This and That

Not really having the time to blog now that the weather has warmed up and yard work has commenced, let’s instead take a look at some of the headlines from this increasingly strange world of ours…

Virginia Governor May Close Loophole

Virginia's governor said Tuesday he may be able to close the loophole that allowed a mentally ill Virginia Tech student to acquire the guns he used to kill 32 classmates and faculty last week.

While I think that this needs to be done for the public safety, I also think that this is going to meet some opposition. Why, you ask? Just think of the outcry if mental health records are now going to be part of a public record. Instead of a safety issue, it will become a privacy issue.

Iran Arrests 300 ‘Insufficiently Veiled’ Women

Break out the burkas!! Iran is now cracking down on women (and men) that the mullahs consider to be under-dressed (or perhaps, out of uniform). Police are enforcing the regulations. It’s amazing to me that the National Organization of Women have not commented on these types of actions against and/or repressions of women’s rights (at least to my knowledge).

Al-Qaida Group Claims Killing of 9 GIs in Iraq

Anyone who thinks that Al-Qaida is gone should realize that they are merely biding their time to strike again.

The Case for a Global Carbon Tax

The (Bush) administration had several narrow-minded and callous reasons for rejecting Kyoto, but among its main arguments was that the accords did not include developing countries and thus were ineffective. To understand why that is correct, consider one simple statistic. During the Kyoto time frame (that is, by 2012), China and India will build almost 800 new coal-fired power plants. The combined CO₂ emissions from those plants will be five times the total reductions in CO₂ mandated by the accords.

Finally, someone has pointed out that one of the reasons that the Kyoto Accords was rejected was because of China and India. While cutting down CO₂ emissions would be a good thing for everyone (not just because of “Global Warming”), the author correctly points out that these CO₂ emissions come from coal, which by itself has a whole host of environmental problems. What the author gets wrong is that the US is supposed to get China and India to not build coal-fired power plants. And that will be difficult because China and India are trying to build their economies the fastest (and cheapest) way possible. The author’s idea is to implement a global carbon tax to reign in these countries. I wonder if Al is listening…

Kim Basinger Hires Security for Daughter

After hearing the daughter’s father (none other than Alec Baldwin) rant on a voice mail, who can blame her? Oh yeah, Rosie defended Alec’s rant – go figure? One angry person defending another… And speaking about Rosie…

Rosie Leaving the View

To which I ask – What took so long?

I’ll be working on a long post, so it might be a week or two before the next post. This one is a continuation of Energy Independence, which was posted over a year ago. It’s a subject worth revisiting considering the events and topics of the past year (Global Warming, the Middle East, Environmentalism, Energy, and so on).

The Virginia Tech Shootings

More and more information is coming out about Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech student who went on a killing spree that left 32 dead & 19 wounded before killing himself. From several accounts, this was a deeply disturbed person.

While our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of all the victims of this tragedy, there are those who will take (correction: are taking) advantage of this horrendous event. For example:

The media will analyze this event trying to find out why this person acted the way he did. The victims will be glorified almost to the status of sainthood. And all of this will evaporate with the next hot news item.

The anti-gun crowd will use this event to try and further erode our 2^nd Amendment rights. Even though the weapon(s) used were legally purchased per the laws of the State of Virginia, we all know there will be a call for stricter gun laws.

Let me comment on the above examples:

As I have stated before in this blog and in the comment sections of other blogs, the media at large is an entertainment industry, not a news-reporting agency. News stories will be used, but they will be slanted and spun to provide the most interest possible to the widest audience. Ratings are king, and whatever can be done to raise the ratings will be done. What then happens is that people and the facts will be misrepresented or the full story not disclosed. And as soon as the story has run its course or interest begins to drop, then the media moves to the next hot topic.

The victims will soon be footnotes in this tragedy, but Cho will be the fodder for talk shows for the next several months. His life will be dissected in excruciating detail in an effort to find out what went wrong. Speculation will replace whatever facts that cannot be found, and the talking heads will recycle everything in different ways to present their point of view. Only when everyone is sick of hearing about Cho will the analysis cease.

