"Obama should apologise to Iran: Ahmadinejad"

Well, if you were curious as to what the Muslim world's response would be to Obama's "open hand" speech a few nights ago, there it is. And this, coming from THE most influential Muslim leader in the world.

So what, exactly, did anyone expect? Did they expect the entire Muslim community to just say, "Aw, shucks, Hussein, we're sorry we killed thousands of your innocent countrymen! Here, let's shake on it, then we can hold hands and sit around the campfire singing 'Kumbaya!'"

Not hardly. Anyone who knows anything about Islam and the Muslim hardliners' way of thinking should have known better from the start. Which leads you straight back to what I said earlier about our new President's lack of leadership experience.

For anyone who wants to read the entire story, here's the link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090128/world/iran_us_diplomacy2ndlead

Some excerpts from the story and my comments on them:

"You were standing against the Iranian people in the past 60 years," Ahmadinejad said during an address in the western region of Khermenshah that was broadcast by state television.
"Those who speak of change must apologise to the Iranian people and try to repair their past bad acts and the crimes they committed against Iran."

Of course, the only people who see ANY crimes having been committed against Iran are, of course, the Iranians and their insane leader. But that's old news.

"Meet people, talk to them with respect and put an end to the expansionist policies. If you talk about change it must put an end to the US military presence in the world, withdraw your troops and take them back inside your borders."

Hmm, I wonder why Ahmadinejad wants us to pull all of our troops back into the US? While it's not really a bad idea - God knows we could sure use them on the US/Mexico border to give the Border Patrol a hand - you have to wonder what HIS motives are? Maybe because the US presence in the Gulf effectively prevents Iran's own expansionism into other countries? Ya think?

"Ahmadinejad said the advocates of change must 'stop supporting the Zionists, outlaws and criminals.' "

All the easier to conquer Israel that way, ya know.

"As I said in my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us."

Are you possibly that naive, Mr. President? You mean to tell me that your staff of foreign affairs "experts" and military advisors haven't told you that Iran is one of THE most hard-line Islamic nations in the world, and that their leader is a fanatical, radical Muslim who is hell-bent on destroying anything Christian, with the United States at the top of the list followed by Israel? And when the Iranian president refuses to unclench his fist, then what are you prepared to do? Use harsh language against him? And when the former Gitmo prisoners that you've freed rejoin their terrorist organizations and Ahmadinejad or bin Laden direct them to attack the US on OUR soil, what then?

WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO THEN?

When you're confronted by a rabid dog, Mr. President, you don't extend your hand to it so he can bite it off.

You pull out the biggest gun you have and blow his fuckin' brains out.

IHC

Obama's First Big Mistake

And so it begins. The lack of leadership experience of our new President has started to show, and it is showing in what I hope will not eventually turn out to be a most dramatic way.

This week, the new President issued an Executive Order in which he ordered the closing of the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This closing is to take place within one year.

Only thing is, he ordered the closing before he decided what to do with the people incarcerated there.

Some of them have been released outright, and on tonight's news I saw video footage of these former prisoners back in their own country, draped with ammo and carrying AK-74s, swearing allegiance to Al Queda and praising Allah for a second chance to kill infidels.

Are we surprised? Hell, no, we're not surprised! At least, I'm not. And I will continue not to be surprised when these former prisoners, accompanied by the others who are surely to be released within the next year, stage another attack on the United States and kill dozens more innocent Americans.

And when - not if, mind you, but when - that happens, the blood will be on YOUR hands, Mr. President. Sure hope you can live with that.

On the other hand, I fully agree with the CIA's role in interrogations of terrorist prisoners being shut down. Too much "spooky" stuff - pun kinda intended, but kinda not - going on when those guys get involved. Yeah, I know you can't just play nice with the bad guys, give them something cool to drink and then expect them to answer your questions, but I also don't agree with torture under ANY circumstances. Period. So I'm glad to see those guys getting the boot from that part of our military operations.

