Pakistan 6

Okay, as promised, here is what I would do regarding Pakistan.

First, let me say a few things to know. Musharraf, for all his faults, is the best friend we could hope to have in that country right now. Bhutto was, more or less, a "moderate," or at least was seen as one. Also, polling (however reliable it is) indicates that just under half of Pakistan not only sympathizes, but agrees with Osama, Al Qaeda, and the whole fanatic element. Also, Musharraf and everyone else in the Pakistani power structure, or at least a lot of them, including the military and intelligence services there, used to be in league with the Taliban. Who knows how many still are. They did this because they wanted to exert control of Afghanistan by proxy, by the way. Either way, after 9/11, we talked to Musharraf and said it's us or them, and he made the smart decision. There is a lot more history here, but that ought to cover what needs to be known.

First of all, like i said, Musharraf is the best friend we could have there. He needs to be supported, and kept in power. He is the zoo keeper, he keeps the fanatic element of Pakistan in check. We need this. He also watches over the nukes, and makes sure the army keeps them, and none of them get lost in those mountains where Osama is hiding. WE NEED TO KEEP HIM IN POWER! I do not want to hear any more of this stupid crap like Hillary saying that the only option is to "move steadfastly towards democracy." What does that MEAN!? Are you kidding me? We need to ensure elections in a country in which it is entirely possible that Bin Laden himself would get elected if on the ballot? What an IDIOT!!! No, no, we need a strong man in charge there, who is on our side. (Wouldn't hurt to just install one of those in Iraq, but that's another story.) So there you have it, step one, I keep Musharraf in power. I'd have the CIA all over this one, monitoring the situation as well as making sure Musharraf doesn't fall.

Step two, I go to him, and tell him that in exchange for him staying in power, and alive, I expect those nukes to be watched over with every eye available, including some belonging to the US. I would also discuss with him the option of going in after Bin Laden as soon as his whereabouts were known, with plausible deniability (I didn't know the US was in there, nor did I let them), not that my special forces guys ever let it be known they were there. So far, we have keeping our friend and zoo keeper in power, and making sure he does what we want regarding the nukes and Osama. Simple enough. Are you libs getting this? Marshall law is probably necessary, free elections are not always the answer in places like PAKISTAN!

Now for the contingency plan. Again, my Green Berets and Navy Seals and those guys, as well as the regular armed forces, will be on standby to go in and secure those nukes if all else fails. This should have already been done, I hope Bush is at least smart enough to order that. I am sure that, if unleashed and given orders, the US could, relatively easily, take control of all Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, as well as kill anyone in the way. It needs to be prepared for, because if all hell breaks loose, it needs to be done. Got that?

And that's it. I'm not a moron like Ron Paul, who thinks that Pakistan ought to sort it out for themselves, because, let's face it, they can't be trusted with something this big. Letting fanatics acquirer nukes gets America nuked. America's security comes first. I'm not a moron like Obama or Clinton, whose only answer is to push for elections, having no idea what will happen after that. Diplomacy is not always the answer, you morons. Talking to fanatics with nukes only gets America nuked. Am I moving too fast? Is this too simple? How about you, Sean Penn? Do you think it's only fair that Osama have nukes since we do? You think Iran should have them. Or do you want America to survive. If you do... SUPPORT THE GUY ON OUR SIDE! GIVE HIM THE POWER HE NEEDS TO MAINTAIN CONTROL! DON'T LET NUKES GET IN FANATIC HANDS!

That's what I'd do.

Pakistan 5

Yesterday was a good day, because one of my enemies was dead. Now, today, we must return to concern. Let us discuss WWI.

It all started with the assassination of one Archduke name Franz Ferdinand, of Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary's government blamed Serbia, and soon went to war with them. Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary, because they were buddies with Serbia. Of course, Germany wanted to help its own friend, Austria-Hungary. The French were friends with Russia, meanwhile, so they get in the conflict too. The UK at first stayed out of the war, but when Germany invaded Belgium (attacking it just to get to France), well, the UK was friends with Belgium, so in they come. All the while, Turkey, who had recently lost much of its land thanks to Serbia becoming its own nation, got in to fight with them. Greece was a long time friend of Serbia, so here they come to protect their allies. Bulgaria, much like Serbia, used to be part of Turkey, and the Bulgaria had recently acquired lands that Serbia and Greece thought should be theirs, so they come into the fight against those two countries. Romania, both an ally of Russia and an enemy of Bulgaria, enters the fray. And then we find Italy, who at first sided with Austria-Hungary and Germany, then later changed sides fearing the loss of land to the north.

Later, the Germans were sinking US cargo ships, much to our anger, and sent a message to Mexico encouraging them to invade the US southern lands, that was intercepted. That, apparently, was enough for us, and we went in and showed Germany how we felt about it.

I know, ridiculous, isn't it? Europe and places close to it was a giant web of entangling alliances, loyalties, and hatreds. Like a game of cat's cradle, the discombobulated web was twisted until two sides clearly emerged, and boom, a war to end all wars. (That didn't, in fact, end all wars). And it all started with one man and his wife being assassinated by, perhaps not so coincidentally, a fanatic Muslim.

If you think about it, the middle east is very much like Europe at the turn of last century. The shadowy alliances are still sometimes hard to see, much as the secret European treaties were. Let's think...

Starting with the nuclear power Pakistan, where the trouble is right now, we have numerous factions vying for control of a nation in which extremism is prevalent. Osama is probably somewhere in the country, in the mountains and caves. Oh, Pakistan is a nuclear power- did I mention that? Musharraf, the best friend we have in the place, is trying to hold on to power. Bhutto, a rival of his, is dead. People blame him, though any way a person looks at it (using reason, not Islamic hatred), Musharraf gains nothing from her death but a heap of problems. We have other people wishing to take the reigns, and we have the idiotic, IDIOTIC Bush regime calling for free elections in a country that might vote Bin Laden for president if given the chance. Also, remember that Pakistani intelligence services were, until 9/11, cozy with the Taliban (until the US came in and said make a decision, because we're going after them, and Musharraf took our side), and that Bhutto was also an old Taliban supporter, for no reason other than to control Afghanistan by proxy. Al Qaeda is at the top of the list of Bhutto assassin suspects, but who knows. And, one more time for you idiot libs who can't get anything through your thick skulls- PAKISTAN IS NUCLEAR!

Afghanistan, meanwhile, being occupied by the US, is very fragile and the Taliban is making a return there. The moderates in that country are still very afraid of the hell of the extremists, and the US is stretching itself to hold the place because it is also occupying...

Iraq! Yet another country in turmoil, but yes, the troop surge is going well. The country is coming in to control. But there is still work to be done, things are still very fragile, and as we have seen, it takes one bombing of one stupid little shrine to set off an entire nation of Muslim religious stupidity and violence.

Of course, there is the big octopus Iran, spreading its tentacles into Iraq and everywhere else. According to the general in charge of Iraq (and the surge that is working), the Iranians are fighting us by Proxy, supplying weapons and people to the insurgency. Being Shiite, and the majority of Iraq being Shiite, Iraq could potentially become a satellite nation of Iran, remember that. As if that weren't a big problem for the US, they are also pursuing nukes. Don't think for one second that bogus intelligence report that they gave them up four years ago is true, I don't even want to start in on that. All the while, the Iranian regime hates, and i mean HATES Israel, who is a very closely guarded friend of Israel. They are obviously supporting Hezbollah, a terrorist group whose purpose is to annihilate Israel. Hezbollah also is suspected to have sleeper cells in the US, who came across that giant open border down south. Keep in mind, as well, that the Iranians are not Arab. They are Persians. The name Iran comes from the old Shah's father, who was a big fan of Hitler. Iran is the Farsi word for Aryan. He wanted to exemplify the difference between the Persians, who were closer to Aryans, and the Arabs, who were a lower race, in his view. There could be something there still.

Israel, meanwhile, has apparently lost the will to live. There is no party of strength in the country. The Palestinians have elected terrorists as their government, and the Israelis try to talk it out with them. Long story short, Israel is getting softer by the minute.

Moving on to Saudi Arabia, that government is on our side, but would surely not want to fight on our side. They also supply us with most of our oil, a necessity for out nation's economy and military. (Thanks libs, I LOOOVE being dependent on them for that.) Saudi Arabia is the heart of all Wahhabism, and the monarchy holding on to Saudi Arabia deals with them by giving them lots of money to hold on to their regime. Should it hit the fan, who knows if the monarchy would hold. If the Wahhabists got control of that country, my God, what would happen...

Turkey is on our side, barely. (Thanks for condemning them now of all times, you Democrat traitors!!!) They, however, have issues with the Kurds in Iraq we are trying to protect. They also recently thought of entering the European Union, though people living in reality know that such a move is unlikely if not impossible. They, also, are not Arabs, but Turks- a completely different race. (While I'm at it- Pakistanis are Indian, not Arabic or anything else.)

Moving out of the Middle East for a bit, Russia's "president" (the ex-KGB head) Putin, who has assassinated (shut up, libs, we all know he did it), at least two dissenters in the past few years, has declared that an attack on Iran is practically an attack on Russia itself. Putin wants Russia's old super power greatness back. He sells weapons to Iran. He hasn't sold them nukes, yet.