I already know that the anti-gun crowd is gearing up to use this tragedy to push their agenda. I’m not sure what the requirements are in Virginia to purchase a weapon, but it sounds like there wasn’t a mental health or criminal background check, or a waiting period. At the very least, I’m predicting both of the above will shortly be introduced as bills to the Virginia Legislature.

But even then, a determined person such as Cho would have found a way to either get a weapon or some other device to carry out his mission of murder. From the reports I’ve seen, he planned this for a long time – he could afford to wait.

While Virginia Tech is a gun-free campus, Cho lived on campus. He had a weapon in violation of the rules, but obviously that didn’t matter. So the age-old argument that “if guns are banned only criminals will have guns” holds true in this case.

So if Virginia Tech was not a gun-free campus, would Cho have been stopped by a person with a legally purchased firearm and reduced the number of people killed or injured? One would like to think so, and I would like to post the following thoughts to the readers of this blog.

Why are the anti-gunners afraid of guns? They are inanimate objects just as much as the computer you are currently using to read this. They have no minds of their own and unlike a dog, will not run over and bite someone because they don’t like them. In essence, they are like a rock, unmoving unless acted upon by some external force.

Actually, what the anti-gunners are afraid of are people. Yep, people. But they are not afraid of sane, responsible people like you and I. Rather, they are afraid of people like Cho, angry and violent for no apparent reason, or of criminals wishing to do harm in the course of a crime. So their reasoning is that if guns are removed from the public, then these people would no longer have the capacity to cause harm. To which I would respond: Look what 19 people on a mission of death did with knives and boxcutters.

I would further respond with a question: If you are so afraid of people causing you harm, then who would you trust to protect you if you give up your right to self-defense? If you answered government or the police, stop to think for a second. Police cannot be everywhere at the same time nor will they be able to respond instantly to an emergency (that has been proven more times that anyone can count). And furthermore, the government is composed of people!! The argument falls apart.

I would like to close out this post with the recounting of two separate but related events that happened in 1983.

I had just gotten some food in a restaurant, and had just picked up my tray when a wild-eyed seedy looking man burst through the doors. He was carrying a double-barreled sawed-off shotgun, waving it around, screaming for everyone to freeze and he wanted money. The clerk behind the counter froze, not moving, petrified with fear. He turned his attention to her, waving the shotgun under her nose demanding that she open up the cash register. Suddenly, he whirled around in my direction, fired both barrels, and fled out the door.

Good part, he missed me totally – he was using double-00 buck and the spread pattern of a sawed-off shotgun is pretty wide (the shot went all around me, missing by fractions of an inch). Bad part was the guy next to me caught two – one in the shoulder which severed an artery, and the second through his leg, which went completely through.

Of course, blood and tissue is everywhere, and I can’t hear anything from the blast. I spent the next 10-15 minutes with my hands inside this guy’s shoulder holding on to what was left of his artery trying to keep him from bleeding to death. When the paramedics arrived, they had to first motion to me that they were going to take over, and second, get my hands uncramped enough to get my hands out of the way for them to patch him up for transport. Not a good day in the least.

After this incident, I applied for and received a CCW permit (they had not caught the would-be robber). As I was taking night classes at the time, I also went the University Campus Security Office, told them what had happened, and that I had a permit to carry. While they generally did not permit students from carrying weapons on campus (professors could), they made an exception for me, considering the circumstances. Good thing, too, given what almost happened two months later.

Walking back to my car at night (I lived off-campus), a car pulled up and 4 huge guys got out. I weighed only 135 pounds at the time, and these guys weighed at least 190+ each. I started backing up while they were hooting and hollering about how they were going to “mess up the white boy” (they were black). One of them appeared to be getting something out of the back of the car (I think it might have been a baseball bat). I kept backing up, holding my briefcase in front of me while reaching around behind me under my coat to get my gun. I had just unsnapped the holster and told them that they really didn’t want to do this when a police car turned the corner.