Still, the thought of the message that President Obama has sent our Muslim enemies chills me right down to the bone. If this man had one ounce of leadership experience, he would know that with an enemy as ruthless and dedicated as Al Queda, you can't show one ounce of anything that would be considered a weakness, because they will capitalize on it tenfold. It will make us appear to be weak, and if you've read the Qu'aran as I have, you know that Islam considers weakness of heart a sin punishable by death, which means that the terrorists absolutely will stage another attack on our soil.

And that hasn't happened since 9/11/01, thanks to former President Bush.

And hidden inside all this was the Executive Order effectively suspending all pending changes to governmental operating policies issued by the Bush administration until the Obama administration can "review them for legality." Which is, of course, bullshit.

This includes, by the way, the new policy which would allow holders of Concealed Weapons Permits to carry concealed weapons in National Parks. Seems that the first shot in Obama's war against gun owners and the Second Amendment has been fired.

As I've said before, it's gonna be a long four years. I just hope too many innocent Americans don't die because of our new President's lack of leadership.

IHC

“Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.”

As much as I wish I could take credit for that quote, I can't. Those words were spoken by President Theodore Roosevelt almost a hundred years ago, and they are even more true today than they were then. When he first spoke them, he was referring to the rise in immigration to the United States from Europe, and about the idea of immigrants learning the language of their new home. As you can see, he was more than all in favor of it, and was quite vocal about it.

I hold the exact same beliefs he did, and am just as vocal about it.

The United States is the ONLY country in the civilized world that you can immigrate to and NOT be expected to learn the native language. As a military man, I had the opportunity to travel to all parts of the globe, and in every foreign land in which I was stationed, the people there expected you to learn THEIR language and were very unsympathetic to you if you refused to do so. They made the obvious concessions to military folks who were only in the country for a short time, but if you were there for any extended period of time - or if you had established a permanent residence there - they fully expected you to learn their language and do things THEIR way, not yours.

It's called "assimilation," and it's a good idea. Like the old saying goes, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." The immigrants from Europe who came here around the turn of the 20th century knew this, and taught their children two languages - the language of their ancestral home (which in most cases was Italian) and the language of their new home. English. Today's immigrants have no such intentions, unfortunately.

One of the things you'll notice when you go to a foreign land is that in a lot of places the signs are printed in two languages, the first being the native language and the second being in English. Why English? Simple - because English is the language used as a "second language" in just about every other nation on Earth, and because a lot of countries teach English as a MANDATORY subject in school. When I was stationed in Korea in 1979 I was told to expect small schoolchildren to come up to me on the street and try to talk to me to practice their English, and that's exactly what happened.

But here in the United States, you can walk into just about any store in any town in any state and see the signs printed in two languages, the first being English (of course), and the second being Spanish.

Spanish.

Why Spanish? Simple - because the large majority of immigrants to the United States in this day and age are from Mexico, and Spanish is the language of the land there.

But this isn't Mexico, and the "language of the land" HERE is ENGLISH!

There is aboslutely NO reason why I, a natural born citizen of the United States, should walk into a department store and see the signs printed in ANY language other than the language of the land - ENGLISH. After all, this is America, NOT Mexico!

I am a firm believer in the movement to designate English as the Official Language of the United States. Why? Simple - it's the language that our Founding Fathers and the original colonists spoke, and it's the language that ALL of our constitutional and legal documents are written in. And if you want to become a citizen of this great nation, I also believe in a legal requirment that you be fluent in English - that means reading, writing, and speaking it - BEFORE you are granted citizenship, and that you must meet this requirement within five years. Sooner, if possible.

There are those that would call this line of thinking "narrow-minded" or "unsympathetic," and that's fine. I really don't care what anyone else would call it.

Because I call it PATRIOTIC.

IHC

So we have a new President

I wish I could get excited about it, but I just can't. And I tried really hard to, as well, but I just can't get excited about Barack Obama being the new President of the United States.