While I'm back on Iran, remember that they are cozying up to not only Kim Jong Il of North Korea, a minor nuclear power, but also Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela, another large oil provider to the US.

Anyway, Russia and China are also getting closer by the day, and if you know me, you know that I see China as the real threat looming in the future. China does act annoyed at North Korea for upsetting the balance, but if you ask me, they encourage Kim to act as he does just to get in our way.

Okay, so leaving many, many nations in the Middle East, and elsewhere, alone, there are a LOT of dominoes set up. Mostly against the US. So, okay, pretending WWIII breaks out, who actually comes to our side? The tiny little UK who barely has a military anymore? Australia? They just elected a super-lib president who gave up on Iraq and embraces the global warming hysteria. Anyone else in Europe? I don't think so.

On a quick tangent, don't think that I agree with the notion that the US has so alienated the world that everyone hates us, and that is why we get no help. We get no help because our old allies, like Europe, is weak. WEAK. The West is declining!!! Everyone that used to rule the world through strength, who happen to be our most likely allies, have become little girls! Not women, no, the women of the West are who needs to save us. The Western world is led primarily by prepubescent, pathetic, squeaky voiced acne faced girls!!! More on that some other time...

Okay, who else will fight on our side? Israel? They are just as weak as Europe, and their strength is based almost solely on us anyway. Not to mention they're one of the smallest countries on the planet. The Iraqis? The Afghans? They can't even clean their own houses with our help! Oh wait, I almost forgot, our ace in the hole. We still have Canada, people. Whew. It will all be okay, people. Don't worry. Canada is on our side.

...

I have to tell you, this WWIII (which just might shape up to be a REAL world war, meaning really including all corners of the world), is turning out to be really one-sided. This time around, the dominoes are all falling against America. And this is a nuclear world now. Gee, libs, when you think of all this, and for once put aside your "it's all American Imperialism's fault" nonsense, aren't you glad that we have all the nukes we do in? I know I am.

Anyway, an intelligent leadership would make absolutely sure that nothing like what I imagine could happen, (which I don't actually think will happen, by the way), does happen. So what is the conservative4truth's solution? Well, let me say that I agree with Bolton, the old UN ambassador, when he says that this is actually partially our fault. Oh my gosh! Yep, that's right. Stupid moron Bush should never, NEVER have permitted Bhutto to go back to Pakistan (from exile in Dubai), let alone brokered some kind of power sharing deal with her. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Meanwhile, most of the country probably hasn't even heard this story. Most of the rest have no idea how important this is. Ignoramuses. But if you made me dictator for the next six months (like the Romans did it in times of emergency, I don't want to be Saddam), I'll tell you what I'd do.

Next post, that is. I'm tired of writing.

Pakistan 4.6

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/pakistan.sharif/index.html?eref=rss_topstories#cnnSTCVideo

There you have it. I just found it on www.michaelsavage.com. The CNN narrator calls Bhutto "the flag bearer for democracy and modernity." See how they love America's enemies?

Pakistan 4.5

I almost forgot, I have a prediction.

CNN and the liberal media in general will practically hold a vigil for Bhutto. For, you see, she was the Islamic world's first woman prime minister, and she tried to fight for womens' rights when the oppressive men held her down, and blah blah blah. You watch. She'll be everyone's hero, and those people who say Bush brought down the towers will say he had her killed just to try and spark a civil war so he could get their oil. I can hear Wolf Blitzer now. Alas, poor anti-American Bhutto (why do you think CNN will like her so much?), you were a visionary ahead of your time...

Pakistan 4

Good news! Ding, dong, the witch is dead. That's right, the socialist Taliban-supporting rabble rousing ultra-corrupt Pakistani woman Benazr Bhutto, that anti-American hag that Bush was buddy-buddying with for no good reason, is dead. Someone shot her, then blew himself up. Normally I'm against suicide bombings, but, well, at least they got one of our enemies for once. Could this spark a civil war? Maybe. I kind of doubt it, but who can accurately predict anything in the Islamic world? Even God is scratching his head about that place.

Anyway, odds are the US military has some sort of plan to secure the nukes if all hell breaks loose. And let's face it, even with the handcuffs we put on our soldiers, if we tell US marines to go and secure an area (like their nuke sites) and keep everyone out until the nukes are disarmed, destroyed, or whatever, they can hold it. The marines would blow the hell out of anyone an everyone who tried to get to them, unless our air force got them first. We can only hope our military has the sense to do that if necessary. Even Bush isn't that dumb, right?

Regardless, one of my enemies is dead, so today is a good day.

I have to wonder though, was someone at the CIA finally listening to me?

Do You Suffer SAD Holidays?

They have really outdone themselves this time. The nation has already been saturated with made-up and over-diagnosed "psychological" diseases and conditions and disorders and whatever, but I have never seen anything quite like this. I refer to something called Seasonal Affective Disorder. That's spelled S-A-D, sad. They actually call it sad. Apparently it's a form of depression that occurs among some people during the winter holiday months. Naturally, experts recommend seeking professional help if you feel you suffer from more than the "typical holiday blues." That is to say, psychologists recommend that you see psychologists.

It should be no great surprise that I read about this in an article on MSNBC's site. Those ultra left wing commies love psycho-babble of any sort. I delved further, however, and as far as the "experts" are concerned, the National Institute on Health has this to say:


Seasonal Affective Disorder


Also called: SAD, Seasonal depression, Seasonal mood disorder

Some people experience a serious mood change when the seasons change. They may sleep too much, have little energy, and crave sweets and starchy foods. They may also feel depressed. Though symptoms can be severe, they usually clear up. This condition is seasonal affective disorder (SAD). It usually happens during the winter. A less common type of SAD happens in the summer.

What causes SAD? Some experts think it's a lack of sunlight during winter, when the days are shorter. In the United States, it is much more common in northern states. Light therapy, in which patients expose themselves to a special type of light for 30 minutes every day often helps. Other treatments include"

-Medicines
-Changes in diet
-Learning to manage stress
-Going to a sunny climate during the cold months



So there you have it. Man kind has for thousands of years endured conditions unimaginable to anyone in America today, but now we can't handle the sun setting before six. Have we really become so weak? Notice that the first thing they recommend under other treatments is medicines. Well that's a real shocker. Another excuse to put someone on some anti-depressants? A pill that just happens to be chemically addictive to the point that when someone stops taking them they feel extreme nausea? Gee golly wow, what a surprise. That won't turn in to someone taking the pill indefinitely. To their credit, they do recommend changes in diet, something most doctors never even touch on. Something that often solves these so-called psychological conditions all by itself. But that's second to popping pills, of course.

It's just like ADD and ADHD, which happens to be a completely made up disease, (or at least drastically over diagnosed), according to more and more experts every day, including the guy who originally defined it. Oh no, little Johnny is acting happy, and hyper, better put him on amphetamines (Ritalin) instead of taking away all his sugary food. I don't want to be a parent and discipline him, why can't he just be a robot? Don't forget Autism, quickly becoming the new ADD. I'm sure you've seen the commercials in which they say one in 150 will be diagnosed with it- note they don't say "have it," just "diagnosed with." Hmm... Now, the biggest racket of them all, "depression," has become SUCH a cash cow for doctors and drug companies alike, that it has sub categories. For some people it's this, some it's that, and for you losers who can't handle the "happiest time of the year," it's SAD.

You know what, though, I will concede something to these drug peddlers. I am sure that there are plenty of people who get "depressed" (not clinically) around the holidays. In fact I know there are. Statistically, there are more suicides this time of year than any other. One must note the coincidence that anti-depressants paradoxically increase the risk of suicide. In fact, did you know that almost every school shooting back to and including Columbine involved shooters on Prozac, often combined with Ritalin? Could people taking Prozac because they have SAD be the reason for these suicides? One must wonder...

No, no, my readers. Forget the psycho-babble. There is a very simple reason for this "depression." Some would call it philosophical, some might call it spiritual, some may call it sociological. However you classify it, it is because the spirit of the holidays being completely lost. And replacing it is an emptiness rivaled only by a Hollywood slut's life. When Christmas first was celebrated, it was about the birth of Jesus. Okay, fine, some village a long time ago comes up with Santa Claus, and the idea spreads over time, and now we get gifts from a fat guy in a red suit with flying reign deer. Even still, the reason for the season was family, (and Jesus, usually) and the reason for the gifts was giving. It used to be about love.

But what is it today? Jealousy and greed. I need no more proof than the fact that Christmas decorations used to go on store shelves the day after Thanksgiving... and now they start showing up right after Halloween! Oh, the symbolism: Thanksgiving has been swallowed up by the new glittery marketed-to-the-max Christmas. It's no longer about giving, it's about buying. It's about keeping up with the Jones'. Well, if little Johnny down the street got an X-Box, my little Timmy better get one too. And just as many games. It's about me, me, me ,and I want it, I want it, I want it. Ultimately, it's all about what's under the tree. Anyone remember the Tickle-Me-Elmo fad? People were buying those for hundreds, maybe a thousand dollars. And why? For the hype of having a stupid little toy that vibrates and makes a little laughing noise? Oh, but little Suzie won't be happy this Christmas unless it's under the tree! I have to get one! You see that? You loser parents are so devoid in values that you're passing it on to your children, who are now destined to grow up being as sad and lonely as you.

