DarthKeller's Blog

The ravings of a Sith Conservative!

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

No Foreclosures without Gov’t Review… WHAT!?

Posted by darthkeller on February 25, 2010

While checking out the interwebs today I noticed an article that struck my fancy:
Obama May Prohibit Home-Loan Foreclosures Without HAMP Review.

Please, allow me a moment to get this straight: Liberals wanted MORE regulation and oversight so that there would be no chance of discrimination when buyers went to secure a home loan. Discrimination would not be allowed based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or ability to pay back the loan. Correct?

Since I like Bawney Fwank, I’ll use his quotes:

And here he is lying about what he said:

So, Liberals pushed us into Fannie/Freddie, which banks KNEW would be a bad idea, and in 2008 it all came crashing down when banks were not getting paid back on the loans they were FORCED to approve.

Now, Obama wants to ensure that if a bank starts foreclosure proceedings, they cannot foreclose on the house until the Home Affordable Modification Program has a chance to check everything out.

Are they expecting that the borrower simply chose not to pay even though they have the money and the threat of a government agency which sounds like an overused recreational drug is going to scare them into paying? No, they just want to screw with the system even more than they already have.

Let me break it down for you: When a bank lends someone $100,000 for a home, they have an appraiser look at the home to ensure that it’s worth the loan. Then they expect to be paid back, a little at a time, each month, by the “owner” of the home (the bank actually owns the property, hence the reason you’re paying them for it). If they stop receiving payment from you, they are out $100,000. So, they will foreclose on the house and put it on the auction block. Why? Because selling a $100,000 for $50,000 is better than getting $0 for it.

This is just another ploy by the Obama administration to do two things:
1) Strengthen ACORN and ACORN-esque groups. They are able to break into homes that are owned by the bank, which gives them credibility to help the “little man” out. Actually, they are using the “little man” to push their power-hungry agenda
2) Keep the banks under their foot. Remember, this is the administration that forced banks to take TARP money, then wouldn’t allow them to pay the money back without a strings attached. Why? CONTROL

So, there you have the Liberal mindset: Create an agency, then a program for that agency. Screw up everything by stupid rules and regulations. Pretend to ride in and save the day. Once the day is “saved”, refuse to leave and ride off into the sunset, instead, stick around and enslave the people!

I bet it does better than most of the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days.


Posted in Economy, History, Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

New Rules for Complaining

Posted by darthkeller on February 24, 2010

The other night I was watching Undercover Boss with Raven when we saw something interesting. The CEO of 7-11 was in the Dallas area (sorry Dallas, they actually said what part, but since I don’t know the DFW area at all, I’m not going to insult you by taking a guess) when he met Igor, a delivery driver. Igor worked nights. Igor’s wife is a school teacher (thus, works days). So, they rarely saw each other during the week.

“Danny” (the CEO’s cover name, I can’t remember his real name…sorry) asked Igor how he could deal with not getting to see his wife except on the weekends. Igor’s answer was simple: Less time to see each other, less time to fight. I thought that was hilarious, Raven did not.

Then Danny asked Igor the big question: How could Igor be so upbeat while working a night shift, away from his wife and kids, having left his home country in eastern Europe.

Igor’s answer: I’m in America! I have opportunities here! I have a chance at a life my parents and grandparents could only dream of!

This brought tears to my eyes. We are bombarded every day with the fringe-media’s view that America is evil. America is stupid. America is wrong. America is imperialistic. America is hopeless.

I’m sorry, but I refuse to believe that. I refuse to believe that you have nothing less than opportunity in America. You don’t have guarantees here, you have chances. If two guys go to work for the same company, on the same day, doing the same job, one WILL rise higher than the other, but that doesn’t mean that either of them had more or less chance to rise than the other one did.

The Left loves to proclaim that the Declaration of Independence guarantees happiness… NO! The DoI guarantees the “PURSUIT of happiness”, results may vary!

