A little less talk, a lot more action

After watching both games closely... and I tried not to watch the Jets game as only a Patriots fan would (but as a football fan). I was impressed with the Jets defense against... the Texans. Lets be honest, Matt Schaub was quite pathetic; he looked like the rookie out there. As for Sanchez, he looked good against a defense that was very mediocre. And to be honest, he might be doing it again on Sunday!

There was a comment that I read some where that read like this:

"The Jets could win this game just so long as they make sure there aren't any hidden cameras around watching their coaches..."

Could we find any more out of date, more tired comment than that?

Okay, lets try to stay focused-

I think the Jets are the better team right now. They are not more talented, by any means, but more cohesive and feeling good about themselves, and hey, more power to them.

However, rather than do all manner of talking about Super Bowls, (regardless of when they are being played) why don't they just go out and let their play do the talking for them? The Jets could make a much louder statement by going out there on Sunday, smacking the Pats in the mouth (like I think they might be able to do based on what I saw this past weekend and Monday night) and then move on to the next game, and the next.

Their coach should be preaching that mantra in fact, but he is too busy strutting around prattling on about not kissing rings. Well, I don't recall anyone asking you to Rex. The thing is this, when you are young and so full of piss and vinegar as the Jets are, your ego is so fragile. You have so much further to fall due to all the chest pounding you are always doing. Why do you think coach's like Parcells and Belichik and Cowher always keep their players so grounded? If the Jets go out and get creamed on Sunday ( No, I don't think it will happen) what could that do to their collective psyche after all their trash talking since freakin March?

I know, I'm just a Pats fan, what do I know? I think the Jets will win the battle this week end, but in the end, the Patriots will win the war, and quite possibly the REAL Super Bowl.

A Father's Day post

I have been blessed in my life with having two dads who have taught me about the meaning of "True American values;" honesty, integrity, work hard at what you do in order to be successful. Success is not "A lot of money," but a life lived to provide for one's family in an honest manner. It is no accident, or surprise, that neither man has anything to do with the Internet or computers. My biological father is an upstanding member of the greatest generation, though he missed WWII by a few years. He fought in Korea in 1951 while in the Army, and spent a life time working ridiculous hours and supporting a family that at times, grew to 13 in a household... all immediate family members.

My father-in-law fought in Vietnam and then quietly came home to work for one company for almost 30 years, providing for his family before finally moving to upstate NY to a quieter, but no less busy, life. In some ways these two men are so much alike though they have met only once or twice; they are both amazingly stubborn and rigid in their beliefs. One is an old time JFK democrat with no like minded people that he knows, in Massachusetts. The other a staunch conservative with a bone to pick with both parties. They both believe that we all must answer to God for the decisions we make in this life. One lives that belief, the other is quiet about it, but believes it non-the-less. I owe so much to both men, and my debt encompasses more than the monetary. Their support in my life's decisions has been at times, dubious, when I should have paid attention to their hesitance and guidance. I often came to rue those decisions, as my son, unfortunately, will too at times.

I don't always agree with their assessments, but their support has been there. I know there is no such thing as a perfect parent, least of all a perfect father. I know that first hand, but I'm glad I had these two fathers in my life.

The flip-flopping president.

The flip-flopping president

Read the two statements below, and then think about what is common between them:

1.) In a speech to a pro-Israel lobby group last June 4th, Obama spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC). President Obama said this. Jerusalem "will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Wow, that says it all right? No need to second guess what he is telling them there... but wait.

In an interview July 12, 2008 Interview with Fareed Zakaria:

2.) "We don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war," Obama explained.

Obama said the latter statement in response to Fareed Zakaria's insertion that Obama was outside the International consensus that, evidently everyone else in the international community wants to take Jerusalem, split it in half, giving the Palestinians one side and leaving the other side to Israel.

Alright, so the commonality is that President Obama said both statments. But he is smooth, and his questioners allowed him to wiggle out of his flip-flopping because they are biased toward him. There is no other conclusion here. It is the modus operandi of most of America's media, and what will continually bail this president out of hot water again and again through out his reign.

The only problem I see with the grand consensus Zakaria spoke of is this, Israel is a sovereign nation people. It is not up to outsiders whether or not Israel split their capital in half for anyone, regardless how contentious the issue may be. Or how strong (tongue in cheek) someone might think their argument might be in favor of this ridiculous idea.

