Stories to Tell

This girl has stories to tell about the protest marches in Iran!

Where are the Feminists when you need them??? Part II

Now the power hungry, intolerant bully misogynists of Iran are taking out their Islamic self-righteousness, penis angst and inadequacy on women who don't dress to look like shapeless bags and hide every feature God (the real one) has given them to be beautiful. Here is a picture of a woman who has been a 'recipient' of Iranian Islamic love. Women who do not cover themselves properly are now considered "animals".



This picture shows who the real animals are (thank you Gateway Pundit for sharing this sad information with us). Read more at Gateway Pundit's site.

Where are the feminists? Where is the uprising against the extreme male chauvinism of these Iranian men?

Here is part one in case you missed it.

Giuliani is right about this: UPDATE

As might be expected, leading Democrats are wailing and gnashing their teeth over Giuliani's statements. I already commented on this article here. And every time I think about Giuliani's comments, I think about the Iran Hostage crisis that was precipitated by Jimmy Carter's weakness against our enemies during his administration. His administration was so bad he is very close to being considered one of the worst presidents we have ever had. By the way, neither Bush is close to being on this list.

My question for Democrats is this - how will the Democrats deal with an enemy that is hell-bent on destroying our civilization and replacing it with a barbaric, misogynistic, intolerant, and frankly, backward theocratic civilization?? I hope they have a good answer, too, because the future of the United States of America hangs upon how this nation will vote..not just in the presidential election, but in every election.

So, Hillary and Obama have decided that Giuliani has stooped to a new low. (I think Hillary did that already by putting on the fake southern accent and singing "Ah Dohn't Git No Waays Tahrd!" for her black audience) Lets see how low they go in scrambling to give their blind "peace peace (when there is no peace)" constituents some sort of answer to the terrorism issue rather than pushing it aside.

Giuliani is right about this

In an article in the Politico, Giuliani states frankly that "if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001."

He believes if a Democrat wins the highest office, our nation will go on the defensive against those whose sole purpose is to convert us or kill us. In doing that, the war will be extended and there will be more casualties. He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

On the other hand, if a Republican is elected, they are likely to remain on the offensive against a very vicious and religiously motivated enemy. Fewer casualties should ensue, and, in my opinion, there would be greater stability and peace in the world.

Here are some more quotes from the article:

“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”

Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”

Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!”

I'll be honest. I'm a social conservative, and Giuliani's views on social positions do make me cringe. But at the same time, is there a candidate on the Republican side who is willing to take such a bold stand against a very real enemy? As far as the Democrats are concerned, while there are some skilled in governing (Bill Richardson, who is very experienced, is one of the few examples), but I am totally embarrassed by the hang dog, turn tail, flip-flopping defeatist attitude that Democratic leaders portray.

For us to refuse to be bold against such an aggressive enemy as the radical Islamo-fascists, is to put ourselves in the same position we were in when Jimmy Carter was President. Weak stance was well recognized by our enemies, and Iran held hostages there up to the very day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated because they knew Carter would do nothing, and that Reagan would kick butt and take names.

It's time to kick butt and take names again, and I think the Democrats would let our butt be the one kicked.

The Cult of Bush Bashing

It becomes more and more obvious as time goes by that the hatred of President Bush is becoming a religious cult, and not based in rational thinking whatsoever. Bush is vilified the world over as the causer of wars, the oppressor of migrants, as the cause of global warming and the root of all that is wrong in the world. Forget the fact that America gives more foreign aid to everybody, even our enemies and even the Palestinians - an open enemy of the United States and freedom everywhere. Forget the fact that most research and development that benefits the poor of this world originated in the United States. Forget, even, that the United States is a country that people swarm to because of the promise of freedom and opportunity. You don't see many people emigrating to Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan, do you, unless they have been radicalized into some state of fascism.

An almost hilarious article appeared in the Washington Post this morning. Mayan Priests are planning to "purify" sacred sites after they become "defiled" by a visit from President Bush this week.

Mayan priests will purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after President Bush visits next week, an official with close ties to the group said Thursday.

"That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," Juan Tiney, the director of a Mayan nongovernmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, said Thursday.

