by M. J. Adams

 

My way to work this morning was filled with emotion as the radio stations reminded

me that today is the sixth anniversary of the horrific terror attacks perpetrated on us by people consumed with infinite hatred.

 

Of course I’m writing about 9/11/01. Where was I? I was getting ready for work when I heard the original report that a commuter plane hit the World Trade Center. I was driving to work when I heard report of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center. My first thought after hearing that was, “This couldn’t be an accident, could it?” As we all know my fears were proven true. The crashes were intentional.

 

Throughout the rest of that day at work, where everyone had a radio tuned to the news, we all anxiously awaited news of another crash. We all shared a sick feeling that penetrated us to the core. Those that actually lost someone felt worse.

 

Now as I drive to work, after I reflect upon 9/11. My next thought popped in my head unbidden. I can just see someone saying something like, “Isn’t six years long enough?” or, “God! Give it a rest already.”

 

We all know that no one especially likes to dwell on subjects that make us feel bad, but as I prepare myself to go to college, where I think I’ll run into someone saying something along the theme above, another question came to me.

 

Why would we want to forget? Other than the obvious, “It reminds me that there are people in the world that want to kill me, even though I haven’t done anything to them.”

 

I think the answer can be found by asking ourselves, “How long should someone appreciate a gift that’s been given to them?” The answer to that question is, “It depends on the gift.” I know, I know, but really think about it. How long would you be appreciative if someone gave you a keychain, compared if someone gave you a car?

 

So that brings me to the second part. What if someone gave their life for you, or a family member? How long would you be appreciative of that gift? Most Christian’s, along with those that truly value life get what I’m trying to say here. If life is precious, than we should never forget it when someone willingly sacrifices theirs.

 

You might be thinking that the 3,000 deaths in the attacks of the World Trade Center were not necessarily sacrifices. If you are thinking along those lines, then ask yourself, “What about the Police, Fire, and other people that went into, and in many cases back into those buildings trying to get everyone out?

 

Also, think about what a sacrifice is. In terms of death, it’s a death that serves a purpose. Those 3,000 serve the purpose to remind us that there are people out in the world that harbor a hatred for us so strong, it cannot be bought, it cannot be reasoned with.

Whether you sympathize with the extremist’s that flew plane loads of innocent people into the World Trade Center, or not, you cannot, and should not marginalize the sacrifice that was made by those on that day.

 

Never forget, because I guarantee that there are those that haven’t, and want to do it to us again.

 

by Mike Adams

Isn’t it interesting how liberals love to have their cake, and eat it too? This question popped into my head the other day when I was listening to a local useful idiot go on and on about the pregnant Panda in the San Diego Zoo.

For those of you unfamiliar with what I’m talking about, the world renowned San Diego Zoo has been the only place outside of China that has a successful Panda breeding program. Recently zoo veterinarians have learned that one of the Pandas at the zoo is pregnant again. This is made more important because according to World Wildlife Foundation, “Panda’s are an endangered species.”

If you look at why Panda’s are endangered it can be narrowed down into two basic reasons. One, man’s expansion is diminishing viable Panda habitat. This reason alone is the most wide spread, common reason for global Panda problems. However if you go to the San Diego Zoo, or read articles in their publications you get another interesting reason. According to San Diego Zoo vets, Panda’s are so inept at breeding, that they just need help.

Liberal animal activists have told us for years to not underestimate animal’s intelligence, or capacity for thinking and emotion. This leads me to believe that Panda’s are not really inept at breeding, it’s that they are living their lives in accordance with their pro-choice beliefs. Think about it. Panda’s are choosing to exercise their rights to not breed.

This begs the question of what mankind’s role should be in this issue. Should mankind support the Panda’s right to choose whether to breed or not, thus condemning the Panda species to extinction? Or should mankind interfere (after all we excel at that don’t we?) and ensure the survival of the Panda species for as long as possible?

Panda species aside, in my opinion the most disturbing thing about this issue, is that liberals will never see the logical conflict between both of these liberal wanna-be religious dogmas they worship. A Panda’s right to choose versus a Panda’s right to die.

