About Me

Name: Sgt.Stryker
Location: Lexington, KY
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Post-Racial Reverse Anti-Rascism Rascists

Posted by Sgt.Stryker on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:18:17 AM
I want to apologize to all my fellow TH bloggers for being AWOL for so long. I've had a major case of writer's block, combined with having to make a major lifestyle adjustment to third shift. I made a New Year's resolution to try to be more active on TH again...given my recent lack of posting/reading, it shouldn't be hard to do better.  
 
Lot of stuff going on, but this issue perturbed me to no end over the weekend.
 
As I was watching the NFL Playoffs, I was flipping channels during commercials, and I decided to check CNN to see if there was any update on the Gaza situation, since there was a commercial on FOX at the time as well. Needless to say, I'm not a big fan of CNN, but occasionally I like to see what kind of defecation the enemy is spouting from its blowhole.
 
No Gaza update, but something just as disturbing.
 
CNN was doing a segment about an older black gentleman who was the grandson of slaves. I missed the beginning, but the takeaway was what it's like for someone who still remembers Jim Crow, "white's only" bathrooms and water fountains, to vote for a black president. Yes, those were bad times, troubling indeed, and any right-thinking person will admit that slavery and racism are bad, wrong, immoral, a blight on our storied history, blah blah. I guess Shirley Chisholm, Carol Mosely Braun, Alan Keyes, and Al and Jesse didn't count, since they weren't "viable". 
 
This gentleman's only claim to fame is that he's the grandchild of actual slaves. And he voted for the "post-racial" Barack Obama. No matter that he may have been an alcoholic, drug-addicted, grade-school drop-out with an IQ of 40, or a pedophile or serial killer. He's the grandson of slaves, so let's interview him, for he must surely have wisdom to impart on this most auspicious event. Nothing racial about that.
 
Similarly, when I flipped over to FOX a bit later, they were talking to a black woman on the street (presumably near the Mall in D.C.) and she let "whitey" (or "the man") have it...she mentioned various offenses similar to what I mentioned above, along with the fact that whites used to spit on blacks, and then she said "do you hear this??? Whooooo hooo" and she laughed. Sounded like a thumb in the eye to me.  She sounded vengeful as well...over an issue that has been steadily improving for the last hundred years plus. Really?? Really???? All of the BS going on in the world, and they want to get commentary from black folks about how it feels to have a black man going to the White House? Why don't the reporters ask these people how they feel about BHO's stance on abortion, or the GWOT, or Card Check, or the Fairness Doctrine etc, etc? I guess substance and nuance is above their pay grade as well. 
 
So, now we have the supposedly "post-racial" candidate about to be sworn in, after winning an election that was as much about race as anything else, (no matter what anyone says, given the 98% of black voters turning out for Obama) and what appears to be a number of African-Americans who are relishing the idea of finally achieving some measure of "payback". Great.
 
Now, what if the shoe was on the other foot? Can you imagine if any caucasian candidate won any election and the interviewers asked white folks about how it feels to have a white politician winning?? And, how come there's no talk about Obama's "white" half? Oh, excuse me, that would be politically "incorrect" and racist as hell.
 
What I want to know, and need to know, is how much longer this is going to be a one-way debate? People that were never impacted by real racism acting like they've never had any chance at success, blaming "the man" for keeping them down, and expecting Obama to fix everything for them, like the girl before the election who said she wouldn't have to worry about her house payment anymore.  And how much longer until the reparations trial-balloon becomes a full blown hue-and-cry from the disgruntled minority? If we are to believe any of the rhetoric swirling around the Capital, including the bill that's already in the works, we won't have long to wait.
 
Now, I KNOW I'M NOT A RASCIST. My wife is Fillipina, for God's sake, and my kids are "bi-racial". So, can anyone tell me why this  is getting under my skin?
 
Jim Quinn from "The Quinn and Rose Show" nailed it the other day, when he said that liberals are always willing to sacrifice the bottom line for ideology. And I believe that is precisely what has happened. Obama is black, that's good enough. No more token shills like Jesse or Al. To hell with the free market and capitalism and to hell with the Constitution. We've cured racism with an historic election, damn the torpedos, full speed ahead.
 
Barack said we all need to have skin in the game. Aside from his skin color, how much skin does he and his constituency have in the game?  
 
  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (39) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Were They Thinking?

Posted by Sgt.Stryker on Monday, November 10, 2008 4:34:10 AM
Well, the post-election reality has set in, and I have to say it is pretty depressing. The darkness is here, enveloping us.  Now I know how some of the Bush-haters have felt for the last 8 years. And it's only been 5 days.
 
So how did we end up here? I blame the uneducated voters and that portion of the population symbolised by the girl Michelle Malkin made famous, "Peggy the Moocher", who basically said she didn't have to worry about paying for her car or her mortgage, because if she helps Barack, he is going to help her. If there was ever a mascot for big government giveaways, she is it.
 