TheRoot.com (I will not link to them) had a list of 21 “Black folks we’d like to see removed from history”. On that list was Justice Clarence Thomas. Why? Because he “opposes government programs intended to help minorities”. I’m sorry, but slavery ended 147 years ago. Segregation of public schools: 52 years ago. Civil rights: 46 years ago (these dates are based on my memory and could be off by 2-3 years). I understand that because of these policies minorities have had less opportunity than others, but if you can’t get your act together in 46 years, YOU PROBABLY NEVER WILL UNLESS YOU ARE MADE TO!

How much more do you need? Minorities have college scholarships. They have affirmative action. They are given every opportunity to succeed in the world! If they continue to fall short of happiness, that’s there own damn fault! Yet, the media continues to paint this country as “racist”.

Allow me to explain something: You cannot call Obama “post-racial” if you still want to call someone “racist”. You cannot be “racist” if race is no longer considered. You cannot be “post-racial” if race is considered. Sorry guys, but you cannot have it both ways.

BTW – Am I the only one that thinks Chris “Tingles” Matthews is a racist? “I forgot he was black for about an hour”. That means when Matthews sees Obama, his FIRST (and, it could be argued, ONLY) thought is, “There’s a black man”. Funny, when I see Obama, I don’t see a “black man”, I see a “socialist man”. Just saying.

You might think I’m getting off point, but I’m not. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy and lunacy of the Left, and more to the point, the fringe media.

So, new rule: If you want to bitch about this country and claim that it needs to be like another country, you must live in said country for a period of no less than 5 years, WITHOUT CONTACT to those in the USA! Why? So that you get the full experience of that country. After 5 years, if you still want to change this country, go ahead and try (and we’ll fight you every step of the way). I’m sick and tired of hearing jackasses on the left say “We need to be like Canada” (anyone else notice their leaders come to America for health care… hmm….), or “We need to be like China”… IF YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY LIKE CANADA, CHINA, CUBA, RUSSIA, etc, GO LIVE THERE AND LEAVE US ALONE!

It pisses me off to no end that they teach revisionist history in school making the Chinese look “misunderstood” and calling Stalin “Uncle Joe”, and then kids grow up thinking that we are the bad guys. HELLO! MAO KILLED 60 MILLION CHINESE. I’ve seen reports that Stalin killed as many as 10 million! There is no viewpoint in which these men were anything but EVIL! And yet our kids look at them as heroes!

I will not stand by and allow this to happen any longer. If you want to teach this crap, then I will teach the REAL history! If you don’t like it, I don’t care!

To quote Andrew Breitbart: “We are on to you!” The media has lost its iron-clad grip on America’s mind, and now that we’re here, we’re not going away. We’re going to start fighting harder, using Alinsky’s tactics against the Left every day.

Get ready, the fun is about to start now!!!

Posted in History, Politics, Random Thoughts | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Letter to the Editor

Posted by darthkeller on February 18, 2010

After reading the story over at Ace’s, I decided that someone at the Washington Post had to hear something… I’m tired of sitting quietly in the corner as the Left in this country drive us over the edge! I’LL BE DAMNED BEFORE I SIT IDLY BY!

So, I wrote this to Marcus Brauchii, Executive Editor of the Washington Post:

To allow Capehart to write for your trash should fill you with the utmost despair for the newspaper business!

In his article “Alienated in Austin” he made the BOLD LIE that Joseph Stack was a member, or in ANY FREAKING WAY RELATED to the Tea Party because he didn’t want to tell the truth – STACK WAS A COMMUNIST AND COMMUNISTS LEAN TO THE LEFT!

Mr Stack’s “Manifesto” ended thusly:
“Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)


However, Mr Capehart decided that reporting the facts was a little inconvenient, and reported the end of the “manifesto”:
“Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)


Has the Washington Post, the newspaper that broke the Watergate scandal, completely lost all journalistic integrity!?

You should be ashamed to call yourself the editor of such a piece of garbage!

