Here Comes the Judge

A federal judge on Thursday struck down President Bush's warrantless surveillance program, saying it violated the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit is the first judge to rule on the legality of the National Security Agency's program, which the White House says is a key tool for fighting terrorism that has already stopped attacks.
This case was brought on by the ACLU.
I am going to disagree with many of the conservative people on this issue. I listened today as the Right attacked this judge for her decision and they talked about her past.
I have always said the warrantless surveillance program was legal until a judge ruled the act unconstitutional. Many on the left claimed it was already an illegal activity. That was an incorrect statement, until today.
As it stands right now, the warrantless surveillance program can continue until the appeals process is complete. The administration said it would appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
So really, this is "much to do about nothing." The decision is not retroactive. No crimes can be placed upon the Bush Administration because this is new territory and other American Presidents have done similar activities during a war.
It would be hypocritical for me to cut down this judge for her decision. I believe in the American system. I think her decision was wrong. I believe this was a tool for catching terrorists and I think the 6th U.S. Circuit Court will overturn this decision.
But, I'm not going to make fun of this judge. She was placed there by an American President. (Jimmy Carter) She has a right to be there.
I did, however, make fun of the ACLU. In a childish fashion, I painted "hippie headbands" on the ACLU's photo.
"Smoke one for me.."

What Do You Want..??

I'm driving down the road today and I have the radio on.
Before a democrat blames right-wing talk radio, this was just your average, top of the hour radio network news. (Just the headlines, no slant.)
Two stories were played back to back. I just get a kick out of this every time I think about it.
The first story is about the new al-Qaida in Iraq leader succeeding Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He is Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian with ties to Osama bin Laden's deputy.

We know this to be a fact. There is no denying this.
So this proves Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It proves that Al Qaeda is fighting us (again, In Iraq). We also know that it was al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11.
The next story was domestic. It was about a debate where some democrats do not want to include Iraq in the war on terror. They say Iraq was a detour from the war on terror.
"These people do hear the news..?? Don't they..?" Osama has quickly replaced his leader in Iraq. This means terrorists are in Iraq. But democrats say Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.
If you can find a democrat that is half-way intelligent, they will argue that terrorists were not in Iraq before we went in and it is America's fault that terrorists are there now.
(Blame America First.) Typical Liberal.
How do these democrats know terrorists were not in Iraq..?? We have proof that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq receiving treatment for battle wounds he received in Afghanistan.
We couldn't even prove, without a doubt, what type of weaponry Saddam was developing. How can you prove that terrorists were not in Iraq..?? But this is irreverent now. We can prove terrorists are in Iraq now.


You can fight terrorists in one location. I guess you could run all over the globe trying to find them. You can ask for permission to have Special Forces enter Saudi Arabia to check for terrorists. (I doubt you will get permission.) You can ask Yemen for permission to enter their country. (Good Luck!)
Or.. You can set up shop and let the terrorists come to the US military. Preferably, not within the US. (Maybe a country like Iraq)

You have been blinded my friend and you have lost your judgement.
Your hatred of President Bush has caused you to forget that the US military is run by a large group of men and women. These people are very intelligent, many have been in the military most of their lives. There are not necessarily more republicans then democrats in the military.
How long do we have to wait until these people understand that terrorists are in Iraq. So Iraq is the continuation of the war on terror.

Sometimes you have to trust the people who have been elected. The people who have decided to enlist and defend this country. I am not talking about a "blind trust." But my God, you do not have to block every move with a million questions and a hundred accusations.
Stop accusing soldiers of hideous crimes. Give a soldier the same justice you would want. "Innocent, until proven guilty."


Isn't that what you would want..?? American Justice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some comments from this article-----------

"If you can find a democrat that is half-way intelligent, they will argue that terrorists were not in Iraq before we went in and it is America's fault that terrorists are there now.(Blame America First.) Typical Liberal."So America didn't start this war? Was it the Martians? Who do we blame for this?"How do these democrats know terrorists were not in Iraq..?? We have proof that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq receiving treatment for battle wounds he received in Afghanistan."There are terrorists in almost every country in the world. How do we know there's no terrorists in Mexico? Who's next, Switzerland?"Or.. You can set up shop and let the terrorists come to the US military. Preferably, not within the US. (Maybe a country like Iraq)"And how's that working for us now? Is this the latest rationalle for going into Iraq? It changes almost daily."Sometimes you have to trust the people who have been elected. The people who have decided to enlist and defend this country. I am not talking about a "blind trust." But my God, you do not have to block every move with a million questions and a hundred accusations."America trusted this administration for four years and the media certainly didn't question them about Iraq. Now that we've been duped there's no more trust. And nobody has been "blocked" from doing anything because the Dems have yet to put together any meaningful opposition."Stop accusing soldiers of hideous crimes. Give a soldier the same justice you would want. "Innocent, until proven guilty." "I agree. Let's also close down Guantanamo Bay. comment by liberalfreak on June 18, 2006 12:56 AM (EST)

Guantanamo Bay may be closed down sometime in the future.Most of the stories from that facility have been borderline propaganda. Gitmo prisoners have it better than the "Tent City" prisoners do in Arizona. (And Gitmo prisoners do not have to wear pink underwear or work on a chain-gang.) There is a movement in this country on getting tougher with criminals. Americans are sick of repeat offenders. You cut someone a break and let him out of prison. They rape a child or kill some innocent person.Tons of mainstream media outlets went down to Guantanamo Bay looking for a liberal "sob-story" that they could run on TV. (Liberals love stories on how Evil America is a bad country doing evil bad things.) The innocent person, locked inside Gitmo. No trial in sight. What the mainstream media saw were "thugs" who tossed glasses of urine at prison guards. These news teams came back empty handed. There was no "Brad Pitt" looking terrorist who sits in the corner- sobbing. Just a bunch of thugs.So I will not surprise you LF, by saying I think we need to be TOUGHER on terrorist. Even the ones in jail.Yes, it was Martians that started this war. They had that plasma ray gun.Saddam started this war. He never followed any of the surrender terms he agreed to. Bush (41) let Saddam get away with it. Clinton let Saddam get away with it. Finally, after 9/11, Bush (43) put a stop to Saddam.Had Saddam followed the terms he agreed to. Saddam would still be in charge of Iraq and we wouldn't be there. We could be focusing on one of the other countries that Manning is talking about. reply by angryrepublican on June 18, 2006 8:55 AM (EST)

In case part of this was directed at me. Here's a comment I left on another blog a week ago that questioned the war in Iraq...Terrorist experts for the most part agreed before Iraq that landing a large military force in a terrorist rich environment like Iran or Syria would be equivilant to hitting a hornets nest with a baseball bat. So it's correct to say that Iraq was a great place to go to fill the need to do something big after 911 without significantly hurting the people who attacked us. But what you have to look at is geography. Terrorists tend to reside in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Sudan; Iraq happens to be dead center of this activity. Iraq is not the war on terror, but is is a great place to start it, as long as we actually do that and don't forget why we're there. Special forces teams can now make quick hops to the terrorists camps in the Middle East without having to suffer the response of "occupying" the country.As long as we are in Iraq we don't have to ask permission from Saudi Arabia, we can go in covertly and just not tell the media the real reason we are in Iraq, to conduct a real war on terror under the radar. The point of my comments was to show that Iraq is just the media friendly war, it isn't the real one that is probably taking place. And if it isn't taking place we are missing an opportunity. comment by manning on June 16, 2006 5:24 PM (EST)

Biff-tastic blogging. Great post. Liberals hate to be called out and exposed so hopefully you will unleash some rants from our more left leaning bloggers. It's about time the democrats put away their Blame the President game-plan and jump on board in the war on terror. comment by bigbob47 on June 16, 2006 12:17 AM (EST)

Thanks for reading The Angry Republican..!!


The sky is falling

With the date of 666 arriving, I thought I would do an article on the end of the world. The number 666 is the sign of the beast. Some people believe 666 points to the arrival of the end of the world. The beast will return to earth.

(I am not saying that Al Gore is the beast. We will talk about Al Gore later.)

When talking about the end of the world, I always figured it would be some wacky fortuneteller claiming "the end is near." Maybe a religious fanatic who thinks he found some secret code written in The Bible or on some old coin.