Well I have news for you poor, pathetic, unqualified and unfit parents. If you bring little Johnny up that way, he doesn't have a chance. He would have been perfectly happy getting anything from Santa, and he would have been more happy spending Christmas with his family. Maybe his grandparents come over, they have a big dinner, whatever. That is, if you bothered to raise him right. But little Johnny will never understand the simple joy of that, he needs an X-Box instead. I still remember the PlayStation 2 selling for 1500 dollars on e-bay, just so it could be under the tree. I remember that there were virtually no games even out to play on it yet, making the thing not even worth using for another month or two. And right after Christmas it sold everywhere for 300 dollars, the normal retail price. Big difference, right? Is it any wonder so many adults and children alike get "depressed" around this time of year?

On a quick tangent, my personal solution, I would like to see a movement among religious folks to remove Jesus from Christmas, and start calling it Xmas (in December) instead. Is it so crazy? Christmas was originally celebrated in June or July anyway, because that's about when Jesus was really born. It was only moved to December to convince some pagans to convert to Christianity (something about their winter festival being at the same time.) Frankly, with what "Xmas" has become, Jesus has no part in it anyway. Manger scenes aren't even allowed by the communist ACLU in public, but the now-purely-materialistic Santa Claus (may his original loving and giving self rest in peace) is everywhere. Christians should demand the original holiday, both in spirit and in timing. Maybe that would help fix this problem. Anyway...

The bottom line is this: the fault lies not with the lack of sunlight. The fault lies not with colder temperatures, or the lack of a trip to Hawaii. The fault lies not with the lack of Prozac, Valium, Ritalin, or anything else in the brain. The fault lies with a break-down in our society. The ultra-materialistic, downright GREEDY nature of the "fourth quarter consumer market,' and the almost complete lack of family values, spirituality, love, friendship, and morality is what makes so many suffer. Maxing out every credit card you own until July is not the answer. The space under your over sized plastic pine tree may be full, but your and your child's spirits will be empty. If you think you suffer from SAD, you need a change in attitude. Maybe your sun-deprived days will seem a little brighter if you can figure out what the holiday season is really about.

All Revolutions Are Not Equal

Large changes in the world often require a revolution. Sometimes the revolutions are peaceful, sometimes they are not. Revolutions are often glorified these days, which would be a good thing, if only the right revolutions were held up high. Unfortunately, the left and its band of useful idiots romanticize some of the most terrible, atrocious, inhumane instances in recent history. Che Guevara has been on t-shirts for three decades, a movie is being planned to portray Mao Zedong as a visionary, and Hollywood lunatics abound to visit Hugo Chavez this very year. But few if any of these useful idiots (emphasis: idiot) know what really happened in history, what is happening, or what will happen if the extreme left gets its way. The same useful idiots don't know anything about the American Revolution either, I'm sure, or any history for that matter. But if explored, one will find that not all revolutions are equal.

The French Revolution is traditionally, well, always taught as an incredibly bloody debacle. Students in America, either in high school or college, are often posed the question: was it really necessary? Not the revolution, but the sheer amount of people executed. After all, not just the king and royal family were sent to the guillotine, virtually every government official of any kind was. As well as thousands of others who were simply on the wrong side, or at least perceived to be. I do not intend to debate that question here. The point is, everyone in charge of teaching the event portrays it as exceptionally bloody. And it was.

But then, in the grand scheme of things, just how bad was it? Somewhere between 15,000 and 40,000 heads rolled in the course of the French Revolution. A notable amount, to be sure. They had to repeatedly sharpen the guillotine blades when they stopped working efficiently, because cutting through so many necks caused the blades to dull. (As for the story that the guillotine's inventor was sent to it, just so you know, it never actually happened.)

Despite all this, I have to counter, how many died during Russia's communist revolution? School teachers seem less likely to teach the details of this event, I know I had to learn about it on my own time, but it was horrific. Reports vary from nine to forty million. And that doesn't even include the twenty million more executed during Stalin's regime, so to hold on to power in the communist regime. These people were not executed humanely by anyone's standards, as the guillotine was considered to be during its use. Some in Russia were forced to drag stones with barbed wire wrapped around their bare skin. Remember, we are talking tens of millions, somewhere between about thirty to seventy, all brutally killed just so the communist Soviet regime could seize and keep power in the first half of last century.

But that's not the worst of it. General Mao's revolution that brought communism to China, all in all, saw something like forty to sixty million people murdered before his power was even established. Estimates are again rough, but the amount of innocent Chinese blood spilled was biblical in scale. A million Tibetans alone were liquidated- all unarmed people, mind you, when the commies decided to take it for themselves. Mao actually murdered roughly as many as Stalin and Hitler combined, all in the course of his so-called "people's revolution."

I'm not done. Let us not forget how Pol Pot of Cambodia tortured a million or more to death, a third of his population, after the North Vietnamese took over all of Vietnam, killing hundreds of thousands in cold blood themselves, and sending even more to "reeducation" camps. (What happens during a "reeducation," one must wonder? John Kerry probably thinks people sat at desks reading books and singing songs or something, but I imagine people were regularly tortured in reality.)

Kim Il Sung of North Korea, was responsible for 1.6 million deaths during his communist revolution alone, maybe more, as he "purged' his enemies so to hold on to communist power. Che Guevara, another darling of the left in America, and his cigar smoking buddy Fidel Castro killed at least 20,000 and imprisoned hundreds of thousands during the Cuban revolution.

What is ironic here is that, as Karl Marx would have it, and as Mao named it specifically, these communist revolutions were supposedly for the people. So they say. It is all about throwing off the chains of imperialistic (usually meaning free) regimes. Even when evil, murdering regimes were overthrown, the result was something even worse. The Russian Czars executed millions, Stalin executed millions more. Batista of Cuba is reported to have had twenty thousand killed during his regime, allegedly, yet Castro had that many killed during the takeover alone. This is what communists think is best for the people? Adding up the people killed in the revolutions mentioned above, we have what? Something like eighty, maybe a hundred million? Over the last century, as many as a hundred million innocent people were killed in the name of one ideology's revolution? What about all those killed by these ruthless regimes after that? I am willing to bet that one or two hundred million more have been killed by communist regimes since then, at least. Remember, I am not including military deaths in these statistics. Only civilians. Our fundamentalist Islamic-fascist enemy is looking almost tame in comparison to these ravenous thugs.

Let us finally contrast the above to the American Revolution. Yet again, America comes out the better. The American revolution saw war and death, of course, but it did not see purges. The Declaration of Independence was written and sent to the King George, the English tried to put down the resistance, they failed, and that was it. Now, am I claiming that not once did one revolution-sympathizing individual kill an English-sympathizing individual? Of course not. I'm sure people killed one another without it being a military target. (I know the English did.) To claim that there wasn't a single murder over a difference of opinion would be ridiculous. However, the revolution was a clash of militaries. There were no mass executions, the victorious Americans did not massacre anyone, they did not purge their own people to establish power, and there were no mass imprisonments.

Some more versed in history will protest, no doubt. The Whiskey Rebellion, for example, was a case in which America's federal government used military force against its own citizens not long after the drafting of the Constitution. However, the facts of the case are completely different. In fact, the circumstances were very similar to those of the Civil War. Both cases saw citizens were in armed rebellion. This means that they were no longer innocent civilians. They weren't people with differing opinions, they became combatants when they picked up their weapons. They were military targets. As it happened, the Whiskey Rebellion evaporated in the face of such a large force coming their way. Twenty men were arrested, two were sentenced to death. But, they were both pardoned by Washington himself.

As for the Civil War, well, it was war. All out. Terrible things happened- for military reasons. Despite the terror, massacring civilians was not the name of the game. Cutting off medical and food and weapon supplies to the south, yes. That's a military objective. Burning cities to the ground, yes. Again, military action of that nature is necessary sometimes. Sherman's march to the sea saw entire cities raised, but there were military objectives behind everything he did. War is ugly. In the end, though, Lincoln pardoned everyone who was in rebellion after the war had ended, in the spirit of peace. Again, once it was over, there were no mass executions, no mass imprisonments, and no torture camps. Lincoln knew it was the best thing for the country, and the right thing to do. You think Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao, or any other communist dictator thug would do such a thing after putting down a rebellion? Torture camps and mass executions seem more likely from those guys, considering that's all they ever did anyway.

All this history evidences one thing. Communist revolutions have always been the bloodiest and most brutal of any you will find in history. That is because communist regimes are exactly that: bloody and brutal. Communism is tyranny, nothing more, don't let the red-minded teachers and professors fool you. Is it any surprise that after each communist revolution, in which millions upon millions were killed, there were millions more purge" once the regimes were established? Communist ideals are of suppressing dissent and oppressing freedom, holding on to power and creating a Marxist Utopia "by any means necessary." Communism is NOT for the people. Contrasting that with the American Revolution, in which soldiers killed other soldiers, and after which a free government was created, not to mention that there were no purges, it is clear that American ideals are better. Communist regimes always have and always will find it necessary to liquidate their opposition, killing millions upon millions just to establish their power. Millions more will die violently, because suppressing dissent (they call it "cleansing") is the only way they know to hold on to power. America, meanwhile, has never massacred its own civilians. It has never had to. Even in the darkest chapters of its history, with things like slavery and the communist witch-hunts, there was never what you saw in the communist regimes. Dissent may rise, and it may fade, but it is never crushed. In fact, under the first amendment, it is embraced. In the end, the American ideals laid out by our founders are the only ideals that are truly for the people.

