Fuzzy Shorts

America Models Her Great Justice System to the World:  The President and Attorney General Try and Sentence You Before You've Even Talked to a Lawyer (Let Alone Seen a Courtroom).  

Let's see, the supposed point of idiot Holder's decision to hold KSM's trial in New York is to "show the world what a just and effective system of law we have."  BO and idiot Holder have both declared this . . . and they have both gone on to publicly state not only that KSM is guilty but that he will certainly be put to death for his crimes.  Huh?  Isn't one of the fundamental principles of our legal system that you are innocent until proven guilty?  Can't any lawyer, one who got his degree online or from Pete's Bait and Law Degree Shop, point to the president of the United States judging and sentencing his (or her) client and say, oh I don't know . . .  that there is no way to provide a fair trial or find an impartial jury?

What the hell is going on?  This is obviously not about justice.  If the president and idiot Holder believe that KSM is guilty and should die, then why open the door to the possibility that he won't.  Leaving aside the human issues and the security issues (others have discussed these well and at length), isn't the basic premise faulty?  We're going to prove how fair and just we are by railroading this guy to a guilty verdict and the death penalty?

A Liberal Acknowledges "Healthcare Reform" is a Government Takeover

I was watching Fox earlier, and Bret Baier (I think he's adorable, there's something so good and sweet about him) was interviewing some random liberal who stated, very clearly, that the goal is "universal healthcare" and a "nationalized" system.  I tried to find the vid on YouTube, to no avail.  But this is the first time that I've heard a liberal refer to THIS "reform" as what it is.  Usually, it's those of us on the right, looking at it, seeing what it is, and calling it what it is and then being told we are liars, "spreading untruths," and "fishy."  While it was nice to hear someone in Congress and a democrat say that, I would really have liked Bret to go for it.  He didn't follow up on it at all.  I'm thinking this may be, in part, because we all KNOW what it is and what the intent is, so when we hear it said, we just nod and agree (as Bret did).  But the "news" here was the open admission on the left that this bill is not about healthcare reform except as it relates to handing over the entire medical system to the government.  Anyway, I'm sure that anyone on the left who heard it would just dismiss it, as they do when all the evidence is laid out for them.

With BO in the WH, Terrorists Can't Hate Us, They Must Be Insane

Libbies are intent on their bizarre insistence that the Fort Hood terrorist is mentally ill.  Obviously, he must be to do what he did, right?  It's not about ideology or religion (twisted version thereof, not non-radical Muslim; I do not believe and won't perpetuate the idiocy that all Muslims are terrorists).  Yeah, right.  So holding a strong ideological and religious viewpoint that leads you to murder, in cold blood, 14 people and wound over 30 others is a mental illness?  Then I guess that Timothy McVeigh was mentally ill, and so were all those freak abortion bombers in the 80's?  Heck, the whole Crusades were just a case of mass mental illness, right?  Oh, but, wait . . . the only ideology and religion that is, effectively, a form of insanity is Islam.  Sorry, but what can possibly be more insulting, less intelligent, and more dangerous than that stance?  Seriously?  Aw, bin Ladin, at first we thought we were to blame for your hatred and murder of us, but now that we have the Messiah in the Oval Office, and you still insist that we must all die . . . well, gee, sorry, we see now that it's not us, it's you.  You're insane and deserve our pity.  Uh huh.

China Can Save Our Republic

Well, well, well, who'd have thunk it?  China is putting pressure on BO (and America) to stop deficit spending and to work on the economy and jobs.  BO has to listen to China because they own us (almost), so he's now talking about tax cuts and an honest attempt to fix the economy and unemployment problem (read: second "job stimulus" unlikely).  Wow.  Now all of a sudden he's changing his tune because "people may lose confidence" in the American economy at "some point."  Now, these people he's talking about are NOT the American people, he could give a rat's arse what we want, but are instead the Chinese and other foreign lenders.  If these people lose confidence (they already have, or he wouldn't be forced to change his approach to the deficit and our massive debt--he spent more in one month than President Bush did in an entire year!), he can kiss his expensive entitlement and "social justice" programs good-bye.

