Experts: Kim Won't Listen To Reason

That 3:00 AM phone call that Hillary Clinton warned us about during the democrat primaries three years ago came this morning, as President Obama was made aware of a critical situation on the Korean Peninsula. For the first time since the cease-fire between the two warring neighbors almost 60 years ago, the North Koreans shelled civilians in South Korea. Each side claims it was the other country's fault, and there are plenty of experts and analysts out there to dissect it all, so I will spare you. That's not really why I'm posting this, anyway. I've been reading and listening to the news today whenever I had the opportunity, and the big question on every one's mind is, "What, if anything, should America do?" There are idiots on all sides with their own answers, such as, "why don't we just nuke 'em," or, "let them sort it out themselves." So many children have posted on different news sites and blogs that "war is never the answer." Let's consider that for a moment. War was the answer to American independence. It was also the answer to the re-unification of the states and an end to slavery. War was also the answer to the question, "how do we stop Hitler?" War was the answer when Iraq invaded Kuait. War will be the answer when North Koreans in uniforms start asking, "hey, mighty leader, what's for dinner?" Sometimes war is the ONLY answer. I don't want war any more than the rest of you, but the fact is that the Korean war never ended- we've only had a 60 year cease-fire. If the North attacks our ally to the south, we are obligated to help them. Oh, we've been avoiding it for some time now, having our six-way talks and our sanctions. Some say the aggression from the North stems from desperation, because they're starving. Still others say it will never get too ugly, because the Chinese will keep the North Koreans in check. Plenty of people also believe that the threat of a nuclear North Korea is non-existent because they don't have the money to fund such a program and sanctions should be enough. That's all crap. See, the truth is, Kim Jong Il is CRAZY. Certifiably nuts. He starves his own countrymen so he can buy porn, booze, and bombs. He's also pretty sure that China's got his back, so he's not really all that concerned with what, if anything, America decides to do. Besides, we may have 30,000 military personnel stationed in South Korea, but we also have two other wars going on. Kim doesn't listen to reason. I'm beginning to think North Korea is not only threatening war, they are counting on it. If South Korea is attacked, and we don't act, we will be telling our allies they can't count on us. It will also tell our enemies that we are weak and over-extended. We may not want to fight, but if the cease-fire ends, we will have to fight, one way or another. All the same, I sure hope I'm wrong, but I'd rather if we were ready in case I'm right.

Your Political Mirror

Whether or not you consider yourself an Independent, a Republican or a Democrat, you probably have your own political identity. Even if you don't consider yourself either of the above, you are probably pretty proud of that...you're an Independent, and so that is your political identity. Identity politics, the politics of "us versus them," is pretty much the norm in America, it's Blue versus Red, it's Conservative versus Liberal, or at least that's the way it's played out in the media. In Washington, just as in Hollywood, image is everything. And yet we have the Tea Party Movement, a movement that encompasses all different kinds of people, and has it's roots in 1773, before there ever were such things as Democrats and Republicans, before anyone ever divided up the map with "primary colors." So what is a Republican and what is a Democrat? It depends on who you ask. The image that Republicans seek to convey is one of fiscal responsibility, hard-working shop owners and individuals who are strong on defense and proud of tradition. Their heroes are Madison and Reagan. Ask a Democrat, though, and they will tell you Republicans are fat, white, rich guys in suits who check their stocks in newspapers that don't have pictures while they plan the next war for profit. Democrats would like to be seen as fair-minded, tolerant people of all races who value diplomacy and embrace change. Their heroes are Jefferson and Roosevelt. Republicans, however, will describe them as misguided Robin Hoods and aging hippies, one step away from communism, either seeking to take the earnings from others and give it away to the slothful, or sticking their hands out to receive the spare change from Big Government. Libertarians? They will tell you they stand for limited government, private enterprise, and the notion that all people are free to live life as they please, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. their heroes are Ayn Rand and H.L. Menken. Republicans and Democrats will tell you that they are naive hipsters and closet pot smokers who want to legalize everything but murder and privatize the sidewalks. Independents? They're just wishy-washy, like Charlie Brown. Most people will tell you, if you gave them the descriptions without the labels, that they are actually a mix of all these things. For example, a person may be for gun control (democrat), against abortion (republican), and indifferent to gay marriage (libertarian). So... are you Red or Blue? Or purple? Maybe, after you've really thought about the things that matter to you, you won't be so sure. I encourage everyone to take The Shortest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz As it turns out, I'm a Libertarian.

