Now, Hilary says that, if she had known back then what she knows now, she would not have voted to go to war in Iraq!

My, oh my. Isn’t that called Hindsight? And, who wouldn’t do things differently if the future could be known in advance? Think of all the lives we could have saved if we had only known what the enemies’ plans were — in advance! Think of all the financial coups we could have pulled off if we had known how the markets were moving — in advance! Think of all the politicans we could NOT have elected if we had known they would use issues for political expediency — in advance!

Hilary voted for the war because that is what the evidence, and the political winds, demanded — at that time. Now, she wants to sneak in and claim the political advantage of being “against” the war due to a change in public opinion. I guess that is why she is a politician — only they are allowed to talk out of both sides of their mouth. And, only Hilary would have the crust to make such stupid comments and have the media pretend that her comments are honest and not politically driven!

1 – A new set of ethics for the media so they learn to report the news, not make the news.

2 – A new privacy wall that prohibits anyone from accessing someone else’s personal medical, financial, or other information, without that person’s consent.
a. This includes the media and the “public’s right to know” group.
b. Privacy means private.

3 – A new Democratic party that attempts to truly be bipartisan, and that stops damaging the war against terrorism by politicizing every issue.

4 – A new Democratic presidential hopeful who will be both capable and honest at the same time and not just someone who “wants” to be President.
a. Are Hilary or Obama or Edwards or Kerry really the best we can do?

5 – A new attitude that encourages people to work together rather than approach people and issues with aggression.
a. Let’s suppress talk and tv shows which encourage hostility.
b. Let’s require the UN to follow ethical standards.
c. Let’s teach our children to compliment others rather than denigrate them.

6 – A new understanding that tolerance is meant to smooth relationships, not to be used as a crutch for those who “want”, but don’t want to work for those “wants”.

7 – To abolish the ACLU and its mindless litany that they are the only true arbiters of “right and wrong.”

8 — More thankfulness from countries who benefit from the United States’ generosity and less criticism of us. We are a country that tries very hard to help others. It is time for those “others” to recognize our efforts.

9 – Less taxes to equalize the “haves” and the “have-nots” because success should be earned, not dished out by politicians who use that largesse to expand their voting base.

10 – Much more tolerance for those of us who believe that Christ is the Saviour. Our beliefs should be respected just as we respect the beliefs of those who cherish Mohammed or Allah or any other Supreme Being.

Maybe if these wishes can be granted, the world will have a peaceful 2007.

Finally, Kofi Annan is saying his good-byes. For a man who headed the UN and was supposed to be the penultimate diplomat, his fame far exceeded both his reputation and his skills.

During his tenure, pain and misery mounted in many parts of the world, and yet the UN seemed incapable of helping. In fact, the UN was part of the problem. UN “peacekeepers” were responsible for raping young girls in Africa and for stealing the food that was supposed to help the starving. Where was Kofi when these criminal actions were brought to the world’s attention? Kofi refused to acknowledge the aggressive characteristics of many nations, instead preferring to chastise the United States. Where was he when Chavez called for the death of our President? He was often times arrogant in his manner and more often than not, wrong in his opinions. Why did he say that Iraquis were better off under Saddam when he knows the Iraquis were routinely brutalized by Saddam and his cronies?

Kofi Annan is, and always was, a man who had risen above his talents. Only those in the world who were benefiting from his ignorance and greed, continue to designate him as a great humanitarian!

The UN was to serve as a mediator to avoid conflict in the world and not to be the generator of more hatred. Kofi Annan was directly responsible for inciting much of the hatred that exists in the world today, especially the ill will toward the United States. Although he demanded more and more money from us, he was most comfortable insulting us and blaming us for all the tragedies of our time. The ultimate insult, of course, was his farewell speech wherein he tried to blame our President, and us by association, for the world’s ills.

Sorry, Kofi. Without the mantle of the UN, your braying will only curry the favor of those who would benefit from the downfall of the United States. Hopefully, you will have to live in the disastrous conditions you helped create through your foolishness or stupidity. The only ones who will miss you are your lackeys who profited from the US’s generosity rather than the intended recipients.

