Thursday, December 30, 2004

Pacifism vs hypocricy

Posted in response to this message, Christian Nelson writes,
My wife's grandfather was a concientious objector during WW2. Her father was during Vietnam. I respect both of them. They served thier country in other ways when they were up for the draft. Her grandfather worked in a lumber camp for the years he would have served for the government. He simply didn't want to kill anyone. He didn't take to the streets, block traffic, start fights with police officers about it.

Her father did the same during Vietnam, he was drafted, they had him milk testing for the government. They both were true pacifists, and I respect them for it. when was the last time you saw Menonites, or Amish serving in the military? When have you seen them mounting massive protests, and causing riots? When have you seen them block traffic when the nation was at war because they don't think killing is right? You see, real pacifists who really don't agree with violence don't commit violence in order to draw attention to themselves.

You see, there is a difference between not suppporting an action, and directly subverting your neighbors, and family who are prepared to die for your wellbeing.

There's a difference between not liking war, and fighting with national guard troops, and burning draft cards "sticking it to the man"..

There is a difference between reporting news that happens, and having contacts with subversives who give you tipoffs of when heinous crimes will be committed so you can get a good story, and maybe some good photos of it.

What I am talking about is the fact that peace, and social responsibility are not the true motives of these very outspoken and in your face people. They use these issues to legitimize thier actions, and to cover over thier true motives.

They are not nice people, they don't care about others, or the environment, they want USA to fall, and they want socializm to take root. The point I am trying to make is, they use anything they can to destroy or disparage the USA, and hide behind freedom of speech, and press, and pretend they have some moral superiority for being an "activist".

Intruth, they are petty violent subversives, who really should be inprisoned. Not for disagreeing, not for daring to have a different oppinion, not for trying to make a positive change about something they believe in, but for the people they hurt, for the crimes they commit, and for the damage they do, they should pay.

Our military is essential for our continued existence, they fight to reduce it to insignificance, while attempting to limit 2nd ammendment freedoms, and hope that someday, we will lose and be "cut down to size". This isn't about priorities, it is about weakening the enemy. That is thier goal. My priority is to help out whomever I can. I have strong religeous convictions about that. I don't need the government to do it for me by taking my money from me. I don't feel better if the government forces others who aren't generous to give either.

I see through the charade, they don't care about the poor. They don't care about the environment. what they want to do is bog the USA government down in domestic and humanitarian issues, to the point that they cannot defend them selves from attack.

Americans are generous, we give more money (I am not talking about official government gifts only here) and aid of our own free wills than any other nation in existence, and history, yet we are told we don't do enough. we don't give enough, we are too strong, we polute too much..

All it is is a smoke screen for weakening us so they can attack..

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Traitors within

How does one define a traitor? Dictionary.com says, "One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason"...Okay, so that's no so helpful, how about "treason"? Again from Dictionary.com: "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. "

Ah. There we go. So based on that definition, is someone who fights tooth and nail to get our soldiers killed or calls for "a million mogadishu's"...a traitor? In context,
In a six-hour "teach-in" at the college, Nicholas De Genova, an assistant professor of anthropology, said he would like to see "a million Mogadishus" -- a reference to the city in Somalia where 18 American soldiers were ambushed and killed in 1993. "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military," De Genova told the audience of about 3,000. "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus... we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine."
Whether or not you agree with this professor is immaterial. If you are intellectually honest and objective, this does fit with the definition of treason.

Comments?

UPDATE: A link to the story in the Columbia Spectator about the above mentioned conference and the views expressed.

Monday, December 27, 2004

Failure in parenting: Sex in schools

Does this surprise anybody?

Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/19/2004 | Shocking sex acts in schools

Education or brainwashing?

College. A word that once meant education has, with a few exceptions, degenerated into an environment of political indoctrination, of hatred and fear. Where students pay to be unwillingly brainwashed as a filter of leftist/marxist thought is forcably pulled over their eyes, and their intellectual independence stamped out as they are molded into pre-defined roles within their race, class, gender, and politics.

AcademicBias.com has more.