The guy closest to the car dropped back into the car whatever he was getting and called to his buddies. Two officers got out of the car and asked what was going on. They answered nothing, and the officers told them to keep moving along (they seemed to know them). They drove off, and the officers asked me if I was OK. I told them yes, and continued to tell them that they arrived at the right time. They originally thought that I was referring to my safety until I explained that if they had not arrived when they did, some of the people they just let go would have been severely injured. I showed them my weapon (still in the holster with the safety strap off), and asked if they needed to see my permit. They looked at each other, told me no, and to be on my way.

In the first case, I was defenseless, a lamb waiting to be slaughtered should my executioner deem it was my time. In the second case, I had a chance if it came to the worst possible scenario. And you know, if the same type of incident happened at my University that happened at Virginia Tech, I would guarantee that I would go down fighting.

Again, my heartfelt sympathy, prayers, and best wishes to the families and friends of the Virginia Tech students. May you all find peace.

Hypocrites!!

I was listening to the radio today, and it is absolutely amazing how the media and Democrats seem to be talking out of each side of their mouths. For instance:

Last week, al Zarqawi was killed in a bombing raid. One of the comments that I heard in the MSM was that we should not be rejoicing over the death of a human being. Now considering that this person sent other people out on suicide bombing missions on US military & Iraqi civilians alike, orchestrated the kidnapping & beheading of innocents (of which he is suspected of actually committing), and has generally created as much death & chaos as possible in a country that is not his own (he was from Jordan). He has been called an absolutely evil person for his planning and participation in these atrocities. I ask you, exactly what are we supposed to do at news of his death? Mourn? And yet, for all this person's misdeeds, are we supposed to feel sympathy for him since he got a couple of bombs dropped on him? Get real!!

We have seemingly forgotten what terrorists really stand for. They stand for murder & chaos wherever they go and commit their foul deeds against the innocent. Our media has started calling our soldiers terrorists because of a few isolated incidents which seem to have been justified from the soldier's perspective. Let's compare terrorists and our soldiers for a couple of seconds:

• Terrorists target the weak and innocent, soldiers target the enemy.
• Terrorists seek to maximise casualties among non-combatants, soldiers try to minimize non-combatant causualties.
• Terrorists will sacrifice themselves for a higher personal cause (entry into Paradise), soldiers will sacrifice themselves to save their buddies, the civilians around them, and their country.
• Terrorists thrive on the chaos their actions cause, soldiers seek to prevent it if not avoid it.

Need I go on?

In principal, I agree that rejoicing over a person's death is not right. That would put us on par with the Arabs that were rejoicing in the streets when 9/11 happened. I think relief would have been the proper thought in this case - this person would not be able to plan or commit any more murders. And perhaps that corner of the world would be a little bit safer for everyone.

Are We Pavlovian?

Something I wrote in the previous post got me to thinking (which is going to get me in trouble again). Why was there such a huge backlash on the terminal deal with Dubai? Was it xenophobia as the Republicans state? Is it a knee-jerk reaction to anything Arab? Or are we just so hyped up on anything that has to do with the Middle East we reject it out of hand?

In many respects, it's probably all of the above and then some. We have been conditioned through so many events since 9/11 that we are suspicious for all of the right and wrong reasons. It's no wonder given the current state of the world.

I believe it's our wonderful media's coverage of the Middle East and Islamic related events that shapes our opinions and perceptions. After all, if it bleeds, it leads, and there is a lot of blood being shed in the Middle East and elsewhere. Couple this with the anti-American sentiments being displayed on the 6 o'clock news & fearmongering from various political concerns, and the Dubai deal was doomed to fail as will any other large business venture with a Middle Eastern concern or company.

