Death to the infidels!
You may not believe this statement (I may not believe it myself), but I wish there would be some horrible attack on Europe, nuclear or chemical, by forces from the Arab Middle East. Preferably Saddam Hussein or one of those wacky fundamental Islamic groups. Because that’s just about the only way those children over in the Old Country are going to come around. They need a brisk slap in the face. Just like the one we got in September 2001. European leaders are acting more like Neville Chamberlain than Winston Churchill. Appeasement, not action. Ah, the once great nations of Europe, our allies. With friends like this, who needs enemas? The president wants to take an Israeli strategy with Iraq. Strike before the enemy has the ability to strike you. Israel has been doing this for years. Any time a neighboring Arab nation starts up a weapons plant or nuclear facility, they go in with air forces and blow it to smithereens. Ya gotta love ‘em! Now that the evil regime in Iraq is working feverishly to perfect its weapons of mass destruction, including acquisition of nuclear arms, our wonderful allies prefer inaction. "Iraq hasn’t done anything. They haven’t used any of these supposed weapons of mass destruction against any other nation." Well, perhaps. Not yet, anyway. You would prefer to wait until it happens? Then what, you’ll be fully behind us? Somehow I doubt it. We already know he has chemical weapons, as he has already used them on fellow Iraqis. Would our fine European pals insist we wait until he has nuclear weapons? That would be the worst time to confront Hussein. Ironically some of the people who castigated Bush the Elder for not completing the job in the Gulf War by taking out Hussein are the same who are now cautioning Bush the Younger against finishing the job. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t be against a few other regime changes in the region while we’re at it. Iran, you’re already on the list. And the crowned heads of Saudi Arabia need a stern talking to. Unfortunately, the more moderate political leaders and governments in the region are all scared to death of the Islamic fundamentalism that is growing within their own borders. We have just learned that the Saudis essentially paid off al Qaeda not to attack them. The royal family there is already in a pretty precarious position power-wise. (How’s that for alliteration?) I fear that they will be the next big problem for us. Iran seemed to have been leaning toward a more western regime a while back. I think they have some of the same worries as many nations in the region. Lunatic Islamists. That will be the next great war. I believe it to be inevitable. The West v. the Islamic world. I would prefer that the other side not have nuclear arms when the conflict eventually comes, so let’s take care of that now. This is as much about sending a message to the Arabs as it is taking out a dangerous little punk in Iraq. The Europeans should be happy. At least it will be a world war that they didn't start. But they sure aren't doing anything to help before it happens. Where have you gone Neville Chamberlain? The European Union turns its lonely eyes to you.
And another thing ...
Don’t you just love liberals? The world would be perfect if we would only listen to them. They know what’s best for us, because they care. And lucky for us, they would be more than happy to rule. Oh, what a joyful day that would be! By the way, the rules we must live by do not apply to the glorious leaders. Why am I picking on the bedwetters all of the sudden? A couple of things have rubbed me the wrong way of late, and I don’t mean my bikini underwear and my nipple rings.
Late last night I was flipping channels and stopped on MSNBC as Chris Matthews engaged two guests in a discussion about the New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s desire to institute a smoking ban in city bars and restaurants. The thinking guest was a gentleman, but I neglected to notice what his job was or where he worked. I think he might have been a lawyer or something. The caring and feeling guest was a woman from the American Cancer Society. I tuned in to hear the woman ask about the man who works in a smoky bar. Doesn’t he have the right to work in a smoke-free environment? The thinking man of course answered as any logical person would. He can go down the street and work somewhere else. But the woman wouldn’t have it. To her, and to most hysterical anti-smoking advocates, the whole world must conform to her wishes and if we have to do it through illogical legislation, so be it. Northeast Republican Mayor Bloomberg is a former smoker who thinks smoking is stupid (can’t disagree with him there), so the entire population of the city must bow to his whim. The right to smoke is subordinate to the right not to be bothered by smokers. It’s just so bloody simple when you look at it logically and in the context of the free market. If someone is offended or has some health problem for which close proximity to cigarette smoke is not an option, they should not go where smoke is. It’s just that simple. Don’t go to Smokey’s Pub if there are smokers in there. Go down the block to O’Toole’s Bar where the owner has decided to keep a smoke-free environment. If there is such a demand for smoke-free environments, then they should pop up like weeds. Then if the establishments that allow smoking start to suffer from a drop in patronage, they will likely establish a similar policy. Unfortunately, activists usually insist that you change your behavior rather than they change theirs. "Why should I go somewhere else. We’ll just pass a law that prevents you from doing what you want." Although I believe more of the anti-smoking Nazis are of the liberal persuasion, this particular subject is not necessarily a liberal v. conservative one. But it is a libertarian one. There are just as many conservatives who want to legislate what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own homes.
But back on the libs. It seems that in California the socialist education establishment (I realize that is redundant) wants to make home-schooling illegal. Not explicitly, mind you, but to go after home schooled students as truants. They just have to get their hands on your little impressionable rugrats so they can indoctrinate them into the wonderful world of socialism. You know, the kind of bollocks that requires students to pool their supplies into one common collective for all to share. No, Billy, you can’t have your own protractor because not everyone can afford one. The kind of rubbish that focuses more on feelings than actual education. But I’ve gone on about the government schools before, so I won’t do it here. But the folks in the land of fruits and nuts see a threat in home schooling and school vouchers and it has to be quashed. They can’t have too many kids thinking for themselves, let alone thinking at all. What kind of subjects would they grow up to be?
I'm not finished with this yet, so don't go anywhere.