Pakistan 3

I told you. Didn't I say anti-American plots were being hatched? I sure did. So get this. Some lady named Benazir Bhutto has come back to Pakistan, at great expense to her body guards, many of whom have died in explosions. For those of you who don't know (I only recently researched her myself), she was the leader of Pakistan a couple times in the past, most recently having been ousted in 1996 on charges of corruption. Apparently her husband was even jailed for money laundering and related crimes.

She is now back, and, basically, raising tensions and rousing up some rabble. She is calling on Musharraf's to stop what he's doing, criticizing him, and has practically blamed him for the attempt on her life, in my opinion; she was careful to vaguely hint at "elements" without naming names. Anyway, clearly, this woman wants power again. Naturally, the media, and much of the world I'm sure, is playing the "poor victimized woman" card for this poor, defenseless, pathetic little lady. (Makes you wonder why they act like she's also qualified to lead a country when looking at her in such a way). After all, she did promise to push pro-women's rights reforms as leader. (She never got any, by the way). Well, here is a list of things you ought to know about her.

During the 90's, she was pro-Taliban. She provided them financial and military support.

Her father put Pakistan on the map of nuclear nations. He was also executed on charges of trying to assassinate a political enemy. This came after he was dismissed on very similar corruption charges that Benazir later faced.

She is the leader of the PPP party, as was her father when alive, which is Pakistan's far left socialist (meaning COMMUNIST) political party.

She is closely associated with Pakistan's worse fanatic element, including one Pir Sabir Shah, who is directly involved with the Taliban and Al Qaeda itself.

She is also in bed with one Imran Khan, another Taliban supporter. He's supposed to help run her campaign.

She and her husband have found themselves on the wrong side of the law (corruption, money laundering, that sort of stuff) with Switzerland, France, and Poland.

All this information is surprisingly easy to find. Google it. Ask Jeeves. Whatever. This woman is corrupt to the bone, and mark my words, her entry into the situation is nothing but trouble. Our illegitimate government is dealing with her too much already. Need I remind you that Pakistan has NUKES!?!? What do you think a woman in charge of that country, who is clearly as corrupt and greedy as the mafia itself, would do with such weaponry?

Let me tell you, her meddling should not be tolerated. This is dangerous. Musharraf is right about the best friend we can have in Pakistan right now. This Bhutto woman, if given any power whatsoever, (which she already has, mind you), is a threat to the United States. The news won't tell you that, but take five minutes on the Internet researching her and you'll see. We should not allow her to have any power.

Oh, in case you're wondering, the Bush administration is trying to administer a compromise between her and Musharraf, in which both will get to share power somehow. The man's incompetence is almost unbelievable sometimes.

If I were president, or chief of the CIA, her plane would suffer an unfortunate, "accidental" mechanical failure while flying over the ocean. Problem solved.

Winston Churchill on Islam, and Commentary

The following was pulled from Michael Savage's website, but it was written by Winston Churchill, as credited at the bottom:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!

Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has
ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899). -->

I have no qualms with anything he said, in fact I think he hit the nail on the head except for one small but very important point. The religion (or perversion thereof) as it is today, and its followers, does suppress women to the point of slavery. Even in Western countries, immigrant Muslim communities force this on their women. The fanatical frenzy is as dangerous in a follower as a rabid dog. (Hydrophobia refers to rabies). And, above all, Islam is primarily a force of retrograde. The more Islamic a nation is, the more that country is a throwback to over a thousand years ago. Look at the Taliban in Afghanistan, look at the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia, look at Darfur (yes, it's Muslims doing all the killing over there, did you know that?), look at violence in southern Thailand, look even at Iran- despite its modernization. They are as brutal and uncivilized as the people of the Dark Ages, if not more so. There may be moderates, but they have no voice, and no power. It is so very lucky that the West is technologically superior to the blood thirsty Islamists, otherwise we would all be dead or speaking Arabic. Probably just dead. (This is why the Iranians should NEVER be allowed to develop nuclear technology.)

I also agree with Churchill's observance that individual Muslims can be good people. There are examples all the time. However, as he says, those people and their good intentions are swallowed up by the aforementioned fanaticism that pervades the religion. What Churchill did not mention, however, is the need for a reformation. Christianity was once a retrograding religion as well, though not NEARLY as much, or as fanatic, as Islam. In fact, for a while, the Papacy even commanded armies and had people executed. Any anti-Christian liberal will be all to quick to point out the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the rejection of Galileo, even the rejection of gravity... all the way up to today's rejection of Evolution (though the pope has not rejected the idea, unless I am mistaken). However! The church went through reformations; protestants split off, Catholicism eventually changed itself to be more in line with Jesus' teachings- and none of this happened quickly. But it did happen. Wars are no longer waged in the name of Christianity, and terrorist acts against innocent civilians are not carried out in the name of Jesus.

This type of reformation is what Islam needs, more than anything. If not, I would rather the religion disappear from the face of the Earth. Many policies of Islamic leadership are forbidden by the Koran- the forcing of women to wear veil, for instance. Or stoning people to death. But can this reformation happen? I don't know. The Muslims have proven themselves to be more extreme, and less prone to civility and coexistence than Christians throughout history. The advances in the philosophy of freedom in the world belong almost exclusively to the West. From Ancient Athens' democracy to the United States' Constitution, and plenty in between, the Islamic world has contributed almost, if not nothing at all. Their culture is unlike ours. Liberty to them means subservience to Allah (Clerics and Imams have said this too many times to count). The very idea of freedom is barely known to much of the Islamic world.

Regardless of all this possibility for the future, Churchill's words- written over a hundred years ago- hold true today. Anyone who denies that has no understanding of relevant history, politics, culture, society, philosophy... anything. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, the force of Islam is just as Churchill described, and should be treated as such.

Policing Individuality

I just heard one of those thirty second news stories, and I feel it necessary to comment. As the report goes, some girl at some middle school (I didn't hear where) has to serve two- TWO detentions, as one is clearly not enough, for- get this- hugging a friend. That's right folks. She hugged a friend after school. What a problem child, eh?

You see, not only had she been warned once before about her outrageous behavior, but the school has a strict policy against "public displays of affection." They even sent letters to all the parents about it. Well that sounds like a good idea, we can't have kids making out, let alone groping one another on school grounds. Could lead to off-campus intercourse. But, in keeping with the idea of over-policing people who do nothing wrong, let's take "public displays of affection" as literally as possible, and punish a hug between two friends. Matter of fact, let's go ahead and ban the blowing of kisses, overly flirtatious smiles (the overly flirtatious part will be a judgement call of the administration, naturally), and eye contact too. After all, any young person knows how meeting eyes with a member of the opposite sex can send butterflies to your stomach.

But why stop there? These kids need to be stopped from going too far! Handshakes, high fives, and the sharing of pencils should also go. You know what, let's just get to the point of what the anti-depressant pill pushing drone thinking (see my post "Drone Thinking") liberal morons want- let us put every student in an individual cubicle, from which they will have contact with people only through computer instant messaging. That way, there is no more public, thus "public displays" will be impossible.

Yes, I am being ridiculous, and on purpose. TO POINT OUT HOW RIDICULOUS WE'RE ALREADY BEING! My God, is it such a wonder that today's youth has no respect for anything, especially the rules? Everyone knows that teenagers are stupid, but they're not that stupid. They know when a rule is there for a good reason, and they respect it, even when they break it. But, they also know when some grown up loser abuses his power and bullies kids just because he can, probably just to feel good about himself. And when they see that happening, the teenager grows angry (not without good reason), and rebels, and rejects everything the adults tell him. Dealing with teenagers requires one to be just and fair. It does not require one to ride them so hard when they don't even do anything wrong.

But then, you know, maybe that girl should be punished for giving a hug after being warned. It will prepare her for the real world, after all. With the way this country is headed, maybe it's just a hard lesson that she is better off having learned early. Once she grows up, she won't be so surprised. She can look forward to being pulled over for driving 47 m.p.h. in a 45 zone, getting fined by her home owner's association for not having her trashcan off the curb by 3 p.m. (even though she gets home from work at 5), getting arrested for kissing her husband's cheek on the sidewalk across the street from a high school in full view of the teenagers there (egad, another public display!), and being put on trial for scratching the back of her leg just a little to close to her buttocks.

Hell, while we're at it, we can make it law that she must die her blond hair brown (it's not fair that she's a natural blond and other people aren't), fine her having a bigger house than her neighbors, make it illegal to have any bright colors (meaning anything except black, brow, dark blue, or grey), or brands on her clothing, force her to wear a large retainer to give her a lisp because she has such a beautiful voice that others become jealous, take large portions of the money her job pays her because she makes more money that other people, fine her for having four children instead of the state-mandated two, and, finally, issue large fines to be paid either in money or other property... for dying!

