A receipt found in a grocery store parking lot.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Interesting contrast in 2 Presidents
2 Key paragraphs in 2 Presidents' speeches
... It's a very stark contrast to the egos of each.
George W. Bush speech after capture of Saddam:
The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate 'em.
Barack Obama speech after killing of bin Laden:
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
... It's a very stark contrast to the egos of each.
George W. Bush speech after capture of Saddam:
The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate 'em.
Barack Obama speech after killing of bin Laden:
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama Bin Laden RIH
In light of the events of the past 24 hours, I am re-posting an entry made over a year ago. There will be many of my bleeding-heart liberal friends who will somehow decry the blatant use of military force to go in and kill Bin Laden yesterday. The Navy Seals who carried out the mission were instructed clearly to kill him and not to try and capture him. Poor Soul. He was denied his day in court? I think NOT. Osama Bin Laden . . . RIH . . .Rest in Hell. Today . ."you swim with the fishes".
The Right to give up your Rights.
Since my posting last night I have had the chance to hear from some of my more liberally oriented friends about the absolute necessity now of protecting the rights of the accused. And how foundational this is to the constitutional freedoms we enjoy as Americans. (Side note: The terrorist in question is not an American) It is always amusing to me to hear from these friends and to engage them in debate. Because in the face of reason and logic their bleeding hearts begin to coagulate.
I tell my Bill-Maher-tree-hugging-whale-saving-friends the following illustration: Assume for the moment, I'm asleep in my bed in my home in the middle of the night. An intruder breaks into my home. I hear the door being busted open. I arise and take my two friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson with me to greet my "visitor". And there in the living room, I encounter Mr. John Wannatakemylife with my Bose Stereo system in his arms and a 9mm Glock in the waist band of his shorts that are hanging down off his butt. Small problem though for John. I have come into the room under the assumptions that 1. if this intruder was bold enough to break in while I was in the house, that 2. he's probably carrying a fire arm. I also assume 3. that if he might be carrying a fire arm that I should 4. probably confront him with mine pointed straight at his chest (note: the chest being a larger target to aim for than the bridge of a nose). John on the other hand, is a bit intellectually challenged at the moment. Because he is more interested in looting my property than having the sense to protect himself by having his weapon in one hand and the loot in the other.
Now. With the light turned on John can see that something is wrong (for him) with this picture. I have my long barrel 44 magnum pointed at him and he has a Bose speaker pointed at me. He might be saying to himself that he has nothing to fear because he was born with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of his happiness in being a thief and bottom-feeding-scum-sucking-break-in-my-house-lazy-fool? He might also think that I have no right to shoot him, because he is entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers to determine whether or not he is actually committing armed robbery? But whatever he thinks of himself or his predicament, John is faced with a great moral dilemma at the moment? He must ask himself exactly how much that Bose stereo is worth to him and is it worth his life? And then he has to decide if he can drop the stereo and run to freedom, or drop the stereo and grab his gun and raise it and shoot me, . . . .faster than I can pull the trigger of my already-cocked-and-loaded gun? MMMMMMMMMM? Not a difficult choice for a person of average intelligence. But then again, John doesn't have average intelligence or he wouldn't have broken into my home with the possibility that I might be either 1. armed, or 2. more heavily armed than himself? (Note: He might have average intelligence if he lived in Washington D.C. since he would believe that as a law abiding citizen I was not allowed to have a gun . . but this is Missouri)
Personally, I have already answered . . in my mind . . these questions for him. He believed the decision was worth his life. Just as I have realized by seeing the 9mm Glock in his about-to-fall-down pants that he believed the Bose system is also worth my life to him?
Now at this point, exactly what rights does John actually have? The answer is None. He left ALL his rights on my front porch at the moment he burst into my home. EMPHASIS ALL.
You see, at this moment, John is not entitled to a trial, he is not entitled to the pursuit of happiness, and he is not entitled to my Bose system. He is not entitled to a jury trial. He is not entitled to evaluation? He is not even entitled to his life. And (damn the bad luck) he is not even going to be entitled to his choice of his last meal. And . . .though he may have thought so a few moments before . . . he is certainly not entitled to my life.
As I stand there confronting him, I am not wondering what great wrongs society might have done to John to influence him toward this life of criminal behavior. I am not feeling any guilt that perhaps life is not fair and that I have more than John. I am not wondering if perhaps he should have my stereo so that my wealth might be redistributed among him and his crackwhore girlfriend. All I am wondering is how stupid John really is and whether or not he is going to drop the stereo and reach for his gun?