I never thought it would be respected people of science.
But, it is science that is claiming "the end is near."

What is interesting is that history proves that the panic caused by the fear of something, is sometimes more dangerous than what people are afraid of.
During the turn of the century- 1799 to 1800. So many people believed the end of the world would take place, many farmers didn’t plant enough crops. They just planted enough to survive, but not much extra to sell. This caused a food shortage and some people starved to death. The world didn’t come to an end.
In 1999, many people began to believe that computers would crash at the turn of the century. Banks and companies spent millions to find out if their computers would crash and what could be done to fix this. There was a fear that if people, not trusting banks and the stock market, would begin to pull their money out. This could cause a financial crisis. A bank doesn’t have enough money to close out everyone’s account. America may not have enough printed money to provide the funds if all Americans removed their money from the stock market and banks.
Fortunately, people didn’t panic and there was no stock market crash. We definitely cannot thank the media for that. They played out the "Y2K-end of the world" story for what it was worth.
Today, the wizards and fortunetellers predict global warming is the end. But you can stop it. All you have to do is drive a smaller car. Turn that A/C off. Don’t turn your thermostat above 68 degrees. Wear a sweater. By doing this, you can stop global warming and save the world.

But, can we stop the earth from warming..??

I believe the earth warms and cools over thousands of years. I believe this because scientific core samples prove this. The warming and cooling of the earth can explain why we find aquatic fossils in the desert. But these same core samples also prove humans have little to do with the earth’s warming and cooling. The bulk of the earth’s warming and cooling took place before humans had factories or cars. So humans are not causing global warming.
What can be debated is if humans are causing the earth to warm (or cool) faster than normal. To prove this, you would need temperature readings before the human industrial age. We do not. Gabriel Fahrenheit invented the mercury thermometer in 1714. However, it didn’t get used worldwide until the 1800's.
Galileo used alcohol thermometers 100 years earlier. Galileo’s scale was different and alcohol thermometers are not reliable.
Some scientists argue that humans are causing global cooling. So who the hell knows..??
There is nothing wrong with conserving resources. Nothing at all wrong with getting an alternative power source and getting away from oil. If you want to drive a small car and wear a sweater in your house to stay warm. That is great! But many of us choose to pay the higher fuel bills to enjoy a better quality of life. Quality of life is not a waste of energy. Some of us drive a bigger car because of our jobs, or we like the safety and traction a bigger vehicle delivers.
Why would we drastically change human life on an educated guess..??

Enter Al Gore...


Someone put a muzzle on Al Gore during the 2000 elections. Having written the book "Life in the balance", you would have expected Al Gore to be a fanatical environmentalist. One who calls for extreme taxes on gas to force people to drive less. Calling for a cut on all logging to save trees. A politician who demands a large-intrusive government that tells you what you can build on YOUR property. But Al Gore barely mentioned the environment during the 2000 elections.
Today that has changed...
Al Gore is burning tons of fuel. Creating a huge "carbon cloud" at every place he stops to talk about the environment. Al Gore will save the earth. Al Gore is reminding me of those extreme religious leaders who liberals hate. The preachers who preach that YOU should follow Gods word, then these same preachers head out and cheat on their wives, steal, lie, and molest children.

Al Gore is preaching for YOU to save the environment, while he flies all over the globe burning toxic fossil fuels. Does Al Gore live in a house made of wood? Does he use electricity? Does he buy newspapers, toilet paper, and computer paper?
Or is he asking you to do these things..?? Al Gore cannot because he is too important to follow his own advice..??
So…
Regardless of what Al Gore, or global warming scientists, or Militant Environmentalists, or The 666 Beast says..

I think we will all be here on Wednesday.

The Scientific Inquisition


It's funny how things will come to you. I was flipping around the TV this past weekend and I land on a show with dragons. I figured this was sci-fi movie, but it ends up being a factual show that describes how scientists have found a frozen dragon. That is right!! A frozen dragon.. The fire breathing kind. The dragon of legions.

Science tried to explain how the dragon could eat platinum from a cave wall. This platinum might cause the dragon to have a "flammable breath." (I don't know if they actually explained how the "flammable breath" caught fire. What caused a SPARK..??)

But anyway..

When the huge "K29 or C3PO" meteor crashed into the earth and killed the dinosaurs, the dragons headed to the seas. They survived the mini-ice age. These sea dragons became "Sea-Monsters" of the old sailor's myths.
So, I'm thinking to myself.. "You bastards..!!"
All those years in school. Science told me that early man was fibbing. Telling myths. Myths of large Sea-Serpents and Knights fighting dragons.
Now science is saying "Oopps.. We were wrong.."

But science isn't saying "Ooopps." They are reporting these frozen dragons like.. "Oh.. by the way.. We found a dragon and so they are real, and this is probably how they lived and mated and how many eggs they laid and….."

You might say.. "Ok AR, so dragons are real. Science made a mistake. Big deal!"

But this makes me wonder how many other myths could also be true. Myths, like the dragon, that science has said could not possibly be true? But maybe more important.. What is science telling us is true, and it isn't?
The dragons held my attention for awhile. Then I started flipping around the TV again. I landed on a Mel Brooks' movie: "History of the world pt 1". In the middle of this movie, which I think is hilarious, there is a song and dance number called: The Inquisition. Brooks pokes fun at the Spanish Inquisition.
It was then that I realized…

The dragons. Mel Brooks. The Inquisition.

Today, we have an Inquisition taking place in our schools. Science has been wrong. Yet, science is taught as to be fact. I can remember a very hairy female teacher telling us dragons are not real. Then we were told about monkeys walking up right and learning to talk. These monkeys learned to make fire and then created "The Da Vince Code."
It is an Inquisition. Though you believe in God. You believe that God created everything. You head into this dark and clammy classroom. The door squeaks. The floorboards snap. You are terrified. An extremely hairy, tattoo covered teacher tells you to forget all that "God Stuff."

You try and focus. All your young life, you believed God created the world. Today, you will learn life was created in a mud puddle. A speck of organic material is churning and bubbling within that mud puddle. Like an oozing slim ball. Then that speck of organic material becomes a cell, then an ameba, then a hydra, Blah-Blah-Blah, then a monkey, then this monkey tells everyone dragons are not real.

Even though you believe in God, you are forced to learn this other religion called: "The evolution theory."

You must learn it because you must pass a test. Even though the constitution says stuff about not interfering in religion. "Forget about that constitution stuff.." You will learn the evolution theory young man!!"
If you do not learn it, you will not pass the test. If you fail the test, you may fail the subject. If you fail the subject, you may fail the grade.
Welcome to "The Scientific Inquisition"




Homosexuals

A conversation with a liberal

Conservatives take a bad rap when it comes to the topic of homosexuality. Just say the words: "Conservative" and "gay", it brings up thoughts of "Neanderthal" and one who is not progressive.

There is nothing new or progressive about homosexuality. The Roman Empire excepted homosexuality. The height of The British Empire saw a return of homosexuality being widely excepted.
So there is nothing new or progressive about homosexuality. Actually, it is a return to the old ways.
So I have this conversation with a liberal about homosexuality. I am told by this liberal that I am not being fair.
(me) So you believe homosexuals should be able to marry and have the same rights as heterosexuals?
(liberal) Yes, they should have the same rights as anyone else. They are human and it is terrible what conservatives are doing.

(me) What about certain religions that believe men can marry multiple wives? How about Arabs who also believe in multiple wives? Are you going to allow them to legally marry?
(liberal) No, that is stupid. It is wrong to have more than one partner, besides, there are not that many of those people to change the law.
(me) Isn't that the same thing people who oppose homosexuality are saying? That it is wrong and there are not enough gay people to bother changing the law?
(liberal) No.. What?
(me) Lets move on.. You probably feel it is OK for pedophiles to marry young children, because in some cultures, it is OK to..
(liberal) I never said that. I believe that pedophiles should be locked up. That is sick. You are putting words into my mouth. I never said that.