Sounds crazy right? Sounds like a George Orwell book, or some crazy ramblings of some blogger who is exaggerating and possibly on drugs, right? Well, half the stuff up there in the last two paragraphs already DOES happen. Did you realize that? Did you catch which ones I didn't make up? Well, the thing about bright colors and blond hair, the retainer, and the kissing on the cheek thing, I made up. But then, the thing about driving 47 in a 45 zone has been known to happen. The trashcan thing happens in "living communities" (what we once called a neighborhood) all the time. Also, Americans are already fined for having larger houses. It's called property tax. Same thing for earning more money; we tax a person more the bigger their paycheck is. The thing I said about issuing fines for dying? You guessed it, death tax. Is it really so far out to imagine her also being fined for kissing her husband... or even having a husband? That's discriminating against lesbians and gays, after all, so regular married couples ought to be taxed and fined for it. That will encourage those homosexuals still in the closet to come out of it, and discourage the straight majority from keeping down the homosexuals by getting married in the first place. And as for the four kids instead of two thing- China does it, more ruthlessly than simply fining someone, and environmentalist extremists are calling for just such laws. They think people who have more than one or two kids are criminals. (Eco-criminals to be exact.) This stuff isn't so impossible.

Now look, for those of you with objections to the ideas above. I know it may seem a little extreme, of course. But it seems extreme only because you've been brainwashed by neo-cons and so called "freedom lovers." But, I assure you, once you're full of mood-flattening antidepressants and other mind altering prescription drugs (it will be easier for the next generation, thanks to Ritalin alone the kids will be used to it by the time they're adults), you'll understand how wonderful it is to suppress all individuality whatsoever. Life will be so much easier when you have no emotions, and really don't feel different than everyone else. Let's all just be equal!

So there it is. To conclude, what I have written above is ridiculous. I know that. I did it on purpose. What's scary is just how real some of it is, and how real the rest of it could be in the near future. It isn't outside the realm of possibility, or even probability to see all of the things I wrote (meaning the half that don't happen already) in the coming decades. Not only are kids all over the country required to watch Al Snore's lying propaganda movie, some schools (in Palm Beach County, Florida- look it up) have already required- required- parents to watch that piece of propaganda, An Inconvenient Truth, or their kids' grades would suffer. True story! See that? Schools force parents to watch a nonscientific, purely propaganda movie that they also force their students to watch, and punish the students if it the parents don't. Tell me that isn't Orwellian. Tell me it isn't just as bad as making brighter colors of clothing illegal in public. These are truly dangerous times if the people in charge of schools can get away with all this. Just remember: the over-policed Orwellian future starts with something smaller, yet equally as stupid. Something, for instance, like punishing an innocent girl's friendly hug after school.

Pakistan 2

A quick update- apparently Bush is "calling on" Musharraf to uphold the Pakistani constitution too. But, he is not planning on cutting off any aid to him or his regime; which is smart. (Someone must have told him as much.) However, he wants him to stop wearing his military uniform as promised. Because apparently that matters a lot right now. News reports say that the Bush regime is being forced into a delicate balancing act between destabilizing a nuclear Islamic power, currently an ally, and speaking out against anti-democracy actions. You see that? Our commander in chief, our chief executive, our supposed leader in this war with Islamic Fundamentalists, is worried about being politically correct, even with nuclear weapons on the line. Why doesn't he just have no comment? Why doesn't he help Musharraf do what he needs to in order to stay in power (which is obviously better, since we know Musharraf will cooperate with us), while maintaining as much of a democratic state as possible? Why won't he show any LEADERSHIP!? I assure you, this attempt to oust Musharraf (which is what this is, the UN and such "powers" hardly care about democracy in Pakistan), is an attempt to weaken the United States' position. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, people. This one should be worrying us all right now.

Pakistan

I just, JUST heard this on the radio, and to prove that I know what I'm talking about, I am writing an immediate response, prediction, and analysis.

The news cast just said that the UN is demanding (I am pretty sure that was the word used) that Pakistan return to its constitution. What is this all about? Well, just recently, President General Musharraf of Pakistan has imposed "Emergency Rule" and has stayed in office beyond his term, suspending the constitution. Not unlike some steps Lincoln took during the Civil War. As with Lincoln, there is a very good reason for this. If you will recall (if you pay attention) Musharraf is an ally of the United States, and has been on our side, helping us with Afghanistan since we started dropping bombs on the Taliban and Al Qaeda there. Attempts have been made many times on his life by extremists in his own country, and the balance there is tenuous. Keep in mind Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and we really, REALLY don't want an Ayatollah-like extremist government getting their hands on them. Imagine a world in which Osama bin Laden has nuclear missiles in his possession.

So, basically, with the United States' support, Musharraf is staying in power for our benefit, and, if you believe in freedom, for Pakistan's as well. And Afghanistan's. And, if you consider the nukes, for the entire world's benefit. However, the UN, the anti-American organization that it is, is trying to counter this. If it is in the United States' interests, it must be bad, so they are demanding that Musharraf (a blessing of a leader in that region, that the world NEEDS there, if you look at the big picture) step down immediately. This is going to unfold into a giant attempt to hurt American interests, and will eventually be seen as a blatant attempt to hurt the United States. You mark my words, its a political maneuver against us. Just remember, you can look at the time of this post, that I said it first.

Taxation Without Representation

It occurs to me that, were I President, with the support of Congress, I could fix many, many of this country's problems within the eight years of my two terms. I often joke that I simply need to be made dictator for ten years like Caesar, except that I'd be assassinated like him before my work could be finished. Now, what I mean is that I hold some basic ideas about leadership, philosophy, and principles. I do not consider myself prepared to lead the executive branch of the government or be commander in chief. (Although that isn't stopping countless others from running, and becoming, president these days.) I simply have the right ideas, understanding of history, economics, politics, and on, to set this country straight. I have not been indoctrinated into "beltway politics," I am not corrupted, I owe allegiance to no one. The uncommon sense that eludes our leaders has not abandoned me. There are many like me, and the majority of Americans would support us (true conservatives) if we got a chance to run just as soon as we laid out our ideas. However, political office is quickly becoming a national country club. Not just anyone can run for office anymore, you apparently have to be a sellout first. I sometimes wonder if it was ever that way. Regardless, true conservatives like me would win hands down in the arena of ideas, if only we had elected representatives out there. I stand by those words. What does a true conservative want? Allow me to present a list, probably incomplete, of how we would, and could, save America. A list that the majority of America is dying to hear from its leadership.


Immigration Policy
This is an easy one, which is why I am starting with it. I also happen to have a lot to say on the matter. It is also one of, if not the THE most important issue facing the country. Our nation can survive if we lose in Iraq, we can even survive another 9/11, but we cannot survive being invaded and outnumbered by foreign nationals. I repeat: we can not survive when we are invaded by foreign nationals and outnumbered, unless they leave. So...

The borders need to be closed. Duh. The fact that the southern border of the United States is still, still wide open is all the evidence anyone needs to lay claim that we do not have a legitimate government. We have greedy self serving power hungry corrupt scum leading this country from top to bottom with little exception. They will not even protect us from foreign invaders, as is their responsibility per the constitution. Most of history's dictators cared more about preserving their country than our leaders do. Anyway, were I president, here is what I would do.

Day one, I would call up the national guard, and what military I am told by my generals that I need. All of them. I would send them to the border, they would patrol it, and no one would get across. They would turn back any and all foreigners attempting to invade. I would tell congress that until the wall is built, the soldiers will not return. Furthermore, should any invader give any trouble, the soldiers would be authorized to use lethal force. Is that so harsh? They will be given a chance to turn back. If they neglect it, then they are invading our country and the military needs to respond.

As far as getting rid of the invaders that have already nested in, well that is simple, but not easy. None the less, it needs to be done, here is how you do it. First, you make the penalties for employing, harboring, aiding in any way, an invader, too huge to ignore. It is not hard to set up a system that you can check the employment status of a person, one probably already exists. You also make the penalties for fraud and identity theft that the invaders are using huge, such that any invader caught doing so is either thrown in prison, or deported. As far as deportation goes, you take fingerprints, retinal scans, DNA samples, whatever you need to make SURE you know who that person is. That person will never, ever, be allowed within our borders again, barring only the most extreme of circumstances. If they get caught here, they have blown their chance, period. If they are caught a second time in the United States they are thrown in a crappy prison made just for them. They will be treated humanely, but it will be, as close to as possible, a self-sufficient prison. The prisoners there will not be allowed to leave, but since they came here to work, after all, they can farm their own food, and do other forms of labor to help if not completely pay for the cost of their incarceration. These policies will inspire most of the invaders to leave by their own accord, leading me to my next point...

All those wishing to leave will have the option of declaring themselves illegal, in which case they will be deported, with the fingerprints and all that taken, but they will be allowed to apply for citizenship if they wish. However, they go to the back of the line like everyone else. They are bankrupting our nation piece by piece via theft, and worse criminal activities, so I would be willing to assist them in leaving, it will save the Unites States billions if not trillions (I am not exaggerating) of dollars in the long run. Probably the short run, too.

As far as those who do not leave voluntarily, law enforcement, if given license and permission, (as they often do not have in so called sanctuary cities), could catch them all. Most, once the free ride is cut off, will have no reason to stay, but the rest, such as the gang members, the other criminals, and maybe just the hard headed, will be rounded up. They can be sent to the same prison mentioned above, work enough to pay for their incarceration and deportation if possible, then deported to their own nation. Naturally, those who get caught before voluntarily being deported will never be allowed in the country again. Think of the prison as a half-way house for deportees. They will be made to pay our country back what they take from it via deportation costs, if possible, (that ought to get manufacturing jobs back within our own borders), then they will be kicked out to never return. They had a chance to leave with our mercy, they blew it. Of course, any violent criminals and those types can go ahead and live out their lives farming their own food and doing manual labor.

