Friday, October 26, 2007

"They are not our friends" follow up

Putin warns Europe ahead of summit


Putin: US Plan Evokes '62 Cuban Crisis


This post is a quick follow up to my last post about Russia's continued friendliness towards Iran and hostility towards the US. While Russian President Vladimir Putin claims US President Bush is a "personal friend", he words are very volatile and hostile. Russia has been working for the last year to try and monopolize who controls the oil market in Europe and Asia. Russia is responsible for 25 percent of the European oil market. Now that Russia is working to ally itself with Iran, another major exporter of oil, but promising to help them with their nuclear ambitions.

We must also mention that Putin has rejected the implementation of a US missile defense system in central Europe that would be used to protect Western Europe and the US from any missile strikes that could be launched by Iran or any other hostile countries. And how would Iran be able to launch such an attack? Because Iran in recent months has purchased North Korean missiles and access to their missile technology, as well as Russian and Chinese military technology.

On top of all of this, Putin announce recently that Russia is developing a New Atomic weapon and building more atomic subs. The same Russia that is conducting military exercises with China. China, who has numerous ballistic missiles pointed at the US and Japan. But the USA is the hostile nation? We are the one's creating a "crisis"? Putin is a former head of the Soviet KGB and he is appearing to be more and more to be wanting to rebuild Russia to the Soviet power it use to be via military strength and oil market control.

Who is the aggressor now? And what is our politicians worried about in Washington, except for political posturing to get re-elected while we have nations who are working together to "balance out" the US strength in the world...it is nice to know though that President Bush is a "personal friend"...makes me feel a whole lot better.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

They are not our friends

Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday, October 16th, and President Putin warned the US or any other nation about threatening to prevent Iran's nuclear prospects. Iran is working on building nuclear facilities where they can develop nuclear energy and potentially create nuclear weapons. Also, within the last few weeks, China and Russian militaries conducted military exercises together. The purpose of both nations' militaries working together is to "balance out" the United States' military power.

So, Russia is meeting with the leader of a nation that has stated in front of audiences in Iran that he wants to destroy Israel and the USA. Russia is working with China's military to counter-balance the US military. And now China is mad that President Bush will be meeting with the Dalai Lama tomorrow to award him the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. China has threaten that this act will "severely damage" US-China relations. Also, let us not forget that this past Sunday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Russian leaders in Moscow "that she's concerned over Russia's recent increase in arms sales to Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Burma."

Ms. Rice, you are "concerned" about a nation, that is suppose to be on friendly terms with our nation, is rebuilding its military and helping the militaries' of nations that are anti-American? She says these actions by Russia "are really not helpful to security." Oh, is that all?

Russia and China have been siding with or meeting with anti-American nations for years now. The US government since the 1990's has thought that these people are our "friends". But China has missiles aimed at the US. China got mad when the US government asked China to stop sending defective and harmful goods to the US (recalled pet foods, toys, etc.) and China threatened to sell off all it's US bonds, which would immediately send our economy into an immediate economic recession, if not a "mini-depression". Russia has been working with Iran to building nuclear plants. Russia has been selling its old weapons to anti-American and terror supporting nations such as Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and many others. Our CIA has found out that some of the former Soviet Union's nuclear weapons are in the possession of Al Qaeda and Syria.

But we wanted to be "friends" with these people? It's is as if Al Sharpton was trying to befriend David Duke or if a Jewish family wanted to invite the Neo-Nazi, racist neighbors to their Hanukkah celebration. I have said numerous times, negotiating with terrorists is like trying to negotiate with a person with a gun that is being held to your head. It is not happening. But the Bush Administration wants to "work" with China and Russia, hoping that US relations can influence them to become "good, democratic, capitalist nations". Well, the closest we have gotten is China has implemented a pseudo-capitalist economy. Not because they want to be like the USA, but because a Capitalist economy works better than socialist and communist economic structures.

The US government has become weak in its foreign relations. Our politicians are so worried about what everyone in the world thinks about our nation that they are compromising our National Security and National Sovereignty. If our founding fathers during the US Revolutionary War or US Presidents in the 19th and early 20th centuries cared as much as today's politicians about what the world thinks and feels about the USA, then our nation would have destroyed itself or been destroyed by another nation long ago. Presidents Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington stood up in the face of scrutiny and did what was right, not what was popular. We need another bold, Pro-American President to lead this nation, not try to assimilate the USA into the rest of the world. We need to stop electing wimps who don’t want to upset or offend people and only care about their careers, legacies, and agendas. Because guess what? It was Julius Caesar's "friends" who assassinated him! So be careful when people call China and Russia a "friend" or "ally".