I do believe that he wants to destroy our economy so he can "rebuild" it as a more "equitable" and "socially just" one (i.e. socialist first, then communist, then . . . well, the sky's the limit, isn't it?), but I also know that he needs money to put the infrastructure in place to ensure that there is something in the ashes to rebuild on.  Thus, the apparent bending to China's will.  Now we just need China to point out the obvious, that overhauling our healthcare system is just about the stupidest thing you can possibly do when you're flat broke and literally printing cash to pay the interest on the debt we have.

Take No Prisoners?

I'm pretty ticked off about what BO is doing to our national security.  He's making us weak, and he's making us unsafe.  And he, I think, knows it.  He's attacking (usually by saying that it's all Holder's fault) the men and women who are putting their lives on the line and who are serving our country.  Going after the CIA for interrogation practices that were approved, investigated, and cleared is just one aspect of it.  The KSM civilian trial is another.  Personally, I'd be mighty surprised if we go out of our way to take prisoners from here on out.  Why would we?  So we can get investigated, lose our career and livelihood, and possibly go to prison?  For keeping us safe?  Obviously, I'm not advocating war crimes or anything like that, but what is the motivation to take and hold prisoners?  They won't be the ones tried and prosecuted (persecuted), we will be.  Better to let them go, not see them, or whatever than open ourselves up to rebukes and reproval for doing our job.

Popularity Doesn't Mean a Damn Thing

BO's personal popularity is still pretty high.  Here and Abroad.  But the funny thing is that it hasn't made any difference whatsoever in achieving alliances or actual results.  The world loves him.  And does absolutely nothing for him or America.  Hmmmm.  Gee, do we really need a weak, whiny, America-hating, subservient little leader whom the world loves but whom they have zero respect for and will never take seriously?  Not me.  Give me President Bush any day of the week.  I honestly don't give a damn what other countries think of us, but you know what, if they're going to hate us and resist working with us, I'd rather have a strong, principled president who has the best interests of our country at the forefront of his mind at all times.  Doormats like Carter and BO are thoroughly useless and actually detrimental to our standing not only in the world but to our ability to be prosperous, to help the less fortunate in our country, and to lead.

Government Studies: Yesterday and Tomorrow

So the government's come out with new guidelines for mammography.  Rather than getting them every year beginning when a woman turns 40, they now say that these are unnecessary and result in too many tests and cost too much money, so we'll just let women wait until they're 50 to get going on that.  Now, usually, such government studies don't mean a damn thing because no one in the medical community really cares what the government says; they've done their own research, their own studies, and they know that mammography results in early detection and treatment and that it saves lives . . . in the 40-50 year range.  Indeed, the government's own study says this, but the recommendation is still that women not receive them until age 50.

And the health insurance industry goes with the medical community for the most part, so we'd normally shrug, say, yeah, there goes that wacky government saying that the mamographies save lives of women between 40 and 50 and somehow concluding that mammographies are not necessary or "recommended" for women between 40 and 50.  Have you ever, we'd say, and we'd roll our eyes, recall the time the government told us that milk causes cancer or that water makes you fat, and sip our coffee with amused skepticism at this further evidence that the government is inept and incompetent.  Wonder which lobby is behind this one?, we'd giggle.  And we'd go about our day, scheduling our annual mammography for the week before our 44th birthday.

With nationalized, government-run healthcare hanging threateningly over our heads, however, such indulgent partial-interest in these government studies is dangerous.  Life threatening.  If the government runs healthcare, guess who decides what is covered and what is not?  And guess what those decisions are based on.  Not common sense, not what the medical community says, and certainly not on what you want for yourself.  They are based on government studies just like these.  Studies that say that mammograms for women in their 40s save lives but conclude bizarrely that these women shouldn't get them.  And there is no recourse.