The other half of this is the continued violence worldwide that is linked to the Islamic religion and the Middle Eastern countries that the criminals are citizens of. The tolerance of many people & governments is being stretched to the limits with various reactions ranging from appeasement to defiance. For instance:

• Since 9/11, terrorist attacks attributed to Islamic extremists have taken place in Spain, France, and England.
• Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, our media showed people dancing in the streets in several Arab countries, chanting "Death to America."
• Riots in France have been linked to out of work Islamic youth.
• Iran has stated repeatedly that they want nuclear weapons, and have threatened violence if they don't get them. One does have to wonder why they need them.
• Terrorists from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other countries are in Iraq fomenting unrest and attacking our soldiers.
• Reaction to the Mohammed cartoons has been outrageous considering that the same or worse critical cartoons have been leveled at the Jewish and Christian religions.
• The kidnapping and execution by beheading of innocent civilians continues.
• Reports of attacks upon non-Muslim women by Muslim men have been reported. These attacks include beatings, rape, and murder.
• European countries are caving in to Islamic demands for censorship of their media where their religion is concerned.
• Many of the countries of the Middle East are ruled by kings, despots, & dictators, and the populations are mostly uneducated.
• Most of the time when the media shows pictures or video of the Middle East or other Islamic countries, we are shown killings, bombings, and violence with the requisite puddles of blood splashed liberally across the screen. Additionally, radical Imams are quoted with hate speeches calling for the killings of all non-Muslim people.

Where this ends up is that many people are afraid. Yes, afraid of what these people are going to do next in the name of their religion. While there are fanatics everywhere, none have proved to be as frightening or as widespread as these. While 9/11 was primarily a terrorist attack, do not forget that the religion of Islam was used to provide the attackers with a reason to kill themselves and as many others as they could. It does not make us xenophobes, racists, or bigots, it just makes us extremely careful almost to the point of paranoia.

Was I in favor of the Dubai company running the terminals in six ports? Not really, but I honestly don't know if it would make any difference. There are other foreign countries such as Communist China that have contracts running terminals, so what is the difference between China and Dubai? Probably none, although the political climate would not permit it at this time. Personally, I would like to see American companies running the terminals, but we are in a global economy, and that's a topic for another time...

NSA Wiretapping Letter

John Eastman, director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and Professor of Law for the Claremont Institute, has written a letter to Chairman Sensenbrenner of the House Judiciary Committee, about the terrorist surveillance by the National Security Agency: "Under the Constitution, confirmed by two centuries of historical practice and ratified by Supreme Court precedent, the President clearly has the authority to conduct surveillance of enemy communications in time of war and of the communications to and from those he reasonably believes are affiliated with our enemies." (link

John Eastman, director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and Professor of Law for the Claremont Institute, has written a letter to Chairman Sensenbrenner of the House Judiciary Committee, about the terrorist surveillance by the National Security Agency: "Under the Constitution, confirmed by two centuries of historical practice and ratified by Supreme Court precedent, the President clearly has the authority to conduct surveillance of enemy communications in time of war and of the communications to and from those he reasonably believes are affiliated with our enemies." (link here)

This letter (with references) reaffirms the Constitutionality of the President's authority to wiretap the communications of foreign nationals that are of interest to the United States. Further reading into this subject by searching on Google & looking at the law libraries of various universities also support this position. Also, please note that the Constitution of the United States did not have rights to privacy nor does it grant rights to foreign nationals.

The furor of the media is nothing more than a smoke screen to continue the harassment of the Bush administration. For those of us with longer memories than the average person, President Clinton used the same arguements for the use of the NSA's Echelon program during his administration. May I ask the media - where was your outrage then?

Other Blog Posts to Read

Life, as usual, has a way of getting in the way of posting topics that are of interest. However, there are many other blogs that are taking up the slack! Posts that have caught my eye are:

When the Real Shooting Starts: Beyond the Cartoon War is a post over at Mike's America which reveals a darker, more sinister view of what is really behind the recent violence over the publication of the infamous Mohammed cartoons. This is a more in-depth view of one of my earlier posts.

America Under Attack has a post titled When The Left Left America Behind. It is a fascinating view of where the Left has come from and where they are headed to. Scary, to say the least.