 

by Mike Adams

Many of us have heard the saying, “Do what you say, and say what you mean.”

The problem with the Gay/Lesbian lobby is that they act like this saying doesn’t exist. The main reason I say this is because while the various Gay/Lesbian lobbies claim they are only looking for tolerance, they are in fact looking for acceptance.

There’s actually quite a bit a difference between the two. In fact if you judge by the actions of a majority of the Gay/Lesbian movements than you would likely come up with the conclusion that the G/L movement’s goal isn’t just tolerance. In fact actions show that they are (in typical liberal fashion) attempting to legislate acceptance.

Unfortunately legislating acceptance won’t work. Ask an African American if all the laws we have regarding racial diversity have solved racism. While an African American may say those laws were a step in the right direction, most African Americans feel that there is still discrimination going on.

One reason I bring African Americans into this equation is because many times the G/L movement like to compare their plight to African Americans. However, as many aggrieved African Americans have pointed out…1, African Americans can’t really hide who they are, and 2, African Americans never had a choice whether they could be African Americans, or anything else.

The G/L movements will try to point to scientific studies that indicate a majority of homosexual individuals have no choice. It was genetics, or something else biological that they had no control over that made them gay. At the same time one point of view that the G/L movement tries to squash at any cost are the stories of many individuals that successfully changed their sexual orientation. Whether through prayer, psychological intervention, or whatever, these people made a choice, and changed.

Another contradiction from the G/L movement is when you hear them preach, “We just want to be left alone, in the privacy of our bedrooms, to do whatever we want with whomever we want.” While a few states still have sodomy laws, when can you remember the last time anyone was charged with breaking one? In fact if people of the G/L movement kept what they do in the bedroom, in the bedroom, there would be no problem.

I submit the example of Rock Hudson. No one really knew he was gay. Thus no one had a problem with Rock Hudson. Some of the G/L movement may say something like, “Come on, what if a guy is a little effeminate? He would be discriminated against.” My answer to that is look at Liberace. ‘Nuff said.

I could go into the whole gay marriage issue but that’s a whole new page. Instead, a little advice to some of the homosexuals that may read this, the truth is, I don’t care who you choose to sleep with. If you’re the most qualified individual, you get the job. That’s tolerance. If you come out and tell me in the job interview that you’re gay, my answer would be, “So?” That’s tolerance. When you ask my opinion about the G/L movement, and then get upset when I say I think they’re wrong, that’s not tolerance. Now you’re not expecting me to tolerate your choices, and behavior, now you want me to accept that your choices of behavior are ok. I don’t.

Lastly, do what you say. Keep what you do in your bedroom well, in your bedroom. Say what you mean. Don’t say you want tolerance, but try to legislate acceptance.

by M. J. Adams

I recently signed out of my Hotmail account, and as usual something caught my eye. Very much like those “impulse” items, and magazines at a supermarket checkout line,
A Useful Idiot MSN had a title talking about “Anti-Americanism”.

In the small and incomplete description about the article, it stated that, “a recent poll showed…” and then cut off virtually placing a proverbial gun to my head, coercing me to click on the link.

The story filed by, A Useful Idiot AP can be found at this link, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19466360/.

Then when I got to the article I noticed the next part where they say, “…in Muslim countries…”.

I’m thinking, “Yeah, there are probably a lot of Muslims from other countries that don’t like us. Nothing new there.” After all they are taught ideologically that we are evil. So even when we the United States give more aid than many other nations combined, even though we’ve intervened militarily on the behalf of Muslims like in Kosovo, Muslims still suspect us of trying to thwart their faith.

Reading the rest of the article was equally anti-climatic as it flip-flops back and forth about other countries, what they think about us, and what others think about them.

Then I wondered how many people just scanned the link headline without actually reading the rest, or any of the article for that matter?

After all my experiences of spotting useful idiot’s media bias, here’s another method “they” use to form peoples opinion by sound byte, only it’s with an article headline instead. Masses of the busy, blissfully, ignorant will cruise by and see how global distrust of the United States, our President, and by default, you and I is growing.

