Crowd pleaser- getting your A$$ handed to you

People love you when you are getting the crap beat out of you. When your face is being pushed into the muck, that is when people care.

For example: People seemed to tolerate Israel when Hamas rockets rained down into this tiny State; day after day.
However, the minute that Israel retaliated against Hamas, they lost all compassion from the world.

The United States also found this to be true...
Just after 9/11 when we were at our lowest, the world poured out sympathy for us. (I believe France even send us 2,000 beds. Or, maybe that was during Katrina?)
However, the minute we lashed out at Afghanistan and pulled Saddam from a hole in the ground, we lost sympathy from the world. We become "the hated."
So, if we use this analogy, the answer would be to keep getting your ass handed to you- FOREVER, until the day you die. Then, and only then, the world will love you.
(Note) You are dead. Your ass was kicked every single day of your life by "someone." However, the world LOVES you.

So, I’m trying to figure out where this concept came from? (Because, usually; the "good guy" is justified regardless if he is winning or losing a battle.)
Did it come from Hollywood..??
Name one movie where the "good guy" gets his ass kicked AND NEVER retaliates near the end of the movie?
I can’t think of one?
(My first thought was Clint Eastwood’s "The Unforgiven." Where the "good guy" was actually bad. The "Bad guy" was actually fighting for a good reason. However, near the end of this movie; the "bad" GOOD guy does take revenge and is respected in this old western town.)
Could you imagine Batman, Rambo, or James Bond getting slapped around AND NOT seeking some sort of revenge?
Even Hollywood movies teach people to fight for what they believe, so this idea that "losing is GOOD" doesn’t necessarily come from Hollywood.

The Bible teaches people to "turn the other cheek" and to love your enemies. However, the people who are pushing the "good guy must lose" idea probably do not read the Bible.
This idea that "winning is bad" could come from the school system. I seem to remember the idealism being taught that there may not be a "right and wrong", (or good and bad) because of a "gray area" where the BAD guy might be a good guy to someone else.

So if you were taught (and you believe) that right could be wrong and "bad" could be good, then you wouldn’t want to see America or Israel win a war. (Because of the gray area where right could be wrong and good could be bad.)
OK, I understand that. (I do not agree with it, but I can understand it.) But, then how could these same people go to the movies and watch a "hero" beat up the bad guys..??
Somehow, they are able to turn off this "gray area" idealism long enough to watch the movie?
Maybe we have found our answer...
I believe that every person instinctively understands right from wrong. (They just pretend that they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong.) In school, or maybe through parents, children learn of a "gray area" between right and wrong. This causes these people to rethink what they knew to be true.

Here is a great example:

The democratic mayor of Baltimore (Sheila Dixon) was just indicted for stealing Christmas gift cards for the poor and using them on herself to buy video games and furs. She was having sex in her office, (with a guy who wasn’t her husband). And she took many gifts in exchange for city contracts awarded to the gift givers.
At this point: it doesn’t matter if you are a democrat or a republican; if you are White or Black, you KNOW what Sheila Dixon did was wrong.

So right now, your "gray area" idealism is turned off, and you can tell right from wrong.
However, in the weeks to come; you will be bombarded with "extra" information about Ms. Dixon. Maybe you will learn that she grew up in a tough situation. You might learn that there are many other politicians doing about the same thing, so why pick on the Baltimore Mayor?
(These are things that shouldn’t matter..!! She committed a crime.)
Your "gray area" idealism will kick in and you will no longer be able to tell right from wrong and a criminal will get away with a crime.

Take Illinois Governor Blago; when we first heard the audio tape of Blago trying to sell Barack Obama’s senate seat, we all knew that he was a criminal. (No gray area.)
However, in the weeks that followed; the spin started that "Blago hadn’t really committed a crime yet. He just TALKED about selling Obama’s senate seat. Blago didn’t actually sell it yet.."
(Would that be like a terrorist who TALKED about blowing up the White House. But he is OK because he didn’t actually blow it up yet..??)
Republicans even began to speak highly of Blago because "he made the democratic party look bad."
In this last example, republicans are using the gray area idealism to allow a crook (Blago) to stay in office, (because democrats put Blago there and the people need to see what the democrats have done.)
A crook is a crook, and Blago should have been made to step down long time ago.
Lets take one more look at today’s news:
A video tape of Britain’s Prince Harry calling an Afghan tribesman a "raghead" surfaced this weekend. He also called a fellow Pakistan soldier his: "Paki friend."
Now, most of us know that during a war, soldiers talk tough to "toughen" each other up. Prince Harry was serving in the British military and during a war, you may not always be politically correct.
However, in the next few days; depending on which side of the political fence you dwell on- you will look at this statement by Prince Harry different.
If you are for the war in Iraq, you will believe that we always call the enemy names. Hell, terrorists call us names like "western dogs" and "pigs." So what if Prince Harry called a terrorist a "raghead?"
However, if you are against the War in Iraq, you will believe that what Prince Harry said was the worst possible thing ANYONE could have said. You will believe that statements like this are causing Arab people not to like us.
"Gray area" idealism is a fun way to debate in the safety of a school. It gives a person representing an unfavorable position a chance to win the debate. However, it is a terrible way to send a child into the real world.
People MUST know the difference between right and wrong.