Whatever Happened Too....? is a look at where we as a nation have come from and what we have become. Hat tip to Patriotic Mom for this link.

The Raving Conservative posted Club Gitmo Oh So Special which reveals the anti-Christian attitude of our "friends" at the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

Mark Steyn at the Chicago Sun Times has an interesting view of the media at large over the news presented over the past week. Hat tip to Betsy's Page for the link.

Last, Views on World Affairs looks at Russia's "offer" to negotiate the current Iran nuclear problem. Thanks to everyone in advance for your comments here or on the originating blog sites.

Wall Street Journal Opinion on Media

WSJ.com OpinionJournal page has a great follow-up to my earlier posts on the media. Thanks to Mike's America for the link.

Frenzied Media

As we have all heard by now, VP Cheney peppered one of his long-time friends with birdshot while hunting. The 78-year old is still in the hospital, but in good spirits & condition.

The media is going absolutely bonkers over this. Why weren't they immediately notified as soon as it happened? How did it happen? Was it intentional? Will Cheney resign(!) over this? Was he drunk?

What drivel is this? Must be a real slow day to focus on an accident in which no one was killed. In retrospect, it makes sense.

The media needs to focus every little bit of negativity on the Bush administration. They will not focus on the real issues that matter - protecting the US from terrorism by whatever (legal) means, secrets being leaked by members of Congress and the media (treason!), & Iran's nuclear ambitions (threat to every sane nation). All because they have some agenda to get the Dems back in power. What short-sighted BS is this?

The media is to inform the public on news, weather, and more news. The freedom of the press (or media) is to make sure there is a source of information, good & bad, about the doings of the government. It does not give them license to publish or otherwise make known information which our enemies could use to cause the citizens of this nation harm, nor to compromise intelligence or military operations against those same enemies. Editorials were to be clearly marked (called the editorial page!), and all sides of the news were to be completely disclosed (sound bites not withstanding). Instead, the media has turned into a giant propaganda machine for the out of touch Liberals, and have either made up or skewed information to support their view. But I digress since I have written about this earlier (link here)...

I'm sure we will hear more about this unfortunate event as time goes by. So far, VP Cheney has not spoken publicly about the incident, preferring to have the press secretaries handle it. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out. I personally would love to see the media get smacked down publicly for their idiocy over this entire event. And since Cheney is not a career politician, he just might be the man to do it.

Media for Who?

The mainstream media does not have the well being of the United States in mind when they are reporting stories. In fact, some of their actions could be called treasonous. Take these examples:

The mainstream media does not have the well being of the United States in mind when they are reporting stories. In fact, some of their actions could be called treasonous. Take these examples:

During the first Gulf War, when fighters were taking off from their bases in Saudi Arabia, CNN dutifully reported their take-offs, and made statements that they would know where they were going in about 1 to 2 hours. Of course, this gave Saddam's military time to get ready, and higher losses of aircraft and crews were the result. After the conflict was over, one of the senior Iraqi generals made the statement that CNN was one of their best sources of intelligence.

Also during the same conflict, the media reported in great detail the use of laser guided bombs & missiles and their limitations. Saddam's response was to ignite the Kuwait oil fields, resulting in one of the greatest ecological disasters in the region. All to thwart those lasers.

During the hunt for Bin Laden, the media reported that our forces were closing in on Bin Laden's position. Our forces knew his position because of his use of a satellite cell phone, and were triangulating his position from that source. The day after that report aired, the phone was never used again. I wonder why?

A reported incident at the Guantonimo Bay Detention facility concerning the desecration of prisoner's Korans was reported, and a huge world wide uproar ensued. Later, it was found out that this report was false, but that note got nowhere near the attention that the original report got. One can only wonder how many people were put in danger after this untrue report.

Last and more recent example. The media reported that the FBI, NSA, and other intelligence sources were eavesdropping on known terrorist cell phones to learn of their plans and to locate the terrorist's location. Many of those phones went silent, and there was a run on the purchase of one-time and temporary cell phones that could be purchased in cash. There were reports from a couple of Wal-Mart's in Texas that 6 Middle Eastern men were apprehended when they attempted to buy 60+ of these cell phones, and were wanting to pay cash for them. It was later reported that these men were connected to al-Qaeda.