I have already made in mind all of the decisions that need to be made. I realize that John came into my house and has made a decision that he is willing for one of us to die. He of course . . . incorrectly . . .has assumed that it would be me. Poor John.
John is having to make a decision about how fast or lucky he might be. I am not having to wonder.
And then finally, when he makes the decision to drop the Bose and reach for the gun, the entire matter is settled in the flash of a barrel. John should have kept his rights and left my front porch with them. John did not choose wisely when he broke into my home. And the last decision of his life was the most foolish.
Now, John was granted a fair and speedy trial. Except in this case, since he had given up all his rights when he broke in, I . . . . his victim . . .was granted the right to be his jury, his judge, and his executioner. He granted me these rights the exact same moment as he surrendered all of his.
With a terrorist, the same is true. When Abdul Mutallab made his decision to get on the Detroit-bound plane with the Modern Binary Explosives to blow up the plane and send the passengers hurtling toward their death, he gave up any rights that he had. Actually he gave up all his rights the moment he entered the airport with even just the intention to board the plane. He did not give up his rights when he made his bumbled attempt to blow it up. He gave it up the moment he made the decision to try and carry it out. Just as John gave up his rights when he came in my front door.
Mr. Mutallab had no rights from that point on. He is not a soldier in a war against other soldiers in a war between nations and protected by the Geneva convention. He's certainly not protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. He was not pitted in battle against another enemy under orders from his commander. Mr. Muttallab was a man on a mission to kill innocent men, women, and children. He was not on the plane to steal their stereo system. He was there to steal their very lives.
It was a simple matter when the plane arrived of there being 300 witnesses to the event and to Mr. Mutallab's evil intentions. Nothing more needed to be said. He could have been removed from the plane and executed immediately as a terrorist. Of course though a better plan would be to have interrogated him first to find out what rocks his other terrorist co-conspirators were hiding under. And then he could be executed.
For those who think that now justice must take its course, and Mr. Muttallab is entitled to a trial and due process of the law, I must ask, would you 1. feel the same social compassion for this murderer as you were free-falling from 35,000 feet after he had blown up the plane you were flying on and 2. Would you feel the same if John were standing in your living room and about to point a gun at you and kill you?
It is easy for liberals to be liberals from a distance. They can always recite beatitudes and beautiful and flowery excuses for protecting the rights of the accused. And I am the first to agree that rights are to be protected and defended. But this is not the case with Muttalab. When reasoned through, it is simple logic to see that he gave all his rights up on the day he went to the airport.
So please spare me your left-leaning-liberal-whinings and tell me that a man with a gun in your living room about to kill you has the right to do so. And then tell me that if by chance he accidentally misses your heart and you live, that you want to be sure that he has a trial so a jury can decide if he really shot you or not, when you know that he did. Does a man in the passenger seat next to you with his jockeyshorts full of explosives,
I once told a group of high school boys who were sitting in my living room with my daughters that I had no problem at all with having seen a father go free after having shot . . . at point blank range . . . the man who had raped his 8 year old daughter. The high school boys were aghast and said that the father was wrong too because he had murdered the rapist. I simply explained to them that I had no problem with it, because it was not murder. They tried to tell me that it certainly was because many people saw him just walk up to the man and kill him. I told them that I would certainly do the same if someone hurt one of my daughters. And that it would not be murder. It would be an execution. Plain and simple. The boys were silent. (And I assume thoughtfully intent on how not to hurt my daughters).
When Muttalab, entered the airport with his jockey shorts full of explosives, he made a decision for himself that day. He gave up all his rights, and said to the world. I will kill you or I am willing for you to kill me.
He failed in his attempt. We should not fail in ours. For those who say that executing Mr. No-Rights-Today Muttalab would not be a deterent to other terrorists and murderers (though I disagree), I say . . . fine . . ."maybe you're right". Executing him though would be a definate, and permanent deterent to Mr. Muttalab killing or attempting to kill anyone else. And certainly the number of terrorists is not infinite. In time, if they were all simply executed, their reign of terror would stop too.
Somehow I don't imagine that my liberal friends hearts will bleed so freely, if they were the ones to find themselves freefalling from 35,000 feet?
B. McElhaney
December 30, 2009
(note: it is interesting to me that most or all of the family survivors of the victims of 9/11 were from the New York city and surrounding areas. And that most of the people who live in that geographic area would proclaim themselves as liberals. And yet, in the outcry from liberals for the shut down of Guantanamo we did not hear any calls for mercy from the 9/11 families? Could it be that they are only liberals when it is someone else who's blood is bleeding?)
The Right to give up your Rights.
