The Birth of Liberalism in Iraq

The Iraqi journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, 28, a correspondent for Al Baghdadia, an independent Iraqi television station, stood up about 12 feet from Mr. Bush and shouted in Arabic: “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!” He then threw a shoe at Mr. Bush, who ducked and narrowly avoided it. (This is from a NY Times article.)

After seeong this incident, I have a major question about the capabilities of the Secret Service. I mean, for crying out loud, the man had time to take off both his shoes and throw them at the most highly secured man in the world, but that is for another day.

Liberals never fail to understand the irony of thier protest. As a child in elementary school I remember being amazed that someone would burn a flag that gives the freedom to burn the flag. It just seems disrespectful and moronic in my view to burn the symbol that stands for your freedom to carry matches.

Enter this journalist.

He throws his shoes at the leader of the people who have paid a high price for his ability to dissent without getting his head removed and placed at the dinner table of some tyrant. This reminds me of an old Alanis Morisette song, I mean--isn't it ironic, dont you think?

If i could have a few minutes with this reporter i would like to explain to him a couple things about his newly acquired freedom. It would go a little something like this.

In a free society--When you dissent--you debate. You get enough people for your cause and you make a change on paper. The one thing you need to understand is---when it time to turn to violence--you better have enough courage to put a foot in that shoe and try kicking a little. I dont care how many examples of left wing loons that you have seen acting like a bunch of idiots on the tv. Their freedom was paid for by someone who didn't stand back and talk while he threw his loafers. I am sure their freedom was purchased by a man staring down a musket, not saying a word, possibly trembling with fear, and yet understanding that he may have to pay a price where idiots like you dont "loose thier head." Make no bones about it, freedom is not acquired by the tossing of shoes, or in words of a journalist, but in the blood of soldiers.

Thank God for the men who have paid that price with thier blood so I can write these words and may God never lay in my path the requirement of this price for my posterity. Also may God have pity on these poor souls who are incapable of realizing that--that which they fight---fought for the ability of them to fight.

Life

The first inalienable right which was deemed "self-evident" from the founding fathers was LIFE. The idea takes precedent in the conservative fight via the abortion issue. The fight over abortion hinges on LIFE and when it begins. I would also be as bold as to say that you can either believe life begins at one of either two times. (Well you can believe however but any other belief would be illogical)

1: Conception

2: When a baby takes it first breath.

Here is why

An attempt at saying life begins at the end of the first Trimester would imply that there is a "change" in a child from the last second of the first trimester to the first second of the second trimester. This just doesn't make sense as well as any other attempt to say there is a specific TIME period when a fetus becomes life.

An attempt at saying life begins at the development of a heart (or any organ) would imply that life begins at different times for every person. Development does not happen at the same time for every person so it would be possible for one fetus to be "older" than another but not yet "life." Which agains seems senseless.

So after viewing these ideas then it would seem to me that one could logically take the stance that life begins @ conception or at the first breath of a child, when the fetus becomes self-sustaining.

Now here is why the self sustaining argument (although maybe logical) is wrong.

First- The majority of all Americans (even many abortion supporters) believe that Partial birth abortion is wrong, however these take place before the child has taken it's first breath. If its not yet life then there should be no problem.

Second- There is no difference between a fetus at it's last moments inside the womb vs the first few outside. The only changes is the environment which it is in, not it's capabilities.

and here is why the conception argument is correct.

First- Every person that is alive can be traced back to conception.

Second- Since there is no third state of "existence" that I am aware of--you would have to say a fetus after conception is dead if its not alive. I would then ask--Does it grow, because it would be the first growing dead thing ever.

Now-

Many liberals would say that I am a bigot or sexist for not being Pro-Choice. ("Pro-choice" welcome to the biggest curve ball coming out of the left these days.) See if you or I are not pro-choice we must be anti-choice right? THIS IS ABSURD!!! I am for everyone's right to choose, just not when it comes to effecting the rights of another LIFE. I am for the choice that says if anyone does not want to create life then they must make the neccessary CHOICES not to do so. So I am for choices; however, I am not for denying Life to anyone. Life being an inalienable right that is self evident to everyone except those who are pro-choice.

An Attempt at an Explanation

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," Pure poetry. (why does no one talk like that anymore?)Lets break down-- WE= The founding fathers of this nation. Truths = Absolute. Self evident = easily seen or understood; common sense.So the founding fathers of this nation hold these absolute truths to be easily understood or common sense.