Our conversations tomorrow about these government studies will be very very different.  When we read about those, we'll just cower and cringe and accept that we have to accept that as the new law of the land.  No one will be able to counter it, no one will be able to shrug and giggle and mock the absurdity of it all.  Because there will be nowhere to turn.  We'll talk about how we can get the care we need, if that's possible, which country can we go to (we'll google Canada and Great Britain and try to figure out where their citizens go now that America can't help them when their own government-run healthcare systems fall short), we'll wonder how many of us will die because early detection is now solely in our own hands (and literally, I'm guessing they can't stop self exams).  We'll wonder what this means for us if we do find a lump and aren't yet 50.  And we'll call our government doctor, and we'll be put on a waiting list, and hopefully, if we're still alive, we'll go to our appointment in a year or so.  And we'll find that our breast cancer has metastasized.  But, gee, it's okay, the government just saved a bundle not only in early detection but in treatments that would have saved our lives.  Now, of course, we're past curing, so there'll be no government-approved treatments to prolong our silly little, meaningless lives.  Take a pain pill.

Anyone who doesn't personally, for themselves and their family, want to enroll in the government-run "option" better get off their couch because the plan is to move to single-payer, government-run healthcare, and in the meantime, this bill, which people seem to forget is LAW, will dictate what private insurance can offer, at what price, and for how long.  This isn't alarmism, this isn't extremism, it's fact.  It's what BO has said he wants, and what the House bill is designed to provide a path for (and if this bill gets through the Senate and back on the floor, it's the House bill we'll get, complete with public funding for abortion and coverage of illegal aliens.  And as an added bonus, the taxes, fines, and penalties on you and your employer will ensure that your ONLY option is the government option.  It's in HR 3200, and that's the one Pelosi and Reid want and will get).

If you believe this administration when it says you can keep your own plan, then I suppose that you believe all those "saved or created" jobs in invented districts, in districts that didn't even receive stimulus money, and in universities that don't even employ the number of people whose jobs were supposedly "saved or created."  And if you believe that, you'll believe anything (my favorite so far is a tweet @ConNews: WH report shows 68,136 jobs "saved or created" in Narnia, Neverland & Oz).  Sure, you'll even believe that women in their 40s don't need the mammograms that the very agency reporting this acknowledges save lives.

Terrorism? Well, Just Deal With It, K?

Okay, seconds ago I saw Janet Naplitano on Fox and Friends (guess the BO goon squad has decided to call a cease fire in the war on Fox), and I'm astounded.  Seriously.  Did anyone see it?  She just said that terror is a part of the world in which we live (the words were, I believe, "it's the world we live in now") and that we just need to suck it up and deal (okay, she said "be resilient").  Are you freaking kidding me?!

How did we go from President Bush who was determined to take action, not only to keep us safe (and he did) but to stop al Quada once and for all to this namby pamby well, let's just ignore it and maybe it'll go away craziness?  Honestly, this is about accepting terror as a way of life, and being defensive when we can but sort of knowing that we're under constant attack, but hey, no problem, we'll be resilient.  Um.  No thank you.  I think we can be resilient as we hunt them down and stop them, shut off their money, intercept every and anything and put a stop to it all.  For good.  Does this administration really imagine, in its wildest dreams, that just rolling over and saying uncle is the way to deal with terror?  Reacting when we're hit?  Isn't that how the Taliban got to be so big, so damned dangerous?  People just hoped it would go away, and then when it didn't, they just dealt with it, were resilient.

No thank you.  I'm an American, by God, and I'll be damned if I'll accept this as our policy.  Terror is not the world I live in, terrorized is not how I live my life nor what I want for my countrymen and women and children.  That is ten kinds of unacceptable, and I am thoroughly incensed right now. I may be over-reacting, but do you really think so?  What has BO done to suggest that he's going to be strong on terror or on . . . anything except his assault on patriotic Americans, conservatives, and FOX News?

The best thing of all, though, was in the next segment when Napolitano argued against "amnesty by inaction" (i.e. not pushing to get some brand new voters to save their butts next year and in 2012).  So inaction is okay when it comes to terror, but boy, look out when it comes to amnesty for illegals or socialized medicine.