Every car thief could argue the "gray area" of why they should have a car.
Every rapist could point out the "gray area" of why the girl was "asking for it."

"Gray area" idealism is a great debating trick, but that is as far as it should go.
Radical Islam is USING the gray area idealism to win your mind over to their side. Terrorists have you convinced that right could be wrong and that bombing a restaurant full of innocent people is OK- because... (Well, they have many reasons. "We killed innocent people because you buy oil." Or- "Israel sits on land that was ours, so instead of talking- we shoot rockets into Israel because of the gray area and you have no freaking clue of what is right and wrong..")

Gray area idealism causes you to fall for political spin and not recognize an enemy (until it is too late.)
I have to fight very hard to shut down my "gray area" idealism (that was forced into my brain as a child), or I find myself falling victim to the spin doctors.
You begin to believe that:
It’s OK to blow up innocent people and retaliation is the evil.
It is OK to steal gift cards from the poor because your life was bad and everyone is doing it. (Or because you think republicans do worse.)
When you think about it; how could "right" ever be wrong..??

Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republic

Slip- sliding away: Freedom

I have a paragraph from Newsweek. Please read this and tell me if it scares the crap out of you?

"..A new study argues our personal choices cause more than 1 million premature deaths a year. What, if anything, should the government do to protect us from ourselves.."



After reading that statement from Newsweek, do you feel:

Grateful that the government is "looking out for you" and your heath?

Terrified, because experience tells you that another American freedom will be lost?

Answering THAT question will tell you a lot about yourself.

Slip- sliding away: Freedom









I have been slammed by news stories this week, all pertaining to "what the government can do for us."

(I have a few links located below.)



All of these stories are based on ways that the government can "protect" you from- "something."

And the way that the government will protect you is by taking away your right to choice.

From restaurants being told how to make food, to cigarettes that "burn themselves out", to cars that will not start unless you pass a test, to mandated exercise...

My God man, where is our freedom.??







There used to be a time when one political party checked the other. But I cannot find that in these days.

Who can I blame for this..??



From the moderate republicans, to the extreme conservatives: from Sen. John McCain, to President Bush, to Newt Gingrich; they are all on board with global warming laws that restrict freedom. These laws reject personal conservation and rely on FORCED- mandated conservation.



However, the republican / conservatives are the "old guard" and are stepping down soon.

Liberal / Democrats have control now and I need to ask you a few questions..??

You believe that a woman has the right to choose if she will abort her child, however you do not want a woman to have the right to drive a big car; if she feels safer in a bigger vehicle?

(Let me see if I understand this correctly?) It is OK for a woman to choose to terminate a child, but not OK to keep a child safe in a big car..??

I can't understand that? How can that be..??





I have another question...

Liberals believe that the government has NO RIGHT to tell people who they can marry. However, the government has every right to tell you what you can put on the dinner table..??



The government has no say in what constitutes a "family", however the government can mandate what this family eats..??

OK, before you begin to believe that I am attacking the left and giving the right a pass. I am going to get back to republicans in a minute; because I am equally pissed at them.

It is important to focus on the left now because they hold the power.

I'm not sure what happened to the democrats. They are far from the party that my grandfather and mother supported many years ago. I cannot recognize them anymore?

Liberals seem to want to FIGHT for the right for Kathy Griffin to say the word "Dick" on live TV.



They want Amy Winehouse to have the freedom to be, (aahhh) freaking weird.



However, they want to BBQ a White comedian (Paul Shanklin) for making light of a Black situation. (Barack the magic Negro- song.)