(me) So you feel we should change the law so that gay people can legally marry, but we should discriminate against Arab people who want to marry multiple wives?
(liberal) Marrying more than one person is stupid.
(me) What do you think about that sexy female Florida teacher who had sex with her 14-year-old male student? Do you think she should rot in jail for twenty-five years?
(liberal) What.. Do you have A.D.D. You can't stick with one topic? No, she should not rot in jail for twenty-five years. What male student wouldn't want a sexy teacher hitting on him?
(me) So you think just a little probation was fine a punishment for this teacher.
(liberal) Yes, she lost her job. The kid probably enjoyed it, he is not testifying.

(me) So you believe all pedophiles should just get probation. A forty-year-old balding, potbellied, ugly male teacher who has sex with a 14 year old girl should just get probation. A slap on the…
(liberal) NO.. I didn't say that. You are putting words into my mouth. I said earlier, pedophiles are sick and need to be locked up.
(me) I want to get this right.. You believe America should shape laws to allow gay people to legally marry, but we should discriminate against multiple partner marriages because they are silly and wrong?
You believe pedophiles should be locked up because that is sick. Unless these pedophiles are sexy, white, and female. In that case they should just get probation.
(liberal) NO.. you said.. I didn't say..
(me) And you think I am being unfair..??
(End of conversation as liberal walks away, disgusted, mumbling profanities)

Look..
I really do not care what two people do behind closed doors. As long as they do not hurt anyone else.
I believe in God. Some religious people believe the Bible tells them homosexuality is wrong. Maybe it does? Maybe it is wrong? I can't answer that because the Bible also says we should not judge others. There is one, who will judge all of us, someday.
I really do not care if you are a homosexual. I try and treat everyone with respect. (Unless you make a silly political statement.)
I actually welcome a state-by-state vote on gay marriage. I believe there are a few states that would adopt gay marriage.
I am totally against activist judges taking away our right to vote.
People argue for activist judges making laws, by saying "we wouldn't have Civil Rights." Republicans voted for Civil Rights, it was the democrats who voted against Civil Rights in congress. Had activist judges NOT changed the law, America would have passed Civil Rights soon after. (Once those democrats were voted out of office.)


The danger in letting judges make laws, rather than people voting for them..
You get the changes in Property Rights that liberal judges just passed last year. Now, local city (or county) officials can TAKE your property and sell it to "BS Smith", who will knock down your house. Then sell your property to Wal-Mart inc for five times what they paid you for it. Your local officials will receive five times the tax on your property. Everybody is happy and you are kicked to the curb.
There is a danger in allowing activist judges shape American law. Our founding fathers set forth a way of changing laws in America. Through voting. By congress.
So I have no real problems with the gay community. I would be willing to vote on gay marriage. But I do not want judges changing the laws for anything. Including gay marriage.
If I got the chance to vote on gay marriage, you may wonder if I would vote for it?
I will answer this way..
Twenty years ago, gay people asked me to understand them. That they are people too, with rights and needs. I do understand gay people.
Today, gay people are telling me I AM WRONG. My opinion doesn't matter. I am a neanderthal. I should be ashamed.
For a friend, there are many things I will do to try and help. And yes, even vote to change American laws.
But, for a person who insults me. Tells me my opinion doesn't matter..
I will not help this individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Run Obama Run, Says Neil

I caught this story in the morning but didn't have the time to fully read it. Rock- song writer / performer Neil Young is suggesting Sen. Barack Obama make a bid for the White House. I will link to this story if you would like to read it.
Here is the news story I am talking about!
The basic idea is this…
In his latest album, "Living With War," Young mentions Obama in the song "Lookin' for a Leader." In it, Young sings of the nation's need for a new leader, singing, "Yeah maybe it's Obama, but he thinks that he's too young."

This does make sense! I can see the strategy working inside the minds of the DNC. Hillary Clinton as president. (This puts Bill back in the White House.) Sen. Obama as the vice president in 2008. Then, (as democrats may calculate) after eight years of Hillary and Bill in the White House, VP Obama would be a shoe in for president in 2016.
During the eight years of President Hillary, Barack Obama could be on a permanent "goodwill tour" of America. Obama is intelligent, I have to give him that. He is a good speaker. He made, what I believe, was the best speech during the 2004 DNC convention.


This would be a dream ticket for some democrats. Think about it.. The first female president. The first MALE … "aahh"… First man. (That was tough for me to say, Bill Clinton- The first,First Man) And the first African-American VP. Lets face it, Americans like- "Firsts."
There is just one small problem..
Hillary is still trying to be everything to everybody. This ends up making her nothing, to no one.
Flip-Flop.
When I'm out working, I try and talk to people. Many democrats are not too excited to vote for Hillary. They will not vote for a republican, they admit that. But they might stay home if Hillary is their choice. Which brings us to the problem Hillary is facing.
You can't please the big unions in those huge factories and still please environmentalists. You can't please the anti-war crowd and still please those who feel you must fight for freedom. You can't please the Bible crowd and still hold on to pro-choice and the gay rights movements.
And so…
Hillary will walk up to the stage. Lick her finger and hold it in the breeze. She will see which way the wind is blowing. She will make speeches tailor made for that audience. The problem is, republicans (those mean bastards) will have recordings of the many different speeches she will make. They will be played back-to-back, and America will see the "Kerry Syndrome" all over again.
But… It is much harder to think (really hard) and list the things you believe. Then, announce to America: "This is what I believe in. If I am going to be president, I will work towards these goals." If people do not like one of your goals, then you make speech after speech trying to explain why your ideas are good for America. If you cannot do this, then you do not get elected.
I remember one time I received a comment that read: "You conservatives are too stuck in your old-fashion, stupid ways. You need to loosen up and go with the flow. Change is a good thing!"
Well… Change is good for fashion designers. People like new cloths. Change is good for cars and interior decorators.
But no one wants a politician who flops around. "Say what you mean, mean what you say!" If you cast a vote for someone, you would like to think they will do what they promised.
Change might be OK for some things. Indecision is never good for a president!

Terrorist Celebrity Poker

I got to thinking about this the other day. Of course, if you read my stuff, you know I have a sick-twisted view of things.
The stand-off we have with terrorists is similar to a poker game with many people bluffing. Iran is trying to bluff and tell us they have a very good hand. Osama makes an audio tape and tells us he is still in the poker game. We all know President Bush will ante up.
But then you have Democrats…
Let me ask you something.. Did you ever (accidentally) bring a bimbo-chick to a poker game..?? I am not talking about a smart girl. A smart girl understands the art of bluffing. They know the game of poker. But, a bimbo-chick never thoroughly grasps the concept of bluffing.

Democrats are acting like a bimbo-chick..

So.. al-Qaida's, Ayman al-Zawahri joins the poker game with this statement..
Hundreds of suicide bombings in Iraq have "broken the back" of the U.S. military.
This statement is totally untrue. The American military is as strong as ever. Even a democrat should be pissed off about this statement.
But Zawahri could claim his statement is true by just repeating Democratic Rep John Murtha's statement that the US military is "tapped out."
Or Democrat Howard Dean's statement that we cannot win a war in Iraq.
Democrats..
You can oppose republican policies without under minding the war on terrorism.
There is a way to do that…

The only crime would be

Last week, six retired U.S. generals called for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. They say he doesn't listen to military leaders.Representative Murtha is still calling for a complete US pull-out of Iraq. Mainstream media is able to find polls that indicate Americans are growing weary of this war in Iraq.Iran looks like they are gunning for a fight..The world needs Winston Churchill.

I picked up a book on Winston Churchill last week in thoughts of doing a post on him. (as it relates to today's terrorism.) I heard yesterday that a Chicago Newspaper reporter and Rush Limbaugh both covered this topic. I didn't get a chance to read their ideas and I wish I would have. Anyway, here is my take on it..I don't believe people of the world realize what a threat radical Islam will hold for the future. A fellow like Churchill would be vital with today's threats."Would Churchill approve of the war in Iraq?" I believe so. As a young man, Churchill could only be described as a war hawk. He traveled to where ever war was. Even if the British were only remotely involved, it didn't matter, Churchill went. This took him to Cuba, North Africa and The Middle East. So I believe Winston Churchill would not even think twice about America's involvement in Iraq. He may even suggest more British help for Iraq.Would Churchill call for a retreat from Iraq?NEVER!When talking about a particular battle during WWI, members of The British Parliament were discussing if the British advance would be (ethical) legal… Winston Churchill said this…"The only crime would be to leave before we finish this."I think that statement really hits home on our Iraq situation today. We argue if we should be in Iraq. If we are causing more harm? I could see Churchill standing up and delivering that one line…"The only crime would be to leave before we finish this."With the "Gathering Storm" of Iran and Radical Islam, the world could use Churchill's common sense today.I truly believe, if more nations of the world would joins us, the Iran nuclear situation could be solved without a shot being fired.But, then again, people didn't listen to Churchill until it was too late and Hitler grew strong. At least it would be comforting to know someone else in the world saw a threat.