I blame the uneducated voters who couldn't see through the "Hope/Change" strategy employed by Socialists the world over, like Chavez, Odinga, Correa, et al, and who can't discern positive, hopeful, helpful change from the insidious brand pedaled by Obama (and strangely enough nearly co-opted by McCain) during this election.
 
I blame the uneducated guy who works in my office, who said on the day of the election "who is Bill Ayres?" He couldn't grasp the fact that associations have everything to do with character. This same guy, who appears to be very intelligent, also hadn't heard the Biden comment that Barack would be tested early in his tenure, and that his response may not appear to be correct, but that we should just trust him. But we are supposed to believe that he is qualified to be commander-in-chief, the most important function of the president. I think not.
 
I blame the undeducated voters who have no idea what "Card Check" is, and what the passage of it will mean for American business. They think the economy is tanking now. Wait until the added cost of union labor is factored in. Consumers will pay every bit of that.
 
I blame the uneducated voters who don't realize that Obama and most other democrats are OK with federally-funded abortion, even through the 3rd trimester. Everyone should have to watch this process being done at least once, then tell me if it's an accepable alternative to adoption or abstinence or contraception.
 
But most of all, I blame the uneducated who refused to get off their backside and get educated. I refuse to believe that 50% plus of the electorate would believe that any of this is good if they had only taken the time to be informed about the whole picture. Jonah Goldberg has more here at TH in the "Columnists" section regarding this phenomena.
 
"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness" Victor Hugo
 
I'm with Hugo...the blame is well-placed in this case. Shame on our lazy electorate.
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (27) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lowering Expectations

Posted by Sgt.Stryker on Monday, November 03, 2008 3:14:08 AM
As usual, Barry gets a pass from the  MSM. This from the UK Daily Mail
 
"In recent days the Obama team have admitted they are nervous that people will end up feeling disappointed by an Obama presidency because their expectations of what he can do may have been driven sky-high by his soaring rhetoric."    
 
If this had come out of the McCain camp, there would be hell to pay from the NY Times et al.
 
Could it be the Obambi campaign is nervous because they realize they have dissembled, backtracked, and renegged on nearly every promise they have been making since the beginning of the campaign?
 
For example, the issue of who is "rich". First, it was $250,000, then 200, now it is down to $125,000, according to Bill Richardson. Now there is supposedly a tape  that says people making $80,000 should pay more taxes. I'll believe that one when I see it, but for now, what we've all seen and heard tells enough of the story. Soaring rhetoric? I call it outright lying.
 
Likewise, Barry's promise to end the Iraq War as soon as he takes office. Aside from the fact that the war is already essentially over, how exactly does he propose to do this?  Anyone with an ounce of sense who has been paying attention knows that the Iraqis want the US in country for up to 3 more years according to the SOFA that is being negotiated.  There are other details to hash out, including the treatment of US soldiers accused of crimes while they are off duty, but, for the most part, we will most likely be there in some capacity through the next president's first term. Unless, of course, Barry decides to unilaterally renegotiate that agreement like he said he would do with NAFTA.  
 
I know that most of you can add other examples, but I am getting tired of this whole rotten business. You can fill in the blanks in the comment section if you wish. Personally, I feel like I am preaching to the choir.
 
Better get used to the parsing, it comes with the territory when there is a lawyer in the White House. Can you say "Bill Clinton Redux"?
 
What is the definition of "is"?
 
                                         
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Open Letter to the SCDS

Posted by Sgt.Stryker on Saturday, September 20, 2008 5:12:30 PM
Hail to my fellow vets and other like-minded (and quasi-like minded) righties. I hope this letter finds you well and in good spirits, all things considered. It's been a tough couple of weeks for everyone, considering the economic rollercoaster, North Korea announcing their intention to re-start their nuke program, and McCain giving up his lead in the polls. 
 
I'm writing this letter to address the proposal set forth here in the TH blogatorium by the Saint Crispian's Day Society (SCDS) regarding the undermining of the McCain campaign in order to allow an Obama presidency, which will then (supposedly) guarantee a Republican victory in the 2010 congressional elections and the subsequent hope of reclaiming the White House in 2012. 
 
I certainly have to agree that McCain is a flawed candidate. He has crossed the aisle so many times, it's a wonder the dems haven't asked him outright to caucus with them. His positions on ANWR, cap-and-trade, immigration and global warming are just downright frustrating and misdirected. I am sure some, if not most of you, can add any number of items to this list, which is not meant to be exhaustive. Obviously, you have enough grievances to consider his candidacy a deal-breaker if you are ready to vote third party, sit out, or, heaven forbid, cast a ballot for Barry. I have to say, I've read some pretty compelling arguments. Just the fact that Juan Hernandez is anywhere near McCain makes the bile rise in my throat. I was a big fan of Hunter and Romney early, but apparently the timing just wasn't right for those guys. 
 