Briefly, I have to mention that this is not slavery or indentured servitude or anything like that. It is incarceration. Today's prisons have what? Cable television, weight rooms, "yard time" for inmates to play basketball? I don't think so. Maybe if we got serious about rehabilitating these people, we'd make them earn their keep and be responsible for themselves, while they learn a trade (farming or whatever other manual labor they come up with) so they aren't left with "no choice but to return to crime" as all you libs always complain about. So consider this a sub section of my post about how I intend to deal with the prison system.

Finally, as one of my earliest posts goes, I would push to have the 14th amendment repealed, and have a new constitutional amendment put into law. (Please read the post: My Immigration Amendment.)

Also, any rogue elements of the Mexican military giving aid to any invaders, especially criminal invaders, would be taken care of by America's own military. If Mexico has a problem with that, too bad. Control your military or we will have to, I would say. Also, if the Mexican government continues to aid its citizens in invading, then the Mexican government is an enemy of the Unites States, and should be dealt with. Now, I don't want to topple the government, or even attack it. But some form of payment ought to be extracted. Perhaps for each dollar that it costs the US to counteract their actions of aiding invaders, we ought to blockade as much from them, or demand as much money's worth in oil that it costs us to counteract them. I do not insist on that, but something must be done, and it probably needs to be harsh if we are to deter the Mexican government from assisting criminal activity in our own country.

Now, many may say that these measures are too extreme. Well, I would bet anything, including my political career if I had one, that once I had explained how exactly these policies would work, why they are necessary, (see the amount of money we lose alone to the invaders), how humanely everyone is actually treated (unless they don't head warnings when they try to cross our border), and how they would actually be better for all in the end, the majority of the American people would be behind me. The policies above are fair, just, give everyone a second chance if they want it, and most of all: FIX THE PROBLEM. Don't tell me we can't do it, this is America. We can do ANYTHING! Make all the excuses you want, it is the best thing for the country. The fact is this: the point of no return is approaching quickly, and the longer we wait, the more drastic the measures will be that need to be taken, or the country will succumb to its own stupid extreme ultra-tolerance.

Quickly, another issue with immigration: what ever happened to Ellis Island? It used to be a place to screen every one for diseases, and quarantine them if necessary. That prevented diseases from being brought to the US. We wiped out Polio in those days. And the measles. These days, thanks a lot to our impotent president, there are no screenings. Sure, bring that TB right in, we don't mind. Bring in some super straings of staph while you're at it. Bush himself pushed for and got passed the LOOSENING of restrictions of AIDS carriers who want to enter the country. Yes, he feels it is wise not only to leave a wide open border, across which cases of TB and who knows what else are being brought into our country, where it once was eradicated, but also to let in AIDS infected people in droves. The American people, I assure you, do not want this. But no one in Washington says anything.

Here's another immigration issue the libs will attack left and right, (go ahead, call me racist) but once properly explained, rather than the biased media being the only voice about it, the majority of America would surely endorse. It is based on one politically incorrect yet very true idea: all immigrants are not equal. Some come from cultures that encourage moving up the social ladder, making something of oneself, and intend to become Americans; and some come uneducated from countries bringing with them negative attributes ranging from the harboring of disease and the lack of sanitary habits, to being potential terrorists. Is it just a coincidence that immigrants from India always perform extremely well in school, while the highest percentage of immigrants dropping out of high school come from down south of the border? There must be a reason for that. And I don't think it's the bigoted white male either. No, we need to regulate immigration numbers, of course, but we also need to bring in the greatest quality of people. That is not to say that a man from India is automatically better for our country than a man from Mexico, but we all know the odds. Not that it even matters in the end- no matter where the immigrant is coming from, he or she should be able to provide his or her worth to this great nation as a citizen. It's quite simple: if you have to choose between an immigrant who was an engineer in his old country, already speaks English, and has already been studying for the citizenship test, or one who speaks no English, has less than a high school education, and actually doesn't know that it is more sanitary to wash your hands after going poop, we all know who the better person is to take.


Energy Independence
This, also, is not hard at all. Oil needs to not be bought from our own enemies. Again, duh. So we drill our own oil. Do I have to say duh again? Did you know we send half a billion dollars or so a day to OPEC? As president, I would actually communicate to the people (there's an original thought, huh?) exactly what the environmentalist lobby is doing to us by blocking every attempt at offshore oil drilling (as well as everything else- the subject of another post.) I would show how they do it, how much oil we could have, how much we buy from Saudis who help wage war against us, how much money goes to the Wahhabists, and thus our enemies, what that money actually funds, and how it would actually be safe and okay for the environment to drill off our own shores. If necessary, (if at all legal), I would have the Navy go set up the offshore drilling for themselves. Let businesses come as they want. I can command the Navy to do that, I am commander in chief, right?

I don't think this would be necessary, though, because I would push policies that offered ridiculous tax incentives for any American company wanting to drill there, as well as keep it from being blocked by anti-American special interests. Once properly articulated, the vast majority of Americans, I believe, are smart enough to demand offshore oil drilling. It would be so profitable, no company would not want in on the action. Gas would be so much cheaper, only the most insane of the environmentalists would complain. Company bids would come in left and right, and with a little time, we'd have our own oil supply lines all to ourselves. There you have it, in the long run America would no longer buy any oil from Islamic extremist enemies, or anyone else. Of course it wouldn't happen over night, but the ball would be rolling, and I dare to say that by the end of my eight years as president, it might even be done, if not almost.

Also, coal has become a huge issue with people because it is so "dirty." And every now and then coal miners get trapped in a mine, which is terrible, but they did know the risk, and it is not even clsoe to being the most dangerous profession in America. (It is just treated that way by the nightly news.) Fact is, technology is making coal power cleaner every day. It provides something like half of the country's electricity. It is necessary. Right now, due to the issues we face with oil, coal power ought to be expanded, since we can- right now- get our own coal. In the short term, it is absolutely necessary for nationa security, and I would push for it- at least until we can get the oil going, as well as the following source of energy...

Nuclear power! Of course, it has to be safe. I am sure that, with enough attention, it can be made safer than safe. If France does it, for God's sake, so can we. You want the price of gas to go down? Stop buying SO MUCH from OPEC, let us produce our own energy with nuclear technology. Supply and demand is not a hard concept for anyone to understand. Again, the case can easily be made to the American people that environmentalists are liars about what nuclear power really is, and that using it would benefit everyone.

These policies alone would make us almost if not completely energy independent by themselves. It isn't about forcing car makers to produce more fuel efficient (translation: less safe and powerful) cars and trucks, let the free market determine those features. We need our own resources, it's just that simple. Leftists will lie left and right about each point I made, but those living in reality can easily see that it is all true, especially once I showed proof. A real conservative, and a real leader, would illustrate this to the American people, would get it done, and America would be better off for it.


Foreign Policy: The Middle East
I am so sick of these throwback idiots having so much power. They get their money primarily from us! The energy independence policy above is a huge step itself, cutting off their funding significantly, after that we can just fence off the whole place and let them kill each other for a change. If they still want to mess with us at all, we go in fast, hard, and destroy the threat and any potential of the threat.

Who is they? Iran, for instance, will not be allowed to develop a nuke, period. I would also want to encourage a revolution there, unofficially, for there are enough pro-Western minded people there that want the freedoms we have to pull it off. While I do not believe in foreign aid, (more on that later), the exception to that is aiding the enemies of our enemies. Also, while I prefer to not intervene in the internal affairs of other countries (founding fathers taught me that), it is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary. A nation can not survive by ignoring threats to it by its enemies.

Iraq, meanwhile, is already our problem, so it needs to be fixed. Passing the buck, or giving up and abandoning the whole thing, is not the responsible thing to do. It's what children do. If made President tomorrow, the press would be kicked out. The military would truly be unleashed (as it has not yet been) to clear the place out. Iran would be given one week to stop all aid to the terrorists in the country, and if they didn't, (which is likely), they would see the wrath of God, or Allah, if they prefer, from above like never before as America's Air Force moved in to cripple and destroy their military infrastructure. I wouldn't even have to invade- if they chose to invade Iraq after that, let them come. They would hardly have any tanks left, let alone the gas to fuel it, and my finally unleashed military, a fighting force greater than any the world has ever seen,would make very, very short work of them. People worry about the possibility that an attack on Iran might help them increase their power. I assure you, when I was finished with them, they would have virtually no military power. They wouldn't even be a regional power. Maybe that will spark that pro-Western revolution we keep hearing is supposed to happen.

Also, I do not care how guilty anyone feels, no refugees would be taken in if I were in charge from anywhere in the Middle East, except for non-Palestinian Israelis. (Then they would just be immigrants anyway.) It isn't about race or religion bigotry, though we're kidding ourselves if we don't think that such things are factors, it's about potential terrorists; and anyone with half a brain knows that a Jew from Israel is not likely to plan another 9/11, but an alleged Iraqi Arab (who knows where this "Iraqi" is really from) may well be Osama's next favorite martyr. It's not racist, it's true.

