Are the Democrats pro-terrorist?

I came across an interesting article today on Fox News' website that sparked a thought. Is it possible to negotiate with terrorists? Do people of faith, outside of Muslims, have a right to exist? How do Democrats really feel about Israel and their right to exist? Do they side with Israel, or the terrorists? That's a question they should be asked point blank, and, it should be made very clear to them, that you will be recording what they say in response to this question so that everyone will know how they responded to it. Plus, they won't be able to lie their way out of it either! So, what was the article that spawned all of this thought? (You can read it here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173491,00.html)

As some of you may, or may not, remember, there was a new President elected to the government of Iran. He was, for the most part, described as a "hard liner". There was even some question by some Americans held during the Iranian Hostage Crisis that this new President was involved in the holding of American hostages. I am trying to remember how Democrats responded to this accusation, but honestly, can't remember at this time how they responded to it. I would like to say that they dismissed the accusation. However, I'm not actually sure if that was reality, or just wishful thinking on my part so that I could later say "See?! The Democrats really are pro-terrorist!" So, I shall give them the benefit of the doubt, even if they likely don't deserve it.

The article was about the new President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, as I said, is often described as a "hard liner". He had some very interesting comments regarding Israel recently when he spoke to some students in Iran at a "World without Zionism" conference that he was speaking at. Particularly, President Ahmadinejad said that "Israel is a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map". He is advocating wiping Israel off the face of the map. He wants them destroyed, period. He is not saying they should be re-located, he is not saying they should be punished for how they are treating the Palestinians (how could the Jews be so horrible to them after all. To think that Jews feel they have a right to defend themselves against Muslim terrorists like Hamas!).

President Ahmadinejad didn't have a favorable opinion of any Muslim neighbor nations that acknowledged Israel as having a right to exist. In fact, he stated "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,". Now, I believe it's Democrats that love trying to reason with terrorists and to give in to them so that we can just buy peace so as to avoid any bloodshed. After all, we shouldn't stand up to terrorists. Rather, we should try to just give them what they want so as to give them a reason to leave us alone. Basically, pacify them. Well, it doesn't seem as though President Ahmadinejad is interested in peaceful co-existence here. Rather, he seems like he's pretty direct and straight forward about how he feels about Israel. It doesn't seem as though he can be reasoned with. He's stated pretty clear that he doesn't like Israel, and, that he doesn't acknowledge their right to exist, and, that they should be wiped off the face of the map. Could a Democrat please tell me where there's room to be tolerant with this guy, or with terrorists in general, or, where there's room to try to pacify the terrorists and reason things out with them? Cause, it just doesn't seem like he's interested in that, but, I'm open to any options any Liberals may have. Perhaps we should send Jimmy Carter and Jessie Jackson on over and I'm sure those two can convince President Ahmadinejad to see the errors of his ways.

However, Israel has given up an awful lot to try to make peace with the Palestinians, haven't they? After all, they've evacuated the Gaza Strip right? I remember seeing all the Jews (granted, some were forced out) evacuate the Gaza Strip so that Israel could, in good faith, try to advance peace. What has this gotten Israel so far? Well, some more terrorist homicide bombings for starters. And now of course, you've got this nut from Iran calling for their utter destruction. Exactly how much more should the Jews give up before intelligent people wake up and realize, there's no reasoning with terrorists? It's not possible, they're not interested in it. They either get things their way, or, they target you. Period.

Regarding the Palestinian homicide bombings President Ahmadinejad stated "there is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world." So, he is pro-terrorist as well. Seems like the Democrats have a friend in President Ahmadinejad doesn't it. Maybe Hillary Clinton will be making a trip there to talk about cultural differences soon (a disguised effort to really do some campaign fund raising I'm sure!). I remember when Hillary announced that she was part Jewish while she was running for the Senate in New York. Given President Ahmadnejad's feelings about Jews, she may want to keep that prophetic thought to herself. But then again, she's Super Hillary. No matter what comes at her and Bill, they're kinda like Jason Vorhees. They can't be stopped. Nothing can hurt them.

