Monday, March 26, 2007

Iran: Appeasement not Peace - Carter's Call

Jimmy Carter has recently written a book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. But long ago Jimmy Carter wrote the book on failure in Iran. His example should be a warning to the world. Saturday night I was at a Missionary farewell party. The kids, teens, and tweens went outside with the ice cream mixer and I was left in the family room with my grandson and the toy trucks. I met the missionary’s grandparents and was interested to find out that they had spent six years in Iran. As an expert in the fighter jets, he was sent to Iran to assist the Shah’s forces in building an Air Force. The couple told of the wonders that the Shah had struggled to bring to the people of Iran, of the amazing progress they made and of that people’s horrific fall into the hands of Islamic extremism. I told them of my friend at the High School, Kazz; a former Iranian Air Force officer who taught welding. They knew him and we exchanged stories. I told how during the build up to the First Gulf War Kazz had met me in the hall and told me Saddam would win the war. He didn’t like Saddam, but he said quite simply that the U. S. could not win. Why, I asked? “Because Bush has no balls,” Kazz replied. Those were the days when I taught Debate, and I invited him to come up to my varsity Debate Class to debate the point. I pointed out that I would be busy for the following few days, as we were holding the NFL District, tournament over the weekend at Woods Cross High. “Come up on Monday,” I suggested. “It will be great fun.” Over the weekend the Gulf War took place. Interestingly enough it coincided almost exactly with the District tournament. The only thing more decisive than Bush’s defeat of Saddam was Layton’s victory over the rest of the District. Come Monday, I waited Kazz’s arrival. After ten minutes it appeared he was not coming. I sent one of my students down to the welding shop. “Tell Kazz he’s got no balls.” Kazz was in the class two minutes after the delivery of the message. He literally ran. We spent the hour talking about the greatness of George Bush . . .

Who had taught Iran and Iraq to believe that America lacked the courage to defend itself? It was Jimmy Carter. Carter deserted the Shah and facilitated the take over of Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini. And how did the religious fanatics Carter put in power reward his acquiescence? They took the embassy, abused Americans and dragged the West through the mud for a year. World Oil prices shot up and our military – forced to pussy foot its way around in the desert – was made the laughing stock of the world.

Now that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sees Carter and his ilk rising in influence in America, again the terror state, the hub of the Axis of Evil, is emboldened once again. Now they have taken hostages in an attempt to relive their glory days with fifteen British Hostages. The monsters that have held the people of Iran hostage since the ouster of the Shah now seeks to hold the world hostage once again.

And the party of Jimmy Carter rushes to their support. There are even those who are recomending Jimmy Carter to bargain for the Hostages. What do the Democrats expect? That once they have again placed power in the hands of the Mullahs they will be rewarded with peace. Peace never comes from appeasement, all the cut and run contingent will earn for their submission to the Iranian funded terrorist in Iraq and the hostage holders in Tehran is a repeat of the failures of the Carter Administration’s dastardly defeat.

Monday, March 19, 2007

It's No Double Standard; It's No Standard At All

Thinking people cannot help but be frustrated at the apparent and obscene “double standard” in judgment.

The most recent and ridiculous is the media generated hysteria over the firing of eight federal prosecutors. When the Clinton administration fired 93 federal prosecutors for declared political reasons, it was jubilation.

When General Gonzalez is “linked” to the firing of these substandard lawyers; which by the way is his job; his resignation is demanded in the median and on the floor of Congress. When Janet Reno grandstands her power and orders the murder of a bunch of kids in Waco and openly refuses to pursue needed investigations, the Clintonists in the Media and the Congress, circle the wagons to defend her and her boss.

When a Republican Senator checks with a prosecutor on the progress of a prosecution it is a “dangerous” violation of the separation of power. When Chuck Schummer, a Democrat, demands prosecution and demands action, it is considered his job.

When General Pace expresses his opinion of homosexual activity as immoral, the media and the Democrat jabbermouths insist that he has insulted American values and must resign. When Democrat Candidate John Edwards expresses his repugnance at being called a homosexual in a joke he is presented as the injured party.

When big budget Hollywood movies (Syriana) portray America, it's President, and the CIA as evil, they are touted with Oscar Nominations and praised as examples of open minded realism. When a low budget movie (300) tells the truth about the need to stand against tyranny, Hollywood and it's critic legions go bananas and rush to condemn the movie, those who made it, President Bush, and America. The present mass murdering Dictator of Iran takes offense at the portrayal of the ancient mass murdering Dictator of Iran being revealed in all his obscene arrogance and perversion, and the critics in Hollywood make him out as an offended hero, who needs our sympathy and support. This while the monster is killing any free thinking minds in his own country and making WMD designs on the freedom of the rest of the world.

The following clips are from Ruthless Review, posted by Matt Cale. They are typical of the rage of the left at facing the fact that the American movie going public actually can think for itself. This is a continuing disappointment to them.