While reading through the article, I also noticed that they didn’t mention all the countries polled. So it begs the question, did they ask the Iraqi’s whether they wanted us there, or not? I would be interested to find out since I read all kinds of reports from people actually over there tell us that while most Iraqi’s would rather the US not be there, they are thankful, and understanding that we are there, and not just leaving their country to chaos.

By the way, isn’t it interesting that the Iraqis have better understanding about this issue than most Democrats? I guess what they say about the relationship to clarity, and being faced with your own mortality is true.

If you’re not sure if you agree with my last few statements I refer you Michael Yon’s blog.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/. Mr. Yon is not hiding out in the Green Zone of Baghdad. He is actively searching out the truth of what our forces are doing over there. Nor is he a mouthpiece for Al Jazeera.

It’s also interesting how the rest of the media virtually ignore people like Mr. Yon in their efforts to spin the US’s involvement over there. No, the media would rather publish suggestive headlines that say one obvious thing that agrees, or forwards their agenda than search out the truth.

by M.J. Adams

I just finished reading on http://www.michellemalkin.com/ that the Blue Angels are coming under attack by several liberal activist groups.

One Veterans for Peace member was quoted as saying that the Blue Angels fly over of San Francisco for Fleet Week is too dangerous. Others said something about noise pollution.

“Must gain control of fist of death”…These people are truly insane.

What hurts more is that there are a few that because of some technicalities can call themselves “veterans”. The only solice I can find is that at least these people aren’t active duty. After all one can not fight for a cause, or country they don’t believe in.

I am so frustrated, I am beside myself.

by M.J. Adams

I took my family to the Chino "Planes of Fame" Airshow on Saturday. I came back with the usual souvenirs one picks up at an airshow. Namely a T-Shirt, an airplane pin, a sunburn, and a mild case of heat stroke. But I digress.

We got there early to ensure we got a good seat. We were able to set up our chairs second row, right next to show center. Did this matter? Apparently not. As the show progressed, if I sat down in my seat, then someone would invariably walk up, and stand in front of me. I tested my theory by standing, and sitting multiple times, and each time, someone would just walk in front of me blocking my view.

How rude.I would have confronted some of them, however I was too weak from dehydration to make too much of an effort.

Oh well.

by M.J. Adams

Recently I had yet another conversation with my friend (who's also a liberal by the way).
The topics of our conversations vary from politics to cars. This time it was about Global Warming.

After letting him spew out a few untruths, and media fed myths about the state of our planets temperature, I attempted to educate him. 

Now in my experience, a good teacher would not just give the answer to a student. You ask questions, and try to have the student answer the question themselves. The learning experience, if successful will be retained better. Or at least that's the theory.

Getting back to my friend. I asked him, "What about volcanoes?" He replied, "Huh?"

I informed him that it's a documented fact that volcanoes are bigger polluters than entire states. I then added that if you're truly worried about the level of greenhouse gases in the enviroment, then we should look to ban volcanoes. I then added in the second prong of my logical attack. The fact is that when a volcano erupts, and spews tons of ashes into the atmosphere it has a direct effect on global temperature. The ashes act as a reflective shield, thus cooling our planet. Now get this, when the ashes eventually fall back to earth, and are no longer acting as a reflective shield, the global temperature raises back up to the temperatures it was before the volcano erupted. Sometimes this process takes years, and by the way, George Bush not signing the Kyoto treaty had nothing to do with it.

After presenting this information to my friend, he said, "Huh?" Then he spouted something about the "Hockey Stick" graph. To which I also had damning information.  

Then I hit him with what I thought was a deep question meant to invoke deep soul searching, and maybe a rethink about his position. I asked him, "How do you think Greenland got it's name"? To which my friend said, "Huh?" After telling my friend about how archeologist's found evidence of farming there when Greenland was settled by the Vikings. I asked him, "That if Greenland is now covered by a glacial ice, how could the Vikings invoke such a warming effect to make Greenland into farm land?" By the way, they didn't have SUV's back then either.  To which my friend answered (you guessed it) "Huh?"