What about this little tidbit? I don't remember reading anything in my history books about France recommending we split Virginia in half in 1863 during our Civil War because some wanted to keep slavery and some didn't.

Look, I know the U.S. sticks it's big, nosy nose in too many world-wide issues. The thing is, if we didn't, nations like France, Germany, Russia, China, and yes, Britain would run rough shod over the world, dictating what will and will not be within other sovereign nations. And yes, this goes for the United States as well. But answer this question honestly to yourself; who in the world is going to face down, or halt Iran if and when they decide to launch on Israel, besides Israel herself I mean? Russia, China? Please! They are both in bed with Iran and their nuclear program, along with North Korea, and we all know Pyongyang isn't going to come out in any kind of rational way.

I certainly don't have all the answers to the world's ills, but sticking our collective noses into Israel's sovereignty will get us no where, unless more war is a place we want to be. Believe it or not, as an American, I do not want war.

If siding with, or standing against Israel is the option, I am on Israel's side in this situation. After all, God Himself said in Genesis 12:3, “I will bless those who bless you,(here comes the kicker) and whoever curses you (emphasis mine) I will curse; and all peoples on earth shall be blessed through you.”(NIV) And no I am not a bible scholar or a self-righteous religious person. But I do know some of the bible, and I remember something Jesus said to the Pharisees after he drove out a demon from some guy. In case you are not aware of who the Pharisees were, they were the big-wigs in the Jewish world back in the day. They were the Dividers of the people when it came to Jesus too. They saw the danger he represented to the status-quo. He answered them in Mathew 12:25 in this way: A kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided gainst itself will not stand.

Wasn't it Abraham Lincoln, Obama's "favorite" president who had the famous House Divided Speech? Lincoln spoke of a different situation than what I am speaking of here I know, but not by much when it is all put into context.

And when it all comes down to it, isn't the "Ruin of Israel" the ultimate goal here of those who seek the division? Think about it, and be honest with yourself, if not with those you speak to on this issue.

Not so funny

Not So Funny

Yesterday, while my wife and I were in a BJ's Wholesale Club shopping, we both went our separate ways for a while and I made a "B-Line" for the books, as I always do. I noticed a book with Denis Leary holding a sparkler on the cover. I've always liked Denis Leary, now Dr. Leary, and the title farely jumped off the cover at me (which I'm sure was part of Denis's plan)... "Why We Suck." Pretty simple and straight forward.

Now I've always enjoyed Denis Leary's humor; his style and wit was engaging and forced us all to pay attention lest we miss something. The fact that he is a Red Sox fan also helped.

So there I am in BJ's reading the prologue and that is when it hit me... Denis Leary is a Pinko Liberal. Yeah, I said it. I still think he is hilarious, and he himself said in his foreword that the book would piss people off. It surprised me more than pissed me off because I would expect honesty in one's belief at least, if he is going to attack one president and praise another for his alleged great deeds, then he ought to state what the facts were as they actually were, not as he wishes they were.

Leary castigates George Bush Jr., as he calls him, yet man-crushes all over Bill Clinton despite his obvious presidential failures (and no, I am not talking about Lewinsky). Does the name Osama bin Laden ring any bells? As in, Clinton should have nailed him after the first WTC bombing. So Denis, don't tout Clinton as this big peace guy, when he is one of the earlier failures which now require the "War on Terror." Not to mention that he has something in common with our current president.

In 2000 Clinton dipped the U.S flag aboard a naval vessel to that of the Vietnamese flag during a visit he made to Vietnam. Something America just did not do as a rule. Commenting at the time of the report was America's most decorated living war veteran, Colonel David Hackworth, "What's new? Clinton has done everything else to dishonor the flag, why not make it number two?"

Now, in 2009, Obama all but prostrates himself in front of Saudi King Abdullah at the G20 Summit.

You know, it's one thing to have a sense of humor about all things. It's quite another to pretend to be making jokes about something, when what you are conducting, is a dishonest left-wing attack. Regardless of what the rest of the book says, Leary set the tone in the prologue!

GE and Hypocrycy

In March 2003 when I began the trek from Kuwait up through the heart of Iraq with my unit in the 4th Infantry Division, I had no idea about the scandal that was about to unfold in regard to Haliburton. Now, common sense and hindsight tells me that if the Vice President of the United States has something to do with a company that is making money from government contracts, then it makes for a conflict of interest and more bad press for America. But what else is new right, it seems bad press is all America can put out these days?