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Refuting Stereotypes

Ok, so I saw this post called "Friends dont let friends vote republican" and I read it and it is full of stereotypes and half-truths! Even though I am still annoyed with Republicans and am really TIRED of President Bush, I still am passionate about the truth, so be ready for a reality check:


Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

*Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him,
A bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him,
A good guy when Cheney did business with him and
A bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Response: This is a very simplistic and stereotypical statement. If I were to use this same concept against Democrats I could say:

The Soviet Union were good guys when Franklin Roosevelt faught World War II with him, Bad guys when John Kennedy almost declared nulear war with them, Good Guys when Nixon wanted to negotiate with them, and Bad Guys when Reagan called them the "Evil Empire".

Such analogies and storylines are cute, but not fact based. When Reagan "armed" Iraq, it was in an ongoing war with Iran. The US believed at that time that Saddam was the lesser of two evils when compared with a powerful, radical Islamic Iran. While I agree, helping Saddam financially and militarialy fight Iran was stupid, at the time people thought it was a good idea. Hindsight is always 20-20. President Bush Sr. "made war" with Saddam Hussein because Saddam had invaded Kuwait, threatened to bomb and take over Saudi Arabia, and destroy Israel in 1990. The US had an invested financial and military interests in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. So the US went in, pushed Saddam back, but didnt finish the job of "liberating" Iraq and left the revolutionary fighters to get slaughter by a ticked off Saddam. The legend of "Dick Cheney, Haliburton extrodinare" are exaggerated, especially since Haliburton did most of it's business with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, and some business with Iran and Pakistan, not Iraq. Very little, if any business done with Iraq, especially since the UN had major sanctions on Iraq at the time. Saddam did do business with the UN as a part of the "Food for Oil" program, that turned out to be a dirty money scandal. And then President Bush Jr., he went into Iraq because Saddam was threatening Israel and other countries in the region AGAIN, violating UN sanctions, and after 9/11, anyone who could hurt us or our allies was dangerous. Now, we all have our issues with how the Iraq Military Action was conducted, but dont let that overshaddow the justification of the action within that momment.



Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but
trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
Response: The issue with Cuba goes back the the early 1960's. For those of you who never learned anything in school, the Soviet Union was planning to place Nuclear missles in Cuba. Since Cuba is not far from the US, this was a major threat to US security. After a standoff between President Kennedy and the Soviet Union, they came to an agreement for the Soviets to remove the missles from Cuba and that we would leave Cuba alone for as long as Fidel Castro was the Communist Dictator. So we have a history of being at odds with them. China on the other hand, the US has been trying to do trade with and work with since the 1970's when President Nixon went to China to "re-develop" relations with the "New China" which was now Communist. Before World War II, the US and China had a long relationship via trade and strategic alliances. But in the 1950's when they "went Red", there was a time when neither side talked at all. People today believe that we can make China "not Communist" by making them capitalist. This hasnt exactly worked, especially since China is now doing military excercises with Russia (i.e. the washed up Soviet Union). I disagree with our extensive trade relations with China and trading with Vietnam is as pointless and as much of a formality as trading with Luxomborg, so why even bring that up.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
Response: Ok, the above statement is based upon whether someone is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. This is also based upon the idea that Republicans are for big business, while Democrats are for "the little guy". The fact is that both parties are at the whim of big money donors and financers who own big businesses. The Pro-Life position has nothing to do with woman not being "trusted with decisions about her own body", but about the potential life within the woman's body. That potential life within a woman is a life we dont know what it will do, who knows if that baby would have been the next great scientist or President or the doctor finds the cure for AIDS, etc. There is a major difference between the girl who was raped and the girl who doesnt want to deal with the burden of having a baby. Concerning the infamous "multination coorporations", both sides are guilty of pandering and not being tough enough on big business. Why else do we trade with China? A bunch of our companies sent our factories over there so the company can spend less money paying their workers and in turn Americans loose jobs along the way. That helps big business, not everyone. And whose fault is it that we have such a messed up business atmosphere? People like Clinton, Bush Sr, Nixon, and all those idiots in Congress who voted to give China "Most Favored Nation" Trade Status and decided for the US to not enforce tarrifs and change the laws so these companies to do what they do. See, Republicans and Democrats are both to blame. And there are also Pro-Life and Pro-Choice politicians in both parties.