Even after I presented all these (what I thought were) hard hitting facts, my liberal friend who's so infected with white, christian, male guilt, was unchanging in his beliefs. Even though they may be founded on nothing. 
I have to say, I admire his ability to simply obliterate any inconvenient truths (Ha, get it?) from his short term memory so he won't have to re-think his position.

After this exchange I remembered a wise person once said that being right isn't always enough, you have to pick your battles. That and something about arguing with a child. I sounded retreat, and just went back to my life.

by M.J.Adams

I was enjoying brunch Sunday morning with my family. Right after our food came my wife
looks at me and asks, "What's that smell"? I'm thinking it might be her food, but then after taking into account the look of disgust on my wife's face, I'm praying that it isn't.

I then glance to my left where two women sat down close by. I notice that one of the women had taken
her shoes off. Thus the source of the offensive odor.

Am I missing something? Just when did it become ok to sit in a restaurant with your shoes off?

I'm sure the woman that committed this atrocity will never read this, however I offer my most sarcastic "Thanks" for ruining my wife's (this mine) meal on Sunday.

Sigh.

On a slightly related note, why is it ok for people crossing in front of cars whether in a parking lot, or at a cross walk to take their sweet time? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people should do wind sprints, but it just smacks of the whole "I don't have to, so I'm not gonna..." attitude.

I could keep this up, however my blood pressure wouldn't appreciate it.

Why I Didn't Watch the Debates.

by M.J.Adams

I could probably say something like, "I wanted to give equal time to all the candidates, and as I didn't watch
the Democratic debates I couldn't in good conscience watch the Republicans either".

Of course that's not true.

Really I have a few questions, or issues about the debates.

First, I really don't believe they should call these get togethers "debates". Think about it. The candidates all come trotting out, and there's more of a getting to know you thing going on then real debate. 

Another issue I have about the "debates" is that of bias. If the Democrats are afraid to face Brit Hume on a debate held on Fox News, then why in the world should I give any credence to a Republican debate held by Olbermann, and Matthews on MSNBC? Doesn't seem very "balanced" to me.

Here's another thing. The Main Stream Media's analysis of the Republican debates has John McCain emerging on top of the heap. I have a real problem with this for a couple of reasons. First, I really take umbrage with the Main Stream Media telling me, steering me, trying to effect my opinion about who I should vote for as a Republican. When more than 90% of the Main Stream Media votes Democrat, it seems that they shouldn't be involved in this at all. Second, While I'm sure John McCain is a nice man, and I do have a intense appreciation for the sacrifices he made, I don't trust him. I still remember when he threw a wrench into the Judicial Nomination Issue in the name of "working with the other side."

Last but not least. The biggest reason I didn't watch the debates is because it's fricken May 07, and the election doesn't happen for another, what 17, 18 months? Let's face it. This country is polarized between Left, and Right at about 40 to 45% on each side. It will be the remaining swing voters, the 10 to 20% that will decide the Presidential race, as it has for the last few elections. These swing voters are fickle with little if any long term memories of the candidates. I predict that by the time the actual elections roll around, a majority of swing voters will be so burnt out, and or confused (a quality that by default puts them in the swing voter category) that maybe 4 to 5% of them will actually turn out. The election will be a vary slim margin because of this. can anybody say "court case"? It'll be 2000 all over again, unless the Democrats win.  

Also keep in mind, a lot can happen in the 17 months between now and the next election. A lot of skeletons, and or a lot of nothing that will be blown out of proportion by the Main Stream Media will be spewed out there like feeding time on a hog farm. Something big can happen in Iraq, or another nation state that may be deciding factor for many. 

In my opinion, it's just too early. Wake me in a year. Then we'll see what kind of factors are at play, and which candidates will have dropped out by then.

 

 

To be sure, America is in a battle for her very survival. The fact that most people seem to be missing is that we haven’t finished fighting the last battle, and it’s impacting our ability to survive this one.