Your leaving, hopefully, will result in a UN that attempts to work together rather than to merely oppose the U.S. Your leaving is a joyous event for the world, whether they know it yet or not. So, good-bye, farewell, good riddance.

The only question left for you is, “What took you so long to leave?”

Drudge is reporting that a Muslim woman is suing a fitness center because her prayers were interrupted by another patron, albeit unintentionally, and the center did not “satisfy” her requirements in handling the situation. She claims that her “right to rites” was not enforced.

What in the world is going on? In a mad rush to be all things for all people, the politically correct crowd is trampling on the rights of the majority.

A business is operating to provide a profit for the owners, not as a public service. If the business is following accepted business practices, no individual patron should have the right to require the business to adjust their business practicies for their own ideosyncracies. Why should a business be required to meet every demand, secular or religious, of a patron to avoid the threat of a law suit? If this particular business does not fulfill the patron’s needs, let the patron go to another business!

The majority’s rights are being denied when the President of a major Michigan university proclaim that “they”, by which she means herself and the others of her ideology, will force affirmative action into the admission process whether the Michigan residents agree or not! Shouldn’t the majority of Michigan residents have the right to decide how their public university is admitting students?

Affirmative action might have helped integrate businesses and institutions earlier, but now, it is becoming a crutch for those who want to enforce their ideology on all of America. For example, my alma mater, UW-Madison, also believes they have the right to choose students using ethnicity, family income, and family “situations”, as qualities essential for admission rather than choosing the most talented students, based on academic performance. They also continue to support staff (Barrett) who, based on poor credentials and even poorer research, lambast our country, despite the outrage of many Wisconsinites.

America has provided countless opportunities for millions of people who seek a better life. Those who want to rewirte the ground rules of our country are really trying to create a country where a select few, mostly themselves, will be able to write the rules and choose all the players in the game of Life. Donna Shalala tried to characterize hate speech as grounds for dismissal from UW-Mad even though no one could agree on the exact parameters for hate speech. The Michigan president wants to force the university — and Michigan — to accept her beliefs regarding characteristics necessary for admission to Michigan. Muslim Imams want a private place in airports to pray. A Muslim woman is incensed that her prayers are interrupted in an essentially public place.

Daily, we are bombarded by demands for individual “rights” when these same rights actually infringe on the rights of the majority of us. Where will it all end?

The ultimate goal of all these politically correct groups is to establish a status quo which conforms to their ideology of “right”. In the process, Muslims’ rights for rites will be confirmed and the rights of other religious groups will be denied. Businesses will be forced to comply with outlandish requirements rather than to be efficient purveyors of services and goods. Universities will be shaped into liberal entities where only other liberals are accepted. Essentially, those who do not conform to the liberals’ concepts will be left outside many American institutions. Everyone will be homogeneous.

We have to guard the rights of the majority of Americans and not allow the “rites” of any individual to over-ride our country’s rule which is that the “majority rules”. Otherwise, the end result of political correctness will be the loss of rights for the majority. And, as we all begin to conform to the new “ideal”, Diversity will become an extinct concept.

Fox network was using this as the question of the day. The question should not be if there are people working against Christmas, but whether these people are working against Christians?

Why is it politically correct to have a Jewish or Islamic religious symbol in a school, but the Christians are limited to a tree?

Why should the Imams ask for, and probably receive, a special area in which to pray when everyone knows that if a Christian asked for such a favor, they would be laughed out of the airport.

Why, if the majority of Americans are Christians, is the ACLU working so hard to discourage every single tidbit of religion in today’s society?

Why is it okay for a minority to make fun of a different ethnic group, but the rest of us must watch every word and action so as not to offend someone else?

Why, why, why?

It is because there is a small minority who feel that they have the right to control every facet of life in America today, including our thoughts, words, actions and religious beliefs. Kinda’ sounds like Iran, doesn’t it?

The Imams who say they were removed from an American airplane because of “who” they were and that they did nothing to warrant removal should read the following, objective account by another passenger.

I applaud the airlines for adhering to policies which protect the other passengers, even if it inconveniences a select few. Apparently, the Imams were not so innocent as they proclaim.