However, I think we need to take a deep breath and check ourselves before we wreck ourselves.
 
First, I have to ask, why should we concede anything? It is mid-september, and, given the notion that the Democrats were supposed to be winning this thing in a rout, it is shocking that Mac is within the MOE in most national polls. Furthermore, the conventional wisdom and polling shows the Republican brand has improved dramatically over the last few months. Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard says
 
"As recently as last June, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found voters with a 28 percent positive/47 percent negative attitude toward Republicans. By September, after the Republican convention, that had changed to 40 percent positive/43 percent negative.
 
Other polls have registered a similar improvement. "
 
See the rest of the article here.
 
If Dubya keeps a low profile, this trend may very well continue. Imagine the effect of the economy improving (even marginally), gas prices dropping, and Iraq becoming a more obvious fait accomplit. What does Obama have left to run against?? We're still 45 days out...anything can happen on the foreign policy front, and Obambi will get the deer-in-the-headlights look again.
 
The Obiden ticket continues to step in it. Witness the terrible ad that puts Rush right in the middle of the fray, and Biden's call to pay higher taxes as a sign of patriotism, for example. I expect that trend to accelerate due to the pressures of the campaign and the debates. There certainly isn't any signal that the gaffe machine is being turned off. And, speaking of the debates, does anyone really believe Obama can hold this tenuous lead, given his inability to work sans teleprompter? 
 
Also, I believe Mac is waiting for the perfect time to unload the big guns on Obama and FORCE the LSM  to examine the good Senator's associations, affiliations, and "job performance" with Annenberg et al  more fully and publicly. There certainly has not been any due dilligence to this point, especially compared to the wringer Sarah has been put thru in her few weeks on the ticket. Obiden will not be able to withstand that degree of scrutiny on the alphabet channels,in front of the nation, and come out intact. Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, the nutty Reverends, Rezko, and Obama's own voting record and statements are all incredibly heavy albatrosses to be hung around his neck in a public forum, with him in the room. He will not be able to get out from under them without looking desperate and exposed. 
 
We also need to consider the potential for the "Bradley Effect". I can see no reason why we should consider sandbagging ourselves if we may actually already be in the lead. It's one thing to give up when you are losing badly, withdraw, and live to fight another day. I know of no strategist worth their salt that would recommend throwing the election when you are in striking distance or actually winning.
 
With that fact in mind, it seems to me that this would not be the time to talk about bagging the whole thing. I understand the strategy is to try to gain a few more seats in Congress so the Dems can't have a veto-proof majority, but that looks like it may happen regardless. Why can't we have our cake and eat it too? I believe we may be best served to line-up behind Johnny AND work to improve our stead in Congress, thereby giving us some allies to work with in trying to keep Johnny in line on some of these more contentious issues. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater seems like an incredibly risky (and defeatist) tack.
 
When it's all said and done, I believe we are best served with opposing executive and legislative branches. I know for a fact that we are ill served with one party running both, regardless of who that may be.
 
Now, if you really have that big of an axe to grind against Mac, I get it. I'm not questioning anyone's patriotism or motive or anything remotely resembling that.  I'm probably not intelligent enough, or astute enough, or informed enough to change your minds. All I would ask is this: wait til the end of October, and let's see where we are. If the electoral map is obviously blue, then this strategy may have some merit and I'll be on board as well. But, from where I sit, it is way to early to be considering something as radical as what the SCDS is proposing.
 
I'm going to grab my flak jacket and steel pot now.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (56) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let's Talk Judgement

Posted by Sgt.Stryker on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:40:26 PM
     Now that the polls seem to have settled down a bit, it appears that John Sidney McCain has seized the momentum from Barack Hussein Obama, but there are still nearly two months until the election, and one never knows what types of issues or gaffes may turn the tide. With that fact in mind, I believe it is prudent to keep up the pressure on Barry and keep him on the defensive.
    It's looking like his campaign is on the verge of imploding...he has just blamed McCain for his "lipstick on a pig" comment , as if he didn't actually utter the words himself. Then he decried the fact that this is another "made-up" controversy and he blamed the media. It sounded as if he wanted to just take his ball and go home. This may be a gift that keeps on giving.
 
   But what of the fact that he had to come out and personally address this, when it was a comment he made? The choice to use the "lipstick on a pig" reference when others were available had obvious potential for harm, and was a not-so-subtle jab at Palin's earlier joke. Either he used poor judgement in choosing that phrase, or he is not informed enough to understand the potential for harm and backlash. Just as bad, why did his "handlers" let this slip through? Again, poor judgement about who he surrounds himself with, and if it was calculated, poor judgement on the impact. He will be paying dearly for this one. 
 
    Obama also did a terrible job recently of "explaining" his abortion/beginning of life answer from Saddleback in this video with George Stephanopolous. In that same interview, he mangled his retort about accusations that the McCain camp is questioning his religious upbringing. While all of this is good fun, and some of these items may just be signs of fatigue (he has been running for 2 years straight, after all), we need to try to limit the debate to issues of judgement, character, and performance.
 