Jesus loves you,
And shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
Response: Another imbicilic, simplistic statement. Anyone who actually reads the Bible and understands it, knows that God doesnt hate anyone, especially not Jesus (If 1 John 4:7-8 says God is love, where would the hate come in?). The Bible says homosexuality is a sin, not that the people are evil. Jesus died to save everyone, including homosexuals and Hillary Clinton. Also, not all Republicans are Christians. There are plenty of Democrats who are Christians or "Chritian-esque". If some hates someone, thats a "you" problem. And there are plenty of people who have problems with Hillary Clinton on ethical, Political, and policy grounds who are Democrats.


The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches
while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
Response: This generalization was true during the Vietnam war. Blame Nixon (a Republican) there and cronyism in Congress. But today, blame everyone. No one in Washington seems to care that our troops need more and better weapons, body armor, and vehicles. No one publically and vocally cares that our military hospitals are old. No one cares that those in the military get paid less than atleast 70 percent of the US working populace. But what do Democrats and Republicans in Washington care about? Giving themselves pay raises, building bridges with the Senator's name on it in West Virgina and Alaska, or putting sand on New Jersey beaches or building new Libraries in Alaska or Texas with a certain Politician's name on it or complaining about Bush, etc...you tell me why Congress has lower approval ratings than Bush if these Democrats actually care about the troops more than Republicans? Both sides are in the wrong!


If condoms are kept out of schools,
Adolescents won't have sex.

Response: *Sigh* While handing out condoms in school does seem kind of low and creepy ("Mr. Basile, can I get a condom? I want to have one because I plan on getting laid tonight"), but the issue is more so the extreme "Sex Ed" we have in schools today. There is a difference between explaining about sexual intercorse (sperm meets the egg, creates baby=family planning class) and talking about sexual positions (you place the penis here while siting here=Penthouse class). No one should have to listen to their teacher talk about their sex toys they have at home, it's school, not sex chat time.



Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.
Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
Response: It's socialism whether it is done in Iraq or America, period. Why does Donald Trump or George W Bush or Sean Penn or John Kerry or any of those guys need Government provided health care? They can pay for anything they need themselves or afford to have their own Health Care provider or HMO. If you want everyone to have health care, lets have Government health care (Medicare, Medicaid and similar programs) and Private health care (HMO's and the such for those with well paying jobs or work in big companies that offer medical benefits). Lets be reasonable, not inefficient. Besides, it's not "Republicans" fault that Democrats believe in a right to health care and it's not the "Democrats" fault that Republicans believe in the right to live happy.


HMOs and insurance companies have the best
interests of the public at heart.
Response: Yes, lets blame the companies for how the government passed certain laws...really smart...and is that the Republicans fault too? Lets blame the Republicans for the Democrat controlled Congress in 1993 not working with Hillary Clinton on Health Care Reform too....please, seriously.



Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.
Response: More and more evidence is coming out that there is more Climate Change going on than Human-faulted Global Warming. And tobacco's link to cancer is pretty well accepted, except by those indenial. Yes, there are some whose body's become so use to the smoke their lungs adapt, but they will get ill somewhere else because their bodies work so hard to not let the tobacco kill their lungs they become weak and vulnerable in other areas. Since Evolution is a Scientific Theory and hasnt been proven, why not teach Creationism and Evolution side by side so the kids can learn all sciences, not just the one angled aspect? People are so obsessed with Evolution that anything that might show it to be wrong is evil in their eyes. These people dont care about science or facts, but an agenda.


A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Response: Lying under oath is a felony, and if done by the man whose job is to uphold the Constitution is impeachable, not the lie itself. The "Bush lied, Kids died" crowd wants everyone to forget that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy and numerous other Democrats supported going into Iraq in 2002 and 2003. I have the audio clips, I've seen the video, it wasnt a Bush "follow me" deal. If anyone lied about Iraq, almost everyone in Washington DC lied to the American people: Republicans, Democrats, CIA, Department of Defense, the President, Congress, everyone.



Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution,
which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
Response: Let us view what a law dictionary's definition of marriage is:

Marriage - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law. (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=63/634e8e4d4e93fc49502a0d4ec5df4166)

So the real problem is the definition of a marriage is one that does not allow for two people of the same gender to marry. In turn, you want homosexuals to be able to get married? Change the laws and statutes pertaining to marriage. On the other hand, the legal definition of a Civil Union is:

Civil Union: Ceremony between same-sex persons which conveys to them certain aspects of marriage for purposes of that state's laws (but not those of other states or the federal government). Rights are conferred in respect of property and probate law, adoption, insurance, hospital visitation, and wrongful death actions as well as insurance and state income tax laws. 744 A. 2d 864. (Law Dictionary. Copyright © 2003 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc. All rights reserved. )

Basically, a Civil Union is a marriage without the costs and taxes that go along with marriage. So is gays not being able to be married so bad?