But it certainly helps explain why BO and that jackazz Holder are insisting on treating terrorists like common criminals.  They want to pretend that it's not what it is so they don't have to deal with it.  Instead, we have to apparently deal with the fact that we are going to bury our heads in the sand and hope that Osama bin Laden and his ilk "get over it" when we don't fight back or take any offensive measure at all.  That worked out so well after the first attack on the World Trade Center in '93, don't you think?  I've always wondered why no one blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11.  Had he treated that like the terrorist attack it was, we would have had the apparatus in place to stop 9/11 before it happened as we've stopped countless attacks since then.

But now, there is only BO to blame when (certainly not if) the next big terrorist attack happens.  But, hey, no problem, we'll just arrest them and give them better accommodations than they have in the desert or in the caves they cower in and then we'll lock them up with three squares a day, all the visitors they can handle, access to all sorts of communications, and a whole host of disaffected criminals to coerce into joining their jihad.  We'll sit back, wait, and react.  And the world will still hate us.  And the terrorists will still recruit.  And we'll just . . .  deal.

Charity Begins at Home

When the news was covered with H1N1 vaccine shortages across the country, and Sebelius announced that she intended to send 10% of America's H1N1 vaccine to developing countries, I was shocked.  And angry.  Granted, she eventually backed down and agreed to vaccinate at-risk Americans first (big of her), and of course, that became the subject of attack.  "America first"?!  Who do they think they are.  Well, we think we're the ones with the vaccine, and we think, excuse us, that our children, pregnant women, and people with weakened immune systems should get the vaccine before we start sending it around the world.  Aren't we evil.  And selfish.  And greedy.  And isn't that just what is wrong with America.  Yeah, okay, but to my mind, her (and of course BO's) first impulse is exactly what is wrong with this administration.

The idea that we should donate our resources before we've covered our own needs is simply absurd.  There's a reason adults are told to put their oxygen masks on themselves before they assist their children.  A parent's, or really any adult's, first impulse is to help and protect children, those who cannot yet do for themselves.  But the fact is that if the adult's lack of oxygen means that they lose consciousness, then both the adult and the child will be harmed, possibly die.  There is no question of "who deserves it more" or of who is "better," it's simply common sense.  This is not, of course, to say that developing nations are children or even child-like, but they do and long have looked to the United States for aid.  And we are happy to provide it.  But to do so at our own expense helps no one.  Indeed, it weakens us and makes us less able to provide aid.  D'oh!

And this has broader implications, of course, for all the bile that is spewed America's way, the bottom line is that we provide a great deal of aid to foreign nations.  Gladly.  What I don't understand is why it's never enough.  The world somehow feels that we "owe" them, and that's just ridiculous.  It's the same thing as the libs getting their panties in a twist that people on Wall Street make so much money (people in Hollywood and other "liberal" industries are exempt from this lots of money makes you greedy and evil personified policy); they think, somehow, that they deserve it more.  They didn't work for it, didn't earn, didn't do a thing to contribute to the success, but they somehow imagine that because it exists and it's not in their pocket that they are being "cheated."  It's really insane.  And it really makes me. mad.  What I have is mine, period.  If I want to give it to others, thenI will do so.  That is charity.  If you demand it as your right, that's absurdity.  If I'm walking down the street, and I see someone in a shiny new Jaguar, I don't think to myself, that's nice, I think I'd like to have it.  No, wait, I have a right to it . . because, um, uh, I don't make enough money to buy my own . . . or, ooooh! I'm a human being and so are you, so I'm just as worthy as you are.  I want your car.  Gimmeeeeee!!!!! (of course, it's more like sell your beautiful car, buy me a rickety old bicycle . . . just because, and then send half the remaining money to DC and get yourself a nice used car.)