Today’s war on terror features terrorists that hide in noncombatant populations coming out to wield significant amounts of destruction. Much to our chagrin, we lament that if only the terrorists would come out of hiding and line up in a fair fight so we can defeat them with the full might of our military. Somewhat similar to how the British felt during the American war for independence, though I am not equating the cause of American independence with that of the terrorist’s fanatical religious agenda.

What’s really different between then and now? Back then American colonists argued, and then more importantly, decided that they were in fact in a fight for their very existence. The difference today is that Americans are still arguing along party lines whether we are in a war or not. This argument is what’s affecting our ability to fight the war on terror. Our terrorist opponents appreciate this and go out of their way to keep this argument going. The terrorists know that if we as Americans can truly come together, we will adapt to their type of fighting, than we will win.

So why haven’t we united? The short answer is to always blame the liberals, however it goes much deeper than that. Most of the people arguing against the war are one of two groups of people.

The first group, are people that have been indoctrinated in our public school’s, and colleges. They are constantly bombarded by the main stream media with negative imagery, horrible stories about our battle in Iraq, George W. Bush, et al. They’re not sure if there’s a threat or not. They mostly feel that George Bush botched this war, and are tired of seeing our soldiers dying for what they see as nothing. The administration’s lack of communication about gains made in the Iraq theatre is obviously not helping. After being indoctrinated for so long, some people in this group graduate to the second group.

The second group is made up of people that are doing the indoctrinating. Bombarding the first group with imagery, and dialogue designed to keep them in the first group. People in this group are forced to say that there is no threat from terrorists because George W. Bush says there is a threat. No matter how absurd the position, the people in this group will default to the other side of the argument taken by the Republicans. They aren’t really Democrats. They’re more appropriately labeled Anti-Republican/Bush. They have taken the position that there is no threat posed by the terrorists, and if there is, it’s America’s fault. Their argument is based on assumed guilt because of our nation’s prosperity. But wait there’s more.

Let’s analyze a little further. Where did this liberal guilt originate from? From Communism. Cue the diabolical background music. That’s right. The anti-war/peace movement of today was reborn in the late sixties to counter our success in Vietnam. We know this because the Communist party in Vietnam said so. Day after day the American public was bombarded with how evil we were. With how immoral the war against Communism was. With the pointless deaths of our service men, and women. With how we needed to be more tolerant of other forms of government/cultures. Sound familiar? The second group comprised of the media and the communist backed peace protesters were eventually successful in eroding our national resolve.

After we pulled out of Vietnam the media stayed where it was. Growing and consolidating, but the rest of the peace movement went back to school. Many of them professional students, they graduated, and either stayed to “teach” in the colleges, or even worse became public school teachers. The Anti-American indoctrination machine was in place and dulling our senses to the real dangers of the Cold-war.

Fast forward to today’s campuses where our America is still being painted as evil. So much so that many of the indoctrinated question whether anything America has done, or will do is of any good. One of many examples of this was demonstrated by a caller to the Sean Hannity show. The caller had a real hard time stating that America stopping Hitler in WW2 was a good thing. I ask you that if stopping Hitler is barely a good thing, then where on that scale of moral equivalence does defending our nation fall?

In the indoctrinated mind set, where even if America does accomplish something good it must be by accident, self defense is a no-no. We as Americans do not deserve to be defended. All of this has its roots in the Communist movement. Not just in preventing the takeover of Vietnam, but just surviving to resist the Socialist/Communist movement another day is indefensible.

Many say we lost the Vietnam war. Many more say we won the Cold-war. Looking at these events through the glass of history, these weren’t really wars. These were battles against Socialism/Communism. The actual war against Socialism/Communism is still being fought right now. On American soil.

We as Americans not only need to collectively decide that we are in fact in a war against terrorists we need to understand that Americas war against Communism/Socialism is not won.

One of the first tasks we must undertake to ensure our long term survival is to clean our campuses of the Communist/Socialist indoctrination machine.