Bush's seven-day tour of Latin America includes a stopover beginning late Sunday in Guatemala. On Monday morning he is scheduled to visit the archaeological site Iximche on the high western plateau in a region of the Central American country populated mostly by Mayans.

Tiney said the "spirit guides of the Mayan community" decided it would be necessary to cleanse the sacred site of "bad spirits" after Bush's visit so that their ancestors could rest in peace.

It has been almost forgotten that the Mayan culture practically destroyed themselves by barbaric practices. It was not bad spirits that destroyed the Mayan culture, but bad leadership.

I wonder if today's Mayan priests are eating food or are clothed or have medicine provided by the technology and generosity of the United States? I wonder if they know the reason they are not part of the communist Cuban regime is because of the Monroe Doctrine? I wonder if they are aware that Bush has been more sympathetic and has built more alliances with Mexico than any president has done in the last century. He speaks almost fluent Spanish, and governed a state that was a border state with Mexico. He influenced NAFTA, which has been a blessing to Mexico and all Latin American countries.

About "persecuting" immigrant brothers and sisters - we don't machine gun down people who cross......they get three hots and a cot when they are caught and get sent back. In one piece. We do everything we can - not perfectly - to promote free trade with Mexico and all of Central and South America, because this is in the common interest of all countries . Even Venezuela which would not last a month if we did not purchase their oil. Stuff that in your pipe, Chavez!

My government engineer friend tells me about highly intelligent co-workers who state that Bush is the "worst President ever". What does that mean? Apparently they have forgotten near history. Here is a list of the 10 Worst Presidents ever by real historians - not the biased pseudo-media. Bush is nowhere near the notoriety of this group!

Bush is so often referred to as "evil," that he is the "devil" and "Hitler." He has been demonized and become the culmination of everything that is evil and wrong in the world with religious and fanatic zeal. Fantastic quotes like "Bush killed my son!" (Cindy Sheehan) , attribute almost godlike powers to a mere man. In the near future, will people use the expletive "Bush!" instead of other common expletives when they whack their thumbs with a hammer?

I am by no means a "Bush or die" person. Bush will probably go down in history as a mediocre president who entangled our nation in an unpopular war against a religiously charged irrational enemy. In the end, we hire a president to keep us safe - not to make us feel good. We need to remember this when we hire the next president.

Who will be the next religious Icon of all that is evil in the world when Bush is gone?

Shortsighted View of History

The Financial Times published an article today titled "History Leaves Bush and Blair Behind".

I don't know if it is because I'm not a 20 something gal, or what, but that title seems awfully shortsighted to me. I believe that ten years from now the worst thing we will have to say about Bush and Blair is that they did too little and too late.

The British would understand the "too little, too late" concept well. Neville Chamberlain did his best to make peace with Hitler and his radical Nazi regime. He even signed a treaty in good faith with Hitler that was supposed to keep Britain out of any conflict with Germany. Didn't do any good.

The Americans have also been bitten even though they tried to isolate themselves from conflict with the radical German Nazi regime. American merchant ships were continually attacked by German Sea Wolf raids, even though the merchant sailors were civillians and America was not at war with Germany. This happened in the 30s years before the official start of WWII. Economic sanctions against the Nazis were tried, but it only gave them more time to perfect their war machine.

Take note that Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is the highest selling book in Iran today under the title "My Jihad". They like it in Egypt, too.

More recently, look at the Vietnamization program under Lyndon Baines Johnson in the late 60s and early 70s during the Vietnam conflict (read "war"). The program was partially successful, but ironically a Republican candidate by the name of Richard Milhouse Nixon won the election in '72 by being the "anti-war" candidate. When Congress finally forced him to keep his campaign promises and pull the troops out of Vietnam, our enemies were immediately emboldened. And not just in Vietnam, either. They learned from us. They learned that if they could make the casualties high enough, and sustain the war long enough, that the Congress would wail like little children and clamor to bring the troops home in order to save their jobs. Sound Familiar?

History will show that there are always consequences for abandoning your allies in the middle of a conflict after you tell them stupid things like "we'll stay the course no matter what."

It is too early to decide that Bush and Blair are on the ash heap of history. The whining children we call our political leaders are reliving history.....again.