So lets fast forward to today; Friday, April 24, 2009. President Barrack Obama has appointed Jeff Immelt to his economic recovery advisory board, of all things. Immelt can not even advise or recover the company he runs, never mind the entire country. But this gets better; after GE stock has plunged more than 70% under Immelt's so called leadership and now GE stands to rake in "billions" under the cap and trade policy currently under consideration by the current administration.

What was it I said about common sense and conflict of interest with regard to government contracts? When the president appoints someone with a questionable (to say the least) performance record, to a position in his administration in the very area in which that individual has performed so abysmally, you have to wonder if the fix is in. Then again, all one has to do is watch the news, and there isn't much of a question as to whether the fix is in or what side most of the media is on is there? I guess the surgical removal of honesty and moral integrity must be a requirement before joining these journalistic media giants eh?

They're screaming about torture and justice these days... just wait until they are torturing Americans. Who will scream for our justice then?

Great Call Mr. President

As any one would know who has read my blog, I have been critical of our president of late, and with good reason I think. But not so today!

President Obama ordered the Navy Seals in to handle the Somali Pirates, and handle them they did; three shots, three dead pirates (the fourth had come to the Navy ship earlier due to illness). Do I celebrate the death of three human beings? Absolutely not, what I celebrate is the American Action inherent in situations like this. And this is exactly the situation I've been nervous about in regard to President Obama. Having seen the president's domestic agenda as an absolute disaster for our way of life, and in his own words, he wants to "change the foundation of how our country has worked since about 1879."

That kind of rhetoric makes many people nervous, and for good reason. But today is a proud day for America and the U.S. Navy, and yes, President Obama. Again, not for the death of these pirates, but for the correct action taken in this instance by President Obama. I know that may sound duplicitous, but it is not. What other action would have served... to pay the pirates? When the American military and government got involved, paying the pirates was no longer an option, and rightly so. As terrible an out come for the pirates as this was, maybe they have learned a little lesson here.

I have no illusions that they will strike again, and maybe they will change their tactics. So will the Navy, and the result will be the same if our resolve remains firm. So far the score is U.S. Navy 3 Pirates 0.

The UN-American President

The Un-American President

Recently President Barrack Obama went on a European "popularity tour" to tell the world how much he was sorry, and that he can't stand America either. Of course, he was only doing what the liberal media, Acorn, and his presidential campaign backers paid him to do; that is, bring America down where she belongs.

During his inauguration I held out hope that Obama wouldn't completely tear apart the United States, but alas the new president began his dismantling of America within his first week.

I know what the Obama's supporters (or should I say his apologists) will say, "President Obama has been doing all he can to bring America out of the dole drums that the Bush administration brought us down to." All I can say to that is, "pull this one, it plays jingle bells."

Is this the "change I can believe in?" That the president has shown over and over that he hates America, and true, hard-working Americans... oh, and everything we have stood for, for more than two hundred years? Because if that is it, the message has sunk in, very deep. Only a president with roots steeped in anti-Americanism would go to Europe and kowtow to the likes of the french & germans (no, I will not capitalize it).

And to actually be able to stand there and say, "without equivocation or exception that the United States of America does not and will not torture." (The Humbling of a Superpower, by Nile Gardiner, Human Events.com) Are you kidding me? How does Obama expect us to get information from dangerous terrorists, ask nicely? Besides all that, and like Gardiner says, "As if Obama's own country had been some sort of brutal tyranny that had suddenly seen the light with his election." And he had the gall to accuse America of arrogance?

How much "play" is the left trying to get out of this so called issue? The Abu Ghraib incident is almost five (5) years old people, and when the left harps on it constantly as a means to their false agenda's, more rational, true Americans suffer for it. President Obama is smack-dab in the middle of this... Three trillion plus sized budget? He signs a stimulus with almost 9000 pay offs... er, I mean ear marks, sorry. I was thinking of his contributors there for a minute, so I was kind of confused.

How about this international gem that our illustrious leader spewed forth; "instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times when America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."

Oh really Mr. President, when was this? Might it be that this all happened when practically the whole of Europe, (aside from our one true allies, Britain and Australia) "derisively" told us we had to allow "more than the fifteen international sanctions (that had all been dismissed and laughed at by Hussein... to the detriment of his people) to work against Iraq and Saddam Hussein." Or could it have been that they were all so deep in bed with Hussein during the "Food for Oil Program" that they didn't want any of that to see the light of day? The only thing they could think to do was attack our decisions. Doesn't that type of behavior sound familiar? Doesn't it resemble what the left does every time someone disagrees with what they believe?

