You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2009.
Last Sunday at the Miss USA competition, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, won my heart. Although she did not win the competition she was all over the headlines after the show. She was asked a question by so called celebrity Perez Hilton, who is one of those Hollywood Elites that is famous for doing nothing, and she answered the question with her opinion. Of course, because her opinion did not conform with left wing Hollywood she has been lambasted by elites like Hilton.
She was asked, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um, we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman,” Carrie said to a mix of boos and applause. “No offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think that it should be between a man and a woman.”
Clearly she answered the question as anyone would and should; by giving her opinion. She feels that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Hilton and other liberal elitists were outraged by her answer. Hilton, who was a judge on the show, said she lost the competition because of her answer.
I think this is a great answer. The thing that these Hollywood elites and gay marriage activists don’t seem to understand is that, not everyone has the same opinion as they do. In fact, the majority of Americans and really everyone in the western world, feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, that is not the issue that I am interested in. What interests me is when these people, force their opinions on everyone. When a contestant at the Miss USA competition loses because she answered with her opinion, you have to wonder how moronic these liberals are. They claim to stand up for an individuals right to free speech, but when that person uses their right of free speech to voice an opinion that does not agree with the liberal agenda it is blown off as uneducated intolerant hate.
Good work Miss California. What are your plans this Friday Night?
When President Woodrow Wilson made his famous speech at the Paris Peace Conference he made a pledge for the world to open its doors to the thought of a global system of security and freedom. One of his 14 points advocated the need for open seas in which all countries could be assured of the protection of merchant ships traveling in international waters and through territorial seaways. For almost 90 years the seas were open and welcome to any merchant ship traveling abroad securing the function of free trade and international commerce.
However, the freedom and security of merchant ships traveling in international waters has come under recent threat from a band of Sudanese pirates. Both German and Greek shipping companies have paid large ransoms, some in the millions, for the recovery of oil tankers and cargo ships worth in the hundreds of millions. These Euro countries set the bar for these pirates and propelled them to continue terrorizing ships off the coast of Sudan.
French Navy Captures 11 Sudanese Pirates
Then they attacked an American ship and the game changed. Last week four Sudanese pirates raided the Maersk Alabama and took Capt. Richard Phillips hostage. After days of negotiating between the terrorists and the American shipping company, the White House gave orders for a daring rescue mission. The Navy Seals assassinated the four pirates and grabbed the captain without skipping a beat.
In response to the killing of four of their peers, the pirate gang captured four vessels within 24 hours of the American captain being rescued. Now it comes out that the French have detained 11 of these pirates in a raid on one of their mother ships.
My question is this: Why are the French, of all people, taking action against this terrorist group when America’s foreign policy is determined to combat global terrorism. The answer can be found by taking one look inside the oval office at the administration running the show.
Yes, President Obama gave the go for an offensive to rescue Capt. Phillips, but is he going to turn his back and walk away? Considering the four pirates that took control of the American ship made their move on a rubber dingy, it is clear how pathetic the scale to which they operate on is. Why don’t the Americans station a couple submarines in the area and torpedo these dinghies to hell. This is just one case where, at the very least, Obama could easily pass a resolution through the UN to grant international naval assistance to secure the area for merchant ships. But once again, Obama plays the middle ground waiting for these pirates to strike again.
This whole pirate situation is quite a joke. Thomas Friedman, an accomplished writer for the New York Times, highlights in this article the uselessness of diplomacy in a time like this. There is a reason why America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. In the most recent international crisis the Obama administration finally showed it had balls and gave the go for a navy seal mission to rescue an American captain captured by four Sudanese pirates. I have to give Obama credit for his decision to kill these terrorists, but I feel more credit is due to both the capitain and the American Seals.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
I’ve been thinking lately of starting a new school of foreign service to train U.S. diplomats. My school, though, would be very simple. It would consist of a single classroom with a desk and a chair. At the desk would be a teacher, pretending to be a foreign leader. The student would come in and have to persuade the foreign leader to do something — to pull this or that lever. At one point, the foreign leader would nod vigorously in agreement and then reach behind him and pull the lever — and it would come off the wall in his hands. Or, he would nod vigorously and say, “Yes, yes, of course, I will pull that lever,” but then would only pretend to do so.
I’m wondering if President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aren’t those students, trying to deal with the leaders of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea. I say that not to criticize but to sympathize. “Mama, don’t let your children grow up to be diplomats.”
This is not the great age of diplomacy.
A secretary of state can broker deals only when other states or parties are ready or able to make them. In the cold war, an age of great powers, grand bargains and reasonably solid client states, there were ample opportunities for that — whether in arms control with the Soviet Union or peacemaking between our respective client states around the globe. But this is increasingly an age of pirates, failed states, nonstate actors and nation-building — the stuff of snipers, drones and generals, not diplomats.
Hence the déjà vu all over again quality of U.S. foreign policy right now — the sense that when it comes to our major problems (Afghanistan and Pakistan and North Korea and Iran), we just go around and around, buying the same carpets from the same people, over and over, but nothing changes.
“We are dealing with states and leaders who either cannot deliver or will not deliver,” notes the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy professor Michael Mandelbaum. “The issues we have with them look less like problems that can be solved and more like conditions that we have to manage.”
The ones who can’t deliver — the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan — are the ones who promise to do all sorts of good things, and pull all sorts of levers, but at the end of the day the levers come off the wall because the governments in these countries have only limited powers. The ones who won’t deliver — Iran and North Korea — time and again tell us: “Yes, we need to talk.” But at the end of the day, their hostile relationships with America or the West are so central to the survival strategy of their regimes, so much at the core of their justifications for remaining in power, that it is not in their interest to deliver real reconciliation, but just to pretend to deliver it.