Anyway, until we've destroyed our economy, hobbled our ability to make the innovations in science, technology, and medicine that have helped us become a world leader (well, for now, BO's working his disgusting traitorous arse off to change that), the people around the world will have their hand out, demanding more.  And more.  And more.  Our economy is a disaster, our unemployment rate is sky high, our currency is barely worth the paper it's printed on, and we're piling up massive amounts of debt as we engage in increasingly increasing deficit spending (BO has already heard from China that he needs to reduce the deficit, and apparently, he's heard it again because now he's proposing to put some TARP money to the deficit.  Only some, though. He's listening to China a little . . . because he has to.  China he'll hear, but it's obvious he's not going to listen to the American people).

BO's plans to reduce American wealth by spreading it around the world is only going to ensure that we aren't there, that we cannot be there, when people around the world need our aid and support.  It's really nothing more than a global version of what he's trying to do here in America:  take from the rich and give to the poor.  As good as that sounds in theory, the fact is that dragging people down does not pull others up.  It simply impoverishes everyone.  Glenn Beck the other night gave an example that resonates:  if you have two sons, and one is successful and the other isn't, and you take from the successful son and give to the unsuccessful son, you eventually kill ambition and motivation.  In both.  The one making the money gets less of his own earnings and therefore a lower standard of living, and the one who does nothing won't get enough to able to live well.  Furthermore, the one who is working his butt off to get ahead will look around and wonder why the hell he's doing it, and the one who is getting handed everything will sit on his butt because he knows there is no need to do anything.  Way to encourage ambition, way to motivate, way to reward the do nothings and penalize the do everythings.

We've got a large homeless population right here in America, we have HIV/AIDs patients right here at home who can't afford their medicine, and we have millions of people who have no job and no prospects of a job.  1 in 50 children in America are homeless (and that was back in March, imagine what it must be by now), and veterans make up just 12.7% of the general population but are 23% of America's homeless population (the Boston Globe says up to 25%)  This should not be.

Let's do something for our own people, that will make us stronger and more able to help others.  BO would do well to remember that "charity begins at home."  It doesn't have to end at home, and it never has for America--we give freely (many say too freely) and often (many say too often)--heck, we borrow money to turn around and give it to someone else whose need is greater.  But there is a limit.  There has to be.  If we fail, we cannot help, support, or protect others.  It's really just that simple.

"We live in strange, strange times indeed"--HillBuzz

Teresa posted a link to HillBuzz's post thanking President Bush and First Lady Bush.  I'd not read HillBuzz before, even though I do read some liberal blogs, I hadn't heard of that one.  The HillBuzz guys are, as the name of their blog suggests, staunch Hillary Clinton supporters.  Lefties.  I do a lot of lefty bashing here.  A lot. Not a little of that is rooted in my born-again conservatism and therefore in shame and probably a little self-loathing that I was ever a liberal.  Believe me, this is not lost on me.  I know that my lashing out is evidence of my own horror that I ever aligned myself left, yet I comforted myself that today's liberal is not the same as yesterday's, that today's liberals are radical and progressive (like they never were before, right? Ugh.).

Reading the HillBuzz post brought me to tears.  At first, I was skeptical, I admit, I thought it was some sort of crazy satire (no one can hold a candle to Candle in political satire) or some cruel joke, but as I read, the honesty and sincerity shone through.  I was moved.  Beyond moved.  And as I read the comments, I realized that there was a strange thing happening, something was lifting.  It was dread.  And fear.  This post gave me hope that we can once again come together as one country, one America.  That we can, really really can, reconcile the liberal and the conservative, that there is still common ground--we may have to stand on tip-toe to fit, but I'm more than willing to do that if we can keep America, our America, the one we love, take pride in, and are willing to do anything to protect and preserve.

Here's the full text of that post and the link (yes, I know I linked it twice; it's that good!).  Go there, read the comments.  It's worth every second that it will take (there are over 600 comments now, and 99.99% of them are amazing).

We know absolutely no one in Bush family circles and have never met former President George W. Bush or his wife Laura.