Monday, December 20, 2004

UN's biggest failure - Genocide, not oil

Anyone who really, sincerely cares about the poor and oppressed in the world should be urging President Bush to cut all funding from the U.N., withdraw from the organization, and kick them out of New York so we can build a park with the land. The U.N. under Kofi Annan has been the worst failure the world has seen in recent years, as Kenneth Cain in his WSJ editorial:
A debate currently rages about whether Kofi Annan enjoys the moral authority to lead the United Nations because the Oil for Food scandal happened under his command. That debate is 10 years too late and addresses the wrong subject. The salient indictment of Mr. Annan's leadership is lethal cowardice, not corruption; the evidence is genocide, not oil.


They even put the criminal masterminds behind Enron to shame. Sometimes it helps to get a firsthand account on the ground of what really happens...the things the newsmedia don't show us. , the sites of some of the most horrible war crimes and atrocities ever to plague the earth:
Before my recent return, the last time I was in Rwanda was 10 years ago; I was counting skulls. A young U.N. human-rights officer, I was tasked with collecting evidence for the U.N.'s forthcoming war-crimes tribunal after the successful genocide of Rwanda's Tutsi minority by Hutu militias in 1994. We were looking for the mass graves of mass murder. We found them in churches, schools, gardens, latrines--anywhere Tutsis had gathered seeking protection or their killers had dumped their bodies, dismembered and entangled, like life-size rag dolls. Some 800,000 bodies rotted in the African sun.

But it isn't just the stench of death I remember so vividly; the odor of betrayal also hung heavily in the Rwandan air. This was not a genocide in which the U.N. failed to intervene; most of the U.N.'s armed troops evacuated after the first two weeks of massacres, abandoning vulnerable civilians to their fate, which included, literally, the worst things in the world a human being can do to another human being.


Evil still exists in the world today more than ever, and that evil is not one of intollerance among good people, but of murderous hatred and indifferent extermination of entire peoples, as well as the deliberate and targeted destruction of the values, ideas, and people that have made our great country the strong and prosperous superpower it is today. Yet this grand organization known as the United Nations is more concerned with it's public image and "neutrality" than with doing good in the world. Yes, I know there are a few truely good U.N. programs. These programs can and should continue, but should be separated from the dying U.N. and continue to be run by the people who are actively doing good in the world instead of merely talking about it.

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

Lefty Blogs

I'll admit, I don't read many of them. I'll occasionally glance at Atrios, but I rarely actually read anything because most of what he says simply doesn't make sense. A couple comments he cites as outright lies by people like Donald Rumsfeld, and Bill O'Reily, are so short and devoid of any kind of context or reference, that not only is it impossible to tell what the original statement was about, but to what exactly is Atrios taking a position against?

Monday, December 06, 2004

Peace is worth fighting for

Peaceniks really bother me. Is there REALLY anybody out there who actually
believes that war is never justifiable? If so, please explain the proper
response to Adolf Hitler. Do you think peace rallies in Berlin would have
changed his mind? No, the protesters would have been machine gunned down
and the survivors executed or sent to death camps. Anyone with half a grasp
of history knows that Hitler was an evil man who wasn't going to stop, no
matter what happened or what didn't happen. The ONLY way to keep him from
continuing his campaign of mass murder and grotesque conquest was complete
and total defeat, which is what we, yes, we THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
accomplished in conjunction with our allies in World War II.



Similar story in the Pacific with the Japanese. The only voice they would
bow to is the voice of raw power in a crushing defeat. You can't reason
with fanatics.



Now, this is not a defense of the war in Iraq, those events are still in
motion and only later will a true assessment be possible. There's simply
too many factors to consider, including the Oil for Food scam in the UN that
very possibly goes all the way to the top and includes a significant portion
of the security council, primarily France, Russia, and Germany. Whether
going into Iraq at the time we did was the BEST thing or not, I don't know.
I for one really don't care what the French think of us, they haven't been a
significant world power for two hundred years, and we've saved their country
plenty of times, and the only thanks we get is hatred and corruption.



Friday, December 03, 2004

Oliver North: 'The turning point'

Oliver North: 'The turning point'

Col. North makes a very compelling comparison between Today's war on terror and the Pacific theatre of WWII. This is stuff I hadn't even thought of before, but in context of the stuff I DO know....the similarities are chilling.


FREE Hit Counters!