I will do everything I can to ensure that the world hears about the LIE that the Washington Post has become! And if you think those of us on the right can’t do anything about it, ask Martha Coakley what we are capable of!

It might not do any good, by DAMN it felt great to get that off my chest!

Sorry for the language in this post, but I’m angry, and I’m not taking it any longer!

Posted in Politics, Tea Party | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Bawny Fwank Goes to History Class

Posted by darthkeller on January 19, 2010

I saw something today that was…. shocking. And no, I’m not talking about Scott Brown (congrats SENATOR BROWN!).

Check this video from Barney Frank:

There’s been a de facto amendment to the US Constitution … with that 60-vote majority. It is outrageous. If you look by the way, it tends to be, in many cases, the senators from those smaller states

First, if anyone can tell me what the HECK HE’S SAYING where I have the “…” above, I’d appreciate it, maybe those words are the key to Bawny Fwank not being a jackass!

Alright, I guess since I’ve taken Michael Moore to seminary, I need to take Bawny to a Constitutional history course.

During the Convention, a lot of time was spent on simply deciding how laws were going to be created. They had already decided the three-branch system, a President to lead the Executive branch, who would be elected by the people; a court system with judges being appointed by the President; they simply could not figure out how to represent the people better than a single elected man.

Though several plans were brought forth, the two plans that seemed the best chance of success were the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey plan.

The Virginia plan was simple: The larger the state’s population, the more representatives it had. Although this plan seems to be the most “representative” plan possible, there is one problem: Let’s take California (our most populist and most blue state) and Oklahoma (28th, and pretty darn red!). Now, under the Virginia plan, Oklahomans would never really have our voice heard, because we are simply outnumbered! Wait…. Yeah… This does sound like a good thing to a Liberal…. Damn!

Now, the New Jersey plan was not based on population, every state has two representatives. Take the same scenario as before, now the two “blues” from California are blocked by the two “reds” from Oklahoma.

Now, a very intelligent man named Roger Sherman (the only man to sign the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and US Constitution) had a brilliant idea: Combine the ideas! We’ll have a primary house made up of representatives, the greater the population the more representatives you have; and a second house, the made up of senators, two per state. Yeah, Oklahoma will get railroaded in the House, but their vote is just the same as the vote of the California’s and New York’s, once the vote reaches the Senate.

Yeah, this makes passing laws through the Senate a lot more difficult, BECAUSE IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE MORE DIFFICULT! The people are equally represented in the Senate, and even though you might not want to believe it, the people don’t all agree with your Liberal agenda!

I’m getting tired of hearing Liberals scream about violating the Constitution while at the same time taking powers for themselves that were NEVER intended by our founding fathers! When Michelle Bachman asked Turbo Tax Tim Geithner about the CONSTITUTIONAL powers that allowed him to take over private companies, he couldn’t, but he was CERTAIN that it was in there. When Tom Coburn proposed a rule change that would REQUIRE all bills be able to state, from the Constitution where the powers were given for that bill, it was the LIBERALS who voted down this rule change! So, don’t even try to play the “it’s not Constitutional” card with me!

So, you want to remove the filibuster because we “smaller states” use it to hold up your Socialist agenda? TOUGH! Learn to speak clearly and then we can have a discussion and I’ll show you that not all Americans are afraid of morons like you!

Posted in History, Politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Why I Have to Stop Watching Beck – An Open Letter

Posted by darthkeller on December 10, 2009

Dear Mr Beck (I use that as a term of respect, not contempt as Keith Olberman does),

I’m writing this letter to tell you why I can no longer watch the Glenn Beck show on FNC.

For some time now I’ve heard you say that we need to practice three things:
1) Question with Boldness
2) Speak without fear
3) Hold to the truth

If you will allow me, I’ll present a problem that I have with the instruction to practice these things.