Since my posting last night I have had the chance to hear from some of my more liberally oriented friends about the absolute necessity now of protecting the rights of the accused. And how foundational this is to the constitutional freedoms we enjoy as Americans. (Side note: The terrorist in question is not an American) It is always amusing to me to hear from these friends and to engage them in debate. Because in the face of reason and logic their bleeding hearts begin to coagulate.
I tell my Bill-Maher-tree-hugging-whale-saving-friends the following illustration: Assume for the moment, I'm asleep in my bed in my home in the middle of the night. An intruder breaks into my home. I hear the door being busted open. I arise and take my two friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson with me to greet my "visitor". And there in the living room, I encounter Mr. John Wannatakemylife with my Bose Stereo system in his arms and a 9mm Glock in the waist band of his shorts that are hanging down off his butt. Small problem though for John. I have come into the room under the assumptions that 1. if this intruder was bold enough to break in while I was in the house, that 2. he's probably carrying a fire arm. I also assume 3. that if he might be carrying a fire arm that I should 4. probably confront him with mine pointed straight at his chest (note: the chest being a larger target to aim for than the bridge of a nose). John on the other hand, is a bit intellectually challenged at the moment. Because he is more interested in looting my property than having the sense to protect himself by having his weapon in one hand and the loot in the other.
Now. With the light turned on John can see that something is wrong (for him) with this picture. I have my long barrel 44 magnum pointed at him and he has a Bose speaker pointed at me. He might be saying to himself that he has nothing to fear because he was born with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of his happiness in being a thief and bottom-feeding-scum-sucking-break-in-my-house-lazy-fool? He might also think that I have no right to shoot him, because he is entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers to determine whether or not he is actually committing armed robbery? But whatever he thinks of himself or his predicament, John is faced with a great moral dilemma at the moment? He must ask himself exactly how much that Bose stereo is worth to him and is it worth his life? And then he has to decide if he can drop the stereo and run to freedom, or drop the stereo and grab his gun and raise it and shoot me, . . . .faster than I can pull the trigger of my already-cocked-and-loaded gun? MMMMMMMMMM? Not a difficult choice for a person of average intelligence. But then again, John doesn't have average intelligence or he wouldn't have broken into my home with the possibility that I might be either 1. armed, or 2. more heavily armed than himself? (Note: He might have average intelligence if he lived in Washington D.C. since he would believe that as a law abiding citizen I was not allowed to have a gun . . but this is Missouri)
Personally, I have already answered . . in my mind . . these questions for him. He believed the decision was worth his life. Just as I have realized by seeing the 9mm Glock in his about-to-fall-down pants that he believed the Bose system is also worth my life to him?
Now at this point, exactly what rights does John actually have? The answer is None. He left ALL his rights on my front porch at the moment he burst into my home. EMPHASIS ALL.
You see, at this moment, John is not entitled to a trial, he is not entitled to the pursuit of happiness, and he is not entitled to my Bose system. He is not entitled to a jury trial. He is not entitled to evaluation? He is not even entitled to his life. And (damn the bad luck) he is not even going to be entitled to his choice of his last meal. And . . .though he may have thought so a few moments before . . . he is certainly not entitled to my life.
As I stand there confronting him, I am not wondering what great wrongs society might have done to John to influence him toward this life of criminal behavior. I am not feeling any guilt that perhaps life is not fair and that I have more than John. I am not wondering if perhaps he should have my stereo so that my wealth might be redistributed among him and his crackwhore girlfriend. All I am wondering is how stupid John really is and whether or not he is going to drop the stereo and reach for his gun?
I have already made in mind all of the decisions that need to be made. I realize that John came into my house and has made a decision that he is willing for one of us to die. He of course . . . incorrectly . . .has assumed that it would be me. Poor John.
John is having to make a decision about how fast or lucky he might be. I am not having to wonder.
And then finally, when he makes the decision to drop the Bose and reach for the gun, the entire matter is settled in the flash of a barrel. John should have kept his rights and left my front porch with them. John did not choose wisely when he broke into my home. And the last decision of his life was the most foolish.
Now, John was granted a fair and speedy trial. Except in this case, since he had given up all his rights when he broke in, I . . . . his victim . . .was granted the right to be his jury, his judge, and his executioner. He granted me these rights the exact same moment as he surrendered all of his.
With a terrorist, the same is true. When Abdul Mutallab made his decision to get on the Detroit-bound plane with the Modern Binary Explosives to blow up the plane and send the passengers hurtling toward their death, he gave up any rights that he had. Actually he gave up all his rights the moment he entered the airport with even just the intention to board the plane. He did not give up his rights when he made his bumbled attempt to blow it up. He gave it up the moment he made the decision to try and carry it out. Just as John gave up his rights when he came in my front door.
