initiative, hopeless might be the word.

We could start by building more gasoline refineries in the United States. We haven't built a new refinery in over 25 years, and refining gasoline domestically will reduce the amount of gasoline we are forced to import, lowering costs.

Nuclear power is also a viable option, and I would recommend examining the success France has had with the majority of its energy coming from nuclear power. Environmentalists stand in the way of drilling for oil reserves in ANWR. The same goes for the coast of Florida and the Gulf. You wouldn't want to see the property value of your condo go down, would you?

Responding to the brainwashed-bumper-sticker cries of "No Blood For Oil," the Bush Doctrine seems to be saying "Well hold on...exactly how much oil are we talking about here?" The Kingdom keeps the oil flowing, and we promise to overlook their human rights atrocities, virulent hatred of Israel, and support for terror around the globe. Our duplicitous and suicidal enabler, Saudi Arabia presents as much a case for energy independence as anything that leaves Al Gore's attention-starved lips.

Labels: ,

Hamas to Children: Drink Your Milk, Eat Your Jews

February 15, 2008 |

For those of you following the saga of the Palestinian animal heroes (and their subsequent deaths), the Hamas children's program "Pioneers of Tomorrow" has killed off the second of its cartoon jihadists and introduced a third - a rabbit promising to "eat up the Jews."

Hamas TV shows such as the one above are monitored by Palestinian Media Watch, whose director has called the program a "horrific manipulation of children. Their childhood is being taken from them...they are using attractive characters to promote death."

The rabbit proclaims: "I, Assud, will get rid of the Jews, Allah willing, and I will eat them up."

This is a culture of death which is brainwashing a generation of young Muslims. These children could grow to be intelligent, capable, morally committed individuals. Instead they are one step closer to strapping a bomb to their waist...one step closer down the "the path of martyrdom; the path of the Jihad warriors."

"We are all ready to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our homeland. We will sacrifice our souls and everything we own for the homeland," says Saraa, the program's host.

It isn't as if there is a shortage of impressionable minds either. The median age in the Gaza Strip is a mere 15 years old. Now let's compare Saraa's rhetoric with that of another well-known Muslim:

"They will lose because they worship life, whereas we will win because we worship death."

No, this isn't from a Bush speechwriter; it's straight from the mouth of one Osama Bin Laden. The program ends with a song containing the words "We will never recognize Israel."

But don't tell Condi.

Labels: ,

An Open Letter to Romney Supporters

February 12, 2008 |

To whom it may no longer concern,

I've been getting your emails and messages about supporting Mitt this year. As a for-the-most-part libertarian (though not a Paulista), I cannot stomach the thought of voting for a Hillary or Obama ticket. I do not wish for my government to be capable of infinite growth, infinite control, and subsequently infinite inefficiency.

That being said, I have some things to confess:

From the start, Romney was not my man. Granted, I didn't have a candidate. I wanted to fuse them together, take the best parts from each, and form some sort of super candidate. But of course that wasn't a possibility. For some reason Mitt just didn't resonate with me; I admired his business experience and executive sensibilities, but I saw him as a shill who was too slick and too well spoken, and so he had faded into the background as I dealt with my disenchantment over the future of the country.

I also have to confess that I did not vote in my primary. I wasn't alone, however. On Super Tuesday, the Democratic primaries drew 76% more voters than the Republican primaries. The conservatives stayed home because they felt like they didn't have a candidate. Just like me. But low voter turnout proves that the conservatives have a great amount of power in November. They haven't even been heard from yet.

But, there's one final thing I have to come clean about after hearing Romney's "suspension" speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference: I wish he had made that speech a month ago. I feel the conservatives would have come out in droves to support him against McCain, who has advantageously opted to take "Huckabee for the block." They would have put "electability" out of their minds and chosen the person who they heard speak (finally) for the nationalist, the individualist, and the American who wants to see taxes low, security promises kept, spending and government reduced, and energy as America's responsibility (not that of a brutal theocracy).

Maybe it's the fact that he's out of the race and doesn't have to worry about swinging over independents and disenfranchised conservatives and libertarians (an uphill climb we've been watching McCain make over the last few months).

Maybe he feels more secure while addressing his base than while sitting in what is essentially a grammar school desk answering irrelevant and spurious questions from Blitzer, Cooper, or some over-privileged and hyper-indoctrinated WASP spending his free time (between bong hits) uploading half-baked rants about poverty on YouTube.