Up until this point, we have a whole list of activities that Barry has admitted (or are matters of public record) were poor judgement:
  •  his "teen" drug use (just teen? really??)
  •  his decision to stay in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years
  •  his associations with Rezko
  • and Ayres, 
  •  the fact that he has not called to order one single meeting of his Senate Foreign Relations Commitee's Subcommitee on European Affairs
  • his opposition to the surge in Iraq, which he only just recently conceded had succeeded 
  •  his choice to snub Hillary Clinton on his ticket, and choose Biden instead
   Biden, who is antipathetic to Obama's signature message of "hope and change", can hardly be characterized as a change agent. Biden was supposed to shore up Obama's foreign policy credentials (as he has NONE), but where is the crediblity in his misguided proposal to partition Iraq according to ethnic lines? The two of them can't muster half of McCain's foreign policy gravitas between them, surge position notwithstanding. While Biden may not be hurting the ticket, he certainly did nothing to help. Barack's supreme intelligence and judgement gained him exactly... nothing.
 
   Regarding Obama's performance, we have been regaled with countless tales of his voting "present" in the Illinois State Senate. I would be interested to see how anyone could characterize these actions as proof of anything. They certainly don't engender any confidence in his ability to make a decision. Apparently there were at least 130-some odd issues above his pay grade.
 
   Similarly, his claims that his "community organizing days" count as some kind of experience ring just as hollow when held up against what type of "change" he bought to the South Side of Chicago. From the sound of it, he got frustrated after accomplishing little, quit, and left for Harvard Law. Certainly not enough on which to base a presidential run. The South Side doesn't look much different after his "efforts" and his "experience".
 
   There has also been news dribbling out of Chicago regarding the "Chicago Annenberg Challenge," one of the boards that Obama sat on with William Ayres. Apparently, this board was tasked with spending over $100 million to improve schools in Chicago and other urban areas. According to Wiki
 
"The project appears to have failed to achieve any of its stated, measurable educational goals. For example, a comprehensive study by the Consortium on Chicago School Research concludes:
"Results suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence."[
 
Another feather in BHO's hat, to be sure. Once again, where is the excellence?
 
There will be more to come out, either through the blogs or, heaven forbid, through the MSM, exposing some of the other issues still pending, including, but not limited to;
  • Obama's association with Mike Klonsky, a friend of Ayres who "traveled to Beijing to seek the endorsement of Communist China for a political party he had helped establish in the United States, the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist)." (Wiki) 
  • Obama's relationship with Dr. Khalid Al-Mansour, aka Donald Warden, who was a mentor for Bobby Seale and Black Panther founder Huey Newton (H/T to IBD) 
  • Biden's relations with Joseph Cari, Jr., a convicted associate of Tony Rezko...this one goes deep

On one hand, we have a pro-life, pro-military, pro-America, bona fide war hero. On the other hand, the guy who has to keep denouncing things he has said and people he has known, and about whom we know only what he chose to tell us in his "autobiographies".
 
This one is in my pay grade.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (19) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fishing for Votes

Posted by Sgt.Stryker on Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:21:59 PM
   Wow, what a great weekend!! Fishing, BBQ, staying up late and sleeping late, seeing UK demolish UL... all on my list of favorite things in the span of just three days. It just doesn't get any better. I have to give serious props to my mother-in-law, my wife, and her sister for all of the food prep they did, and to my father-in-law as well. My BBQ skills are not a sufficient showcase for their dedication.
 
   As to the fishing, I went to one of my favorite places in the world, the creek near my in-law's house. It's not very deep, but it has remained fairly wild in the nearly 20 years I've been going there. I can usually count on seeing giant blue heron, a variety of birds, snakes and lizards, muskrats, beavers, and all the fish I can catch. This past weekend was no exception. While it was pretty stifling on the mile-or-so hike there, and my pack dug into my back telling me I had over-prepared, the breeze was sweet in the little valley holding the creek.
 
   My first attempts with a small crawdad colored crankbait were rewarded with a few small rock bass early, but not often.  I dug into my old Ranger ruck and mulled my choices. Four boxes and three zipped bags containing untold numbers of soft plastic worms, creature baits, grubs, crankbaits and more, all divided by color, size and type. Which one should it be? I took a minute and contemplated the conditions, water color and clarity, light penetration, bottom surface...to the non-fisher, fishing is not this complicated.
 
   I pulled out my box of tube jigs, tied on a 4 inch brown/white Gitzit, and Texas-rigged it. I cast upstream, just past an old sycamore on the opposite bank, and watched in amazement as my line moved 5 feet to the right as soon as the tube hit the water. I reared back to set the hook and hauled water. Could've been a good one, I thought, but I'll never know. I threw back to the same area and let the lure settle. Twitch-twitch-pause...there it goes! I set the hook hard, and played in a nice little 12 inch smallmouth. Pound-for-pound, you just can't beat the smallie.
 