1) Question with Boldness

Unlike Michelle Malkin, Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, yourself and others like those mentioned, I do not get paid to investigate who is connected to whom in the White House. I’m a software developer, so my days are spent looking at thousands of lines of code. When I get the time to check the respective websites or listen/watch the programs of those mentioned, I rely on you guys to give me the information needed to do my part in helping this country.

The problem that I have here: I don’t know a) What questions to ask; b) To whom to ask those questions. Every day you seem to start your program with this statement: “Ask yourself these questions…” Roughly 15 seconds after hearing the questions, I have answered them, but I watch, patiently, for your take on those questions. Most nights, you talk about them, but never give that “final answer” that I would like to have. Instead, I’m left, wondering about what I need to do.

2) Speak without Fear

To whom? I watched as approximately one million men and women gathered in our Nation’s capital to protest taxes, health care, government spending, government insanity on 9/12. You know what that changed? Nothing!

I watched nightly as more and more “tea party” protesters attended town hall meetings and raised their voice about health care. It didn’t change anything. It still passed the House. It looks as though it will pass the Senate.

Now, despite the fringe media’s attempts, recent revelations from emails and documents show that AGW is a complete hoax! Not only that, but the EPA recently declared that carbon dioxide is a hazardous substance, and therefore, can be regulated! This paves the way for Cap-n-Tax. Again, no amount of truth would stop the ideas of the Left.

Who do we need to talk to? What do we need to say? So far, our words have fallen on deaf ears. If Congress won’t listen to us, and we know the President won’t, who do we talk to?

3) Hold to the Truth

This is the one area that I have no problem practicing! I know that the only way we’re going to get out of the recession is to go back to the policies that worked before, namely, Reagan’s policies! FDR’s policy didn’t work. Carter’s policy didn’t work. Socialist policies have NEVER worked on our planet, and with the current absence of factual alien data, I feel safe saying it’s never worked in our universe.

Because of my faith I am filled with hope that everything is working to God’s design, whether we know the path of that design or not. Whether I live to be 100 or die tomorrow, I have the hope of knowing that I’ll be reunited with my Savior.

I look at the leaders of the Right and we have some great people to follow. Sarah Palin seems to be the Energizer Bunny of our Party, she keeps going and going no matter what the Left does to her. Rush and Mark Levin appear to be the people that can most effectively rile up our party. All that we are missing is the instrument to focus that energy and rage at our opponent. I believe that you are that instrument, but you have yet to tell us what we need to do!

I know that you have a series of conventions starting in March. Are you 100% certain we’ll have a country at that time? I’m not trying to keep you from doing what you need to do to make money, I’m all for capitalism, however, this is more important than money.

Mr Beck, until I hear that you have started to give out the answers to these questions, I have to stop watching your program, since it does nothing but enrage and depress me.



Posted in Politics, Random Thoughts | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Words from the General

Posted by darthkeller on December 1, 2009

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and Distinguished Members of the Congress:

I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride — humility in the wake of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me; pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. Here are centered the hopes and aspirations and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected. I trust, therefore, that you will do me the justice of receiving that which I have to say as solely expressing the considered viewpoint of a fellow American.

I address you with neither rancor nor bitterness in the fading twilight of life, with but one purpose in mind: to serve my country. The issues are global and so interlocked that to consider the problems of one sector, oblivious to those of another, is but to court disaster for the whole. While Asia is commonly referred to as the Gateway to Europe, it is no less true that Europe is the Gateway to Asia, and the broad influence of the one cannot fail to have its impact upon the other. There are those who claim our strength is inadequate to protect on both fronts, that we cannot divide our effort. I can think of no greater expression of defeatism. If a potential enemy can divide his strength on two fronts, it is for us to counter his effort. The Communist threat is a global one. Its successful advance in one sector threatens the destruction of every other sector. You can not appease or otherwise surrender to communism in Asia without simultaneously undermining our efforts to halt its advance in Europe.

