Archive for the 'Foreign affairs' Category


OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD! I only wish it could’ve happened on a Friday or something — so that more partying would be in order. Oh well. I did at least make it a point to burst out my American flag tie, to wear to court this morning.

Throwing Osama’s body out into the middle of the ocean for sharks to eat was kind of cool, I guess.

But I think it might have been better if we had smeared pigs blood all over him, and then cut up his body into eight parts, and then threw one piece of him into each of the seven seas, and finally put his head (the eighth piece) up onto a pike on the White House lawn, to keep up for at least 100 days. But whatever. Since I’m not the one in charge of America, I guess we can’t demand perfection. The situation is still pretty cool, anyway.

Let murderers be haunted until death.


No more domestic disasters

I have grown fairly bored of politics and news lately. Part of my inattention to the news is because I have been busy doing law work, which sometimes stresses me out because I am still fairly new and don’t always know what I am doing. But more than that, I think the news lately has just been boring ever since the new Republican congressmen got sworn in this year. We got to hear about a week or two of news just about Gabrielle Giffords getting shot — mainly, I think, because she was pretty. Then later we got to hear a week or two or three about Charlie Sheen’s insanity. But his show basically sucked, so although his breakdown was funny, I have a little bit of a hard time seeing why people consider him important. And then since then, we have gotten to hear about three weeks straight of talk about revolution in Egypt, then two or three weeks about revolution in Libya, and of course there was the week or two about disaster in Japan.

Note that from a domestic policy standpoint, none of these events has been all that important. Maybe the moral of the story is that once Republicans take office to block continued Leftist activity, the domestic disasters and general heading off the cliff tend to die down, and hence the media have less of the exciting domestic doomsday information to report.

I guess the two or three weeks spent discussing the stupid teacher strike in Wisconsin was at least mildly important. But only mildly. And I never did find it interesting enough to warrant a post. Even listening to Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin lately has become somewhat of a chore, and I have frequently found myself changing the station to listen to music by Katy Perry, Kesha, and other somewhat annoying artists. I don’t know; maybe I am just getting too old for this politics stuff.

Intervention in Lybia for justice

Today, with regard to the bombing of Libya, I actually heard someone (who is otherwise fairly conservative) ask, “What did they ever do to us?” Some people just make truly idiotic statements in their support for isolationism.

Although I did not say it out loud, I just thought to myself, Do you mean, what did they do to us, besides murdering 270 of our people, besides just generally being a thorn in our side, and besides oppressing their own citizens? I don’t know why people love peace so much, anyway. Any time some murderous jackass overseas finally gets what’s coming to him, I just smile a little inside.

In my book, there’s no statute of limitations on certain kinds of horror. Haunt these creeps to their graves. In fact, I think it’s a little bit silly that Barack Obama took so long to get us involved.

Manchurian President

Let us briefly recount President Obama’s foreign policy record:

1. Communist dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela slowly solidifies his grip over his country, periodically cracking down on dissidents and murdering enemies. Obama says nothing.

2. Iranians take to the streets after the Islamists rig the elections to allow their candidate to win. Obama says nothing until after the revolts have already been nearly crushed.

3. The Honduran Supreme Court ejects the leftist president of that country and sends him into exile after he tries to run for office for an additional term, in violation of the Honduran constitution (i.e., mimicking Hugo Chavez of Venezuela). Obama gets Hilary Clinton to speak up in favor of restoring him to power.

4. Egyptian dissidents, backed by Islamist terrorists, take to the streets in an attempt to topple their dictator, Hozni Mubarak, who is friendly to the United States. Obama instructs the dictator to avoid crushing the terrorist protesters, to play nice, and to restore Twitter to the Egyptian people so they can topple Mubarak’s reign and make war against the United States and Israel. And there are even some claims that President Obama himself is behind the Egyptian revolts:

The documents released by WikiLeaks reveal US Embassy officials were in regular contact with the activist throughout 2008 and 2009, considering him one of their most reliable sources for information about human rights abuses.
. . . .
The Egyptian government suspects elements of the current uprising there, particularly political aspects, are being coordinated with the U.S. State Department[.]