Who is deciding this stuff..?? And why would any of us allow a "person" to tell what is right and what is wrong, for all of us?

Who are "these people" who are deciding this stuff? Who are "they", the ones who believe that "they" know what is BEST for "us"..??



About a half a dozen states passed the "safe- cigarette" law this year. My state: Pennsylvania, was one of them. I had no idea it was happening. I do not know who pushed the bill into a state vote? Who voted for it? We, the people of Pennsylvania didn't vote for it. No candidate that was running for office listed "safe- cigarettes" as a campaign promise?

Maybe you do not care for cigarette issues and that is fine. However, many states are pushing the idea of a higher gas tax. (Either by the gallon or by the mile.) "Who is pushing for this gas tax..??" Why do I not have names of the congress members that want this?

The reason I do not have names to go with these freedom killing bills is because the American media is on "auto- pilot."

No one in the media has balls anymore.



Newspapers, TV, the Internet...

You are my eyes and ears.



You have us all flying blind, today.

The next thing I know- SLAM. We fly right into a "gas tax." (Who the hell voted for it?) The media has no clue. And that means "we the people" have no clue.

(And you wonder why your ratings are down.)



The media needs to hirer journalists who can relate to the topics that Americans are interested in. Sure, Britney Spears' ass might interest many and it probably pays the rent for the news room. But don't forget to tell us who (in congress) voted to change property rights.

The left is to blame primarily (now) because you folks hold the keys to this country. Liberals used to fight for freedom. Now you are fighting for "light bulbs"..?? (How bright my house lighting is..??) What the hell happened to you?



But the conservative wing of republican party takes the brunt of my anger.

This stuff right here...

The stuff that I am talking about in this editorial..

This is exactly why I am paying your salary. To stop this "government babysitting service."

We do not need a babysitter.



We need an affordable, lean, trim, strong government.

Republicans: Now do you understand why we fired you?



Because you didn't do your job.

Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republic







Here is a tad bit more from the Newsweek editorial:





"..Each year more than a million people needlessly die because of their own personal decisions," says Keeney, whose work gives new meaning to the clich



é we're our "own worst enemies." That means more than half the population will make a decision leading to an early grave, he reports, including a full 55 percent of people who die between the ages of 15 and 64. Most alarming, that figure has jumped fourfold since 1900, despite the world becoming a safer place overall thanks to seat belts, smoking laws, health food and a host of other tools to help people stay inside the lines.."

"Stay inside the lines..??"







The Newsweek editorial explains that "we" have health food, seat belts, smoking laws (and people are still dying so this stuff didn't work) and Newsweek suggests we add MORE babysitting laws..???

So we can "stay inside the lines"..??



Ohhh hell, I got to get away from this topic or I am going to pop a gut.

LINKS: to stories on today's topic



Liberal writer wants the RIGHT to have her Adult web site "unblocked" from the public library. (Because it is educational)

LINK: Nothing wrong with T & A, little Johnny

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/twanna-a-hines/im-a-writer-not-a-child-p_b_154584.html



LINK: Newsweek- saving us from ourselves

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177587

LINK: News laws, coming to your freaking State?

http://news.aol.com/article/new-year-brings-new-state-laws/291721

LINK: How about a new GAS TAX?

http://www.walletpop.com/article/_a/bbdp/group-urges-federal-fuel-tax-hike/291629

Rock legend Neil Young wants fuel efficient cars at YOUR expense.

LINK: Old man take a look at my life

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neil-young/perfect-storm-for-innovat_b_155148.html

(Note) you can also read my reply to Neil Young. Listed as AR Babonie.

Thousand year war between the Jews and Muslims

Happy New Year,

Even though we are changing our calenders to a NEW year, some old issues will follow us forward:

The thousand year war between the Jews and Muslims.



Iranian President Ahmadinejad wrote a note of congratulations to President Elect Barack Obama on his victory. This is the first of it's kind in over 30 years.

Did Obama write a note back to Ahmadinejad?

Or, has Obama been too busy picking his cabinet, creating government policy, and relaxing in Hawaii: to write back to the Iranian President?



Should Obama reply to the Iranian president, or should he remain quiet?

How will what Obama does next, effect the current conflict between Palestine and Israel?



In the Huffington Post- writer: Hooman Majd believes that Barack Obama SHOULD write a letter to Ahmadinejad and even takes the time to pen a letter that Obama could send to Iran. (LINK located below- WARNING- control your politically correct "gag" reflex. Take some Tums first.)