Making Aliens Illegal



All week long I have listened to many different opinions on the Mexican illegal alien issue. One fellow will say, "build a big fence." The next person thinks we should send the National Guard down to protect the border. Religious people do not want it to become a federal crime to help illegal aliens. Republicans want to throw Jesus in jail and Democrats want to let terrorists dance across the border.
I believe everyone in this country should have documentation. You should be a citizen, or have a valid visa. Your green card should be legal. If you are on vacation, you should have a passport, travel plans and funds. This stuff is basic. Most countries follow this kind of procedure. I would not want to be in a foreign country without valid ID.
If to do this means building a big fence... So be it. We can afford the 9 billion dollars. I think using the National Guard would be just a temporary fix. The National Guard has other important duties to tend to.
However, with that said...
I am very bias when it comes to this topic. I am only the second generation of my family to be born in America. My grandfather came to this country from Italy, looking for a better life.

It would be easy for me to say.. "My grandfather did it the right way.. He became an American, he filled out the paperwork. He learned English and he worked hard." But this is not the whole truth. My grandfather did all of those things. I am very proud of him and it took great courage. But, basically, he saved enough money for a ship ride to America. He landed at Ellis Island and filled out the paperwork and went on his way to start a new life. Legally.
Because my grandfather was from Italy, he was considered a political refuge. The American government, at the time, believed my grandfather was fleeing the government of Italy. My grandfather loved Italy. He was not fleeing for political reasons. He, like many people of that time (early 1900's), couldn’t make a living in Italy. He wanted to try America. If my grandfather could have made a living in Italy, he probably never would have left, regardless of the political system.

Today, it is not the same with Mexicans. I have heard it takes five to ten years to even be considered for citizenship. If you are Cuban and you can set one foot on American soil, you are welcome. If you are Iranian and you can make it here to America and you denounce the Iranian government. "Hell, pull up a chair buddy.. Let me buy you a beer. Tell me all about that wacky Iranian President som-bitch!" 20 years ago, if you were Russian and you defected to America.. We would put your picture on the front page of the newspaper.
But, if you were born in Mexico, you must turn around and go back to where you came from.
If science is correct, no human is originally from this country. We all came here from somewhere else. The first to arrive was ancient man. He arrived poor and hungry. This ancient man became the proud Native Americans. Native Americans were not too happy to see the white people arrive (poor and hungry.) Then the white people were not too happy to see other Europeans arrive (poor and hungry.) You should read some of the editorials written about my grandfather's generation and how people like my grandfather would destroy this country, lower property values, and cause crime.
Today, we are not too happy to see the Mexican people coming here (also poor and hungry.)

There may come a day when America cannot handle the population. But I do not believe that to be true of the present. As I drive across the states, the countless family farms that lay dormant. Food is so plentiful, people cannot make a living growing it. I see the wide-open spaces of America and I believe we can handle a million. Or ten million. Or fifty million more people.
Every new wave of immigrants creates a boom in this country. People need food, housing, and goods. They are not just bodies soaking up America and giving nothing in return, they are consumers buying fine American products. (Products that are made in China... But, that is another post.) History is proof that America can handle a wave of immigrants. Each new wave is bigger than the last. What we are facing today is nothing new.

My opinion, (which means nothing in this big world) we need to tighten the border. People must be here legally. We need to quit making it so hard for decent, hard working Mexicans to become American.
If not..
We may want to remove the bronze plaque that was placed at the Statue of Liberty in 1903, with the words from a sonnet that was written by Emma Lazarus in 1886. Of course I am talking about the world famous sonnet that reads in part...
"… Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand glows world-wide welcome;
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Thanks for reading The Angry Republican

UAE terrorist photo

Arab Firm to Delay U.S. Port Takeover

WASHINGTON (AP) — A United Arab Emirates company has volunteered to postpone its takeover of significant operations at six major U.S. seaports, giving the White House more time to convince skeptical lawmakers the deal poses no increased risks from terrorism.
Many people in America have great concerns about this take over by the UAE. Possible former ties to terrorists. Political choices the UAE has made.


The Bush Administration reminded people that the UAE would not be in charge of security at these ports.

Security of the ports would be done by this person…

Missy


Missy has some big bombs!


If Missy sees any monkey business going on, she has the authority to "blow the crap out of them peoples."

Why Saddam?




Why Saddam?


If you wanted to prove Saddam could be controlled by UN inspectors, you can probably find information to argue this point.
If you want to prove Saddam was a threat and needed to be removed, you can easily do that as well.
With so much evidence for either side, the invasion of Iraq will be debated for years. I believe the removal of Saddam was necessary. This is what I will try and prove here!


"..Reagan helped Saddam [sic] then we turn around and invade Iraq.."


This statement ticks me off! Japan attacked us, now we are best buddies. So what? People change, countries change.
What really gets me is this statement is not really true. Reagan removed a weapons embargo against Iraq. But Reagan didn’t trust BOTH Iraq and Iran. Iraq had dealings with the Soviets and Reagan never trusted the Russians. When the war broke out between Iran and Iraq, the Soviets temporarily cut off weapons to Iraq. Reagan removed the US weapons embargo which allowed US weapon manufacturer to sell to Israel. Who would then sell to Iraq. Henry Kissinger made the statement that summed up the feelings of the time: "The best outcome would be for both sides to lose." It was less about helping Saddam and more about making sure Iran didn’t win. Iran, after all, did hold Americans hostage.


"..Saddam thought he had America’s blessing to invade Kuwait..."


There is a theory, (and Saddam claims it) that the American ambassador to Iraq made Saddam think it was OK to attack Kuwait. We may never know if this is true but it doesn’t matter. It took months to build a coalition the fight Saddam. It took a long time to get the equipment over to the Middle East. Saddam had lots of time to say: "Opps, I made a mistake. I’ll just go now." Saddam never did and a world coalition removed Saddam from Kuwait.


"...We should have removed Saddam the first time, Bush is fixing his daddy’s F**k up.."


Yes, we should have removed Saddam the first time. But we were following the UN Resolution. This was to remove Saddam out of Kuwait and cripple Saddam’s military so he couldn’t invade anyone else. (We do not follow the UN as closely now.) I would say it was the UN’s- F**K up.
Saddam had an opportunity to change his ways, he never did.


"..We never gave inspectors enough time to do their job.."


11 years is quite enough time. Inspectors cannot do their job when Saddam kicked them out. President Bush (41) had problems with Saddam. President Clinton had to use missile strikes into Iraq. This didn’t work. After 9/11, we had to take a good look at the world around us.


"..Bush rushed us into this illegal war.."


This war is not illegal! President Bush got congressional votes for authority to remove Saddam. The UN has not formally charged the United States with any major crimes. Bush gave Saddam 11 months to let Hanns Blix inspect Iraq. Saddam blocked Hanns from inspecting 100% of Iraq. American Soldiers removed Saddam and placed him in jail. There is nothing illegal here.


"..Iran and North Korea are more dangerous then Iraq..."


Today that is true! With Saddam in jail, his military crushed, and any weapons he had either destroyed or moved into another country, Saddam is no threat now. Bush was not pulling names out of his ass when he said, just after 9/11, that Iraq, Iran and North Korea were the problem countries in the world today. Central Command and The Pentagon had been watching these three countries long before Bush became president. Some people were stunned that Bush referred to North Korea, and Iran had been quiet for years. People are not saying that anymore.


"..Bush lied about WMD’s to go to war with Saddam.."