Concerning censoring the internet, the only things censored online is that Pornographic website have a "You are at a porn site, are you 18? if not, leave now" warning and otherwise, the only things "censored" online are Child Pornography (people under the age of 18) and websites that advocate/promote terrorism and crime ("This is how you create a bomb" sites and "Lets talk about killing the President" blogs) If you are not for even limited forms of censorship, please proceed to go join the Libertarian Party or move to Amsterdamn and leave the rest of America alone.



The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but
George Bush's cocaine conviction is none of our business.
Response: I dont care if you are Republican, Democrat, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, or Ted Stevens, if you have a shaddy or corrupted record/past, the public deserves to know. Let the public decide for itself what is just baggage or something that is akin to one's character. President Bush was an alcoholic and did cocaine. Does he do it anymore? No, so that was a part of his past. President Clinton did marajuana. Does he do it anymore? No, so that is in the past. If you want to talke about someone's dealings and how their past may affect the present and future, look at people who have a record of "dirty" stuff. Being human, people make mistakes and are not always in perfect moral/upright character. Consistantly doing something (habitual actions) like John Kerry's flip-flopping or Ted Steven's name on tons of "Pork" legislation, people such as that we can almost predict their every move.


Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime,
unless you're a conservative radio host.
Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
Response: Or if you are an NFL Quartback right? I bet many of you did not know that Green Bay Packers Quartback Brett Favre was once a pain killer-addict too. Favre went into drug rehad and came out a better man and player than he was before. Rush Limbaugh also developed such an addiction to pain killers, which he was charged with obtaining illegally. And actually, Limbaugh was in and out of rahab a few times before surrendering to a Police warrant in 2006, paid bail to get out of jail, plead "not guilty" and reached an agreement with the Prosecutor to pay the costs of the investigation as a "punishment" instead of inprisonment.

Now that you know what really happened, I want to just mention that people can fall into all kinds of addictions, its not so "unique". Our drug laws are a mess and need to be redone, not modified. Scratch the whole code and redo it. Why should an individual from the urban section of a town who had an ounce of cocaine go to jail longer than someone who lives in the suburban section of that town who had almost a pound of cocaine? Why should those charged with "Possesion" of drugs be in prison longer than a man who raped a 10 year old girl? "I rest my case your honor"



You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft
can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
Response: Ok, let me preface what I am about to say with the understanding that I do not like John Ashcroft and know alot about his past that disturbs me and I see his 4 years as US Attorney General as another lousy AG in a line of lousy Attorney Generals over the last 14 years (Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, and Alberto Gonzalez). Ashcroft's involvement and workings as US Attorney General were not the best, but this was not something that was so "bad". If you want to know what "Republicans" think about state's rights, look up what US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says. Ashcroft was a career politician who happened to have an "R" next to his name and ran around claiming to be a devout Christian. Dont judge the party by what kind of person he is or the work he has done.


What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
Response: This is the same argument that was made earlier, which claims that Republicans are biased when it comes to digging into people's pasts. Well guess what? So are Democrats and like I said earlier, perspective upon accusations is very important when making a judgement call upon anyone's character and what opinion(s) you may make about them. Get the facts before you decide who is doing what

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Is George W. Bush the stupidest President since James Buchanan?

(Originally Posted on Myspace February 9, 2007 - Friday)

Is George W. Bush the "stupidest" President since James Buchanan? (History lesson)


Some guy made the statement that George W. Bush is the stupidest President since James Buchanan. Although I only agree with the President maybe, 50-60 percent of the time on a good day, saying he is the stupidest President since James Buchanan is very childish sounding. So, we need to set the facts straight:

1. James Buchanan wasn’t stupid; he was a weak and ill-equipped President. Buchanan was an idealist who believed that the nation's problems were not that complicated or hard to solve. In essence, he was right, but wrong on a technicality because the issue was only as bad at the opponents on each side treated the problems. Buchanan was an “end of an era” type of President who just couldn’t get the job done anymore. Buchanan was more like a James Polk or a Franklin Pierce than any of his predecessors until Calvin Coolidge came along.