The First Article of United States Bill of Rights states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This is a powerful liberty to allow the press (or media) uncensored freedom to publish what they want. It also carries great responsibility. For instance, during Orson Welles's broadcast of War of the Worlds, people panicked because they thought Earth was being invaded by Mars. Another example is yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Both have the potential for getting people hurt. So does the careless reporting of military activities and/or secure information.

While we normally think of war as being between countries, the terrorists have declared war on the United States, and have attacked our citizens & military numerous times. And we have declared war on the terrorists and any country that helps them. Does anyone doubt that this is a war? Do you remember September 11, 2001?

Article 3 Section 3 (in part) of the United States Constitution deals with the subject of Treason, and declares that "Treason against the United States, ... or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." By this definition, the media is dangerously close, if not in fact, to committing treason against the United States. Giving the terrorists information that will aid them in avoiding detection and apprehension is definitely helping them, and hurting us. And I know that there are other laws, Federal laws, that list penalites for behavior damaging to this country and its citizens.

The problem is that the media, print and otherwise, is now an entertainment industry, not a news reporting industry. In the rush to report the latest, greatest story so that better ratings can be gained, responsible journalism has gone out the door. This lack of regard for the safety of this country and its citizens & soldiers sickens me. Where will this irresponsible behavior stop? What will it take? Personally, a good start would be the prosecution of the idiots that can clearly be linked to security breaches or actions that can be proved to have caused harm or death to United States citizens and/or military personnel. Sorry, in my book, freedom of the press should not be used as a shield for giving a self-declared enemy information of what is being done to thwart their activities.

To those journalists who take issue with the above statement, consider this scenario. You report live that the FBI is closing in on a terrorist cell in Mytown, USA, your home. Tipped off by the report, the terroists flee before they can be captured. They are spotted leaving, and a running gun battle races across the city, ending up in your neighborhood on the street you live. The terrorists break into your house to take refuge. Your wife and children are home. Rather than surrender, they scream "Allah Akbar!!" just before they detonate their last bomb, reducing your house and everyone in it to splinters and hamburger. So how would you feel? Think a responsible application of the First Amendment was in order? Or would you take comfort in the higher ratings your station just received? Think it can't happen? Go talk to the Israelis.

News Bytes

News Bytes is a short, brief look at the events over the past week or so since I have been so busy.

Hamas Wins Election
Hamas was voted overwhelmingly by the Palestinian people as the leaders of their government. Since Isreal and the US recognise Hamas as a terrorist organization, it will be interesting to see how the two respective governments deal with this new government. It will be difficult at best, but all bets will be off if the Hamas-led government continues its policy of terrorism against Isreal.

Iran Nuclear Program
Iran has stated that they will continue on developing a nuclear program. With Iran's radical leadership spewing out hatred and threats toward Israel, I'm predicting that Israel will do the same thing as they did to Iraq's nuclear program in 1983. For those of you who do not remember, they raided Iraq's nuclear facility & blew it up.

Oprah Duped!
The queen of daytime has been hoodwinked by an author telling a falsified tale of self-redemption. While honesty is supposedly the best policy, the author has made millions on the book, Oprah has shown that she is human too (endearing her further with her fans), and there is some proof that the book has inspired some people to clean up themselves. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

Judge Overruled
The judge who ruled that a man who sexually abused a girl for 4 years has had his 60-day sentence overruled. The sentence was extended up to 10 years. The movement to remove Judge Cashman is continuing, to which I say, the sooner, the better. We can only hope that the victim of this crime receives all the help she needs to live a happy life.

Filibuster
Senator John Kerry is promising to filibuster Judge Alito's confirmation vote on Monday, even though there are enough votes to overrule Kerry's promised tirade Politics as usual, the Dems continue to implode, and does nothing constructive for the country.