Beyond pointing out these general truisms, I shall confine my discussion to the general areas of Asia. Before one may objectively assess the situation now existing there, he must comprehend something of Asia’s past and the revolutionary changes which have marked her course up to the present. Long exploited by the so-called colonial powers, with little opportunity to achieve any degree of social justice, individual dignity, or a higher standard of life such as guided our own noble administration in the Philippines, the peoples of Asia found their opportunity in the war just past to throw off the shackles of colonialism and now see the dawn of new opportunity, a heretofore unfelt dignity, and the self-respect of political freedom.

Mustering half of the earth’s population, and 60 percent of its natural resources these peoples are rapidly consolidating a new force, both moral and material, with which to raise the living standard and erect adaptations of the design of modern progress to their own distinct cultural environments. Whether one adheres to the concept of colonization or not, this is the direction of Asian progress and it may not be stopped. It is a corollary to the shift of the world economic frontiers as the whole epicenter of world affairs rotates back toward the area whence it started.

In this situation, it becomes vital that our own country orient its policies in consonance with this basic evolutionary condition rather than pursue a course blind to the reality that the colonial era is now past and the Asian peoples covet the right to shape their own free destiny. What they seek now is friendly guidance, understanding, and support — not imperious direction — the dignity of equality and not the shame of subjugation. Their pre-war standard of life, pitifully low, is infinitely lower now in the devastation left in war’s wake. World ideologies play little part in Asian thinking and are little understood. What the peoples strive for is the opportunity for a little more food in their stomachs, a little better clothing on their backs, a little firmer roof over their heads, and the realization of the normal nationalist urge for political freedom. These political-social conditions have but an indirect bearing upon our own national security, but do form a backdrop to contemporary planning which must be thoughtfully considered if we are to avoid the pitfalls of unrealism.

Of more direct and immediate bearing upon our national security are the changes wrought in the strategic potential of the Pacific Ocean in the course of the past war. Prior thereto the western strategic frontier of the United States lay on the littoral line of the Americas, with an exposed island salient extending out through Hawaii, Midway, and Guam to the Philippines. That salient proved not an outpost of strength but an avenue of weakness along which the enemy could and did attack.

The Pacific was a potential area of advance for any predatory force intent upon striking at the bordering land areas. All this was changed by our Pacific victory. Our strategic frontier then shifted to embrace the entire Pacific Ocean, which became a vast moat to protect us as long as we held it. Indeed, it acts as a protective shield for all of the Americas and all free lands of the Pacific Ocean area. We control it to the shores of Asia by a chain of islands extending in an arc from the Aleutians to the Mariannas held by us and our free allies. From this island chain we can dominate with sea and air power every Asiatic port from Vladivostok to Singapore — with sea and air power every port, as I said, from Vladivostok to Singapore — and prevent any hostile movement into the Pacific.

Any predatory attack from Asia must be an amphibious effort. No amphibious force can be successful without control of the sea lanes and the air over those lanes in its avenue of advance. With naval and air supremacy and modest ground elements to defend bases, any major attack from continental Asia toward us or our friends in the Pacific would be doomed to failure.

Under such conditions, the Pacific no longer represents menacing avenues of approach for a prospective invader. It assumes, instead, the friendly aspect of a peaceful lake. Our line of defense is a natural one and can be maintained with a minimum of military effort and expense. It envisions no attack against anyone, nor does it provide the bastions essential for offensive operations, but properly maintained, would be an invincible defense against aggression. The holding of this littoral defense line in the western Pacific is entirely dependent upon holding all segments thereof; for any major breach of that line by an unfriendly power would render vulnerable to determined attack every other major segment.

This is a military estimate as to which I have yet to find a military leader who will take exception. For that reason, I have strongly recommended in the past, as a matter of military urgency, that under no circumstances must Formosa fall under Communist control. Such an eventuality would at once threaten the freedom of the Philippines and the loss of Japan and might well force our western frontier back to the coast of California, Oregon and Washington.