   I subsequently landed another 30-40 fish across the span of 4 hours over two days. I know I missed at least a dozen more. It got to the point each day that, because of the torque the stem of the spinning reel slamming against my finger was causing, I had to leave after what, for me, was an extremely truncated outing. My wife was shocked, as was the rest of the family, to see me back so soon, as I have developed quite a reputation for pushing the timing envelope during these types of adventures.
 
   Unfortunately, the reverie of my foray into nature is all too often interrupted by  thoughts of politics, the state of the union and the world, and why some of the folks I have to interact with just don't get it like I do. And I couldn't help but relate that to the whole fishing "process".
 
   My potential future sister-in-law (my wife's brother's girlfriend) and my wife's brother were the fish this past weekend. Both avowed liberals, and virulently anti-Bush, it is painfully obvious they drink whatever kool-aid the left feeds them, hook, line and sinker. 
 
   It started predictably enough...shortly after they arrived, our young leftists gave me a sign as to where they were swimming. "What do you think of Palin", my brother-in-law asked? He's a super nice guy, and I love him like my own brother. Unfortunately, he has never come close to living up to his potential since high school (Governor's Scholar, Valedictorian, certified genius), and he gets extremely emotional (like crying emotional) very quickly when he feels like he can't adequately defend his position.  
 
  Not wanting to see things get too contentious so soon, I basically let it go, not looking up from my laptop..."she'll do just fine," I muttered.  
 
 "Yeah, we are ecstatic,"  he says. I see a swirl in the water. I look into my trusty Ranger ruck....hmmm...what can I hook him with...let's try this one, the "She has executive experience" lure. He takes the bait. "Obama has a lot more experience," he says. I laugh heartily. "You're right" I said, "especially counting his 143 days in the US Senate, running for President the whole time he's been there."  "Or," I continued, "do you want to include his time in the statehouse where he voted present more often than not?" This fish was nearly played. "How about community organizer?" I asked. "Are you telling me a sitting governor who has also been a mayor lacks pertinent experience?" Now comes the obfuscation. I love this lure already. The last bit of fight..."well, she doesn't have any foreign policy experience." He's barely audible. I reach down to lip him and unhook him. "Ok, you're right if we don't count Canada and Russia, which both border her state." He's starting to shake a bit, trying to escape, but I have a firm grip on his bottom lip, effectively paralyzing him. 
 
"Obama has never even convened a meeting of his Senate Commitee on Foreign Relations...just being the head of that commission doesn't really count, now does it?" I pop the hook out and gently lay him down in the water, releasing him after letting the water flow through his gills. "Well, give me a reason to vote for McCain!!" He splashes my sunglasses with his tail as he swims away.
 
My hand and shoulder stiff from the fight, I pack up my gear, satisfied in knowing I found the fish, picked the right lure, made the right presentation, and landed the fish I knew was there.
 
Did I convert him?? We'll never know. He may be the type to give in during the moment and cast the protest vote or something more sinister. But he absolutely left the table with some seeds planted, and I certainly have a better idea about how to engage him in the future.
 
Next, the future sister-in-law. I have already contemplated the conditions, and it is apparent I will have to dig deeper into my bag.  I am certainly not in any danger of over-packing.
 
I'm left thinking about a statement from my friend Sean that he attributes to his dad. Not sure where it came from before that, but here goes:
"If you are twenty and a Republican, you are heartless. If you are forty and a Democrat, you are brainless."
 
This phenomena can certainly explain "obamania." Here's to the "hope" that some of these people grow up soon.
 
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Catholic Vote

Posted by Sgt.Stryker on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:51:47 AM
The conventions are nearly upon us, and as I reflect on some of the more interesting political conversations I've had with friends and family (all of whom tend to be shocked by my candor), I can't seem to shake one statement made by my friend Mickey.
 
It was still early in the primary season, so the nominees were still anyone's guess, and we were in the process of de-constructing each individual candidate and his/her positions on various issues. Funny how these things get rolling, considering how we had started out talking about our sons' basketball team. It was becoming apparent that Mickey and I shared many of the same political concerns (for the Bush tax cuts, supporting the war effort, worries about Islamo-fascism/terrorism, etc) when, very abruptly, he says "you know what? None of this matters. I'm a one issue voter. If a candidate is pro-choice, I can't vote for him."  
 
Mickey and I attend the same Catholic church, and we also went through the "Why Catholic" classes together with our wives, so I should not have been surprised at all by his comment, but what was surprising was the quality of something almost militant, defiant, in his voice. More importantly, there was conviction, the kind of conviction I heard in John McCain's voice at Saddleback when he answered "at the time of conception,"  and the type of conviction that was completely lacking when Barack Obama dithered about and equivocated about his pay grade (or lack thereof) when trying to come up with some type of non-committal tripe.
 