Clip one: “While I have no direct evidence linking either director Zack Snyder or graphic novelist Frank Miller with the Bush administration, their booming, fascistic, searing flesh feast, 300, achieves what many had thought impossible: making a case for Bush’s war in Iraq so clear, distinct, and fanatical that I half expected an Army recruiting station to be erected at the theater’s exits. It’s the cinematic equivalent of a battleground orgasm; a homoerotic parade of tight abs, facial hair, oiled chests, leather, steel, gritting teeth, and phallic weaponry so overpowering that it’s just about the best movie ever made with jingoistic intent."

Clip two: "That Leonidas is a stand-in for Bush is clear from the first scenes, as this man refuses to accept an emissary from Persia, which is obviously itself Bush’s very defiance of the United Nations. Leonidas is a “go it alone” sort, and he hits back at the messenger, which he knows will bring about a great battle. Still, Spartan law requires that the king must secure the approval of a group of mystics (called Ephors) before waging war, which frustrates his manly sense of honor. Yes, folks, the mystics are the U.S. Congress, and once Leonidas screams, “Why must the very law I am sworn to protect prevent me from doing my duty?” the table has been set: Bush will go around Congress (using lies and tricks, brilliantly redefined as “tough choices”), never secure a declaration of war, and send his men to battle, the law be damned. Needless to say, the mystics/Congressmen are ugly, repellant, and literally isolated (they live on a hill, for chrissakes, as in Capitol Hill -- come on guys, don’t make this so easy), which further demonstrates that the king/president is the true guardian of the people. Congress is simpering and weak; Bush is muscle-bound and bold, dashing about with flight suit and codpiece, all in service of the greater good."

Clip three: "And if Bush’s gamble mirrors Leonidas’ own example, future generations will hail Bush as a hardened genius not quite suited for his own flaccid times. Such men as Bush will at last be appreciated in the world to come, which could only be the motivation of one who conceives of himself as a savior. Did not Bush claim to seek God’s guidance? Has he not been quite forthright about his conversations with the Almighty? Bush’s historically low popularity rating is a heavy burden, to be sure, but one worth bearing if Iraq is to be the 21st century equivalent of Jeffersonian America. I’ll be damned if Leonidas didn’t also look skyward as his death approached, knowing full well that though his earthly body would be riddled with arrows (leaving a glorious crucifixion pose; you know, to erase any lingering doubt about the film’s message), his soul would live on in the spirit of his people. “Tell others what happened here,” Leonidas instructs the one-eyed messenger (and narrator), and so he does, producing an eternal legend that blurs history into myth, recast as ultimate truth. The ambitions of our current commander in chief are no less grandiose." (end quote)

Add to all this the most ridiculous howler of them all; when a host of scientists with no conclusive proof launch a speculative - human caused global warming claim - they are hailed as heroes set on saving the world, with motives above question let alone reproach. When a number of qualified scientists raise objections to the aims, methods, and conclusions of this Chicken Little school of science, their arguments are called ridiculous and shouted down, they even face death threats.

For those who seek the truth, the process is baffling; some wonder why the double standard? The answer is simple. To those who preach these claims there is NO STANDARD, there is no truth, there is only the goal.

One could be at a loss as how to react but the way is to realize that the debate is not between two rational camps seeking to apply a reasonable standard in the search for truth. Thinking people face a people who will say anything in the confidence that no one will ever dare challenge them while they challenge the existence of truth itself.

It is difficult for minds that seek to find the right to deal with those who do not acknowledge the existence of right. It does no good to decry the “double standards” of those who have no standards at all. The only answer is to expose them to the light.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

300 - A Movie Review

All right, I went to the movie 300 and I liked it. Yes it is violent, how could it not be; it is the story of 300 men killing 10,000 other men in hand to hand combat, cut and thrust. No, it is not accurate history, Herodotus is spinning, but Leonidas and his band, where four thousand against three million once did stand, have surely not been forgotten. Herodotus is pleased with that.

A gigantic and determined enemy, sworn to their god, to acomplish the utter destruction of all freedom; their greatest weapon, terror. Against this seemingly insurmounterable power, a determined leader, willing to risk the anger of the masses, the ridicule of those who should share his burden, and danger to his life; for the preservation of liberty. Power grubbing politicians grasping for their devious agendas at the expense of their country’s very existence. It is America today. It is the story of the 300 Spartans.

It is impossible to present the story of Thermopylae without drawing comparisons to America’s fight for survival against the fanatic devotees, the mindless slaves of fear, who are the terror warriors of deviant religion; the monsters determined to steal the freedom of the people of Iraq and dominate the world.

I have heard that the director of the film (Zack Snyder) was actually asked if George Bush is Leonidas or Xerxes? He reportedly replied, he just wanted to make a movie. He did – but in spite of the liberties taken with history, that George Bush is our Leonidas is obvious to any rational observer.

The Ephors were misportrayed in the film, but the fact that these ancient ghouls look and act like mystic versions of Ted Kenney and Robert Byrd got right to the point.

I also felt the Athenians could have come off a little better – although it is quite clear Athens’s refusal to submit in part inspired Leonidas defiance, he goes on to call them faggots. In the epilogue, which takes place at Plateia, there is no mention of Salamis, without which the “wall of men” could not have stood.