The point of this being:

If you figure that Iran has some "pull" over Hamas and Hezbohla, then you must conclude that Iran has some power over what is taking place between Hamas, the Palestinians, and Israel.

In fact, the Iranian President came out yesterday to offer a reward to anyone who is willing to blow themselves up, (and kill Israelis.)

Mr. Majd believes that any "solution" in the Middle East must include working with, or at least acknowledging Iran.

So what can Obama do for this Middle East conflict?

Some liberals believe that for the past 8 years, (The Bush Kingdom) we have NOT talked to Iran because they want to build a nuclear power plant. There are people who believe that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear power because everyone else does. (So it is unfair to punish Iran.)

The reality is that EVERYONE wants Iran to have a nuclear power plant. Matter of fact, France, Russia, the USA, and others want to help Iran build one.

The problem is, Iran doesn't want to be inspected.



Every country HAS TO BE inspected by the nuclear regulatory commission, before they can build nuclear power plants in their country. America is inspected. France is inspected. Even Russia allows inspections.



But Iran doesn't want inspections to take place.

That is the problem.

Why MUST nuclear power plants be inspected by a "worldly" organization? Because: if you build a faulty nuclear power plant and blow yourself up- the wind could blow the radioactive fallout into a neighboring country and kill millions.

Iran doesn't want inspections because they are paranoid that "we" (you and me) will STEAL their valuable secrets. (Or, Iran is working on a nuclear weapon.)



How will Obama deal with Iran and what, if anything, will stop this conflict between Israel and the Palestinians..??

Most people want to pick a point in time to prove who is right and who is wrong between Israel and the Palestinians.



Where do you want to start- to prove that YOU know who is right and who is wrong between the Palestinians and the Jews?

You could start with this current conflict- where almost 6 months of peace was violated by Hamas rockets raining down on Israel?

Or maybe you want to hold Israel responsible for the 6 Day War, in which Israel took control of more land. Did Israel even START the 6 Day War? (Or did they finish it?)

Maybe you want to start with the Suez Canal conflict? (Who started that one?)

Or maybe when The United Nations granted Israel the right to exist?

Maybe your starting point is when Jews began to move back to The Holy Land during the Aliyah periods?

How about starting at the Ottoman Empire when Arabs took control of much of the known world?

You could start at the Crusades when Christian and Jews battled for the region?



Could you use geology to prove who was in the Holy Land first? Some of the great Jewish Temples are buried under Arab buildings. (Would geology tell you who was there first?)

Where do you want to start, to prove that "your side" is right?

Or maybe so much time has gone by, that you cannot pick a starting point, to justify your beliefs?



Maybe we cannot use history to prove who is right and who is wrong in The Middle East?

Maybe we have to look at the next "cease fire" between Israel and the Palestinians and see who violates it first?

So when we do this; when we look at the last cease fire between Israel and the Palestinians, we can clearly see that Hamas began firing rockets into Israel.

So, it would be Hamas- who is protected by the Palestinians, who started this battle.

However, people want to say that Israel is using too much force. (I guess people want to see a trade of rockets between Israel and Hamas? Hamas fires a rocket, so Israel fires one back?)

People claim that Israel is targeting Mosques and killing innocent people. You remind these people that Hamas is hiding in these Mosques and using the Mosque to launch rockets

Some people claim that Hamas is so frustrated by Israel being "mean" to them, that they are lashing out. People tell me the rockets that Hamas is using do not have explosives in them. (Aaaahh- now there is a comfort; knowing that the 200 pound rocket falling on your house and killing everything in it's path will not explode.)

You carry on with this debate and the next thing that you know...

You are brought back into this "walk through history" on who started this conflict between the Jews and Arabs.

Maybe the answer is: no answer at all?





Maybe the best way to stop this Middle East conflict is to quit stopping it?

Maybe the best solution, is NO solution at all.

For my entire life, there has been a conflict between Arabs and the Jews. Can you imagine living in a country that you are always bracing for war? What kind of life is that for it's people?

Every American President, for the past 4 decades, has tried some solution. Nothing has worked.

The British tried for many years and found no solution. The UN has failed.

Maybe it is time to just let it happen..??

Maybe it is time for us to "mind our own business..??"

Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republic







LINKS: To stories about today's topic:

LINK: Huffington Post- Majd writes a letter to Iran

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hooman-majd/dear-mahmoud_b_154238.html

LINK: Australia BANS topless beaches because Muslims don't like them

http://reportonarrakis.blogspot.com/2008/12/australian-mp-ban-topless-beaches-to.html

LINK: New Year called off because of Middle East fighting.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5423839.ece

LINK: Protesting Obama in Hawaii- (Why, he hasn't done anything yet?)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28436778/

LINK: Israel rejects a cease fire

http://news.aol.com/?feature=232890

VIDEO: Palestinian defends her right to drop bombs on Israel

If we can’t torture terrorists- use drugs

For those of you who believe that LOUD rock music is torture...

Those who believe that pouring a bucket of water on the enemy's head is evil...

If you believe that President Bush is a "War Criminal" for allowing LOUD rock music and water poured on terrorist's head, I got GREAT news for you..!!

We are now giving terrorists- DRUGS, instead.



Yes, you read that correctly.

The US military is now giving tribesman in Afghanistan DRUGS to make them talk and work with us.

This has got to be GREAT news to liberals and libertarians alike..!!



(Ok, maybe not all liberals.)

One of the cornerstones of liberalism and libertarianism is that if drugs were legal, we would have less crime and suffer less costs in fighting crime. (I will get into this in a moment.)

As the old saying goes:

"You attract more flies with sticky, gooey- cream filled donuts, then you do with an old sock that smells like vinegar."



Instead of placing female panties on the heads of the enemy, (which has been deemed "torture" by the left) we are now giving Afghan tribesman- Viagra.



It makes sense and this should please the democrats in America, who felt that loud rock music was torture.

Liberals are all about giving away free condoms, birth control pills, and Viagra.

So, this is GREAT news. We switch from waterboarding to Drugs.

Hence- no more "torture."

Even today (Sun Dec 28)- Arianna Huffington writes about torture during the Bush administration:

"...Bush and company didn't mean to illegally torture prisoners at Gitmo - they simply "forgot" torture was illegal. They didn't mean to trample civil rights - they simply "forgot" about the Constitution. They didn't gin up phony intel to hype us into war - they simply "forgot" that WMD had to be real..."



Ms. Huffington should be happy today, to find that the US government has switched to giving the enemy- drugs.

And it might work better:

Picture this: You are an Afghan farmer. You are tired from growing poppies all day, harvesting you heroin.

You come home and all 4 of your wives give you that glowing smile. You know, that little "wink" and nod that tells you that SEX is going to take place.

Maybe you can handle one, possibly two of your wives. (If the weather is just right). BUT ALL FOUR..??

Along comes the US military with a truck load of Viagra. (Just in the nick of time.)



Hey, what heroin growing, gun toting, Afghan rebel wouldn't want drugs..??

And best of all, this should satisfy the "Obama" crowd.



The left is all in favor of drugs.

Because we all know that if drugs were legal, we would have less crime.

Except...

If this were true...

Why would Amsterdam be shutting down some of it's marijuana coffee houses?

Amsterdam- the place most often cited by liberals as an example of a liberal society; where drugs are "cool" and sex is for sale. Where medical help is FREE, and you need not worry about a thing.

A paradise.



Except, that crime was getting out of hand because of all the drugs and uncontrolled behavior. So the government has to do something. They are shutting down some of the sex shops and drug "coffee shops."

What does this all have to do with our friendly, heroin growing Afghan farmer (with 4 horny wives)..??

We need intelligence to win these wars..!!



I do not care if we use Viagra, or pour a bucket of water on a guy's head, or we play loud rock music. We need information on our enemy.

How did we find out where Saddam was hiding..??

How were we able to locate the exact hole in the ground that Saddam was living in..??

You guessed it.

We politely told a fellow that he would DIE if he didn't reveal where Saddam was. (And guess what?) He told us. And the guy didn't die because we do not torture people. We just scare them a little. (With loud rock music, water on the head, and now Viagra.)

War is hell.

We need to be united to win these wars.



No one ever won a war by dying for his country.

You win a war by making the other dumb bastard die for his (country.) Gen. Patton.

Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republic







LINKS: To stories related to today's topic-



LINK: Going into life- STONED

http://news.aol.com/article/amsterdam-to-shut-some-sex-pot-shops/269838

LINK: Afghan gets HARD intelligence

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/26/redefining-hard-intelligence/

LINK: Ms. Huffington is "huffing" this news

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/sunday-roundup_b_153643.html