Upon finishing G.K. Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man", I came upon a quote that fit this situation perfectly (funny how that happens, too):
 
"All that is condemned in Catholic tradition, authority, and dogmatism and the refusal to retract and modify, are but the natural human attributes of a man with a message relating to a fact." (pp 267-268)
 
And the fact is, abortion is the taking of a human life. Mickey certainly has this message, which he obviously refuses to retract or modify. And I would have to agree.
 
Now, there are any number of excellent pieces debating this subject, and my purpose here is not to tread over well-trod ground. I think we all know the arguments. Does a woman's "choice" trump a child's right to life? The Pope and the American Bishops have made their case quite plain. 40 million aborted fetuses would certainly make the same case, if they had been allowed to grow up and join the debate and realize what their fate could have been.
 
 If  you are curious to see other views on this subject as it relates to the election, check Michael Novak's piece "Catholic's For Obama?" on his blog, or this piece from Carl Anderson at National Review.  Both do more justice to the subject than I could ever hope to do.
 
 I'm left with a couple thoughts...
 
First...I was an E-4 (enlisted man, fourth from the bottom) when I was in the Army so many years ago. That means I was below all of the NCOs and all of the officers as far as "pay grade" goes, and yet, I find the question of "when the rights of a child begin" to be, amazingly enough, within my pay grade to answer. I don't have a degree in genetics, or theology, or law...but since when is any of this necessary to form a cohesive opinion on the subject? For a man that wants to become Commander-In-Chief of our military, Obama's answer leaves him with NO pay grade. Is this what they teach at Columbia and Harvard Law? Obama is supposedly soooo intelligent...sooooo articulate. Is this what we can expect if/when he has to answer other, more difficult questions? At this rate, I would say we know all we need to know.
 
Second...why is this such a "Catholic" issue? Where are the rest of the other "Christian's" voices? I refuse to believe that Obama's support is made up solely of agnostics, atheists and other non-Christians. This tells me that his supporters are putting the question of abortion somewhere behind other temporary, small-picture issues like the economy or the war.  We don't want the government making any choices for us, but we are ok with the government making this one?
 
We are a country based on Judeo-Christian principles. No one should be afraid to believe in the engendering of a (Christian?) culture of life in our society.  Now, it's not for me to judge anyone, but, certainly judgement awaits those who tacitly or overtly support the infanticide that now exists. If you say you believe in God, why choose this issue to put man's law above God's law?
 
I challenge all Catholics, Christians and all who claim to be "religious" to really decide if they want the status quo of Roe v Wade to stand as a testament to the corruption of our morality. After all, you survived where 40 million others haven't.
 
Vote Pro-Life.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Second Guessing

Posted by Sgt.Stryker on Sunday, August 17, 2008 12:27:58 PM
As you may have read in some of my earlier posts, I have been an ardent supporter of the President and the war in Iraq, not because I favor war as a means to acheive policy aims, but because sometimes, it is the only way forward. After 19 UN resolutions and a history of intransigence in dealing with the declaration of WMDs, as well as near daily instances of firing on US and British planes patrolling the no-fly zone (continuation of hostilities), Iraq was faced with the consequences of their actions by a coalition that numbered well over 30 countries, and a US force sanctioned by its own Congress. 

While the "sales" job that was put forth by the US administration may have been crafted using some suspect intelligence, the war was certainly necessary. After all, how many times can a country be sanctioned and threatened with military action, if that action is never brought to bear? Many in Congress that voted for the war later claimed they were duped when things got rough, however, and they jumped ship, looking for an exit through such despicable tactics as trying to "de-fund" the war, and publicly saying  the war was lost. They had suddenly become experts in warfare, and sought to take battlefield decisions out of the hands of those entrusted with the execution of the war.   While reviews of any situations are always necessary, those reviews must be comprehensive, realistic, and they cannot be short-sighted. President Bush reviewed the situation, and made the correct decision to put General Petraeus in charge and go with his strategy of counter-insurgency.
 
And yet many still decry the "failed policies" of this administration. I wonder how many Iraqis think we have failed them.
 
For an excellent treatment of this subject, see this piece by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe.
 
Jacoby notes that  "Opponents of the war clamored loudly for pulling the plug - even if that meant, as The New York Times acknowledged in a bring-the-troops-home-now editorial last July, "that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave.""
 
Pretty hard to understand the logic behind this.
 
What is amazing is that Obama still uses his opposition to the war as a major plank in his platform, even though he didn't have a vote on the issue in the first place.  He believes we should trust his judgement on the subject, even though it is now obvious he has been proven wrong.
 
Even more interesting is that this seems to be one of the few issues he has not vacillated on. He still believes that we should never have gone over there, even though we are winning. It's too bad the Iraqis don't get to vote here. As one of the catylysts behind the surge, a President McCain will be welcomed as a hero in Iraq, a President Obama, maybe not so much.
 