I am, however, glad to see that the nation finally elected a black President. I knew it was bound to happen sooner or later, but I am glad that it happened in my lifetime. (Had it been for all the right reasons instead of the one, single, most WRONG reason, I'd be ecstatic about it. But I digress.) Anyway, today's inauguration of the nation's first black President shows that the old adage about anything being possible in America is absolutely true. If you're willing to dedicate yourself to working for what you want instead of sitting on your ass expecting everything to be given to you, you can become whatever you imagine yourself to be. Nothing or no one can stop you or stand in your way. For this to finally be proven, I am VERY glad.

But will it be enough? We'll see in about two years or so.

Getting back on track...I can't get excited about Obama being sworn in for several reasons, those reasons being:

1) He's pro-gun control. His voting record in Congress and the statements he has made about the Second Amendment prove this to be a fact, not something dreamed up by his detractors. That, plus all you have to do is look at his choice for Attorney General.

2) He's a closet socialist, which - if it takes hold, which I kinda doubt - will absolutely ruin America.

3) He has this absolutely ludicrous idea of "spreading the wealth" around. Just how he's going to do that and what he hopes to accomplish, I have no idea. To me, all that says is that the people in our nation who refuse to dedicate themselves to improving their lives and making something of themselves will have yet another reason to sit on their asses and have things handed to them. Stupid is as stupid does, I've heard.

4) He speaks of change, yet he appoints Washington old-timers to all of his major cabinet posts. And of those people he appoints, the majority of them are Clinton-era cronies. Looks to me like it's going to be business as usual for the next four years, and that not much of anything is going to change. Except the political party of the next President, that is, and the political makeup of the next Congress two years from now.

5) He has ZERO leadership experience. None. Zip. Nada. Which is a point that our not-so-friendly allies across the oceans will absolutely expound on. And who does he have to go to for backup? Hillary Rodham "Pinned Down By Sniper Fire" Clinton, whose leadership experience amounts to almost as little as his. No, you can't count being First Lady as leadership experience. Sorry about that.

All I can say now is something I said in December when I first started this blog: all I hope now is that he's half as good as he says he is, and only half as bad as I think he is.

For the sake of the nation, I hope that's right.

IHC

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism..."

"...The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.”

This is a quote from an address President Theodore Roosevelt gave to the New York Knights of Columbus on October 12, 1915. The man nailed it right on the head nearly a hundred years ago! You'd think he was pscychic or something, huh? Here's a few more for you.

“Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.”

“We can have no "50-50" allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all.”

I cannot tell you how much I agree with those last two quotes! I agree with all of them, but the last two about learning English and having a '50-50 allegiance' are two of my favorite quotes of all time!

These quotes pretty much sum up why I hate the use of hyphenated terms when speaking of one's nationality, and why I absolutely refuse to use them. To claim to be of a nationality in which being an American is listed SECOND is, to me, abhorrent and reprehensible. This tells me in no uncertain terms that the person using a hyphenated term to describe their nationality is more proud of the first country in the title than they are of being an American, and that just absolutely goes against everything I believe in! I am an American FIRST and FOREMOST, and that's all there is to it.

Were I to subscribe to the use of hyphenated labels as some folks do, I could call myself all kinds of things. My grandmother on my father's side had the last name of Martin, so I could call myself an "Irish-American." My father's family name comes from Scotland as does my mother's family name of Burkett, so I could call myself a "Scottish-American."

But I don't do this. I absolutely REFUSE to do this, and for one simple reason: I am an AMERICAN, I am an American FIRST and FOREMOST, and that simple fact takes a back seat to NO ONE or NOTHING!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you should ignore your family history and heritage - not at all! But instead of using that insulting and unpatriotic hyphenated term, why not just say that you're an American of whatever descent? Like me, I'm an American of Scottish and Irish descent; my wife is an American of Italian descent. But we're both AMERICANS, first and foremost.

And that's the point. I, for one, have ALWAYS been proud of America and of being an American, unlike our about-to-be-inaugurated president and his wife. No matter what America does, I'll always be proud of my country and will defend her with my last ounce of strength and to my last breath.

I'll talk about the "learn English within five years" quote later in the week.

IHC

Someone Visited Me Tonight

I'm just not sure who it was.