There is no proof President Bush lied. Most people believed Saddam was up to something. No one can say he was a good man. Bush truly believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. If this administration was as corrupt as the left claims, they could have just planted weapons in the desert and been done with it.


Why Saddam?


He gassed his own people to death. He lied to the world. He would regularly have his military shoot at our pilots in the no fly zones. He caused three American Presidents, over a fifteen year period, to fight him in some manner. He was acting guilty, never allowing weapons inspectors to check all of Iraq. He thumbed his nose at Hanns Blix, the UN, and America. He cannot do that anymore, he is in prison.
Blame Saddam. Had he let Hanns Blix do his job. If Saddam would have given the UN any weapons he had. Saddam would still be in charge of Iraq right now. His sons would be in line for office. The rape rooms would be full. Punishment for crimes would be back to an Iraqi normal, you disappear forever. Saddam was foolish and now he sits in jail.
If you are a cop and you have three criminals before you. You cannot physically arrest all three at the same time. (and there is no back-up to come help you.) You would pick the one who has committed the most serious crimes and fight him. You take that criminal to jail. Then you deal with the others.
The leaders of Iran and North Korea watched the video of Saddam being dragged out of a hole in the ground. They do not want that to happen to themselves. If a future evil dictator sees American troops, ships and planes stacking up near its borders. When the American President, (who ever he or she might be) gives this dictator a warning, this evil dictator will remember Saddam being dragged out of the ground and thrown in jail. This will shape what that person does next.
Empty threats mean nothing. There is nothing empty about an American threat! We warned Saddam. We told him what we would do. He didn't listen. So we did what we said we would do. Our brave soldiers removed Saddam.
Saddam has only himself to blame. The rest of the world knows this to be true!

Written by Biff Babonie


Research material used


War and Peace in the Middle East.. By Avi Shlaim
American Soldier.. By General Tommy Franks
America's Secret War.. By George Friedman

"Following editorial's from this series are"


Post 1- Who Created Al-Qaeda? (Quick Link)


Post 2-Radical Islam: The beginning. (Quick Link)

Post 3- Why Saddam?


Post 4- The Forth World War



Thanks for reading The Angry Republican!



Al Gore

This just pisses me off to no limits. You may have heard that Al Gore did a speech in Saudi Arabia in which he was paid for it. He did a little America bashing. Here is some of what he said:


"Arabs in the United States have been indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."
Bill O'Reilly's show called Al Gore's office to find out which Arab's, Gore was talking about and what places the former VP thought were "unforgivable." Gore's office would not give examples. "It figures!"
Well, this sucks! I wanted to know!
After 9/11, we did round up many people, (Almost all Arab) whose paperwork and Visa's were illegal. The figure I have is that only 13 people were wrongly picked up. Out of hundreds of people who had faulty green cards, only 13 were mistakes!
Remember that we were just attacked by terrorists who were living in this country. Some of them had expired Visa's. We had to check all Arab's with expired Visa's.
We didn't have offshore military prisons, set up for this, at that point. These folks were put into general population in a normal prison.
So what the hell is Al Gore talking about?
I could almost understand if Gore was criticizing America here in this country. But to do this in other countries, it doesn't make sense? Democrats are not gaining votes by saying this stuff overseas. Just bashing this country and getting paid for it.
You never saw Nixon, Reagan, Ford or Bush condemn Clinton or Carter while they were the President. It wasn't because they couldn't. Both Carter and Clinton gave republicans lots of dirty laundry to air to the world. The former republican presidents didn't take part in attacking democratic president because of dignity.
It is called respect for the presidency! (Not necessarily respect for the man!)
I had done a post on this topic (on November 4, 2005 7:46 PM)
You can click here for that post! Titled "Out Of Power And Out Of Control"
Just add Al Gores name to it if you read it!

Oops! - Bush Unaware Mikes Were Still On

CAMBRIDGE, Md. (AP) — The eavesdropping tables were turned on President Bush on Friday. The president apparently believed he was speaking privately when he talked about listening in without a warrant on domestic communications with suspected al-Qaida terrorists overseas. But reporters were the ones doing the listening in this time.

"I support the free press, let's just get them out of the room,"

Once the reporters were far enough away, Bush and his republican cronies talked about stuff they picked up in the wiretaps. Old lady Crepps has a wooden leg. Joe Smith, from Florida, doesn't really have a girl friend, and Judy Jones from Texas, we know they are not real.

Something did come out of all this. Right after this important Republican "meeting of the minds", police swarmed in and arrested this pig.

That pig was a filthy, stinking, terrorist! He was on his way to blow up a strategic pig farm. He was using his American phone to call Osama personally. Getting funds and information. Bush got that stinking pig!

Did we kill ourselves!

It is interesting what you will find on the Internet. A fellow e-mailed me to get me to check out his site. I go over there and he has a left-wing propaganda site called "scholars for 9/11 truth.org."
So I comment and get called a "redneck."
I like that!
Here is the idea being pushed:
"Americans blew up our own buildings during 9/11 so we could go to war."
Here is one photo showing how a jet could never fit into the hole of the pentagon.


So.. it must have been a cruise missile that made this hole in the pentagon. And liberals wonder why we think they are stupid! meanderthalis, I have an experiment for you. Take a pop can and put it under your car tire. Drive over it! What happens? The soft rubber tire smashes the metal can.
When a light-weight, aluminum jet slams into a steel beamed, cement walled building. (That was constructed to be a bomb shelter.) "There isn't going to be much left of that jet."
But this propaganda site goes on. That the jets crashing into the World Trade Towers couldn't have brought them down. Something else must have done that!
Here is the quote:
David Ray Griffin states:No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire. The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse.This is completely false! Just after 9/11, a scientific study done on a British building that was due for demolition, showed that the "multi-interlocking deck design" of the World Trade Towers would not stand the "heat" from an intense fire. (A fire from jet fuel.) Because the deck design was riveted, instead of riveted and welded, it collapsed from heat. The steel didn't melt, it warped causing the rivets to 'pop.' (This was proved in the study.) The weight of multiple decks, (Floors) falling down on the floors below, caused the entire collapse.

The builders of the WT Towers, Minoru Yamasaki, never planned for a fully fueled jet to slam into it. It was not thought of in the 1970's. However, they believe that a jet, with little fuel, lost in fog while trying to land at JFK, would never have brought down the WT Towers. A jet taking off from JFK, full of fuel, never gets near the towers. The builders never thought anyone would fly jets, full of fuel, purposely into the Towers.
Manning has an excellent take on this! For the US government to have done this to the America people, here's what would have happened…(you got to read this!)
Click here for Manning's post
Also
For anyone following this, I have a great site from an engineer's perspective.
Click here for Nova!

But, the fact remains. Osama masterminded this event. Terrorists carried it out.
So now, meanderthalis gets a little 'pissy.' Here are some of his replies. (Edited down, of course.)
"Seems to me this scares you a bit. Goes against everything you believed about your terrorist nation."
"As for angryrepublican, you are whining like a little child. Its a bit difficult to stomach, but there it is, in black and white."
"I'd like to see your reference. If it exists. If you can't be bothered to back up what you say, shut up."
That's funny, the guy asks me to read his sight, then tells me to 'shut-up' when I comment.
" And you are an expert on aeroplanes, and jet fuel, right. So we should trust you. How simple. Trust the redneck. He knows the answers."
"Come on, be fair. Have I called you a redneck?? I mailed you the link so that you could respond to something that you (????) feel strongly about."
( i regret calling him a redneck, he seems to have taken it too seriously)
Actually no! I haven't taken it too seriously. I am having great fun with this stuff!
meanderthalis, The one site you offer to people is a 'tongue in cheek' left wing site. Most people understand that much of what is shown on that site is.. Well.. Not true. That is what Serendipity does.
The other site, "scholars for 9/11 truth.org." Has been out for a while.
They are a group of liberals who are trying to discredit the president.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D, says: "As long as these photographs are authentic and those measurements are correct—which concerns the quality of the evidence for not q and appears to be rather difficult to dispute—then no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.49 Q.E.D. " This guy never visited the crash site! He is using photos and hoping the measurements are correct.
Folks, I just thought this was wild stuff and wanted to share it with others.
Americans blew up our own buildings on 9/11.
Hey, every once in a while I like to read some fiction!
meanderthalis, you may think I am picking on you. I am not. The simple fact that I am doing a post on this subject means, (In a twisted, condescending sort of way) that I am interested in this topic.
I just can not stand anti-Americanism. If you would have calmly discussed this theory to me, the aftermath would have remained in a gentlemen fashion. But you call Americans fools, a terrorist nation, rednecks, etc.
"Man, dems is fighten' words."
Of course I am going to attack you! I have placed in your comment section a bunch of references on The World Trade Towers. If you would like to discuss this some more, hell, I'll play along. But when the Super Bowl starts, you will have to play with yourself.
meanderthalis post is titled: "Have you seen this?"
Serendipity's web page here
"scholars for 9/11 truth.org." here
If you want news and facts taunted with lies, check out "Bad News!"