If you have been reading us for any length of time, you know that we used to make fun of “Dubya” nearly every day…parroting the same comedic bits we heard in our Democrat circles, where Bush is still, to this day, lampooned as a chimp, a bumbling idiot, and a poor, clumsy public speaker.

Oh, how we RAILED against Bush in 2000…and how we RAILED against the surge in support Bush received post-9/11 when he went to Ground Zero and stood there with his bullhorn in the ruins on that hideous day.

We were convinced that ANYONE who was president would have done what Bush did, and would have set that right tone of leadership in the wake of that disaster.  President Gore, President Perot, President Nader, you name it.  ANYONE, we assumed, would have filled that role perfectly.

Well, we told you before how much the current president, Dr. Utopia, made us realize just how wrong we were about Bush.  We shudder to think what Dr. Utopia would have done post-9/11.  He would have not gone there with a bullhorn and struck that right tone.  More likely than not, he would have been his usual fey, apologetic self and waxed professorially about how evil America is and how justified Muslims are for attacking us, with a sidebar on how good the attacks were because they would humble us.

Honestly, we don’t think President Gore would have been much better that day.  The world needed George W. Bush, his bullhorn, and his indominable spirit that day…and we will forever be grateful to this man for that.
As we will always be grateful for what George and Laura Bush did this week, with no media attention, when they very quietly went to Ft. Hood and met personally with the families of the victims of this terrorist attack. 

FOR HOURS.

The Bushes went and met privately with these families for HOURS, hugging them, holding them, comforting them.

If there are any of you out there with any connection at all to the Bushes, we implore you to give them our thanks…you tell them that a bunch of gay Hillary guys in Boystown, Chicago were wrong about the Bushes…and are deeply, deeply sorry for any jokes we told about them in the past, any bad thoughts we had about these good, good people.

You may be as surprised by this as we are ourselves, but from this day forward George W. and Laura Bush are now on the same list for us as the Clintons, Geraldine Ferraro, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and the other political figures we keep in our hearts and never allow anyone to badmouth.

Criticize their policies academically and intelligently and discuss the Bush presidency in historical and political terms…but you mess with the Bushes personally and, from this day forward, you’ll answer to us.

We hope someday to be able to thank George W. and Laura in person for all they’ve done, and continue to do.  They didn’t have to head to Ft. Hood.  That was not their responsibility.

The Obamas should have done that.

But didn’t.

Wouldn’t.

Thank goodness George W. is still on his watch, with wonderful Laura at his side.

We are blessed as a nation to have these two out there…just as we are blessed to have the Clintons on the job, traveling the world doing the good they do.

And we are blessed to have Dick Cheney, wherever he is, keeping tabs on all that’s going on and speaking out when the current administration does anything too reckless and dangerous.

Cheney’s someone else we villainized and maligned in the past who we were also wrong about.  There has never been a Vice President, including Gore, Biden, or Mondale, who was more supportive of gay rights than “Darth Cheney”. There has never been a Vice President more spot-on right about the dangers facing this country from Islamic terrorism.

We live in strange, strange times indeed.

We are now officially committed fans of George W. and Laura Bush.  We are fans of Dick Cheney.  Our gratitude for them makes us newly protective of them, and the continued role they play in this country.

After the primary battle of 2008, we never thought we’d go back to Texas for anything, but sometime in 2010 we want to find some event in Dallas the Bushes will be at so at least one of us can go up to them, tell them we are deeply sorry for ever thinking ill of them, and thank them from the bottom of our hearts for their service to America.

We’re sure they will just stare at us and wonder why these gay Chicagoans are crying, but we don’t think we can get through a meeting with them without being emotional.

What they did at Ft. Hood for those families humbles us.  Every day, the Bushes are most likely doing something just like it behind the scenes.

We hope if any of you encounter them you will let them know this is deeply appreciated beyond partisan lines.

We will never look at the Bushes, the Bush presidencies, or their legacies the same again…and someday when his presidential library is built, we will be so proud to visit there and tell anyone will listen about November 10th, 2009, the day we finally appreciated former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura.