At this point in time, Obama is basically zero-for-four in terms of foreign policy. How can an educated man get to have such a horrible track record on foreign policy? It is due not to incompetence, but rather to depravity. President Obama instinctively acts on his affinity for every wicked leader in the world who is either 1) leftist or 2) Islamist or 3) Anti-American or 4) all of the above. On the other hand, if a popular revolt ever takes place against one or our enemies, or if some righteous judge removes a would-be communist dictator from power, President Obama instinctively rushes to their aid, because he feels at one with these wicked souls.

Obama is a nice-looking guy with decent rhetorical abilities who puts up an okay show for the television cameras. But basically, he is the epitome of evil. People need to get that through their heads. There really is almost nothing good to say about the man.

Obsession with security

It seems to me that the Republicans could gain a lot of popularity by pushing a bill to abolish the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Obama has already made it fairly clear that he has no intention of curbing the TSA abuses, so he would be likely to veto such a bill, anyway. Thus, even if some of the Republicans really think that security officials should get to look at people naked, they won’t actually be undermining their position to vote for the bill. It wouldn’t actually change anything, because it would get vetoed, but it would still make them look good.

Who knows, maybe they will try it. But I don’t have a huge amount of faith in the brainpower of congressional Republicans.

Overall, I think some “conservatives” really need to get over this obsession with “national security.” It is impossible to set up a society that foils all casualties in a war against Islamist terrorism. For example, you can give your TSA agents the authority to make women take out their breast implants, but any terrorist who would go to the trouble of recruiting a woman to plant explosive chemicals in her breast implants is going to find a way to blow people up. They will just pick an easier target than an airplane. What is our obsession with protecting airplanes, anyway? Even if we make it virtually impossible to take down airplanes, all it takes to kill some people is a gun in a shopping center, or a bomb in an office building, or whatever. We can look at everyone around us naked all day long, and we still won’t be truly secure.

Regarding Koran burnings

The Koran burning planned by the pastor of the Dove Outreach Center has grown into a big news item lately. Make no mistake based merely on the impressive-sounding name:  The “Dove Outreach Center” is actually only a small church in Florida having about fifty members. But despite the relative unimportance of this small church full of potential burners, the planned burning has thrown the entire nation into an uproar — because the Koran burning might make Muslims mad, and might incite violence and such.

Specifically, I have noticed several conservatives who have voiced their opposition the Koran burning, including Glenn Chatfield, Crude, Sean Hannity, Franklin Graham, my dad, and the Pope. According to Franklin Graham, “It’s never right to deface or destroy sacred texts or writings of other religions even if you don’t agree with them.” But is that really correct? Is it never right to engage in such defacement?

To the contrary, such defacement is at least sometimes righteous:

Acts 19:18-19

Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds. A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas.

And lest anyone argue that “sorcery” is not actually a religion, I think most of its practitioners would disagree. On the other hand, I suppose that a Christian could always argue that the churchmembers listed in Acts were in fact engaging in wrongdoing when they burned the books (as Franklin Graham seems to argue). But the text itself does not seem to hint at that idea, and neither does the rest of the Bible.

But aside from the issue of whether burning religious documents is strictly right or wrong, Glenn Chatfield instead framed the question as follows:

Are we as Christians to be intentionally insulting unbelievers?  How do we reach them with the Gospel that way?

Should we ever intentionally insult unbelievers? Well, let’s look and see…

1 Kings 18:26-27

So they took the bull given them and prepared it. Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “O Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”

Granted, maybe if we assumed that 1) all unbelievers were Muslims and that 2) all these Muslims unbelievers had a tremendous respect for pushovers and wimps, then yeah I suppose under such assumptions the appeasement logic would make sense.

But instead, imagine that one unbeliever is not particularly attracted to Islam, but merely lives in fear of the religion. Because of his fear and because of the his accurate observation that no one in the West seems willing to stand up to Islam, he decides to submit to Islam even against his will. For that one unbeliever, the best way to reach him with the gospel is to demolish his fears

Judges 6:25-31

That same night the LORD said to [Gideon], “. . . . Tear down your father’s altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it. Then build a proper kind of altar to the LORD your God on the top of this height. Using the wood of the Asherah pole that you cut down, offer the second bull as a burnt offering.”

So Gideon took ten of his servants and did as the LORD told him. But because he was afraid of his family and the men of the town, he did it at night rather than in the daytime. In the morning when the men of the town got up, there was Baal’s altar, demolished, with the Asherah pole beside it cut down and the second bull sacrificed on the newly built altar! . . . . The men of the town demanded of Joash, “Bring out your son. He must die, because he has broken down Baal’s altar and cut down the Asherah pole beside it.”