For the site, where this came from, with tons of comments, click here- angryrepublican

Radical Islam, The Beginning..

I was trying to understand the Arab world during Mohammed's time. I know it sounds silly, but the American- "Wild West" is the best description I can come up with. (Though the American Wild West came 1,200 thousand years later!) You had great cities, like Mecca. But in between, there were hundreds of miles of nothing. Just like in the Wild West, robbery was a way of life for some in the old-Arab world. Caravans of merchants would frequently be robbed of their goods. In America, with a government that is "for the people, by the people." We could demand protection, or vote our leaders out of office. Arab's didn't have this luxury. In a land governed by Rulers, Kings, and dictators.. Arabs could not demand anything!
In the desert of Arabia was Mohammad born, according to Muslim historians, on April 20, 571. The name means highly praised. His parents died when he was young. Mohammed grew up to become a type of merchant. He also took part in robbery of goods from 'enemy' tribes. Mohammed was a very intelligent man, he saw the world in a different perspective then many of his contemporaries. Mohammed began to believe that the "Multi-God" religion that Arabs followed no longer served the Arab people. All around him, people were ruled by greed. Mohammed was disgusted by the deterioration of life in Mecca.
Being a traveler, Mohammed met Jewish and Christian people. Christians would often taunt Arab people because they never had a prophet. That God had never spoke directly to Arabs. (That wasn't a very nice thing for Christians to do??) Being an intelligent man, Mohammed did ponder this question.. "Why hadn't God spoke to the Arab people?"
Around the year 609, Mohammed was 40, he had his 'revelations' with God. This was not a peaceful event! Mohammed would shake, sweat and go blank. He once described a revelation this way: "It was like my whole soul was being ripped out of my body!" Mohammed wrote down everything he witnessed. He did not show these revelations to any outsiders. Only trusting his wives and close friends. Around 611, friends of Mohammed believe these revelations must be seen by all. The writings of Muhammad, called the Koran (Qur'an), were so logical, so well written, and so pure.. It is said that anyone who read the Koran became a follower of Islam.
This was the problem.. You had to read it.
Many of the old rulers and kings refused to read the Koran. To suggest a "One-God" religion, similar to the Christians, in the Arab world was unheard of. There were several attempts to assassinate Muhammad. For two years, they tried to starve the followers of Islam by cutting off supplies. But none of this worked. As more people read the Koran, they too, became followers. In the end, the old rulers of the 'Multi-God' religion, either joined Islam, or were cast-out and even killed.
After Mohammed's death, Islam spread across the Arab world and into territories not ever held by Arabs. Changes in belief of the Koran, allowed Arabs to kill a brother. A more Radical Islam was emerging. What lands that did not submit to Islam, were taken over in war. By the year 800, Islam held a great Empire that had more land then The Roman Empire held. Islam had split into three fractions: Sunnism, Shiism and Sufi mysticism. Each having a small different meaning of the Koran.
Almost as quick as The Islamic Empire's rise, it began to fracture. The three fractions, Sunnism, Shiism and Sufi, did not see eye to eye on matters. Plus, increased trade with the outside world caused a further split in the Islamic Empire.
The Islamic Empire basically fell into what you see today. (Aside from some border and kingdom changes.) Except.. Arabs had a new, One God (Allah), religion.
This would be the end of the story.. Except for one small thing…
OILLet me stop for a moment..From what I have read, I can find nothing wrong with Muhammad. I believe he was a decent, intelligent prophet who spoke to God. Mohammed's intent was pure. In any religion, (or country for that matter) a radical group can use a religion or government to conquer. Mohammed believed you should not force anyone to follow Islam. Followers should be willing. He believed Muslims should resect Jews and Christians because they believed in the same God. Christians just had an earlier revelation then the Arabs. First and foremost, Mohammed believed hoarding wealth would not be seen as righteous, before God, if your brothers suffer in poverty.
It is the radicals in Islam that I point out. These folks are not following the true teachings of Mohammed. They are using the religion as a means to conquer and gain wealth. I am not just picking on Islam. Christianity had The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition. You could pick almost any country in the world and show a time in which radicals used the government to conquer. (I know.. I Know.. Some people will point at President Bush.)
Islam and Oil
If it were not for oil, the Arab world would probably resemble the continent of Africa. Warring states, opposing tribes, and poor people starving. But because of oil, Arab rulers became billionaires. Europe, America, Asia and the world were forced to focus on The Middle East.
Oil is the most traded commodity in the world. Arabs seem to hold the bulk of it.
What is happening in The Middle East is nothing new. It is a tragedy that has been played out many times in this world. It is a clash of the old against the new. Japan saw an encounter between modern Japanese and the old Samurai. In America, we saw the clash between the old- Native American Indian ways and the modern Europeans. Also, during the civil war, we saw the collision of the old south against the modern north.
So there is nothing new about the conflict in The Middle East. What is different? Most of the time we read about this stuff in history books. This is taking place in front of our eyes!
If radical Islamic leaders truly followed the teachings of Mohammed, there would be no war. Radical Islam is using the Koran to over-throw rulers and kings they do not agree with.
With the Hamas victory in Palestine. With a more radical president in Iran. With what Al Qaeda tried to do in Afghanistan and are trying to do in Iraq. You can see, radical Islam is spreading again. (The Koran is a very well written and powerful book. Do not underestimate it!)
The goal of radical Islam is to rebuild the Islamic Empire. (Make no mistake about it. They have said it many times.) They will use oil as their engine and the Koran as a tool.
This will be The Forth World War.It is interesting how little a role America will play in the start of The Forth World War. (We can be slightly egotistical at times and think things "revolve around us".)
This will be discussed in detail in the final editorial of this series.

Written by Biff Babonie

Research material used

Islam.. (A short History).. by Karen Armstrong.

USC- Compendium of Muslim Texts- Quick Link Here!
www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

Crude Awakenings- (Global Oil Security) by Steve A. Yetiv

"Following editorial's from this series are"

Post 1- Who Created Al-Qaeda?
Post 2- Radical Islam: The beginning.
Post 3- Why Saddam?
Post 4- The Forth World War


Thanks for reading The Angry Republican!

Note: You will find spelling errors and terrible grammar used in these posts. Anything I send to the newspapers has two editors, one checks spelling and punctuation, the other checks content. For this blog, I like the feeling to be 'raw.' For better or worse, there is no editing process.

Osama

New bin Laden tape sends mixed messages

You know, I listened to the bin Laden tape. There were some good songs. But much of it was hard to dance to. I only give it a 64.

(Sorry, lame-ass reference to the old Dick Clark's American Bandstand)

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Al-Jazeera on Thursday broadcast portions of an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden, saying al-Qaida is making preparations for attacks in the United States but also holding out the possibility of a truce.

Osama bin Laden said:

"We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to," he added. "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat."

Oh.. So.. Killing thousands of innocent people is OK. Just so you do not lie and cheat while you are doing it.

What's really scary is the effect the new Osama CD is having on some people..
Oh.. NO. I'm hypnotized!!

Read more at: bluefunk

Life is all about showing up - unless you're Paula Abdul.

The controversial American Idol judge, who last season survived allegations of an affair with a former contestant, ditched yesterday's Fox TV critics press tour session with that old Hollywood whopper, "an eye infection."