To understand the changes which now appear upon the Chinese mainland, one must understand the changes in Chinese character and culture over the past 50 years. China, up to 50 years ago, was completely non-homogenous, being compartmented into groups divided against each other. The war-making tendency was almost non-existent, as they still followed the tenets of the Confucian ideal of pacifist culture. At the turn of the century, under the regime of Chang Tso Lin, efforts toward greater homogeneity produced the start of a nationalist urge. This was further and more successfully developed under the leadership of Chiang Kai-Shek, but has been brought to its greatest fruition under the present regime to the point that it has now taken on the character of a united nationalism of increasingly dominant, aggressive tendencies.

Through these past 50 years the Chinese people have thus become militarized in their concepts and in their ideals. They now constitute excellent soldiers, with competent staffs and commanders. This has produced a new and dominant power in Asia, which, for its own purposes, is allied with Soviet Russia but which in its own concepts and methods has become aggressively imperialistic, with a lust for expansion and increased power normal to this type of imperialism.

There is little of the ideological concept either one way or another in the Chinese make-up. The standard of living is so low and the capital accumulation has been so thoroughly dissipated by war that the masses are desperate and eager to follow any leadership which seems to promise the alleviation of local stringencies.

I have from the beginning believed that the Chinese Communists’ support of the North Koreans was the dominant one. Their interests are, at present, parallel with those of the Soviet. But I believe that the aggressiveness recently displayed not only in Korea but also in Indo-China and Tibet and pointing potentially toward the South reflects predominantly the same lust for the expansion of power which has animated every would-be conqueror since the beginning of time.

The Japanese people, since the war, have undergone the greatest reformation recorded in modern history. With a commendable will, eagerness to learn, and marked capacity to understand, they have, from the ashes left in war’s wake, erected in Japan an edifice dedicated to the supremacy of individual liberty and personal dignity; and in the ensuing process there has been created a truly representative government committed to the advance of political morality, freedom of economic enterprise, and social justice.

Politically, economically, and socially Japan is now abreast of many free nations of the earth and will not again fail the universal trust. That it may be counted upon to wield a profoundly beneficial influence over the course of events in Asia is attested by the magnificent manner in which the Japanese people have met the recent challenge of war, unrest, and confusion surrounding them from the outside and checked communism within their own frontiers without the slightest slackening in their forward progress. I sent all four of our occupation divisions to the Korean battlefront without the slightest qualms as to the effect of the resulting power vacuum upon Japan. The results fully justified my faith. I know of no nation more serene, orderly, and industrious, nor in which higher hopes can be entertained for future constructive service in the advance of the human race.

Of our former ward, the Philippines, we can look forward in confidence that the existing unrest will be corrected and a strong and healthy nation will grow in the longer aftermath of war’s terrible destructiveness. We must be patient and understanding and never fail them — as in our hour of need, they did not fail us. A Christian nation, the Philippines stand as a mighty bulwark of Christianity in the Far East, and its capacity for high moral leadership in Asia is unlimited.

On Formosa, the government of the Republic of China has had the opportunity to refute by action much of the malicious gossip which so undermined the strength of its leadership on the Chinese mainland. The Formosan people are receiving a just and enlightened administration with majority representation on the organs of government, and politically, economically, and socially they appear to be advancing along sound and constructive lines.

With this brief insight into the surrounding areas, I now turn to the Korean conflict. While I was not consulted prior to the President’s decision to intervene in support of the Republic of Korea, that decision from a military standpoint, proved a sound one, as we — as I said, proved a sound one, as we hurled back the invader and decimated his forces. Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces.

This created a new war and an entirely new situation, a situation not contemplated when our forces were committed against the North Korean invaders; a situation which called for new decisions in the diplomatic sphere to permit the realistic adjustment of military strategy.

Such decisions have not been forthcoming.

While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China, and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old.

Apart from the military need, as I saw It, to neutralize the sanctuary protection given the enemy north of the Yalu, I felt that military necessity in the conduct of the war made necessary: first the intensification of our economic blockade against China; two the imposition of a naval blockade against the China coast; three removal of restrictions on air reconnaissance of China’s coastal areas and of Manchuria; four removal of restrictions on the forces of the Republic of China on Formosa, with logistical support to contribute to their effective operations against the common enemy.