Now, let's think back to why the U.S. has problems with Iran anyway. They state they want a nuclear facility so they can generate electricity. Despite the fact that they have an insane amount of oil they're sitting on in order to generate power. So, what other reason would they have for nuclear power? Hmmm. Maybe to create weapons that would wipe Israel off the map? Hmmmm. Could be. Where do the Democrats fall on this issue? Does anyone know? Are they pro-terrorist, or pro-Israel. We know they're not Pro-Life, so, perhaps one can assume they're pro-terrorist because the terrorists (in this case, Iran) want to wipe out Israel. So, I guess we can call them pro-terrorist in this instance.

Getting back to Iran and Israel though, both the Spanish and French Foreign Ministers condemned the comments that the Iranian President made. Wow. That's great, I'm sure that'll fix President Ahmadnejad's little red wagon won't it? Keep in mind though, Spain bowed down to terrorist threats to pull out of Iraq, they did so, then nearly got bombed anyway. France, well, we're all still waiting for France to do something other than bend over yelling "THANK YOU SIR! MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?!

Another interesting tid-bit here is that Iran regularly supports Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And, Iran has increased the accuracy of their Shahab-3 missiles. It has increased the range from 810 miles to more than 1,200 miles, and is now capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East. So again I ask, where do the Democrats and Liberals stand on this issue of both pacifying terrorists and trying to reason with them, while at the same time looking at Iran as a possible threat in terms of nuclear weapons? Let's get it straight, write it down, then throw that in their face each day they try to flip flop. It is clear that Iran, as a terrorist supporting nation, is not interested in being reasoned with, and I don't see how we can pacify them. They know what they want. They want Israel and Jews dead, period. How much does Israel and the Jews need to put up with before they throw the gloves off and say "bring it on, we WILL defend ourselves!" After all, Israel does have nukes too. And, it was Israel that took on 6 Muslim nations all at the same time, in the Six Day War of about 1948 I believe, and, they beat every one. They were fighting a war on 6 fronts, and won. If the U.S. were to stand back and say "Israel, do what you must", there is no doubt in my mind that they'd have the Palestinians wiped off the planet in about an hour. Iran? probably half a day, but, no more than one day. If the U.S. were to stand back and let Israel do what they want. And you know what? What right does the U.S. have to keep Israel from doing that to being with? We shouldn't determine their destiny. Only Israel should. It's clear what Iran's intentions are. It's clear that good faith intentions on Israel's part are not working. So, do Democrats and Liberals acknowledge the right of Israel to defend themselves, or, are they pro-terrorist?

Really, Saddam's a teddy bear!

Did anyone happen to see this late last week? It hit the news on Oct. 21st. It seems the lawyer who is defending Saddam for his upcoming trial has been found dead. He had two gunshots to the head. Apparently, someone seemed to think he wasn't a good defense for Saddam. Since many Democrats don't think we should be in Iraq and since they seemed to feel that things were better than when Saddam was in charge, perhaps some of these Democrats should go and offer to defend Saddam for free. I seem to remember Sean Penn saying that Saddam wasn't that bad of a guy and that bad things were not happening in Iraq. Perhaps Sean would like to go over and testify on Saddam's behalf. You know, be a character witness. Perhaps that could help Saddam out, because geez, if Hollywood thinks Saddam's a swell guy, then how could the Iraqi court ever come to terms with convicting him?

I have a good choice for sending someone over there to defend Saddam. Plus, the guy seems to be invincible in terms of anything life threatening. Actually, now that I think of it, I'm thinking of two people. Let's send over Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton to defend Saddam. Teddy boy seems pretty invincible doesn't he? I mean, he managed to be the only survivor in a car that plunged under water. His female passenger didn't seem to survive. Oh wait, touchy subject for Teddy Boy. But, it clearly shows that he's invincible right. I'm sure that Ted could be very capable in defending Saddam in Crimes Against Humanity.

Now, how about former President Clinton? He had all those heart problems right? He licked that pretty good! He survived all kinds of horrible things the Republicans said about him didn't he? Obviously, the guy's got some skills! Plus, he's extremely charismatic, so, I'm sure he could smooze the judges in the case and get Saddam off. I'm sure it would hinge on what the meaning of "Dead" meant in terms of Saddam killing all those innocent people. Or maybe, it depends on the definition of "innocent", as in innocent people.

And, if Saddam's not happy with the way things are going, just let his supporters try and take a shot at Ted and Bill. Bring it on, they're like Keith Richards, you can't kill them! It's just not possible! Look at what they've survived already. I'm sure the last thing Saddam's former lawyer was thinking right before he got two gun shots to the head was "you know, Saddam's really not that bad of a guy!"

It's YOUR responsibility!

Here we go again. It's fall. Know what that means? Time to vote! Here in Washington State, we have many initiative from which to choose as to how to vote on them. We have Tim Eyeman's latest tax cutting/government responsibility initiative, I-900. We also have I-330 and I-336 from which to decide upon. But, what do we really know about these? Am I going to declare one way or the other from which you should vote? Nope. It's up to you to make the choice. However, what I will say is that we all have the right to vote. Sure, many of us get bogged down with the negative political ads, as well as the often times confusing the way each side seems to bicker. However, it is up to us, as voters, to wade through this crap and come to some kind of conclusion regarind it.

Many voters will simply say "screw it" and just not vote at all. They may feel that it is something they're not informed enough on, it may be something that they are so confused by that they may not wish to vote, or, perhaps they don't like the choices before them. What I will argue is that it is our responsibility to become informed and to come to some decision regarding these issues. Walter Kronkite recently said that the voters simply are not informed enough in this day and age and the fact that people were still voting was a very dangerous thing. Of course however, Mr. Kronkite was referring to why Conservatives control both the House, the Senate and the Presidency. Conservatives are getting elected, so therefore, the voters are just not informed enough. THe premise being, of course, that if you find yourself voting Conservative, then you obviously are not informed. Because, if you were informed, you'd be voting Democrat I suppose.

In any case though, it is our responsibility to become informed to the best of our ability. Most everyone in Washington State will get a Voter's Pamphlet. This will give you the low down on what you need to do to make an informed decision as to what to do. Now, if afte reading the voters pamphlet, you'd like to find out more information, then, that is up to you to do so. However, we should never be so content as to simply not seek out information or not vote. The founding fathers went to great length to ensure that people had the right to vote. Initially, it was only to rich land owners. Then, eventually more people were given the right to vote. We were given this right, we should be taken advantage of it. When, in modern times, we often times have up to half of the population not even voting, it's a sad state of affairs. The same people who refuse to vote, are the same ones who cry moan and whine about the state of affairs either locally, at the state level or federally.

We need to get off our "cryin'" box and start voting. "I'm not informed" is not an excuse any longer. We need to start taking responsibility for our rights that we were given, as well as the rights that our military fight for daily for us. We have available to us, a minimal source of information in the form of the voters pamphlet which is sent to everyone that has a mailbox. So, we now should have no excuses. Pick it up, and, read it. Find out some information for yourself and become informed. Take notes if you have to, there's nothing wrong with that! If you take away one thing from this week's column, may it be this: If you don't vote, you've no right to complain about the way things are!

The RIGHT choice?

President Bush now has made his choice for his next U.S. Supreme Court nominee. Harriet Miers. The question is she a qualified individual. She's been a lawyer for a number of years, so, she has experience on the other side of the bench. Certainly, she would be capable of getting at the core of an argument and asking the appropriate questions that need to be asked to come to an informed decision based on the U.S. Constitution. She's argued cases in front of judges before, so, she knows about making a good argument and a bad one. This is a very valuable tool when being a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. However, was she the RIGHT choice?

Let's not forget, Senator Harry Reid was one senator who brought this woman up. Senator "up" Chuck Schummer did not sound so negative to her as he did to Judge Roberts. Many Democrats, in fact, seem to think she's not such a bad choice. If this doesn't frighten you, it should! When many Democrats seem to be in favor of her so quickly, we should all be worried! Not that the Democrats should be spitting blood, but, it just seems as though they like her a bit too much. We don't know much about her. We know there certainly were more Conservative choices available to President Bush. Some Hispanic were disappointed that President Bush did not take advantage of this pivotal point in history whereby he could have made history by choosing a Hispanic for the nomination; something which I agree with. I know that President Bush did have a handful of Hispanic choices available, one of which was a woman. Why did he not choose this person? I would have rather that he did. I am nervous that Harriet Miers could be another David Souter. As you may remember, he appeared Conservative, but as we have found out, he is quite Liberal! He is the one who was the swing vote on the "eminent domain" issue that was before the court recently. You know, the one that says the government (any governmental body be it local, state or federal) can take your property if they feel they can develop it into something that will garner them more in property taxes or other tax revenue.

The question remains, who is Harriet Miers. I would have rathered that President Bush picked a known Conservative, not one that we know so little about. Plus, the fact that Harriet Miers has no judicial experience bothers me. I feel that President Bush should withdraw his nomination of Harriet Miers and choose the first Hispanic Female on the U.S. Supreme Court instead. The president had better choices available to him that had been known Conservatives as well as had more judicial experience. After all, when Democrats seem to like the nominee more than Conservatives, we have to ask oursevles about the choice of the nominee. Is she the RIGHT choice, or, the LEFT choice? I urge you to contact your senator (www.senate.gov) and express your views to them. We can only hope that Harriet Miers does not get confirmed, and, hope that a true Conservative is then picked. Please contact President Bush and let him know how you feel at www.thewhitehouse.gov

Hollywood NEEDS Serenity!

If you are like me, perhaps you find yourself getting tired of all the crap that Hollywood puts out there for our viewing entertainment. I have grown quite tired of the crap they pass out to us, and think we'll be interested in. Over the last year or so, I have often wondered, "has Hollywood run completely out of ideas?" We have seen many movies that have been re-made, the most recent that come to mind are "the longest yard" and "the bad news bears". Why are these movies being re-made? What's the point? The writers in Hollywood had nothing else to do, so they thought they'd rip off another movie and tweak the script just enough that the moron movie goers would give it a pass? Worse yet, are those movies that are re-made just enough that it's essentially the same movie, just more modernized. The best example I can think of is "Guess who?" which is a re-make of "Guess who's coming to dinner?" Rather than having a black man coming to the home of a white family, it is now a white man coming to the home of a black family. Wow, that's what I call originality!

Then, of course, we have all the movies that are made from TV shows! The Beverly Hillbillies, Bewitched, The Honeymooners and the Dukes of Hazard are the best examples here. Incidentally, I've read recently that "I dream of Genie" is in development. Great. From what I understand, Jessica Alba is interested in the lead role of Genie and she'll most certainly be baring more than Barbara Eden ever did. Great, a soft core porn flick! What a way to pay homage to a TV show! So, I guess we'll be seeing "All in the Family" and "the Jeffersons" eventually? Clearly, when you begin making movies out of TV shows, you're running out of ideas!

So, what should Hollywood be doing? Well, how about some original ideas for a change? Case in point, the movie Serenity. It is a movie that picks up promptly where the TV show "Firefly" left off. You may (or may not) remember that Firefly was a short lived television show from 2003 that was on the Fox Network channel. The TV show, much like the movie, was quite original and, Hollywood just couldn't have that!

Seriously, the TV show was a science fiction show combined with a Western Theme. It takes place 500 years in the future, and, in the future, everyone is bi-lingual. "oh, English/Spanish" you're thinking. Wrong. English/Chinese! Bet you didn't see THAT one coming! Now, tell me THAT'S not original! How did Joss Weddon (Firefly and Serenity creator) come up with that? Granted, he was pretty original with the TV show Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, but, this was a bit of a different move for him.

The movie picks up, as I said, where the TV show left off. The show was cancelled not because it wasn't popular, but rather, just out of the blue. Because the fans demanded it to return, a movie was written and produced. It is quite an original story that pitches humor, sci-fi, westerns and action all in one story. It is truly well written, with meaningful dialogue and a concrete story that definitely holds your interest. Nothing is predictable perse, but keeps you jumping and interested in what's happening. Plus, there are some deaths by the end of the movie that do not infer a happy ending.

The only way that we, as movie goers, can expect Hollywood to produce better, more entertaining and more well written scripts, is to support those types of movies when they do come out. So, I ask you one thing. Support the new movie Serenity. I don't think you'll be disappointed, and, you can honestly say, you've not seen anything quite like it. Please go see this movie and send a message to Hollywood that the same old crap, just won't do. We want something original and well written. We want Serenity!