My wife and I were sitting on our sectional couch watching TV tonight, she stretched out on the end where she could put her feet up and me sitting in the bend of the sectional where the cushion is the firmest. All of a sudden, I got a strong - no, make that very strong - whiff of the scent of flowers immediately to my left, right next to me. I mean, it was so strong that it smelled like someone was holding a bunch of flowers - roses, actually - about six inches from the left side of my face. The aroma stayed for about fifteen seconds or so, and then was gone as quickly as it came. Of course, I told my wife what had just happened, and her response surprised me.

"Someone who's dead just visited you," she said.

"What?" I replied, "what are you talking about?"

"Whenever you smell the aroma of flowers, it means that someone you loved who has passed has come to visit you. My grandmother smelled flowers all the time after my grandfather died, so someone you know who has died just came to see you."

Huh.

Now I don't shake easily, but this shook me, and it shook me hard. Not in a bad way, mind you, but it shook me just the same. And what shook me about it was this: I had just had my first paranormal experience!

Do I believe what my wife told me? Absolutely. Don't ask me why, I just do. I believe in the afterlife, I believe in spirits - ghosts, if you will - so I absolutely believe what Gina just told me about my having just been visited. I just wish I knew who it was.

The first person who came to mind was my best friend in the whole world, Chuck Feimster. Chuck was my brother-in-law's cousin, and all three of us were in the same unit in the Air Force together. Chuck and I were like brothers, closer than you can imagine - hell, we even looked alike. There wasn't anything I wouldn't have done for that man, and he felt the same way about me. He separated from the service while I stayed in, and in April of 1986 he was murdered. Four years prior to that, Chuck and I had a falling-out that came to blows, and we had not spoken since. I was waiting for the time to be right so I could apologize to him because the fight was my fault, but I waited too long. He was dead before I ever saw him or talked to him again.

The second person who came to mind was my Aunt Helen on my father's side. She was my favorite aunt, and when I was ten years old she asked me if I wanted to come over to her house and help her set up her Christmas tree. I did, and that started a tradition that I carried on until we moved from Virginia to North Carolina in 1972. She died of stomach cancer in March of 1989, and I was lucky enough to have had the chance to see her two weeks before she passed. I loved her in the same way you love your mother, only not quite as intense because she wasn't my mother - but I think you get the idea. I didn't have any leave left over as I was getting ready to transfer to Korea for a year remote tour, so I couldn't go to her funeral. I've been to see her since, but it's just not the same. Six years later I brought her husband, Mason, to her, and every time I got the chance while I was stationed in Virginia in the last eight years of my Air Force career I'd go see them.

It could also have been Mason, but I kinda doubt that. Mason just wasn't that kinda guy, and I wasn't anywhere near as close with him as I was with Helen and Chuck.

There are one or two other people it may have been, but they've been gone for more than 40 years, so I kinda doubt that. My money is on either Chuck or Helen.

Either way, someone visited me tonight. Someone came to wish me a happy birthday, and I just wish I knew who it was.

IHC

"Obama Family Visits Lincoln Memorial"

Hate to get the day started off on a sour note so early, but I just can't help myself. I'm sitting here at my computer, drinking a cup of coffee before jumping in the shower to get ready for work, when I'm scanning CNN.com and see this headline: "OBAMA FAMILY VISITS LINCOLN MEMORIAL."

I mean, really...who gives a damn!?

This, to me, is a clear indication of what we can expect from the news media over the next four years. Never before have we heard zip from the news media about a president-elect visiting any of the many memorials in Washington, DC before his inauguration, and I'm quite sure they have. But when the first black president-elect (and I absolutely REFUSE to use the hyphenated term - see my very first post) visits the Lincoln Memorial, it makes front-page news on CNN.com, and I'll bet if I were to turn on the TV right now, I'd see the video of it.

But like I said, who gives a damn?

The story also goes on to say that Obama will use the Lincoln bible to take his oath of office, and that he's the first president elect to use that bible since Lincoln used it in 1861. A nice piece of trivia, there, but the reason it's there is quite clear to me.