For entertaining these views, all professionally designed to support our forces committed to Korea and bring hostilities to an end with the least possible delay and at a saving of countless American and allied lives, I have been severely criticized in lay circles, principally abroad, despite my understanding that from a military standpoint the above views have been fully shared in the past by practically every military leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I called for reinforcements but was informed that reinforcements were not available. I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy built-up bases north of the Yalu, if not permitted to utilize the friendly Chinese Force of some 600,000 men on Formosa, if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without, and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory.

We could hold in Korea by constant maneuver and in an approximate area where our supply line advantages were in balance with the supply line disadvantages of the enemy, but we could hope at best for only an indecisive campaign with its terrible and constant attrition upon our forces if the enemy utilized its full military potential. I have constantly called for the new political decisions essential to a solution.

Efforts have been made to distort my position. It has been said, in effect, that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes. Indeed, on the second day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-five, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the Battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows:

Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful. Military alliances, balances of power, Leagues of Nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.

But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

In war there is no substitute for victory.

There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. They are blind to history’s clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace. Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only other alternative.

“Why,” my soldiers asked of me, “surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?” I could not answer.

Some may say: to avoid spread of the conflict into an all-out war with China; others, to avoid Soviet intervention. Neither explanation seems valid, for China is already engaging with the maximum power it can commit, and the Soviet will not necessarily mesh its actions with our moves. Like a cobra, any new enemy will more likely strike whenever it feels that the relativity in military or other potential is in its favor on a world-wide basis.

The tragedy of Korea is further heightened by the fact that its military action is confined to its territorial limits. It condemns that nation, which it is our purpose to save, to suffer the devastating impact of full naval and air bombardment while the enemy’s sanctuaries are fully protected from such attack and devastation.

Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description.

They have chosen to risk death rather than slavery. Their last words to me were: “Don’t scuttle the Pacific!”

I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. They have met all tests there, and I can report to you without reservation that they are splendid in every way.

It was my constant effort to preserve them and end this savage conflict honorably and with the least loss of time and a minimum sacrifice of life. Its growing bloodshed has caused me the deepest anguish and anxiety.

Those gallant men will remain often in my thoughts and in my prayers always.

I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all of my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that “old soldiers never die; they just fade away.”

And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty.

Good Bye.


Gen Douglas MacArthur, to Congress, April 19, 1951

The way I see it, tonight Barry has two options that he must weigh and choose from. There are no other options that should be considered. Though history has painted him a mad-man, Gen MacArthur is one thing above all else, a military genius!

Those two options that Barry has tonight (taken from MacArthur): 1) Send Gen McCrystal the troops he’s requested, send them right now, send them, along with anything/everything else McCrystal requests. Give our men and women the best chance possible to succeed in Afghanistan! 2) Bring every troop, every rifle, every round of ammunition, HOME! Immediately! Do not let our men and women linger in a fight that the US Government will not allow them to win! Save their lives!

I’m not some crazy warmonger – I hate war! I would love to see the leaders of the world, in replace of war, sit down to a game of chess (ok, bad example, Barry would get DESTROYED by attempting to move all of his pieces to the left, without regard to what is straight-ahead….), but that’s not the way disputes are handled. They are handled with the sacrifice of men and women who believe in an idea, and believe that idea is bigger than you, me, or even their own life.

I would love to see a time of peace and prosperity in the world, but over the past 20 years, that peace has constantly been disturbed by one group of people, Muslims, and until they are made to sit-back and shut-up, the world simply will not be safe! If we do not show them that the United States is no longer going to play the target in their sick sadistic target-practice game, that our country will strike back at the tyrants who seek to do us harm, then at least give up now so that the best of our country can come home and live out their days with their families!