Oh, one more thing. Iraq is not giving us any oil, but they ought to be. There is no reason they should not be funding their own liberation, since they can. The fact that they award power plant contracts to the Chinese in unacceptable, and should not be allowed. If they insist, then we SHOULD pull out completely. If they want our help, they ought to be appreciating it too. Don't give me any crap about free enterprise and all that, they can have that when we leave. Right now, they owe us big time. I don't see any Chinese soldiers or any Chinese funds helping the Iraqis rebuild and stabilize their country. No, if they want to act like spoiled children, they should be treated as such.

Afghanistan, also, needs to be set up correctly, and that seems to be going pretty well overall. Let me add now, concerning Middle Eastern policies in general, that in both nations currently occupied by the US, we should be educating the people in the philosophies of the West. Yes, in this way, our culture is superior. The writings and ideas of Plato, Locke, and countless others, need to be taught to the Arabs, Persians, Palestinians, Kurds, Turks and whoever else, because without such understandings, thoughts, and ideas, freedom and democracies/republics (basically good governments) can never be maintained. I mean that, and anyone with a brain knows it's true. Most of Middle Eastern culture is not quite ready for the freedoms we have, because they do not have the education and ideas we have. They need to be given them. Call it indoctrination, call it "forcing democracy" (God I am so sick of hearing that one), call it whatever you want , it is the only way to make it work. Most of these people cannot even read, and when they can, they are only allowed to read the Koran. We have Aristotle, they have the Koran. We have Thomas Jefferson, they have the Koran. We have Descartes, they have the Koran. We have Benjamin Franklin, they have the Koran. We have the Magna Carta, they have the Koran. We have the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, they have the Koran. Oh, a narrow, misinterpreted version of the Koran at that. You get the idea, I hope. Read this paragraph again, and think about it. For once I agree with the libs that some people simply aren't ready for freedom. But unlike those whiny, complaining commies and useful idiots, I actually have a solution.

Then there is Israel. Oh, Israel. A friend and ally they may be, they also need to get their act together- a lot like America. I agree with the founding fathers that entangling treaties and such is a bad thing for the country. I do not mind helping them by doing business with them, they are a free and democratic country like no other in the region. But the seemingly unlimited aid we give them has got to go, it is not helping anyone, not even the Israelis, anymore. If they can not make peace with their neighbors somehow, what can we do? Besides, they would be better off buying our weapons and fighting without our interference, because the US all to often tends to hold them back when they should be going all out- kind of like our own military. Bottom line, they need to become more independent. This is not to say we should never work together; Israeli and American intelligence services have helped each other to both countries' benefits more than once. But if they fall, let it be of their own doing, not ours. I hope they don't, I think the country is a beacon of light in a region of darkness, but it should no longer be our responsibility instead of theirs.

Again, the above will be cast as "extreme" by the left, (except the Israel thing, they hate them), maybe even the Republicans these days. Fine, come debate me. Let us come up with a REAL solution for once. No dodging issues and questions, no more bumper sticker quotes, let's actually debate this. (Ooo, those are scarey words to the libs.) What we are doing now is stupid, and history will record just that. A true conservative like me, and there are many of us out there, and even more that would follow us willingly if given the chance, strives for true solutions. Almost no politician out there seems to be after one, but I am. Come prove my ideas bad, let's see what you have that's so much better.


Foreign Policy: China
Make no mistake about it, China is after our place in the world (as greatest nation). To sum up quickly, they are building up military technologies, they are militarizing faster than the Nazis pre-WWII, they are constantly engaged in anti-American espionage, they are attacking our economy... they are planning, as Sun Tzu would be proud, to take over and conquer us without firing a shot. Or at least not many.

First, economically, harsh tarriffs ought to be imposed immediately on Chinese imports, that would double every year, until they stop fixing their currency to ours, which induces a permanent deficit. Deficits are far worse than debts, mind you. You see, debts can be paid off, but deficits compound debts each year, and are very hard to reverse, especially when one side isn't playing fair and gets away with it. Each year that passes we crawl further into China's pocket, and for no good reason except that our politicians are selling us out.

Second, a freeze on all Chinese purchasing, directly or indirectly, of American companies, ESPECIALLY those that have anything to do with our national defense (it's amazing that this is happening as we speak, isn't it?) would go into affect. In fact, make that for all nations. It is far past time for them to stop stealing our industrial, computer, nuclear, missile, and other classified secrets, as well as blatantly ignoring our patent and copywrite laws. They should never be allowed to contribute in any way to anyone's campaign, more on that in a moment. Also, as president, I would have an investigation done into all those politicians who have so obviously had shady dealings with the Chinese. These people include Sandy Burger, who stuffed classified documents down his pants and stole them during the Clinton years, Loral and Hughes company, whose electronics engineers have sold secrets to the Chinese, Hillary Clinton herself, who (an investigation will EASILY turn up) has recieved so many illegal campaign contributions (we used to call those bribes) from the Chinese in one way or another she makes a Roman governor look good. And that is just a start. Purging our leadership, political and industrial, of sell out traitors and spies is something that should have already happened.

One more thing. The biggest deterent to China moving in on us or our interests as a great big, vastly superior military. We need to always be techonologically superior to them, because they have the numbers on their side. Billions of them. Our aircraft need to be at least one generation better than theirs. We need the ability to intercept Intercontinental Missiles every time they come at us. We need to have better missiles than them. We need to have weapons in space, since the Chinese are going for it despite an agreement not to. We need to have an infrastructure that cannot be hurt by them, including sattelites for communication, computers and other military technologies that are shielded from electromagnetic pulses. (Detonate a nuke in the stratosphere, it kills no one but destroys all electronics on an entire CONTINENT! Look it up!) I do not want a cold war with China, but I see one coming, and I want to be prepared. Wishing it away is such a stupid thing to do only a lib would try it. I will say it again, this is AMERICA. WE CAN DO ANYTHING. We can surely beat a communist (more or less) dictatorship nation in a battle of technological growth. Make no mistake about it, they are coming for us. Not in your typical military invasion, something far more sinister and deceptive. We need to be ready to stop them.


Campaign Finance
Any Republican who wants to say that campaign finance reform takes away freedom of speech is an idiot. Running for president these days, or any office for that matter, is about little more than who can raise the most money, thus, who caters to more special interest groups. No more. I would just as soon have a tax funded (and if you know me, you know that I HATE taxes funding almost anything) campaign for the party nominees with a low cap, than what happens today. I would at the very least demand full disclosure of all assets and funds, and worth of any kind, of ever person holding political office. This would have to last for at least ten years after leaving office, so to ensure a stoppage of "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours (later)" payoffs and bribes. One way or another, and I am open to suggestions, the way campaigns and everything political is funded is corrupt to the core. Only when it is about competing ideas, rather than competing bumperstickers and lame TV commericals, bought and paid for by the environmentalist lobby and the Chinese government, can the system be fixed. It all has to change.


Second Ammendment Rights
Now here's contraversial one. Call me crazy, I would like to see the average American able to own a modern automatic assault rifle. The ban on such weapons as anything automatic made after 1987 is a threat to national security. The founding fathers knew, they KNEW that an ARMED POPULACE could not be put under the foot of the government, while a disarmed populace could. Well, we are more than halfway unarmed already. Shotguns and handguns and rifles do not match what the military now has. If the US government starts pulling a Nazi Germany, it would be a lot easier to stop them with real weaponry. Of course, people should be qualified to own such weapons and so on, but to ban them outright is nothing but a threat to American citizens. No limits should be placed on non-criminal American citizens who are competent with the weapons they wish to own. Libs (who would prefer a dominatable society all around, if you look at it) would call assault rifles, and even pistols, threats to national security. I consider the lack of those weapons' availability a threat to national security, and I have history on my side.


Foreign Aid
Liberals are only ever generous with your money. Therefore, they feel that the government (with your tax dollars) needs to help every sob story in the world. Well, no more. Charity is a fine thing, if people want to give to the unfortunate, let them. It is a good and moral thing to do, and I commend anyone who does it.

It's an interesting coincidence, too, that as far as charities go, the religious-based ones are by far the best. Go to the tsunami a few years ago, or an earthquake, or anything, you will find a Catholic presence there. You will find a Mormon presence there. You will find other denomination Christian presences there. (No Muslim aid ever seems to be around, hmm...) And, if you look at the numbers, religious charities are by FAR the most efficient. Higher percentages of money donated to churches get to needy people (minus administration costs) than other secular, or government ran aid programs. Take the Children's Christian fund, they get 80 to 80% of the money donated to the people in need. Think the government that runs the DMV cna match that? No, religious guys do it better. This doesn't matter, though, for just as the Soviets made religion illegal so to replace worship of God with "worship" of the state, the libs would replace religious charities with government aid. Again, just as with communism, it is a less efficient and effective way, and it is no longer voluntary. This is ridiculous, it only hurts those who need help, and above all, it is an affront to freedom and waste of our money.

As far as tax dollars, none, NONE should to go any foreign aid projects unless it is in America's direct interest to do so. Giving aid to a country that will reciprocate with resources is one thing, and both sides win. That's called trade. Just giving it out to whoever and whatever, billions upon billions of dollars, that almost ALWAYS ends up in a dictator's hands rather than a hungry child's mouth, is just stupid. Look at the "oil for food" program that saw North Koreans still starving at the hands of Kim Jong Il, while the dictator, as well as Kofee Anon (head of UN) and many others got rich off the corrupt program. It is time all this nonsense stopped. Let Americans keep their money, and give it to what charities they see fit. Let what few tax dollars that ought to be collected be spent bettering the country from whence they came.