Mr. Mutallab had no rights from that point on. He is not a soldier in a war against other soldiers in a war between nations and protected by the Geneva convention. He's certainly not protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. He was not pitted in battle against another enemy under orders from his commander. Mr. Muttallab was a man on a mission to kill innocent men, women, and children. He was not on the plane to steal their stereo system. He was there to steal their very lives.
It was a simple matter when the plane arrived of there being 300 witnesses to the event and to Mr. Mutallab's evil intentions. Nothing more needed to be said. He could have been removed from the plane and executed immediately as a terrorist. Of course though a better plan would be to have interrogated him first to find out what rocks his other terrorist co-conspirators were hiding under. And then he could be executed.
For those who think that now justice must take its course, and Mr. Muttallab is entitled to a trial and due process of the law, I must ask, would you 1. feel the same social compassion for this murderer as you were free-falling from 35,000 feet after he had blown up the plane you were flying on and 2. Would you feel the same if John were standing in your living room and about to point a gun at you and kill you?
It is easy for liberals to be liberals from a distance. They can always recite beatitudes and beautiful and flowery excuses for protecting the rights of the accused. And I am the first to agree that rights are to be protected and defended. But this is not the case with Muttalab. When reasoned through, it is simple logic to see that he gave all his rights up on the day he went to the airport.
So please spare me your left-leaning-liberal-whinings and tell me that a man with a gun in your living room about to kill you has the right to do so. And then tell me that if by chance he accidentally misses your heart and you live, that you want to be sure that he has a trial so a jury can decide if he really shot you or not, when you know that he did. Does a man in the passenger seat next to you with his jockeyshorts full of explosives,
I once told a group of high school boys who were sitting in my living room with my daughters that I had no problem at all with having seen a father go free after having shot . . . at point blank range . . . the man who had raped his 8 year old daughter. The high school boys were aghast and said that the father was wrong too because he had murdered the rapist. I simply explained to them that I had no problem with it, because it was not murder. They tried to tell me that it certainly was because many people saw him just walk up to the man and kill him. I told them that I would certainly do the same if someone hurt one of my daughters. And that it would not be murder. It would be an execution. Plain and simple. The boys were silent. (And I assume thoughtfully intent on how not to hurt my daughters).
When Muttalab, entered the airport with his jockey shorts full of explosives, he made a decision for himself that day. He gave up all his rights, and said to the world. I will kill you or I am willing for you to kill me.
He failed in his attempt. We should not fail in ours. For those who say that executing Mr. No-Rights-Today Muttalab would not be a deterent to other terrorists and murderers (though I disagree), I say . . . fine . . ."maybe you're right". Executing him though would be a definate, and permanent deterent to Mr. Muttalab killing or attempting to kill anyone else. And certainly the number of terrorists is not infinite. In time, if they were all simply executed, their reign of terror would stop too.
Somehow I don't imagine that my liberal friends hearts will bleed so freely, if they were the ones to find themselves freefalling from 35,000 feet?
B. McElhaney
December 30, 2009
(note: it is interesting to me that most or all of the family survivors of the victims of 9/11 were from the New York city and surrounding areas. And that most of the people who live in that geographic area would proclaim themselves as liberals. And yet, in the outcry from liberals for the shut down of Guantanamo we did not hear any calls for mercy from the 9/11 families? Could it be that they are only liberals when it is someone else who's blood is bleeding?)
a few truisms
1. Always keep your words soft and sweet, just in case you have to eat them.
2. We could learn a lot from crayons. Some are sharp, some are pretty and some are dull. Some have weird names and all are different colors, but they all have to live in the same box
3. Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
4. Drive carefully... It's not only cars that can be recalled by their Maker..
5. If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague
6. If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.
7. Never buy a car you can't push.
8. Nobody cares if you can't dance well. Just get up and dance.
9. Since it's the early worm that gets eaten by the bird, sleep late.
10. The second mouse gets the cheese.
11. Birthdays are good for you. The more you have, the longer you live.
12. A truly happy person is one who can enjoy the scenery on a detour.
2. We could learn a lot from crayons. Some are sharp, some are pretty and some are dull. Some have weird names and all are different colors, but they all have to live in the same box
3. Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
4. Drive carefully... It's not only cars that can be recalled by their Maker..
5. If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague
6. If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.
7. Never buy a car you can't push.
8. Nobody cares if you can't dance well. Just get up and dance.
9. Since it's the early worm that gets eaten by the bird, sleep late.
10. The second mouse gets the cheese.
11. Birthdays are good for you. The more you have, the longer you live.
12. A truly happy person is one who can enjoy the scenery on a detour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