CAIR: Following The Constitution Is Unconstitutional

Still believe in democracy? As it turns out, your vote doesn't count. In fact, if you don't like the outcome of an election, all you have to do is file a law suit and have a judge refuse to certify the vote. Such is the case in Oklahoma, where 70.08% of the population who voted answered "yes" on State Question 755. The proposed amendment to the state constitution would forbid judges from considering international law or Sharia law when deciding cases. Why was this amendment so important to the voters? Are people in Oklahoma just a bunch of backward, bigoted hicks? Muneer Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma says, "yes," and he took the measure to court. In his view, it is unconstitutional to force judges to stick to the constitution. He believes the whole thing was put together to foster "Islamophobia." What are we so afraid of? Well, how about S.D. versus M.J.R. in the New Jersey Superior Court? An American judge actually ruled that a man was not guilty of raping his seventeen year-old wife, not because he didn't rape her, but because he was following Sharia Law. The ruling was overturned in appellate court, but the idea that the judge even took that into consideration is horrid. OK State Question 755 was intended to be a firewall, to keep judges from ruling that it's acceptable to beat your wife or stone a homosexual to death based on religious belief. The amendment does not say you can't be a practicing Muslim, nor does it forbid the election or appointment of Muslim judges. All it says is, "stick the constitution." We don't care what the laws are in Poland, Somalia, China, or Iran. This is Oklahoma. Muneer Awad thinks 70% of Oklahoma voters are just bigots, that we're just scared. Well, honestly, there are aspects of Sharia that are pretty scary. I'm not to keen on international law, either, for that matter. Should we toss out our Second Amendment right to bear arms because the English do not have such a guarantee? I say no, and 695,567 other Oklahomans agreed with me. Use international law to decide on treaties, not on whether or not a civil or state measure should pass. As to the matter of religious intolerance, let me remind you again that this is not a First Amendment issue. Oklahoma is not trying to institute a "state religion." If anything, the voters are upholding the so-called "separation of church and state." Whether or not you agree with the amendment, however, the people voted, the amendment passed, and that should be it. Moreover, activist judges should not be allowed to refuse to certify the vote simply because they don't like the outcome. Certify the vote! Then decide on whether you think an amendment to the constitution does not follow the constitution. Now I know there are enough people out there who, no matter what reasoning I give for voting yes on SQ:755, are going to yell, "Bigot! Racist! Islamophobe! Hate Monger!" Really? Is that all you've got? What if the vote had gone the other way, and someone sued in order to deny the will of the voters? Majority Rule, not Judicial Fiat. Otherwise, what is the point of a vote in the first place? Why even bother defending democracy?

I robbed the photo above from http://www.hollywoodandfine.com/reviews/?p=1102

If you care to read it, you can find Oklahoma State Question: 755 here:
https://www.sos.ok.gov/gov/proposed_questions.aspx

Special note to Liberals: Please, do not start in with me on the whole "separation of church and state is in the First Amendment" garbage. That phrase does not exist in the Bill of Rights. I defy you to find it. Do not quote Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, it is irrelevant. I said "so-called separation of church and state," and I meant it. The nation was founded on freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, and I still believe in the Judeo-Christian foundation of our laws and rights. But even if such a thing did exist in our constitution, you should be agreeing with me on this. So give it a rest.

Breaking News: It's Not Your Money

In a recent survey, ten out of ten people polled this afternoon said they should not pay for my cheeseburger and fries at McDonald's simply because they had $50 in their pockets and I only had $4. When asked, "why not," each person polled simply responded, "because it's not your money!" Surprisingly, 4 out of these same 10 people identified themselves as "democrats." When the poll also included the phrase, "share the wealth, man," 9 of the 10 people polled exclaimed, "go to hell."

On the other hand, while engaging in a debate with friends online, 4 out of 5 self-described democrats agreed with the sentiment that, "those who earn more should pay more." One even suggested that we should, as a society, "eat the rich." As it turns out, it wasn't my money after all, no matter how hungry I was, and if someone had decided to feed me out of sheer kindness, I would have had to politely decline and thank them for their generosity. FULL DISCLOSURE: My family and I have been on food stamps. I, myself, have gone to the Salvation Army to ask for food. These are worthwhile programs for people who need a hand up, and I am not suggesting that anyone tell a hungry person to "go to hell." I'm not saying that you should go down to The Bowery and kick the bums and winos and tell them to get a job. What I'm really talking about here is attitude. Read this again; "Those who earn more should pay more." If you agree, tell me why. Then tell me how much is enough. Then tell me why I should strive to earn more if you're just going to take it away from me to cover my "fair share." And don't give me any of that crap about how I benefited from public schools, or how the police are protecting me, or about how much a battleship costs. We each take our equal share of those services, so why should you pay more and I less, or vice versa? Why do you want to tax Joe The Plumber until he's as poor as you? Do you want to spread the wealth, or spread the misery? It seems to me that some people take the phrase, "promote the general Welfare," from the preamble of our constitution, and broaden it just a bit too much. Are you your brother's keeper? Yes. Should you pay your brother's rent? Only if you truly want to , out of compassion, and not because the Government threatens to take your property and your earnings if you don't. I thought being rich was a part of the American Dream. I thought we were all supposed to aspire to be successful. My teachers always taught me that if I worked hard and applied myself, I could do anything I wanted. Not one of them ever said, "and when you do, we'll call you a villain, steal your money, give it to people who didn't earn it, and spend it on stuff we want." Teachers' Unions weren't as deeply entrenched back then, I guess. Think back to when you were a kid and someone asked, "what do you want to be when you grow up?" What did you answer? Did you say, "I want to serve the state and give as much as I can so that all people can benefit from the fruits of my labor?" No. You said, "I want to be a doctor!" Maybe it was a lawyer, or an astronaut, or a chef, or an artist. You wanted to earn a living doing something you were passionate about, and you wanted to have as much wealth as your skill would allow. You didn't want a brown Mazda hatchback with vinyl seats and an AM radio, you wanted the Porche, all leather interior, with the CD changer in the trunk. But you never got one. You never became a doctor. You're jealous of people that did. So now you want to take that Porche, take all the money, and make the doctor heal you for free. He owes you. Besides, he can afford it, right? Well, so what if he can? If you raise his taxes, he hires one less nurse. If you take a chunk out of his salary and spread it around, he goes out to eat a little less and doesn't tip any waitresses. If you raise his taxes, he decides not to buy a new car and changes his own oil. If you raise his taxes and not your own, you are stealing. It's not your money.