The UN
I do not propose dropping out of the UN, it is useful to have a voice in a global forum. However, they are almost always anti-American, so I would cut off all funding to the UN. The US funds most of it, but why? No good reason I can think of, it doesn't help us any, so they get no more money from us. Also, we will never heed to their will and do what they want unless we would want to do so anyway. As president I wouldn't give a second thought to a UN resolution (ooo, scarey, they say things they can't enforce!) coming my way, no one else does anyway. To the impotent UN, slaps on the wrist are too harsh. They shake a finger. The UN can't get a thing done except for the occasional lining of corrupt dictators' pockets at the expense of the truly poor- something America doesn't even have- and the dipersal of misinformation campaigns of corrupt politicians (see global warming, or now they call it climate change.) If they want to kick us out for that, so be it. They can take their headquarters out of New York while they're at it. I'd like to turn the building in to a park or school for well behaved inner city youths or something.


Guantanamo Bay Prison
What's that you say? There is no prison and Guantanamo. I don't know what you are talking about. No, we do not interrogate any one there outside of the rules of the sections of the Geneva Convention to which the United States signed, I can assure you of that. There are no uniformed combatants there at all, in fact. As for other individuals being held there, I can not say for sure, all I know is that no American citizens are there except for the soldiers that are stationed at the base. I have no knowledge of anything beyond the base itself at Gauntanamo. Prison you say? Wow, apparently you know more than me about this issue...


Domestic Policy: Welfare
This crap has got to go, it really does. At the very least, a person who recieves aid of any kind should do so agreeing to give up his or her right to vote for the next two election cycles. Otherwise, they will always go to the people giving them handouts, and thus votes are blatantly bought by politicians with YOUR tax dollars. I'd like to see it required that welfare be paid back, as well. Also, thing like food stamps SHOULD ONLY BUY FOOD! NOT PEOPLE MAGAZINE! And only the healthy and nutritous food at that. No more buying magazines and Dreyer's Ice Cream with my tax dollars before you get your nails done and read about Paris Hilton.

Still, I would like to see an end to welfare all together. To me, it is not acceptable to hold a man responsible for another man's financial well being. If the states want to have welfare policies, let them. As far as I am concerned, welfare on the federal level is against the constitution. Go read the tenth amendment, then admit it: I'm right. Do not think me completely heartless, though, I have a compromise.

My idea: anyone who can not get a job or needs help will instead be relocated to where work is needed. You want to tell me that Americans won't do certain jobs, and that's why we have the invaders from down under? Cut off their welfare, let them face starvation and homelessness (and no more cable TV!) if they don't do that job, then see what happens. You see, Americans just won't do it for a dollar an hour, that's all. That bumber sticker slogan "doing the jobs Americans won't do" is about nothing more than greed. No, no, they'll pick some cotton and work in the fields when they are actually required to provide for themselves or else. Right now, they get money for not working and still have big screen TVs and cable or sattelite. Yes, the statistics show that the vast majority of them can afford cable! So that's my plan, eliminate welfare, offer relocation. Is it so crazy? I bet if we openly debated it, again, the American people at large would be with me. It's just so simple it might actually work.


Domestic Policy: English
It is time to set a national language and enforce it a little. Anyone studying geography, history, or politics, should know that a national language is key to national idenity, which is key to a nation's survival. English is the language of America, officially, in fact, and it should be such that no language except English is ever used on any government document or program. Anyone at the DMV or the Social Security phone line should be required to refuse to speak any langauge but English. No, this is not a freedom of speech issue, don't spit on the founding fathers with that garbage. You can say what you want, but if you want to be in America, it would behoove you to learn the language. If you want to vote, you should be able to speak English. Period. If you want government aid, by God you should be able to ask for it in English (before you're told to move instead, har har). If you want to go to the doctor and get a prescription for some medications, you should be able to describe your symptoms in English, and read the labels in English! Just because a lable says "take once a day" and some Spanish speaker reads it and thinks "once" means eleven, like in Spanish, it isn't America's fault! It's theirs!


Domestic Policy: the FDA
The FDA is more in bed with drug companies than you probably know. The entire system needs to be restructured. The fact that Prozac and Ritaline are supplied in such numbers to children says it all. I would have the entire organization, from top to bottom, analyzed, investigated, and reformed. The FDA does not do an adequet job of protecting our children, or our sick. Pharmacutical companies should make money, lots of money. IF they do a good job. To push drugs that are not needed on people who would be better off without them is not acceptable behavior, and would not be tolerated by me or my regime. Drug companies should not be able to contribute money in any way to any politician. Too many children are on amphetamines, that is, speed, (Ritalin- or Crystal Meth Lite, I like to call it), and mood altering so-called antidepressants (that often, paradoxically, lead to suicide and school shooting massacres), it will soon be considered weird to NOT be medicated. If American parents really knew what was going on, they would revolt tomorrow.


Taxes and Spending
While I do not know how, exactly, the tax code needs to be simplified if not redone completely. There are many ideas floating around among conservatives, such as a flat tax or consumption tax, and they should all be debated openly and fairly until a new, good, fair tax code can be put in place. The only thing I know is that everyone, from the richest to the poorest, pay too much in taxes. Government programs are running amuck, while the federal government (in my opinion, state governments too, but let them decide for themselves- see separation of powers) should only pay for a very few things. Things that the government is made specifically to do- that the private sector can't do. There are not many things that fall in to this category, but the libs would have you think everything does. The only things the federal government should be responsible for are things like the FBI, being federal law enforcement; the military and other national defence agencies, meaning the intelligence services and such, and finally, (although I wish things had gone differently) interstate infrastructure, like the highways; and of course the duties spelled out in the Constitution, like making laws, maintaining federal courts, etc. These few things are the ONLY thing the federal government should be paying for. Not education. Not socialist welfare policies like Hillary-care. And surely not to redistribute the wealth from the "rich" to the "poor," (which usually means from "those who made something of themsleves" to "those who are jealous and lazy") as the Marxists like {insert any leader of Democrat party, politician or not} would like.

The founding fathers intended America to be governed by the principles I have discussed- they wrote specifically into the Constitution and Declaration of Independence their ideals. They wanted America to be free, the government to be limited and small, and the people to be independent and self reliant. More over, the stances on the issues above reflect how the majority of America truly feels. I repeat, the principles of the founding fathers, such as those listed above, ARE WHAT AMERICA WANTS. Alas, this is nowhere near what America is now. And there is not a politician out there who articulates these ideals. The common person has given up on ever achieving them, as they now seem such lofty if not impossible goals. America has become an overtaxed and overregulated country, whose leadership is almost completely corrupt from top to bottom. Our enemies circle us, and we plug our ears and close our eyes. No one can fix it, it seems, because the corruption runs so deep, that only corrupt people can become leaders, with very few exceptions. Even then, honest politicians are shut out, or corrupted themselves once they enter the "beltway." We pay huge portions of money in taxes that ought to remain in our pockets to a government that refuses to act according to our wishes. So much for of the people, by the people, and for the people.

And that, finally is where this posts name comes from. The same offense is occurring that happened to the colonists/founding fathers that brought about the American revolution. Taxation without representation. It's going on today. Oh sure, we still get to vote for someone thinking hey, I voted for him, he's my representative. But Congress does not represent the people. They represent their own self interests, and the special interests that buy their loyalty. They are mis-representatives. The presidency is no better. Somehow, with all this lobbyist money, the presidentail front runners always fall short of what America truly wants, don't they? We the people are starved for leadership, but we don't know which way to turn. One thing is for sure: they take our money and use it for their own benefit. (Is it any wonder we aren't allowed to have assault weapons?) We are being taxed, but we are not being represented. I truly understand how enraged the colonists must have been. We are losing the country, losing our representation in government, and losing our means and freedom to taxes and laws that we don't want. Just look at congress' relentless persuit for amnesty, despite the country's CLEAR opposition. Look at the constant attempts to create socialized medical care, again, despite America's wishes, let alone the Constitution's tenth ammendment forbidding it. They just don't care what we want!

Bottom line, the true conservative majority of people like me need more voices and more organization; ultimately, the country needs some kind of revolution. I don't think an armed takeover like the colonists did is appropriate, perhaps a third party come in and replace the idle, impotent Republicans. Not a social revolution like Marx's insane dream, but a political revolution. Or re-revolution, as it is. Perhaps a new movement within the Republican party (the Democrats are too far gone, let's face it.) I really don't know for sure. What I do know is that somehow the true majority of Americans, the true conservatives, need to take back the country and its government, because they have been edged out. A candidate who has the stances on the issues listed above, as incomplete list that it may be, would win by a landside if he ran for president. Reagen sure did. That is, of course, if such a candidate could ever even get close to the ticket these days. Right now, no one has the courage to take such stances because the media would portray them as crazy and politically suicidal, even though the exact opposite is true, and every front runner that surfaces cares more about being liked by CNN than being a real leader. All the views relayed in this post reflect what America used to be about, ought to be about, and what the American people would prefer it still be about. We can only tread water for so long. If the conservative movement doesn't get swimming soon, we'll drown.