Now that the "surge" has worked, the war is nearly won, and our troops will be coming home with a victory, we need to hold those people in Congress to account for trying to have it both ways. With an approval rating in the single digits, this is just another example of what playing to the polls will get you.  We should not have any faith in those that had no faith in the US. Obama specifically needs to be called to the mat for his shortsightedness and his denial of the wisdom to liberate a nation from tyranny,  the success of which is so plain to see, in real time as well as in hindsight. 
 
Tags: election   Iraq  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The "Nobameter" Swings to the Right

Posted by Sgt.Stryker on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 3:26:53 PM
   Watching Barack Hussein Obama zig and zag and contort himself into any number of political knots would make all of the Cirque du Soleil performers proud. I am going to attempt to put together a list of some of Obama's problems. I am not sure if there is enough space in all of Townhall to accomplish this feat...one thing is for sure, it is getting really crowded under his bus. And for all of his manuevering, he has acheived a statistical dead heat with John McCain, who happens to be one of the least dynamic candidates Republicans could have mustered. So let's get on with it already.
 
From last to first....
 
   Obama's "foreign policy" speech yesterday reiterated his belief that Iraq was not a battleground in the Global War on Terror. He has stated this numerous times, yet he fails to mention that Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the late Abu Musab Zarqawi, Abu Al Masri, General Petraeus, and any number of military leaders on the ground have stated otherwise. So,are we to believe the flood of foreign fighters that made their way to Iraq from any number of nations went there to become martyrs for a distraction?? Here is more from a recent WSJ article by Fred Kagan, Kimberly Kagan and Jack Keane; 
   "Discussions in the American media about whether AQI is "really" al Qaeda are puerile. AQI's leadership, largely foreign, is part of the global al Qaeda network operating in support of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden and his lieutenants in Pakistan and around the world send support (including foreign fighters) to Iraq and closely follow the situation there, as their repeated public pronouncements show no less than their actions. Al Qaeda's central leadership is not prepared to lose in Iraq, and has been seeking ways to regain lost ground."
 
Obama's contention that Iraq has been a distraction couldn't be farther from the truth.  Another position he is taking is that Afghanistan and Iraq are two separate battles, and that we can't win one without sacrificing the other. Again, this is nonsense.
 
Strike One.
 
   Next up, Obama's insistence that Americans are perceived as ignorant around the world because we can only say "merci beaucoup" when we go to foreign countries was an incredibly effete, arrogant statement. His recommendation? That we teach our kids Spanish. Never mind that English is the language of business world-wide, or that the reason so many immigrants fail in America is because they refuse to learn English and assimilate. Obama's statement further feeds the impression that he is one of the "Blame America First" crowd, and that he harbors some kind of disdain for uneducated, ignorant middle America. That's us, clinging to our religion and our guns (oops, that's a different offense, more on that later). Unfortunately, the only other explanation for this comment is that he is pandering to Hispanics. Either position is offensive to most of the country. You would think the former Editor of the Harvard Law Review would be a little more careful in what he says.
 
Strike Two.
 
   Moving on...
 
   In a news conference in Fargo, ND a few weeks ago, BHO stated he would "refine his position" on Iraq after he visits there later this month. On the surface, this sounds reasonable, but it also points out the difficulty he will have going forward. His campaign has been based since day one on his opposition to the war, and his promise to end the war within a specific time frame (16 months, which seems like an arbitrary number). First of all, it is important to note that most military analysts believe that announcing any time frame is a recipe for disaster.  For Obama to hold to this notion now, in the face of the success the surge has created is either naive or ignorant. But, given that he is loathe to admit the surge has been successful, his waffling is understandable. Either way, it's dangerous at best, catastrophic at worst.
Secondly, he has thrown his anti-war base under the bus. Thirdly, why give up the tactical advantage we have acheived in Iraq as a buffer against Iran? As if his position wasn't already bad enough, he needed to call a second news conference that same day to further "refine" his previous statement. Apparently, he needed to reiterate that he would  "be a poor commander in chief if I didn't take facts on the ground into account." So...he has decided to end the war, and call in the Joint Chiefs and "give them a new mission and that is to end this war" on Day One. When exactly will it be that he is "listening" to his commanders on the ground?? What will he do when they tell him, as they have been saying throughout this war, that we can't leave until the job is done?? And which "position" does he try to sell to the base? Will that be what he really believes, or will it just be the most expedient position?
 
I think his boat is sinking quick on this issue.
 
Three strikes, he's out.
 
   These are just the issues from the last few days, not to mention Obama's near-castration from Jesse Jackson, who threw himself under the bus right after Wesley Clark wound up there. There's also his over-reaction to the New York Post cover. Then there's Father Pfleger,  Reverend Wright,  Tony Rezko, Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn,  and his tag as the most liberal senator in the US Senate.
 