The only thing that could change this is a greater exercise of U.S. and allied power. In the case of Afghanistan and Pakistan, that power would have to be used to actually rebuild these states from the inside into modern nations. We would literally have to build the institutions — the pulleys and wheels — so that when the leaders of these states pulled a lever something actually happened, and the lever wouldn’t just break off in their hands.
And in the case of the strong states — Iran and North Korea — we would have to generate much more effective leverage from the outside to get them to change their behavior along the lines we seek. In both cases, though, success surely would require a bigger and longer U.S. investment of money and power, not to mention allies.
Instead, I fear that we are adopting a middle-ground strategy — doing just enough to avoid collapse but not enough to solve the problems. If our goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan is nation-building, so they will have self-sustaining moderate governments, we surely don’t have enough troops or resources inside devoted to either. If our goal is changing regime behavior in Iran and North Korea, we surely have not generated enough leverage from outside. North Korea’s defiant missile launch and Iran’s continued development of its nuclear capability testify to that.
So, in sum, we have four problem countries at the heart of U.S. foreign policy today that we don’t have the will or ability to ignore but seem to lack the leverage or the allies to decisively change. The big wild card — a critical mass of people who share our aspirations inside these countries, rising up and leading the fight, which is ultimately what tipped Iraq for the better — I don’t see. As such, I fear we are sliding into commitments in Afghanistan and Pakistan without a real national debate about the ends or the means or the exits. That is a recipe for trouble.
Given all that is on his plate, you cannot blame President Obama for looking for a middle ground — not wanting to abandon progressives and women in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not wanting to get in too deeply. But history teaches that the middle ground can be a perilous place. Think of Iraq before the surge — not enough to win or lose, but just enough to be stuck.
The State Legislature in Georgia is on the verge of passing a bill, Bill SB67, that requires the written driving test to be taken in English. Currently the road test is done with English examiners only, but the written portion of the test can be written in up to 19 different languages. The proposed bill will mandate that the test can be offered in English only and no translators or aids will be allowed to be present while writing the test.
ATLANTA — Georgia would require that new drivers take a written license test in English under a bill being considered by state lawmakers, and the proposal has some employers and immigrant advocates worried it would keep people unfamiliar with the language from being able to work.
The measure is the latest in a series of English-only legislation around the country, but Georgia is believed to be the only state that would have a law requiring that drivers take the written test in English without a translator or other aid. Versions of the bill have passed both chambers of the Legislature, and lawmakers are trying to hash out differences before the session ends Friday.
Supporters say it is a public safety measure because drivers need to be able to read English to understand roadside signs and warnings. Opponents argue that the measure unfairly targets immigrants and may violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They also say it could discourage foreign companies from making investments in the state and affect local companies who hire foreign workers.
Of course this bill makes sense. People have to be able to read English while they drive. Furthermore, if someone walked into the local DMV and demanded to take the test in the language from Lord of the Rings (I need a super Nerd to reference what that language is called) what do you think would happen. It is not really any different. If you are going to allow a Spanish or Chinese test, where does it end. English is the official language of Georgia and that is the only language they wish to offer the test.
I am sure the left wing loonies are out in full force over this one. FIRM has come out publicly against the bill, it is worth reading their stance. Here is another left wing liberal view.
A California couple recently went on the Dr. Phil television program seeking his doctoral advice. The couple makes a living stealing toys from local department stores and selling the goods online. It seems like a perfect scam, however, the critical mistake they made was going on a nationally televised program and admitting to it. They were urged by family members to go on the show and seek counseling as they are becoming kleptomaniacs. Immediately after the show aired, law enforcement officers stormed their house and seized stolen goods.
SAN MARCOS, Calif. — A couple who went on national television to brag about making $100,000 shoplifting and selling their loot on eBay is under investigation by federal agents.
Matthew and Laura Eaton of San Marcos appeared on the “Dr. Phil” show last fall to share their story, aided by a video of their three small children accompanying them on a three-day shoplifting binge.
Last week the Secret Service and other members of the multi-agency San Diego Regional Fraud Task Force searched their home and seized toys, a car and other belongings.
Dave Hillen, a detective at the San Diego County sheriff’s office, said he investigated the Eatons for shoplifting before their television appearance.
They appeared on the show, telling Dr. Phil McGraw that they made $3,500 in one week from selling stolen toys. Matthew Eaton called the thefts “easy money.”
I think I can admit that I love a good scam but these people are clearly idiots. Why on earth would you go on national television and admit committing a crime. I guess these people are as dumb as a typical criminal. Maybe they should get some advice from Dr Phil on how not to be morons.
I laughed pretty hard when I read this. It seems 3 men convicted of Driving Under the Influence were ordered by the court to attend a consequences of DUI panel. The panel is made up of people who have suffered losses of loved ones as a result of drunk drivers.
The intention is to have the convicts listen to testimonials of the horrors of drinking and driving. However, I think the men made quite a farce of the whole thing when they showed up drunk. Their blood alcohol level was around 0.22 and the legal limit is that damn 0.08 (which we all know has never stopped us before).
Three New Yorkers convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses showed up to their court-mandated panel to hear from DWI victims drunk, police said.
“Occasionally, we’ll have someone show up drunk, but that was offensive,” Larry Waimon, whose father and grandmother were killed by drunken drivers, told the Post-Star. “They’re not ready to listen. The judges should lock them up.”
All three had a blood alcohol content of just under 0.22 percent, Glens Falls Police Sgt. John Winchell told the newspaper. In New York a person is considered legally drunk if their BAC is 0.08 percent.
I am a fan of anyone who makes a farce of anything. I like these guys because they are pretty outrageous. However, I hate criminals. These guys are hilarious and I laugh when I read stories like this, but there is no doubt that they should be locked.