It also irked me that the young king, and other Spartan youths, were presented with shaven heads. The Spartans never cut their hair.

Still, the film catches the essence of the epic struggle of freedom against tyranny. Where it best catches the essence of today's struggle is in the debate before the Council of Elders, the ruling representatives of the people of Sparta. Actually chosen from among warriors who have lived past sixty, they are also misrepresented in the film; presented as the US congress of 2007. It is as if the writer (Frank Miller) set aside his Herodotus and took his script from the rantings of John Murtha, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi.

300 does not pretend to be history, it is a comic book brought to the screen, but it is powerful. Unlike Troy, and Alexander the Great, both of which bit off more than they could chew in three hours running time, this movie sticks to a simple story and tells it very visually and very well. I thought it better than Gladiator – the violence is less gratuitous and although comic book graphic, more believable.

Those who find fighting for freedom become passé, who would rather live as slaves than die free men, who believe that world consuming evil can be stopped by appeasement, surrender, and flight; will find all sorts of things to be offended about in 300.

Those who agree with Queen Gorgo, “that freedom isn’t free” will find hope and motive in the actions of three hundred men and their great leader, who stood their ground although betrayed at home and beset by seemingly insurmountable odds upon the field.

We are left to wonder, will the free peoples of the world have the wisdom to unite once more in the face of Persian perfidy, or will we give up the “earth and water”, and at last allow the 300 to have died in vain.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

It All Comes Down to Rocks!

I have been interested in all the revelations about linage, genealogy, and ancestry that have popped up in the news this past week. It seems that Mitt Romney’s ancestors were polygamists; that Strom Thurmond’s ancestors owned the ancestors of Al Sharpton, and most recently that Barack Obama’s white ancestors owned black slaves.

If we are to cast stones at others for the behavior of their ancestors we would indeed be presented with some interesting ironies. First, note that Al Sharpton’s last name is the name of the slave master who owned his enslaved ancestors. Check out Alex Haley’s account of the conception of his ancestor Chicken George and it becomes perfectly logical to assume that Al Sharpton’s own ancestors owned Al Sharpton’s ancestors.

Even if that is not the case – realize that many black Africans were eagerly involved in rounding up other black Africans for the slave market. Europeans – even Arab slave traders very seldom dared or needed to go into “Black Africa” to get slaves, black slavers delivered them conveniently to the cost. As terrible as the Middle passage of the Triangular Trade must have been, try to imagine the atrocities committed by those black slavers as they rounded up their neighbors to trade for pots and pans, muskets and shot, and strips of calico cloth and jugs of rum. It is particularly ironic when we consider that the cotton in that cloth and the sugar in that rum were produced by the labor of slaves. Dare I demand that the people of modern Africa apologized for Slavery! I mean, look at all the evil it caused to my country!

It is the same with blaming the white man of today for the destruction of the Indian nation of yesterday, or to insist on punishing the Germans and Japanese of today for the war crimes of their fathers. It amazes me that the Chinese demand apologizes from today’s Japanese for the crimes of last century while conveniently overlooking the far greater murder of Chinese committed by Chinese in the twentieth century.

Last week the State of Virginia apologized for supporting slavery. I’m sure that made the hundreds of thousands of boys from Pennsylvania and Vermont who died to end slavery feel better.

We need to get over this “punish the children for the sins of their fathers” mentality, and the just as foolish “I inherit special privileges or blessings from God because of my fathers’ righteousness” mindset. How quickly the murder and mayhem in the Middle East could come to an end if people would just require justice of those who have done evil and quit blaming their children, and the folks who speak the same language or live on the same piece of dirt. Today’s paper reports the execution of a group of men in revenge for the alleged rape of a woman. That these men were not the rapists did not matter to the unjust lunatics who murdered them; they were related.

Before Athena taught the Greeks justice, the blood feud ruled. The Furies demanded the blood of children to cover the crimes of their fathers. But reason came, and Law, and the Furies were contained.

"When the young sons of a man who had betrayed his city to the Persians were brought to the general commanding Spartan forces after Leonidas fell at Thermopylae, he dismissed them. “They are boys,” Herodotus reports him as saying. “What part could boys have in the guilt of siding with the Persians?”" (Edith Hamilton, The Greek Way, W. W, Norton & Company, Inc, New York, 1930, pg 173)

How foolish to believe that either virtue or vice can be passed over the genes from one generation to another. It is as foolish as believing that one can inherit the blood royal and the divine right to rule. We applied some “Common Sense” to that silliness and life has been all the better for it.

The Jews of Jesus’ time operated under a similar delusion. They claimed that their ancestor had made a deal with God and that the blessings of that covenant were mystically passed by blood from one generation to the next. Jesus shot that down”

“ . . . begin not to say within yourselves. We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” (St. Matt. 9:3) also (St Luke 3:8)

Let’s start judging men for their own sins and not for any ancestor’s transgression. Let’s stop casting the stones of blame and realize the only stone to consider in the culpability of a child for the sins of his father is a clean slate.