The pandering to the first black president by the news media has begun.

On top of that, I get the impression that Mr. Obama is trying to send white America a message by his choice of bible to use for the inauguration. If he is, then the message is received loud and clear - at least by me.

You, Mr. Obama, may just turn out to be a true "black" president after all.

For the sake of the nation, I hope I'm wrong.

Either way, it's gonna be a long four years.

Hell of a way to start out your birthday....

IHC

Let Us Pray...Or Maybe Not

Anyone who’s known me for any length of time knows that once I make my mind up about something, it’s damned near impossible to get me to change it. For that to happen, you’ve got to come up with something pretty solid and substantial, something that will tell me in my own stubborn mind that, hey, maybe I’m wrong about this.

Well, mark this day down on your calendars, friends and neighbors, because I changed my mind about something today that I’ve had the same opinion on since I was a teenager…and that was a long time ago.

Ever since I was old enough to understand what it was all about and form an opinion on it, I’ve always believed in prayer in public schools. Mainly because I grew up with it, also because I thought that it was just a good idea considering that we live in a country that was founded on Christian principles, so why not start the school day off with the Pledge of Allegiance and the Lord’s Prayer? Yep, I’d held that opinion all my life.

Until today. Today is the day that my opinion on prayer in public schools changed from one of support to one of non-support. And the reason why is both very simple and surprising at the same time.

As I said, our country was founded on Christian principles, and at the time of the founding of our country the majority of the people in it, including the Founding Fathers, were all of the same religion. And since the vast majority of people involved in the founding of the nation were of the same religion and held the same beliefs, then it was only logical that they should include this religion in the dogma of the new nation. That’s where the “In God We Trust” on all of the currency comes from, by the way. But as our country evolved over the centuries, the makeup of the people changed drastically. The larger we became as a nation, the more immigrants we attracted. And the more immigrants who came here, the more the makeup of the nation changed in its religious beliefs. We are now to the point where there is no “vast majority” of people holding the same religious beliefs as there was two hundred plus years ago when our nation was formed. You can find just about every type of religion known to man being practiced right here in the United States, and in very many ways that’s not a bad thing.

But for those who support prayer in public schools, it’s a very bad thing, and here’s why.

The reason I changed my mind about prayer in public schools comes from something I read on another web site today which caused me to sit back, go “Huh!” about my beliefs, and then immediately change them. It’s very simple, really, and it’s like this:

If the government decides to allow prayer in public schools, then they have to allow prayer FOR ALL KNOWN RELIGIONS, not just Christianity. The government can’t say, “Well, we’re only going to allow Christian prayers in public schools” because that’s a clear violation of the First Amendment. So if the government ever decides to rescind the banning of prayer from public schools, that opens the door for prayers from all religions no matter what.

Think about it. How effective would the school day be if you had to stop teaching twice, once in the morning and once in the afternoon, to allow the Muslim students to say their daily prayers? Islam requires prayers five times a day, by the way, and they must be done out of view of “infidels” (non-Muslims) which means that the schools would have to set up and establish a private area for them to do this.

How difficult would it be to schedule activities on the weekend since those of the Jewish faith cannot operate motor vehicles on that day, since Saturday is their Sabbath and their religion prohibits it?

How long would it take to say prayers in the morning if you have students of five or six different religions in the class? How fast do you think the students themselves would get tired of it?

As much as I believe in God and the power of prayer, and as much as I was a firm supporter of prayer in public schools, I can no longer support that idea for the reasons I’ve stated above. If this were 200 years ago and the primary religion in our country was Christianity, if there were no Muslims or Jews or Christian Scientists or Buddhists in our country, then I’d be all for it. And so would the rest of the nation, just as they were 200 years ago.

But it’s 2009 now, and things have changed. I am by NO means “politically correct,” but I do like to think that I am fair. And in the interest of fairness, if you’re going to allow Christian prayers in public schools, then you’re going to have to allow prayers of ALL religions as well.

And that’s just not practical.

IHC