Conservative Donnybrook

See here for some interesting refutation of Bill’s certitude. Say, Bill, while you’re looking, could you see what happened to the copious amounts of materiel that went “missing” on General Petraeus’ watch? And what about the weapons and explosive-grade material, money, and other supplies given to the Iraqi militias, police forces, and national guard units which is now completely unaccounted for? I suggest that we begin immediate preparations to attack ourselves as we are clearly supplying, arming, and recruiting for those who are attacking our boys (whom we didn’t ask to have sent into Iraq, right?). We must not be allowed to maintain or develop future capacities to harm ourselves. We are a grave and imminent threat. Clearly, we cannot stand idly by while we actively develop more of the same technologies we currently possess. And have demonstrated a willingness to use.

By the way, why is Egypt, homeland of the radical “Islamofascist” Muslim Brotherhood and the radical imams who emigrated to Saudi Arabia two generations ago to found Wahabbism, getting the green light for its nuclear ambitions?

Share This

Bill says we must bomb Iran, but must not occupy or nation-build there. Funny, I remember agreeing with the same logic when utilized by then SecDef Richard Cheney (Totalitarian, WY):

“I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home…”

“And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”

Continue Reading »

Share This

Last week atheist Rob Sherman and his daughter filed suit in US District Court challenging the constitutionality of the newly enacted Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act (“Act”) on Establishment Clause grounds. The relevant portion of the act reads as follows:

(105 ILCS 20/1) (from Ch. 122, par. 771)
Sec. 1.
In each public school classroom the teacher in charge may observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day. (emphasis added).

At the core of Mr. Sherman’s argument is the need for religious liberty, even for atheists. Using his dark logic religion should not be allowed in public places in order to ensure no one is offended and all beliefs “respected”. Like so many on the left Mr. Sherman only wants religious liberty when it benefits his personal views. When a Christian, Jew or Muslim attempts to exercise his or her religious liberty, through a brief silent prayer at the beginning of the school-day, then Mr. Sherman changes his tune and wants all prayer eliminated and religious liberty only for those who choose no religion. Liberty and freedom for only those who agree with you? The calling card of the left.

Court documents can be found at Mr. Sherman’s website.

Share This

Hillary says that no options are off the table vis-a-vis Iran.  Karl already posted what Rudy has to say about the matter. 

Here’s Hillary’s page on healthcare.  (Please note that the only group not pandered to on the sidebar [i.e., ‘how this affects you’] is the group who will be paying for it. Rudy says he wants to get everyone to purchase private insurance and get government and employers out of the loop. Let’s see, that would work… how, exactly? Ah, voluntarily. Mmm hmmm. Sure. Make me opt into private insurance, but there’ll be no governmental coercion, no sir. So they both want “options,” both want “cheaper, more readily available” healthcare. Both want everyone covered. Or else. Well, okay, Rudy says that people “should” get it, not “must” get it, but hey, it’s not like he’s getting campaign contributions from insurance conglomerates, is it? (Dodd is from Hartford, and if  when he drops out I guarantee the money will flow to Rudy.  Romney will get Giuliani’s Veep nod or my name’s Wanda.) 

Gun rights…. Do I really need to post links?

Share This

Re: We Must Bomb Iran.

The very suggestion that Iran is not a real and current threat to the United States and the world at large is absurd. While Karl appropriately extols the virtues of traditional Just War philosophy, the application and analysis are way off.

The real and continued threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb justify if not immediate military action then action in close proximity to today. Action is justified not because the bombing of Los Angeles or New York is imminent, but because the proliferation of technology, fuel, fascist bravado and, most importantly, weapons used against the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan are. In keeping with Karl’s post, let me examine the 4-prong test for justified military or even violent action.

Continue Reading »

Share This

A South Korean man plans to build a $1.6 million toilet. No, he does not work for the Pentagon. He’s going to live in it.  Rumor has it, he will then be building a similar version as a summer home in Flushing, New York.

Share This

According to neoconservative founder, Norman Podhoretz, We must bomb Iran. Either that, or allow them to develop a nuclear bomb. There are no other choices.

Podhoretz said, “People I’ve talked to have no doubt we could set [the Iranian nuclear program] back five or 10 years. There are those who believe we can get the underground facilities as well with these highly sophisticated bunker-busting munitions.” It leads one to wonder if these are the same people who had no doubt that the invasion of Iraq would be a three-week campaign with little to no difficulty.

In rhetoric that is eerily similar, Rudy Giuliani recently told a London audience that Iran should be given “an absolute assurance that, if they get to the point that they are going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them or we will set them back five or 10 years.” Continue Reading »

Share This