Aaah Paula.. Something tells me that people were not looking at your eye infection!

To read more.. Click--bluefunk

Hurray for Hollywood

There are three movies out right now that disturbs me. These movies are "Munich", "Brokeback Mountain", and of course "Good Night, and Good Luck."
Brokeback Mountain, I am going to talk about last because I will probably put my foot into my mouth. I will piss people off. So I will put it way at the bottom. Nobody reads that far down.
The other two movies are based on actual events that are "slanted" to some degree. I realize that there are always two sides to every issue. So I had to think back to movies I have liked that other people said were slanted and not actual history.
"Patton".. Staring George C. Scott. I love this movie and have often wished we had someone like Patton in command today. Whenever this movie is on TV, I try and watch it. I believe the combination of Ike and Patton, plus all the brave men who fought, made America heroes in WWII.
I had a great Uncle who served in one division Patton was in command of. This uncle didn't care for Patton. Patton was called: "Old blood and guts." My uncle use to say: "Yea, our blood and his guts." He hated the movie Patton. He said that the strategy that America was using, anyone could have lead Patton's divisions. (Any other general) He said Patton made it MORE dangerous because he didn't want to stop and regroup. Many times, Patton ran himself out of supplies.
I respect my uncle. "He was there, I wasn't." And while he was alive, I would listen to him. But I still love the movie Patton. I think he was a great American General.
The second movie is "JFK" by Oliver Stone. I am predisposed to believing in a conspiracy on JFK's assassination because I just don't think Oswald could have done it by himself. People have said that District Attorney Jim Garrison didn't play that big a role in the investigation of JFK's murder. They say the movie JFK is based mostly on fiction. I do not care.. I like this movie. (For more on the topic of JFK- Click Here.)
So I do understand that there will always be two sides to every movie made about history.
Now.. I move onto today's movies…

First… I have not seen these movies. I will not see them until they land in the "bargain bin" at Billy Bob's movie house. I know it sounds silly.. But it is my way of "sticking it to the man." Since I haven't seen the movies, I cannot debate the content. But I can debate the premise.

George Clooney's- "Good Night, and Good Luck."


I respect Edward R. Murrow as a broadcaster. I have some records of his. A series of 78 speed records from a show he did called "Hear it now." These are collector's items.
The premise: That Senator Joseph McCarthy's hearings on communistic activity in America was un-American. Murrow fought against the brass at CBS to report that these hearings were a witch-hunt.
Here is the problem I have. We knew that the Soviets had spies. (The Soviet rocket program is similar to the US Saturn rockets, just bigger. The "Mig" is similar to some US fighters, just bigger. The Soviet plans for a space shuttle were similar to the US space shuttle, just bigger.)
How do we find spies? Do we lay down and do nothing? Do we wiretap Americans? No.. we can't do that. That is un-American.
So we have open hearings on the subject. The one thing people who do not believe in these hearings have said is that; "It destroyed the career's of people." Let's take Lucille Ball. She popped on the list because she joined the communist party and she married a man whose family fled Cuba. "I can understand why she was on the list." This never destroyed her career. Lucille Ball had no idea why she joined the communist party. In an interview, she said: "We were young and stupid. Many young people in Hollywood joined the communist party. I never went to any meetings or donated any money to them."
Mark my words.. Twenty years from today you will hear that same thing. "I don't know why. Many of us in Hollywood were sympathetic to terrorists. We were young and stupid."
Lucille Ball was not charged with anything. She went on and had a great career. These hearings went on to find some interesting Soviet ties that needed to be investigated. Plus, it shut down some communistic activity in America. Did the McCarthy hearings go to far? Yes. But they were necessary.
(You will hear this twice in this post.) There is a danger in always second guessing what our fathers and grandfathers did. These people lived through the fear of communism in the 1950's. They felt these hearings were necessary. So do I. When you condemn the actions of a past generation, without regard for why they did it, you begin to look weak.. Spineless. Where is your backbone? It is easy for us to say communism never spread that far, so they didn't need to have hearings. But back then, who knew how far communism would go. It was spreading into different countries.

Now..

"Munich"


I realize that Steven Spielberg is trying to say that violence will get you more violence. Terrorist's have families and lives. Maybe we just do not understand these people?
(Here we go again..) Our fathers and grandfathers felt it was important to give the Jewish people their own state. People of the world picked the Holy Land. Why? I am not afraid to say it.. "Because the people in that region might someday blow up the Holy Land because they are mad about something." The state of Israel would be the perfect guardians of The Holy Land. "That land belonged to the Jewish people, long ago." So a group of nations pushed out the residents, (Palestinians) and created The State of Israel. It was a British commander who taught Israel to fight. "He did a great job!" America supplied some weapons.
We cannot continue second-guessing what our past generations did. Sure we can analyze it. Learn from it. But to say it was wrong? What gives us the wisdom to even make that statement?
Taking this land, (America) from Native Americans was not a good thing to do. "Do you want to give your land back to them?" Will you give up your house and move back to where ever your family came from?
So.. In my opinion.. We should respect and back the State of Israel. Therefore, I have no sympathy for Palestinian terrorists. In my opinion Israel has tried to work with them, and the Palestinians turn everything down. Sharon gave the Palestinians the Gaza Strip and it is now a hellhole. "Will Steven Spielberg take his vacation in The Gaza Strip?" I don't think so..


And finally..


"Brokeback Mountain." Featuring Gay cowboys..

I will probably never see this movie. No offence.. (If you're gay, there maybe things you do not want to see..) For me.. Seeing two cowboys kissing in a pup tent is not something I want to see.
First off, (from what I hear) they are not cowboys. They herd sheep. Second, they have women. So they are not gay. They are bi-sexual. Or to use a more progressive term.. "They are experimenting.."
So the movie should be.. "Brokeback Mountain" Featuring Experimenting Sheepherders.
So.. either way you put it.. I do not want to see this movie. But I do not care that Hollywood has made it. It is progression. From Marilyn Monroe's skirt flying up from a street vent, to Sharon Stones beaver shot in Basic Instinct, to lesbian scenes in " Mulholland Drive." So the next step would be Experimenting Sheepherders.
Do I agree with this progression that Hollywood is on? No.. But I know I cannot stop it. As long as people line up to see this, Hollywood will make it.
The only thing I can do, is what my great uncle did to me, many years ago. When I commented on how much I like "Patton." He reminded me that there are two sides to every story.

Link to the original post: angryrepublican

Senators Consider Alito's Record, Judgment

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said Tuesday he would deal with the issue of abortion with an open mind as a justice, though he defended his 1991 judicial vote saying women seeking abortions must notify their husbands.

What if they do not have husbands??

"No person is above the law, and that means the president and that means the Supreme Court," the judge said.

Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy told Alito that his judicial opinions suggest otherwise.

Let's look at Alito's Record…

*****The Angry Republican News Exclusive******

---Alito pledged in 1990 that he would recuse himself from cases involving the Vanguard companies. Some Alito opponents say his participation in a 2002 Vanguard case raises doubts about his fitness for the Supreme Court. Alito holds six-figure investments with Vanguard.

---In 1992, Alito yelled at a puppy.

---1993, Alito ordered a pizza and only tipped the delivery guy .50 cents. This pizza guy couldn't afford to pay his crack dealer and got a broken fibula.

---Asked repeatedly about whether the Supreme Court should have decided Bush v. Gore, the case that settled the 2000 election, Alito declined to answer, saying he hadn't studied the case.

---In 1990, Alito drank a whole case of beer and strip searched a 10 year old girl.

---When asked if the Pittsburgh Steelers would do better if John Kerry was one of their wide receivers, Alito refused to answer.

Get more news at: bluefunk

Jon Stewart To Host 2006 Academy Awards?

It has been revealed that the search for a host for this year’s Oscar ceremony is over…the host for 2006 will be Jon Stewart from the US spoof news show ‘The Daily Show’.



If this is true, there will be some "Bush Whacking" on that Oscar Show.


Conservatives may want to stay away. (Unless you have a good sense of humor.)

Read more at: bluefunk

Who Created Al Qaeda?