2. Concerning stupid Presidents, let’s discuss some "idiotic" Presidents since Buchanan because someone doesn’t know much about history and is obsessively anti-bush for the sake of being Anti-Bush:

*Andrew Johnson: Became President when Lincoln was assassinated. Johnson has the dubious reputation for being the only other president aside from Clinton to be impeached and it was all over a man in Lincoln's old cabinet he disagreed with.

*Ulysses Grant: Great General, lackluster president. Had trouble exerting Presidential powers, couldn’t keep a rogue congress in check, and even was known for make executive orders that were never enforced because he never signed them...Also, happened to not be "aware" of corruption in his own administration.

*Benjamin Taylor: Didn’t keep half his campaign promises, ended up losing his re-election bid to the man he had beaten 4 years earlier (Grover Cleveland).

*William Taft: Never wanted to be President, it was his wife's idea. He got what he wanted a decade later when another President gave him his dream job: Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Taft went through the motions as President, did his best, but after awhile the nation realized what they had done: elected a man into the presidency whose greatest purpose of being there was so his wife could be first lady.

*William Harding: Aside from putting a former president on the US Supreme Court, had numerous scandals in his administration before he died while traveling. One newspaper said of Harding "Corruption was his middle name". But one of the things Harding ran on was "keeping the white house clean of big money/party politics" and then proceeded to have the most corrupt and topsy-turvy administration the nation had ever seen until some guy name Nixon showed up...

*Hebert Hoover: Some believe Hoover was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Others believe he only made things worse. Either way, Hoover couldn’t and didn’t know how to handle the crisis of the Great Depression and his "initiatives" actually made things worse. Hoover thought the government should help its people, but all that rhetoric and little action didn’t do too much for the nation, his legacy, or re-election bid.

*Harry Truman: When FDR died in Georgia, where was VP Harry Truman? In a special area in the white house basement drinking with his Senate buddies...at 2pm in the afternoon. Thankfully for the nation, there was no 24 hour news network that would have demanded to see the VP, because the nation would have been presented with a tipsy man who was drinking under the white house and talking political deals. Its bad enough Truman was the democrats 3rd option for VP and not any of FDR's picks. Everyone thinks Truman was so smart for ending WWII by dropping atomic bombs on Japan, but the facts are that even a high school drop out presented with the evidence and information in the presentations and discussions given to Truman would have done the same thing. Truman initially didn’t want to drop the bombs because he thought that was "excessive force". Oh, and lets not forget the fact he got the nation into a war he couldn’t get us out of (Korea) and fired the only General who had the brains and ideas to win the war in Korea. Why was Gen MacArthur fired? According to Truman aides, (some paraphrasing for space reasons) "Truman didn’t like the General's aggressive tactics. He had plans to crush the communists in Northern Korea and weaken the red Chinese forces and wanted to scare the Russians. Winning was not the option, containment was."

*Lyndon Johnson: "The Great Society", what a asinine plan that messed up the nation's welfare system up so bad that no president since has been able to totally fix all the problems and try to reconnect the dots. Johnson was a blow hard who thought he would make a great president after JFK was done his presidency. LBJ got his chance sooner than he thought and what do you know, he is credited for signing legislation (Civil Rights Act) that he never publicly supported until the bill passed the House of Representatives and that JFK had been calling for a year before the passage of the Act. Oh, and LBJ made things worse in Vietnam, while going on the radio and saying things were going one way and assuming something was happening when the opposite was.

*Richard Nixon: Who on earth breaks into the building of a political opponent who you know you are going to beat in your re-election and then beat them by an overwhelming majority? Nixon. Watergate was all about political revenge. But also, Nixon was an imbecile with the Soviets where he offered them things and the Russians never held up their end of any deals. Man, D├ętente really was working then. Oh and Nixon hated Reagan and considered him "very dangerous". Funny, because Reagan handled the country better than, umm, Nixon did. Nixon ran on an "anti-abortion on demand" platform and 3 of the 4 judges he puts on the Supreme Court were in the majority 7-2 ruling in Roe v. Wade. Yup, Nixon was real smart, let me tell you....

*Jimmy Carter: Sure, let’s not send our young athletes to the Olympics to show the Soviets what we are really made of...which was our stupidity. Sure, let’s crush the dreams of hundreds of young girls and boys who trained their entire young lives for that Olympics because we got to be diplomatic with the Russians. Then there was the Iran hostage crisis. Admitting in a debate that he asked his daughter for advice on nuclear policy was probably not very smart either. I could go on, but you get the idea.


Stupidest President since James Buchanan? Whether Bush is stupid or not is subjective, but he certainly wasn’t the only one in 150 years. "