Platform of the American People

My question is, how long is the Obama administration going to milk the Bush administration as a cop out for its failures, bad ideas and apologizing to the rest of the world. I have a feeling the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Dodd will not be happy until this country is nothing more than an after thought to the rest of the global community. They won't be happy until they have given what money we have left, away. They wouldn't know or choose a real solution if it bit them in their collective... well, you know.

And what "leading role in the world" has Europe played in the last sixty years? (The Humbling of a Superpower, by Nile Gardiner, Human Events.com) Other than the race to socialism I mean? Please don't try their "universal health care" on me, because that is so not what we want here.

Platform of the American People

President Obama apologized for American arrogance and dismissiveness, and he said again something about us not being a Christian country, but one of moral, hard working people." Of course all those things may be true, but he refuses to accept the fact that 85% of Americans consider themselves Christian. That is what he apologizes for, and the fact that we, as Americans, are proud of our heritage of working for what we have.

Another thing that I am NOT SORRY for is our history as a nation. I'm sure our president would fall all over himself apologizing for how we came to be one of the greatest nations in the history of the world. But at least he wouldn't be the first for that travesty. Has any other world leader ever apologized to seek approval? The irony is this; Barrack Obama heard cheers, but what most Americans heard was laughter and jeers.

I'm sure if anyone even reads this, I will hear it from those who don't want to see what is right in front of them. The truth that is.

If you would like to read Nile Gardiner's article you can find it here.

Platform of the American People

Twelve American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity.

Ryan Moats: What has happened to compassion?

As far as everyday occurrences go, I don't go out of my way to give my opinion about them because... well, no one cares what I think, and rightfully so. I am not E.F. Hutton, I know that. When I speak, I am about the only one who listens. If you don't get the whole E.F. Hutton thing at all... don't worry about it.

This morning while watching ESPN, I read a news snippet scrolling along the bottom of the screen about Ryan Moats. I have no idea who Moats is, but it doesn't matter, it wasn't the name that captured my attention; it was a piece of what happened during the incident that caused me to take notice.

So like most everyone these days, I went to my search engine and typed "Moats" in the dialog box, and a whole host of entries came up. What I saw made me sick, and actually made me lower my head in shame for the Dallas police department, and America as a whole. Have we slunk so low that we have no compassion for even our own citizens? This isn't about politics here people. This is either about pure unadulterated stupidity, male pride or plain old rottenness and profiling. For either one of the latter reasons that officer should be fired.

I am not a proponent of the old "pull the profiling card," because I believe you must have irrefutable proof. Well, how about the camera and mike from the cruiser? Even after a nurse came out to plead the Moats' case, the officer (Officer Robert Powell) refused to budge. All Powell cared about was Moats' proof of insurance. Alright, how about a fellow officer, trying to explain that Moats' mother-in-law was dying "right now" as they were all standing outside arguing about a ticket and the fact that Moats could not find his proof of insurance, and faced having his car towed.

At one point Officer Powell lost what little sense he did posses and told Moats to shut up... thats right, shut up and settle down or he was going to be taken to jail for running a red light. Talk about communication skills in our professionals... shut up!

I know there will be many out there who will say, "an officer never knows what he is going to find when he pulls someone over and Powell had to make sure..." Bull _ _ _ _! After the nurse, then a fellow officer tries to tell you whats up, and you still do not have the common sense and compassion God gave most human beings to see that this is not an ordinary situation? You need to re do the police academy if that is the case, or see a psychiatrist for your lack of compassion for a fellow human being.

I've been a correction officer in a prison and spent a year in Iraq while in the army, I don't want to hear, you don't know what you would have done in this situation. This incident was all about testosterone, plain and simple. Powell's only other defense is stupidity or racism, which is it Officer Bob?

A Game of Thrones and Historical Events: A Parallel

"Caution: Spoiler Alert!"

I first read A Game of Thrones in March of 2003, while in Kuwait awaiting word to proceed into Iraq with the vanguard of the 4th Infantry Division. While it was obvious right away that George R. R. Martin was a student of history and possibly one of history of warfare as well. But I admit I was naive enough for it to never occur to me that he may have been basing some of the events in "Thrones" on an actual historical events until this very morning when I was able to watch a show on the history channel called: "Caligula: Reign of Madness."