And yet, I still feel like the case must be made against this guy...to me, it's very apparent that he is not the one to be Commander-In-Chief. I don't understand why McCain isn't up by double digits. Oh, that's right, it's because BHO gives such brilliant speeches.
 
Be careful, you may get what you ask for.
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Left Eats Its Young

Posted by Sgt.Stryker on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 8:25:52 PM
   The inevitability was, well, inevitable. Barack Obama, the young lion, usurps the old pro, Hillary Clinton, and the vaunted Clinton machine is in total disarray. BHO 's tactics were supposed to be new and fresh, full of hope for a new type of politics. Apparently, those days are over. Obama is scrambling hard to the right, and some left-wing factions are crying foul.
 
   A number of the "Hilraisers" have yet to get on board the Obama train due to many perceived slights of Hillary from the Obama campaign and charges of misogyny.  Here is an article from "The Independent" from Britain with more details. A few Hillary supporters are still flashing the nuclear option, in which they sue to get her put on the ballot. Others are looking to McCain, and still others are just staying home. Code Pink's founder, Medea Benjamin, was on O'Reilly last night and she had a very difficult time holding her tongue about Obama's recent gyrations on the Iraq war. The cat is out of the bag, however, and points out the diffficulty of holding so many extremely liberal positions. The base is feeling increasingly betrayed over BHO's moves to the right. You can bet he is constantly triangulating every issue to see if he can survive the loss of any portion of any of his numerous constituencies. My bet is that the Hilraisers start raising quite a bit of something else. Remember, the Clinton campaign is merely suspended.
   Flip-flopper or pragmatist? Either way, there is nothing new or hopeful about what's going on here.
Tags: election  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and the Middle East

Posted by Sgt.Stryker on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 8:06:57 PM
   I have long maintained that invading Iraq was strategically important in the war against Islamo-fascism. Having pseudo-democratic regimes allied with the west in Afghanistan and Iraq helps keep Iran's nuclear ambitions in check and gives moderates across the region hope that many of the illegitimate regimes in the area will behave responsibly. Ultimately, this also helps keep the world's oil markets more stable, which in turn, has a beneficial impact on the global economy. Certainly, the liberation of 12 million Iraqis was serendipitous at the least.
   While it's much to early to be putting up "mission accomplished" signs, I feel somewhat vindicated and very hopeful after reading Reuel Marc Gerecht's piece in the Weekly Standard ( see here ). Here is an excerpt, pointing out the untenable position Obama and the left have taken.
 
"When do we get to start asking whether the Iraq war, with its hard-won-however-imperfect democracy, might actually be a good thing, worth the American blood and treasure? If 85 percent of the Iraqis say it was worth the hellacious voyage, and the unelected Sunni Arab rulers of the region say it was not, might we not think with the former? If millions of Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish Iraqis vote in the provincial elections, will Obama really want to say, one month before the U.S. presidential elections, that America's sojourn in Iraq has failed? If Iraq contributes to the current intellectual debates in the Muslim Middle East that seem to be diminishing the ideological appeal of bin Ladenism in Arab lands, might that mean that the bloodshed in Mesopotamia hasn't been a waste?
And speaking of Iran, Obama constantly asserts that the Islamic Republic has been the great beneficiary of America's invasion of Iraq, that things in the region would be so much better if Saddam Hussein were still in power. Leaving aside the issues of intra-Shiite friction and competition and the Muslim soul-searching partly provoked by the Iraq war, is Obama suggesting that the Middle East would be a safer place if Saddam were still with us and he, too, were again developing nuclear and biochemical weapons and could thereby "check" Iranian adventurism?"
 
Read this and keep some of this in mind next time the left starts talking about withdrawal. The stakes are enormous.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Weak Dollar and High Prices

Posted by Sgt.Stryker on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:55:04 PM
Larry Kudlow (from CNBC and National Review) is one of the few people I pay attention to regarding US fiscal policy. He has a fix in mind that, if adopted by the Fed and John McCain soon, will help strengthen the dollar, lower prices and inflationary pressures, and may help McCain get elected come November. See the article at National Review here. For those of you who aren't interested in fiscal policy due to lack of understanding or just not caring...he lays it out in fairly simple terms. Trust me, this is a big deal.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Voter ID and Proof of Citizenship

Posted by Sgt.Stryker on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 9:32:24 PM
   Hate to say, but I never really gave this much thought, but apparently there is only one state in the whole country that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote. Arizona is it...and the rest of us are not. See the story on FNC here. Luckily, eleven states have seen the light and have legislation pending to reconcile this massive error. I will certainly be contacting my congressmen to ensure we have something in the works. 
   
   I dare say, this may explain the swelling of the Democratic party voter rolls.  Twelve million (at least) (and counting) illegals can do that for you. 

   This all begs the question, why isn't this a national requirement?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »