Just looks REAL bad.....

Although I do find myself trusting President Bush on most of his decisions, I find myself conflicted on this issue of the UAE (United Arab Emerates) taking over control of six of our U.S. Ports. Rather, it's a company that's owned by the UAE that will take control over them. As I understand it, the U.S. Customs and Coast Guard will still be responsible for security for the ports, the UAE, Dubai Ports World, will simply be operating the ports. Regardless of the assurances, I still do not like this idea. There have been allegations that the UAE, while they apparently have been a staunch allay in our War on Terror, helped to financially support Al Qaeda and did back the Taliban. I find that disturbing. They may be our allies now, but, there is just some disturbing information about them in general right now.

President Bush is correct in saying, however, that we don't want to send mixed signals to our allies. This, I think, is primarily because a British company is in control of the six ports currently. There may be a little bit of Racial Profiling here in terms an Arab company looking to take over these ports. Although I've not heard such allegations made yet, I think that should not be ruled out. But then again, all the terrorists on Sept. 11th were Middle Eastern folks. So, in this case, is it wrong to say no to this company just because of its geographical location? It certainly makes me feel uneasy. However, I feel more comfortable feeling uneasy about it knowing the allegations against the UAE concerning their support of terror in the past. At least that way, I can have a clear conscience when I oppose this measure.

I am glad to know that President Bush claims his administration seriously examined this company before hand and that it is not a "fly by night" type of company, however, my worries are not alleviated. I do not appreciate President Bush saying I should not "fret" over it. I would very much like to fret over it. I do trust the President with security in what he has done so far, but, on this issue, I disagree with President Bush and feel it's the wrong move for him to make.

I am glad to see that both Republicans and Democrats are coming together on this, and, setting Partisan Politics aside here. President Bush vows to veto any bill that would make it illegal to allow a foreign owned company to take over operations of any port in the U.S. I can honestly say I'm glad to see the parties coming together on this. I am confident that, should President Bush veto this bill, that there will be enough votes to over-ride his veto on this.

I do not feel that the UAE should be taking over these ports. I think it's a bad choice, and, given the opposition to it, I think President Bush is making the wrong choice here. Part of leading, however, is doing what is sometimes necessary, but unpopular. So, the questions should be asked, is this necessary? I don't think it is.

I urge you to contact your Representatives and Senators in Congress and express your views on this. Go to www.house.gov or www.senate.gov and contact your people in Congress. Your people need to hear from you on this. If you oppose this, express that, if you support it, express that. Make your voice be heard. Also contact President Bush at the White House and express your views to him. www.whitehouse.gov

Why are others not held responsible?

There is such an outrage of late regarding Dick Cheney and his accidental shooting of a good friend of his during a hunting trip. Some reporters have inferred that Vice President Cheney should step down through their questions of "Is the Vice President going to resign?" Is this that big of a deal? Even politicians are now questioning Cheney on this. Why did it take so long for him to tell the American people? Why did they hide it? Well, perhaps, just perhaps, the main concern was getting medical attention for the guy first. Making sure he was ok first. Perhaps the Democrats and others with the outcry of late would rather that a hospital visit would have been postponed before a press conference could have been held?

Even though it has been said that really both Cheney and his hunting partner were both at fault, Cheney has gone on record as accepting responsibility because he is the one who pulled the trigger. Hillary Clinton has recently stated that she finds it very disturbing that the Bush Administration has hidden many things from the public and this latest thing with Cheney shooting his friend is just another pile on the heap of stuff they've been hiding from the public.

Really? She doesn't like it when administration, or perhaps individual people, hide stuff from the public? Hmm. Then why, I ask, did it take several months for her husband, President Clinton, to admit to an affair with an intern that he'd been denying for months that he eventually did admit too? Does she hold the same condemnation for her husband? How about Hillary and her "travel gate" affair that she hid from the public and refused to talk about? You will remember the event, where she fired everyone from the White House Travel Office. How about how she mysteriously couldn't find files from the Rose Law Firm that were part of the Whitewater investigation? She didn't admit to anything there, yet, she wanted Cheney to take responsibility for his actions!

And last, but probably the best example, is Ted Kennedy's car! How many hours went by before his car was discovered in Chapaqua with a dead woman in it? He's never taken responsibility for that as far as I know. So! Perhaps before Hillary starts accusing others of hiding things and not taking responsibility for it, maybe she should look at a few examples from her own political party.

Regardless of the whole thing, I'd still feel safer going hunting with Dick Cheney than riding over a bridge in Ted Kennedy's car! If you also agree with how blown out of proportion this thing has gotten, I encourage you to get on your computer and print out a sign that says "I FEEL SAFER HUNTING WITH DICK CHENEY THAN RIDING IN TED KENNEDY'S CAR!" Make sure you use "bold" font that's really dark, and, you'll want to use big enough letters to really piss off people behind you. But, depends where you live. You may get the finger, or, you may get a thumbs up. Then, put some tape on it and put it in the back window of your car! Just so he gets proper credit for it, the slogan actually came from Rush Limbaugh. May the force be with you!

Don't blow crap up in the name of Mohammod and maybe you won't be depicted that way......

Isn't it interesting that the Muslim World is SO outraged over the depiction of the Prophet Mohammod wearing a Turbin that is essentially a bomb with a lit fuse that is burning. Myself, I would be incredibly offended if anyone depicted Jesus in a negative way as well. I'll address this issue in a second. So, from this aspect, the cartoon is offensive. However, let's look at the modern Muslim World, shall we? We have Muslim terrorists all over the world waging war on Americans, waging war on U.S. troops and on Jews in Israel. Many Muslim terrorists are commiting acts of homicide (although described by them as suicide) by blowing themselves up with bombs to kill innocent people. Many are doing such in Israel with the intent of killing as many Jews as possible. Many are doing it to our troops in Iraq right now. The 9/11 terrorist hijackers, in fact, did the same thing when they flew planes into the World Trade Center. All of this is done in a "Jihad" against the West. Against Americans. Against our friends in other countries. This is all done in the name of Islam, and henceforth, in the name of Allah and the Prophet Mohammod. So, from this aspect, why is the controversial cartoon (pictured above) so outrageous to the Muslim people of the world? This is what your religion is fast becoming due mostly to the fanatics that you are allowing to hijack your faith.

Millions of Muslims are simply sitting back and not speaking up when Muslim terrorists are killing innocents in the name of Islam. They say nothing, they don't condem it, they don't speak out against it and say it's wrong. Rather, the opposite. You have radical Muslim Clerics who are actually encouraging these acts of murder. So, if the moderate Muslims are not speaking out against it, then how are people of other faiths and others throughout the world supposed to see Islam any differently than in that controversial cartoon? Because of these Radical Muslim Terrorists, Islam is evolving into a group of terrorists that willingly commit acts of murder against non-Muslims. It would then seem that the cartoon was entirely appropriate. Rather than rioting and destroying more property (which just reinforces the thoughts behind the cartoon as far as I'm concerned), why do the Moderate Muslims not step forward and demand calm and peaceful protests? Granted, a handful of more moderat Muslim Clerics have stepped forward and called for calm, but, by leaps and bounds not enough! If Moderate Muslims do not step forward and speak out against the acts of terror and condem them, they will lose what their religion has previously been and thought of by others. You will undoubtedly begin to earn the reputation that the cartoon suggests.

Now, regarding derogatory cartoons that depicts people in negative ways. The Muslims are not so innocent here. They have quite a history of Anti-Semetism on their part. Many Arab newspapers are forever depicting Jews in an extremely negative manner, and yet, Jews do not riot. They ignore it. They have done nothing to warrent depictions in the manner of the Anti-Semetic cartoons that you see above. The Muslim cartoon that is so controversial, well, we've already addressed that. Perhaps if the Radical Muslim Terrorists stopped blowing up innocent people in the name of Allah and Mohammod, they wouldn't be depicted that way. Rioting and destroying property only strengthens the message behind cartoon. Boycotting Danish products is a peaceful means of protest, and, they have every right to do so if they find the cartoon offensive. However, commiting acts of violence against Danish Ambassadors and their property in other countries is not acceptable. Stop blowing things up in the name of Mohammod and maybe you won't be depicted that way.