Read the below:

Click Here

Dear Anti-Defamation League:

Please accept my apology. I lost my temper during my husband’s unsuccessful 1974 congressional campaign. Bill’s campaign adviser, Paul Fray, and his wife publicly claim that I called Fray a “f—ing Jew bastard.” I don’t recall this, but assuming I did, what was I thinking? It wasn’t my heart.

Sincerely yours, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton

——————————————————————————–

Dear Jesse Jackson and local Little Rock, Ark., black activist Robert “Say” McIntosh:

Former Arkansas State Trooper Larry Patterson publicly claimed I referred to the two of you as “n—ers.” Ditto what Hillary just said.

Sincerely, Former President of the United States Bill Clinton

Premise: If we don’t corral Iran soon, we will have the beginnings of another warring faction who have already sworn to defeat all who are not of their faith.

Problems:

Iraq, in a desperate move, is now discussing security with Iran and Syria who were instrumental in arming and encouraging terrorists to attack Iraquis and the rest of the world.

Iran continues to forecast more trouble for anyone who opposes Iran’s descent back into an unrelenting, people-debasing dictatorship — one ruled by radical clerics.

Our soldiers fight not only against the terrorists, but political partisans back home who have denounced so much of the war effort that no foreign country feels the need to back our President.

Here are some possible solutions.

Split Iraq into its natural, ethnic regions — i.e., the Kurds get the northern third, the Shiites and Sunni the southern two thirds. There is no reason to continue trying to establish a “united” Iraq when the ethnic groups so obviously hate each other. With Saddam gone, there is no rationale to pretend that these ethnic groups have any unifying purpose. Iraq today is not similar to the origin of the United States when people from a variety of countries and ethnic origins sought the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The radical Islamists demand the right to define not only liberty and happiness, but to rule on Life itself.

Let’s not pretend — for political correctness or any other pretext — that Abinedajab, and his minions, are reasonable people! In the past months, Iran has continued to threaten the world community if we don’t fall into line — their line. It is obvious, whether the world admits it, that Iran is on a collision course with any non-Islamist entity. We desperately need a world leader to knock Iran down a peg. When are our world leaders going to accept the responsibility of forcing Iran into the appropriate line and stop trying to cajole these radicals into playing nice?

Our soldiers cannot depend upon the incoming Congress who want to cut and run. Let Israel take out Iran before it establishes itself as a nuclear beast. If we want to prevent total domination of the MidEast by scary regimes like Iran and Syria who have no concept of individual freedom, we had better back the Israelis. It is obvious that our incoming congress is not going to have the backbone to force terrorism into submission, so let those who do have the strength of purpose do it — i.e., Israel.

What a shame that our military has fought so long and so hard and yet the Democrats preferred to use the war as a political issue rather than as the enlarging threat that Iran presents. They have caviled so much that we might have to rely upon an ally to demolish the increasingly strident threat from Iran!

Many people today claim that the war in Iraq is in a state of crisis. Indeed, discussing the state of the war in Iraq is the bread and butter of almost every media outlet in America, and probably throughout the world. World leaders have posited opinions and the media continually runs images of protestors who also claim to know what is best. But, how can this situation actually be resolved and America protected from terrorism?

The first answer always seems to include some form of a committee. Henry Kissinger proposes a world-wide committee to study the issue. President Bush has appointed a committee to suggest a solution. The UN, the world’s most useless committee, wants to take over control of the war as if their track record gives anyone confidence of their success! Countless committees in the new Congress will undoubtedly study each and every issue. These committees will appoint other committees who will rely yet again on their own committees to find answers!

The problem, as I see it, is that appointing committees is essentially a means of pushing the problem into the future. In case you’ve forgotten, “The best way to stall anything is to hand it over to a committee!”

Committees and commissions are SLOW-moving bodies whose inertia is matched only by the mountains of paperwork they produce. Seldom are these bodies well-organized and even more infrequently do they create a true solution to anything. They give the impression that something is “being done”, but they accomplish next to nothing.

So, as a high school friend used to say, “Let’s cut the huckle buck.”

Being politically correct has cost us lives and not created a peaceful Iraq. Tell the military to wipe out the terrorists. Forget trying solutions because they are politically or diplomatically more attractive.

And, let’s keep the committees and politicians out of the way. I know. Assign the politicians to a committee!