Thank you for your service, Mr. President.  We’re sorry we didn’t appreciate you while you were in office, but we thank Heaven we’ve wised up and can see the good you are out there doing, under the radar, today.

Terrorists Don't Kill People, Guns Kill People

Yep, that's what the mayor of Chicago recently said about the terrorist attack at Ford Hood.   Is there no end to liberal lunacy?  I suppose that bombs were responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center (1993) and that planes were responsible for 9/11, too.  And ooh, ooh, boats were responsible for the attack on the USS Cole.  This is good news, though, because it makes America a wonderful place again.  All those things the left hate about America weren't OUR fault.  Nuclear weapons are to blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki and napalm was responsible for Vietnam.  This probably extends to Hitler, too, right?  Ovens and poisonous gas were responsible for the Holocaust?   Give me a freakin' break.

We know damn well what was responsible for the Fort Hood shootings:  a maniac, fanatic Muslim bent on murdering, in cold blood, unarmed members of the United States military (the unborn baby was probably a yummy bonus for this . . . words fail me, he's a wretched excuse for a human being), and he was bent on doing it because of his radical Muslim beliefs.  We know that.  It's fact. 

This has to stop.  And stop fast.  This liberal black and white view of the world is going to get more people killed.  For all the blather on the left about "nuance," they can't seem to see any.  If a radical fundamentalist Christian bombs an abortion clinic in an act of domestic terrorism, then all of Christianity is suspect, all signs of God and Christian faith have to be wiped off the face of the earth.  All Christians, and by curious extension all conservatives, are fundamentalist nutjobs about to bomb an abortion clinic.  Absurd.  Equally absurd is ignoring the fact (and it is a FACT) that radical Muslims have openly declared war on Americans (and other westerners).  They want us dead.  That's why they kill us whenever and wherever they get a chance.  That's not an accident.  9/11 didn't "just happen."  Those buildings didn't "fall down"--they were knocked down by radical Muslims bent on destroying as much as they could and killing as many Americans as they could.

Ignoring this fact, burying our head in the sand, is not the answer.  This is obviously (or it should be obvious that it is) not to say that all Muslims are radical fanatics, we know they are not.  That's just as absurd as painting all Christians with a fundamentalist brush.  But we do have to, we HAVE to, react to red flags, the clear warnings of imminent danger.  You know, like some loser saying that Muslims need to kill American soldiers and that we are "aggressors" whose death he delights in, even if . . . no, especially if that loser is a member of the United States Army (or any branch of the military).

Being afraid to say what it is, to investigate and to act led to the murder of those 13 people (14, actually, as one of the victims was pregnant--h/t Michelle Malkin).  Those people would be alive today if someone somewhere had pulled their head out of their politically correct arse and put a stop to it, booted him out of the military, given him a one-way ticket to wherever his terrorist buddies are hanging out, and washed their hands of him.  Okay, that wouldn't happen (though it would be nice if it did), but why not just kick him out of the military and keep his terrorist butt under constant and vigilant surveillance.

If you want to play games with semantics then that monster didn't kill those people, the people who let him slide by because he's Muslim and they were afraid to seem politically incorrect most certainly did.  The guns he used . . . just weapons.  He could as easily have bought a bunch of nail polish remover or whatever those whackjobs use to build home-made bombs and done the same thing.  Funny how we hear all the time about terrorists killing people all over the world  . . . usually without guns, but does the weapon of choice really change the fact that they are terrorists?

Veterans Day

Every time I see a member of our military, I am filled with pride, gratitude, and something very akin to awe.  These men and women put duty and country before themselves, they make sacrifices for us that we cannot begin to imagine, and they do it quietly, with dignity.

No one enters the armed forces without understanding that they may be placed in harm's way, and many join knowing full well that they will.  Without them . . . I cannot even imagine this country without our military, the heroes who protect us, who willingly throw themselves on the line and who selflessly place themselves between us and those who would do us harm.

We owe them more than we can ever repay, for they have given us something that is priceless:  our freedom, our security, our very lives.