Now before you judge me mad, hear me out, or in this case, read me out. I am not proposing that Martin went ahead and based the entire thing on Caligula's reign. But while watching this show I began to make comparisons; beginning when King Robert ordered Eddard Stark (Ned) South to Kings Landing, and ending only when King Joffrey choked to death.

Everything that happened in between, including various travels down memory lane by Ned which pertained to the "Sacking of Kings Landing," and Prince Rhaegar's "Death on the Trident," which also included the murder of Princess Alia of Dorne, her infant child, and Ned's sister Lyanna respectively. Incidentally, the princesses daughter was murdered the same way in which Caligula's infant daughter was; grabbed by the ankles, and swung head-first into a wall, scattering her brains all about. Dastardly and cruel to the extreme in both instances.

I am in no way trying to presume that Martin absolutely based any of his events on the actual historical events that took place during the time of Caligula, or any historical events for that matter. What I am saying is that the events named above draw a parallel to actual events that have taken place throughout human history.

Having said that the events that took place between the years 19AD and 41AD ring familiar when reading A Game of Thrones. Of course the historical events do not mirror the novel, and one would not expect, or even want them to. All I am suggesting is that while watching this historical show on the events surrounding Caligula's life, but not his death, I was reminded of portions of Martin's outstanding work of art.

They don't make them like they use to!

I am referring to movies and the way they are done now compared to the way they were done back in the day. I am not a total throw-back, but in my opinion there is just no comparison between the actors and actresses of the time of say, the 40's, 50's, and 60's and today, and the way they go about their craft.

If you need examples or you want me to be more specific and give exact comparisons that would be my pleasure. All my references can and are found at Internet Movie Database (IMDB). My comparisons will be child stars, and I will start with Elizabeth Taylor, and the movie would be National Velvet. She was phenomenal in that movie, from the smiles to the tears to the feeling in which she put into that part at 12 years of age. The year before that she stared in Lassie come home. By 1958 she had been nominated for her first Oscar; the first of five, with two wins in 1961 and 67.

No, I am not going to talk next about Shirley Temple, though I should. I am going to talk about Jodie Foster and her incredible body of work in The Taxi Driver. And did you know Foster did the original Freaky Friday? Well, neither did I; so we do learn something new every day don't we.But that isn't all she did is it? She was brilliant in The Accused also. Did I fail to mention Jodie won Mr. Oscar for The Accused (89) and for one more movie that happens to be one of the most popular movies of all time. Yeah, you know which one it is, and it stars another one of my favorites, but he is not what this blog is about; The Silence of the Lambs (92) was with out a doubt one of her best performances along with Nell, and Stealing Home. She was great in Contact. Her nominations include Taxi Driver in 76, and Nell in 94.

Here is one that I believe will blow you away as it did me; Kurt Russell, who most people know got his big start with Disney. Russel began acting at the age of nine, and did both TV and Disney. But get this, he did TV in the late 50's in a show called Sugarfoot. But that wasn't all; he was all over the tube in some very popular shows of the day and even had his own series on ABC called "The Travels of Jaimie McPheeters" from 1963-1964.

Russel then went on to do a variety of things like "Giligan's Island" in 1965, and "Lost in Space" in 1966. The list goes on and on, but he really caught on with people my age (at the time) doing Disney Movies like The Computer wore Tennis shoes,(1969) Now you see him, Now you don't,(1972) and The strongest man in the world. (1975) All three movies were about the escapades of a man named Dexter Riley.

One of the funniest movies I ever saw was with Kurt Russel, and called "Used Cars." It was a very underrated movie at the time, as was "Big trouble in little China." The latter was directed by John Carpenter, the former by Robert Zemeckis. Later on in the 90's it was Backdraft, Stargate, and you know the one with Sly Stallone that was bad but good. Kurt Russell only gets better with age. In the 21st century he is Steve Stronghold.

Are there other actors and actresses out there that are good at their craft like those that I listed here? Of course there are, and most assuredly there are those I missed that started as children, but as you can see the ones I selected began their careers way back when and for the most part, stayed out of trouble as children and young adults. They may have had their issues as adults, but then again who doesn't. The very nature of their work makes it impossible to keep their personal lives private. So every little thing that happens makes the news, but they still managed to stay out of trouble by and large.

As for Liz Taylor, she was so absolutely gorgeous that I'm sure she had her pick and in those days the media was not the tell all it is today. So what ever happened didn't always make the tabloids until she was much older. I am not a tabloid either.