I have been wanting to do a series of posts (editorials) on our current enemies. I believe it is important to understand these people. Plus, I feel many people do not even see an enemy. Maybe they feel the enemy is not that big of a problem. Or it is too big a problem. Or that it isn't "our" problem at all.

People have said that America created Al Qaeda. How can this be?? We are good people!

By the end of this post.. You will know who created Al Qaeda.

President Jimmy Carter was having a hell of a time during his presidency. An oil crisis, which caused Americans to pay high prices for gas and wait in long lines. You could not buy gas two days in a row. Inflation was sky high.

Then.. The fall of 1979 became a nightmare. Iran captured Americans and held them hostage. If that wasn't bad enough The Soviets invaded Afghanistan just one month after Iran took Americans hostages. American TV was focused on the Iran hostage crisis, the pentagon was focused on the Soviets. "To invade Afghanistan in the winter is mad. There is no plain reasoning here," is what many reporters thought. But not the pentagon. The soviets were careful planners and geopolitical thinkers.

If the Soviets were able to take Afghanistan, there would be nothing stopping them from heading west into the heart of the Middle East. This could not be aloud to take place. They would control the oil fields. Which meant money and power.

America was still weak from its war in Vietnam just five years ago. Everyone agreed a head on battle with the soviets was out of the question. People began to believe.. "Let's do to the soviets what they have done to us in the past." Everyone knows the soviets greatly helped out our enemy's in previous wars. It was time for some payback. But America couldn't just openly back Afghanistan. It had to be done covertly.

Jimmy Carter had made some "friends" in the Middle East while he was trying to sure-up an oil supply. Mainly, the House of Saud. Saudi Arabia had much to loose if the soviets were successful. Mainly, their oil fields. A deal was stuck between Jimmy Carter and the House of Saud. Saudi Arabia would provide the funds. America would provide the technology and training.

Before America and Saudi Arabia entered the picture, things looked very bad for the Afgan Freedom Fighters. "You had goat herders and drug growers shooting at soviet tanks with pistols."

Sub-story….

A riff had grown in the Middle East. Young Islamic men began to see the older Islamic leaders as weak. The Kings and dictators were being driven in limousines. Fancy dining. Big shows. Some of these leaders were actually making Hollywood type movies. The young extreme Islamic people began to dislike the elders and believed the elders had lost the way of Mohammed.

When the "mighty bear" invaded Afghanistan. Many of the Middle Eastern Kings and dictators did nothing to stop this. They offered little support. It was the final straw for many of the young Islamic men. Young men poured into Afghanistan. The American CIA and Special Forces trained them.

These young men where very wise. They learned more then the CIA thought. They could take two broken AK-47's, strip them down, and make one functioning weapon. "Most American soldiers can't do that." The Freedom Fighters learned to do this out of necessity. It is what they had to do on the battlefield. They knew the "in and outs" of anti-tank missiles. They learned how Americans fought and how we get intelligence. They learned everything.

The Afgan Freedom Fighters stop the Soviets in their tracks.

President Carter did not win his reelection. President Ronald Reagan believed Carter's covert war in Afghanistan was justified and important. Actually Reagan intensified it by lending more US support. Eventually the Afgan Freedom Fighters held off the Soviets long enough that the Soviet Union retreated. The Freedom Fighters had won.

Something happened on the battlefield of Afghanistan. The young Freedom Fighters began to call themselves Al Qaeda. Since Afghanistan was in ruins, it was easy for Al Qaeda to set up whatever government they choose. America and The House of Saud had no desire in the region. Al Qaeda picked The Taliban to run their new paradise. Be-heading became the punishment for many crimes. Women were beaten and killed for no good reason.

Some Al Qaeda members made an attempt to travel back to their home countries. They began to talk about the great victory Al Qaeda had over "the mighty Bear," how they created a paradise in Afghanistan. "Where a strict interpretation of The Koran was being followed." Many of the home countries didn't want these "Mujahideen" (Holy warriors) in their countries. They were afraid of an uprising. Al Qaeda was rounded up in many countries and escorted to the border. "If you return, you will be killed."

One member of Al Qaeda who was different from most was Osama bin Laden. He had fought in the Afgan war like many of the others, but Osama was rich. When Saudi Arabia kicked Osama out for spreading propaganda, bin Laden stated he would bring down the House of Saud. Osama was made the leader of Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda, which means "the base", began to seek out new manpower and funds were ever they could. (Which ever country would have them and not kill them.) Yemen, Iran, Sudan and of course Afghanistan to name a few.

Al Qaeda is "The Base." The base of the new Ottoman. A return to the great Islamic Empire. Many people do not realize the Islamic Empire held more land then the Roman Empire. Al Qaeda, (the way they see it) defeated the Russians. They have their own first country. (Afghanistan.) They see America as a country of pilgrims who in less then 200 years, became a great and powerful empire. England, in the 1600's, was still filled with warring tribes. 250 years later, England ruled the world. Al Qaeda can wait. They will do it one country at a time. Al Qeada's membership started to grow.

When the Soviet Union fell shortly after Desert Storm, America took credit for toppling the Russians. After all, America had been locked in a cold war with the soviets for decades. A large-scale chess game. A deadly game. Without America giving the Afgan Freedom Fighters training and weapons, the Soviets would have won. The Soviets fell because their economy could no longer support a massive weapons build up. When the Russians saw American forces in Dessert Storm, they were stunned. The "Patriot Missile" scared the crap out of the soviets. If America perfected "Star Wars," all Russian weapons were useless.

Al Qaeda didn't care for America taking credit for their victory. Radical Islam didn't understand how we could hate the Russians and then send Billions in aid, food and money to the Russians. They didn't understand how President Reagan could trade arms to Iran and then sell arms to Iraq. Mostly, they began to believe America was the problem. Osama witnessed American forces being gunned down by rebels in Mogadishu. Osama watched as Americans ran from the fight during the Clinton Presidency. Osama believed if Al Qaeda could strike America on their own soil, Americans would run away from The Middle East.

Enter the First World Trade Tower Attack- 1993

This was not successful in bringing down the towers. President Clinton treated it like it was a random crime. American activities continued in the Middle East. Al Qeada began planning various attacks at American targets around the world. Embassies in Africa. The USS Cole. Bombs in Saudi Arabia. Then, in 2001. Al Qaeda was successful in killing 3,000 innocent Americans and leveling The World Trade Towers. It is what Osama wanted to do. He did it.

What Osama didn't plan on, America didn't run. In fact.. He pissed us off.

Afghanistan was the first target because it was Al Qaeda's Base. It was the first country in their attempt to reclaim a great Islamic Empire. It is gone now. Why attack Iraq? Because Saddam could have had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was not following rules set forth by the UN. Saddam's military was firing on our pilots. Our forces were already in the area and they were "pumped up" from devastating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And finally, it places Iran in "The Box."

Who Created Al Qaeda?

If you are part of the "Blame America First" crowd, then you will want to blame the US and President Jimmy Carter for training and supplying the Afgan Freedom Fighters.

If you do not blame America for every little thing that happens in this world, then you know..

Radicals created Al Qaeda. The Afgan Freedom Fighters had an opportunity to create a paradise in Afghanistan. No one would have bothered with them. Instead, they created a hellhole where be-headings were treated like a sporting event. They do not use the teachings of Mohammed. They use a perverted version of The Koran that was changed after Mohammed's death. This change in The Koran allows brother to kill brother, something Mohammed forbid. Al Qaeda tried to spread fear into other countries and their own brothers didn't want them in the homelands and would jail them on site.

There are Americans who do not believe the war in Iraq is important. Al Qaeda believes Iraq is important. If Al Qaeda can defeat the "paper eagle" in Iraq, the way they defeated "the mighty bear" in Afghanistan. In their minds, they will have defeated the world's only two super powers.

Nothing will stand in their way after that. Not even China.

Written by Biff Babonie.
Research material used…
American Soldier.. By General Tommy Franks
America's Secret War.. By George Friedman
Sell Out (Corruption of the CIA).. By James Adams
Islam.. (A short History).. by Karen Armstrong.

Following editorial's from this series are"
Post 2- Radical Islam: The beginning.
Post 3- Why Saddam?
Post 4- The Forth World War

Read more at: angryrepublican