I would believe this depiction of government holds true and would be considered the birth of conservatism. Here is how,


Life- People are entitled to it. Anything that unjustly takes life should be banned. Hmm..where does this place abortion?


Liberty- People are allowed to be free. Anything can be done that does not harm another individual. A lot of wiggle room here but err on the side of freedom.


Pursuit of Happiness- people need a system in which they CAN succeed- not must--or have to--or just in case they don't we will hand it to them.


Over my next couple of entries I will attempt to dissect these three areas and how they tie in to my beliefs. Let me know what you think.

Say it aint so Joe!

Joe Biden promised us a test, and due to the recent events in Mumbai, India we believe it is coming. Many different types of opinions are drawn off this idea. Some say-It will not happen, others say-What will the government do?



In this argument lies the reason why I love those who considered themselves Anti-Federalist. Mainly because they took a look at the Constitution and said this document does not explain what we CAN do. Ultimately paving the way for the bill of rights.



One may ask-how can you make this assessment? When the Bill of Rights was written no one was considering this form of terrorism. I would agree and that's why I love it. See--the people who fathered the Bill of Rights understood that Free people need to be able to own weapons to defend themselves. The type of attack was immaterial. That's why I can assure you that when (God please forbid) this attack happens in the USA it will be in a place where people are not allowed to defend themselves i.e. school, hospital, area with strict gun laws such as Washington D.C.



I, being a resident South Carolinian, have little fear considering the state just ran a sales tax free weekend on firearms. Here in lies the beauty--We are ALL ARMED. If terrorist show up in Greer South Carolina tomorrow there will be a bunch of country boys figuring out how to mount their dead trophies on the wall because very simply we shoot back.



I do however fear for those who live in areas where they can not fight back. Those people who support these types of laws do not understand American History.



Did you know......



In the United States, the first organized police service was established in Boston in 1838, New York in 1844, and Philadelphia in 1854.



This time period is over 60 years after Independence, so how did the people defend themselves against the bad guys, or was this the only time in history there were no bad guys. Let me say--I do not believe in vigilante justice, there is no need for vigilantism is today society. But I also understand what was meant by Robert A Heinlein when he stated an armed society is a polite society.



See, I look at it like this.....



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



And believe it or not--our enemies (the bad guys) understand where they can get away with these atrocities and where they cant. Why do you think--the so called crazy ones never run and start shooting up a police station, or a gun store--it always a school. My answer is simple they're not crazy enough.



And for those of you who believe these attacks are not planned in the paths of least resistance read this exerpt from an AP article about the attacks.

In the first wave of the attacks, two young gunmen armed with assault rifles blithely ignored more than 60 police officers patrolling the city's main train station and sprayed bullets into the crowd.

Bapu Thombre, assistant commissioner with the Mumbai railway police, said the police were armed mainly with batons or World War I-era rifles and spread out across the station.
"They are not trained to respond to major attacks," he said.

The gunmen continued their rampage outside the station. They eventually ambushed a police van, killed five officers inside — including the city's counter terrorism chief — and hijacked the vehicle as two wounded officers lay bleeding in the back seat.

"The way Mumbai police handled the situation, they were not combat ready," said Jimmy Katrak, a security consultant. "You don't need the Indian army to neutralize eight to nine people."

Constable Arun Jadhav, one of the wounded policemen, said the men laughed when they noticed the dead officers wore bulletproof vests.

With no SWAT team in this city of 18 million, authorities called in the only unit in the country trained to deal with such crises. But the National Security Guards, which largely devotes its resources to protecting top officials, is based outside of New Delhi and it took the commandos nearly 10 hours to reach the scene.

That gave the gunmen time to consolidate control over two luxury hotels and a Jewish center, said Sahni.

As the siege at dragged on, local police improperly strapped on ill-fitting bulletproof vests. Few had two-way radios to communicate.

Even the commandos lacked the proper equipment, including night vision goggles and thermal sensors that would have allowed them to locate the hostages and gunmen inside the buildings, Sahni said.

Security forces announced they had killed four gunmen and ended the siege at the mammoth Taj Mahal hotel on Thursday night, only to have fighting erupt there again the next day. Only on Saturday morning did they actually kill the last remaining gunmen.