But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, “Are you going to plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.” So that day they called Gideon “Jerub-Baal,” saying, “Let Baal contend with him,” because he broke down Baal’s altar.

I personally cannot stand all the trembling and trepidation in this nation over Islam. In fact, I’m still mad about that last episode of South Park last season, where extended sections of the show (mentioning Muhammed’s name and showing his face) were bleeped out and blacked out to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities.  I’m still mad about the people murdered by Muslims for drawing political cartoons showing Muhammed’s (fictional) face. For that matter, I’m still mad about the Muslims who blew up two of our skyscrapers and now are planting a mosque in place of them to honor the historical conquests of Islam. I’m mad, and I imagine others are mad, too. People are tired of living in fear of these murderers. So if anyone wants to burn a damned Koran and thereby liberate the minds of the fearful, I think that person is doing a good deed. Maybe if more people would start burning Korans in public, we could cut down on the fear. Maybe the idiot terrorists could find some more important things to get upset about and would stop shooting people for showing pictures of “the Prophet.” They can’t take us all down. Let’s burn so many Korans that the only realistic response will be for the extremists to pray, “Let Allah contend with these Americans, because they all burn Korans as often as they eat bacon.”

Overall, I think the obliteration of fear is certainly a worthwhile cause. But my feeling is that both conservatives and churchmembers these days have just turned into wusses, and that this wussiness is a big part of our problem.

Hugo Chavez must die

From Business Investors Daily, H/T Wintery Knight:

The silent protest at Monday night’s Miss Universe Pageant in Las Vegas was invisible to nearly everyone — except Venezuelans. . . . . Fernandez waved her flag for the same reason Americans waved theirs after 9/11 — to convey resolution amid distress. Her flag had seven stars, significant because Chavez had arbitrarily added an eighth, making any use of a difficult-to-find seven-star banner an act of defiance.

Fernandez’s countrymen went wild with joy on bulletin boards and Facebook, showing just how worried they are about their country.

This chick Stefanía Fernandez sort of reminds me of that politically defiant woman in the new Sylvester Stallone movie The Expendables. And to think that I actually criticized the movie to my friends for having such an “unrealistic” female character… I suppose maybe I was wrong.

I like this photograph because you can see the somewhat subtle hint of anger on the girl’s face, around her mouth. Meanwhile, if there’s a faint smile there at all, it seems to be a contemptuous one — making it fairly clear that the primary intention of her gesture is to say “You can go to hell” to her country’s dictator, Hugo Chavez.

That said, I agree with her. The leftist Hugo Chavez needs to be killed. I cannot understand why those cowardly fools used to mock Pat Robertson for bringing up that possibility. We kill all kinds of Al Qaeda fanatics all the time, so let’s not pretend like there is anything wrong with destroying these wicked souls. In fact, I think all Republicans need to make the death of Hugo Chavez part of their national foreign policy platform.

1 Samuel 15:32-33

 Then Samuel said, “Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites.”
      Agag came to him confidently, thinking, Surely the bitterness of death is past.

 But Samuel said,
       “As your sword has made women childless,
       so will your mother be childless among women.”
      And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal.

For that matter, I don’t even particularly care whether it’s the United States government that does the killing or someone else. Why does our government always have to accomplish everything in the world? Obama seems to be practically buddies with the guy so I hardly expect Obama to order anyone to do the job. Therefore, someone else needs to knock Chavez off.

Are we not allowed to say this stuff anymore? Am I promoting crime? Hugo Chavez is the one promoting crime.

Quick, what’s the murder capital of the world: Kabul? Juarez? Try Caracas, Venezuela, a city whose dictator, Hugo Chavez, has made murder a means of extending his control. . . . .Ever since Chavez became president in 1999, Venezuelan cities have become hellholes in which murder rates have more than quadrupled. At 233 per 100,000, or one murder every 90 minutes, the rate in Caracas now tops that of every war zone in the world, according to an official National Statistics Institute study released Wednesday.

Hugo Chavez must die. If no one else gets around to it any time soon, I have always said that if I get some incurable disease, my last dying act needs to be eliminating one of these worthless foreign tyrants from the face of the earth. And statistically, it’s only a matter of time before I (or any other particular person) comes down with something incurable, right? But it would be a lot easier if the United States government would save us a lot of pain and trouble and just eradicate this creep using their professionals.