But for the first time I felt like he was speaking honestly, and to rational Americans faced with a grim but inevitable choice.

Here's to 2008. G-d help us.


Islamophobia Can't Hold a Shabbat Candle to Modern Anti-Semitism

February 10, 2008 |

To put it simply, the term "Islamophobia" exists solely to stifle any and all criticism of Islam. So, the xenophobic high-school dropout from Alabama who refers to any Muslim as "Osama" is no different than a generally benevolent and accepting person who takes issue with the fact that after the July 7th London tube bombings, 16% of Muslims living in London believed that "while the attacks may have been wrong, the cause was right" (Times of London poll, July 7th, 2006).

In 2006, novelist Salman Rushdie who lived under police protection after his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses led to death threats, bookstore bombings, and riots throughout the Muslim world called Islamophobia a "wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatization of those who believe in it." The trouble with the term is that it isn't just used to battle the ignorance and insecurities of the homegrown racist (a worthy fight), but open criticism from all degrees of legitimacy.

The influential and governing entities in the West, including the media, do not "teach" citizens to hate Muslims, nor do they implicitly condone criticism. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite.

In 2004, Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais from Saudi Arabia opened the largest mosque in the city of London. As part of their coverage of the event, the BBC referred to al-Sudais as a "respected leader" who strived for "community cohesion." Among the things the network didn't air was this peaceful gem:

"In the name of Allah, the Jews must be annihilated. They are the scum of the human race, the rats of the world...the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."
-Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais

Some more from one the Sheikh's sermons at the Grand Al-Haraam Mosque in Mecca:

"Read history...and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels...the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs...these are the Jews, a continuous lineage of meanness, cunning, obstinacy, tyranny, licentiousness, evil, and corruption."

The Canadian government actually denied al-Sudais an entry visa after learning of his calls for violence against Jews, Christians, and Hindus. London's a long way from Mecca (although it's getting closer every year), so the BBC chose not to unearth this bitter vitriol, or perhaps simply not to broadcast it.

You would be hard pressed to turn on CNN or the BBC to find an in depth report on "Muslim apes" or "Islamic pigs."

Above: Does this frighten you? Surprise, you're an Islamophobe.

Pay extra attention to this next sentence. Of course not all Muslims are radicalized un-assimilated Jew-loathing trigger-happy militants. Don't get me wrong - I can think of few people I sympathize with more than the decent and benevolent Muslim living in the tumultuous West. But unlike in Saudi Arabia, Muslim immigrants in the West are cushioned equally by our freedoms, our legal system, and our lack of state-sponsored propaganda. You can hardly say the same about a Jew or a Christian living in the aforementioned kingdom. In the unadorned language of our State Department, "religious freedom does not exist there."

It is because of the totalitarian nature of Arab media, which is largely government-controlled, that religious freedom can be suppressed and propaganda can be proliferated. Antisemitic cartoons and television shows are a regular occurrence in Saudi and Iranian media; in fact, a Saudi cartoonist's only freedom of expression is how he wants to draw the horns and giant noses. Danish cartoonists have a little more elbow room.

While a drawing of a Muslim with a bomb belt reinforces the stereotype that all Muslims are terrorists, the fact remains that some Muslims are terrorists, and many more support their cause, even if they do not support their modus operandi. A cartoon depicting a Jew drinking the blood of children has no such rooting in reality, and does more to incite irrational fear, hatred, and violence against an entire people than anything published in the West.

And what is the Jewish response? Riots? Death threats? Setting fire to effigies of Mohammad in the streets of Jerusalem? None of the above. In fact, in 2006, Dimona Comix Publishing, a group of Israeli artists from Tel Aviv, held an anti-semitic cartoon contest — in which all of the cartoons were drawn by Jews.

Amitai Sandy, a graphic artist with Dimona Comix who was inspired by the Danish cartoon controversy, had the following to say about the contest: "We'll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew-hating cartoons ever published. No Iranian will beat us on our home turf."

Like all politically correct neologisms, "Islamophobia" is a vague and overused term which deflects reality and suppresses open discussion. The term has seen increasingly widespread use and acceptance, but is a far cry from the unadulterated hatred of Jews and other “non-believers” that is propagated in the Muslim world — hatred firmly rooted around a global and historical scapegoat, and cultivated with centuries of isolation, indoctrination, and propaganda.


hits counter