The time has come for Barry to make a decision, for the past 11 months he’s been able to prance around the world on his apology tour, avoiding the big issues by simply changing the topic of the day, but he can no longer vote PRESENT on the issue of the war in Afghanistan.

I don’t know why, but for some reason, a shiver just went down my spine……….

Posted in History, Politics | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Thank you JJ Abrams

Posted by darthkeller on November 18, 2009

FULL DISCLOSURE: I’m a geek.  If you don’t believe me, ask my wife (@RavensRedd).  She’ll tell you that I’m into video games, action figures, toys, Legos… If your five-year old is into it, so am I.

I’m not saying that all geeks are childish, we just choose not to grow up.

Also, I’m a film NUT!  I love to watch movies more than just about anything that I can think of.  Not only do I watch a lot of movies, I study film, memorize the most mundane facts about every film that I own (almost 500), look at patterns of what’s going on in the world of film.

For example: A few years ago, around 2000, we went through a comic-book phase of movies.  Almost every film that was released for several years was an adaptation of a comic book.  There was Blade, Elektra, X-Men, Daredevil, Spiderman, Fantastic 4, Mystery Men, Hulk, Hellboy…. The list continues for some time, and you don’t want me to list the films made in Japan.

Another trend, the use of trilogies… Scream, Saw (ok, so it’s a trilogy TWICE), Lord of the Rings, the Matrix….  A lot of trilogies that were released around the same time.

I’ve noticed another trend in Hollywood right now.  “Re-Boots”.

This is taking an established series of films and making the “first” in that series.

Still don’t get it?  Batman Begins, Rob Zombie’s Halloween, Friday the 13th (2008), Star Trek, and the upcoming release of A Nightmare on Elm St (Superman Returns MIGHT fit on this list… I’ll let you argue it).

The biggest reason given for these reboots: To be true to the fans.  Let’s face it, Batman & Robin (staring George Clooney, Chris O’Donnell, Uma Thurman and the Governator) WAS HORRIBLE!  There were more gay jokes in that film than in the last posting by Perez Hilton!  With the overwhelming success of Star Trek Deep Space Nine, something had to be done to bring Trek fans back into the fold.  Rob Zombie knew that we were ready for Michael Myers to terrorize us again, so he decided to try it out, and it was hugely successful!

Before you close your browser thinking I’ve had too much coffee and are ranting for the sake of ranting, I’m not.

Let’s take a look at the Tea-Party movement across America.  What is this?  What is it all about?  Simple: IT’S A RE-BOOT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!  It’s a movement by the fans, and they are demanding that the GOP return to the roots of the story!

Much like Trekkies (sorry guys, but you’re the most enthusiastic about your show), we demand satisfaction! The GOP has tried to go the Deep Space Nine route, and it hasn’t worked!

So, to the leaders of the GOP: You now have two choices: 1) You continue this path you’re on trying to be “more inclusive”, in which case, we’ll start a third party, and I’m sorry Mrs Palin, a third party WILL WORK!, or 2) You stop this madness and return the GOP to the roots that it was founded upon: SMALL GOVERNMENT, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, CUTTING TAXES,  AND CUT SPENDING!

It’s your choice, because if you won’t hear our cries, we’ll simply tune you out and continue to be enamored by our “Good Ole Days” (i.e., the Reagan era).

Posted in Hollyweird, Politics | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Playing by the Rules

Posted by darthkeller on November 16, 2009

I was raised in a house with a simple thought when it came to sports: It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.  In my teenage years, I had amended that thought slightly: It’s only about winning or losing, who cares how you get there!

I’m now much older, and I realize that I was wrong.  I realize that it’s all about how you play the game.  It’s about honoring the sport you’re playing; it’s about honoring those that came before you.  I watch the NBA and the way players play the game, and I think, “How can you disrespect players like ….?”

Last August we watched NBC attempt to talk around the only issue that seemed to matter: The Chinese female Olympic team was underage.  They would say things like: Well, if they’re good enough to be here, why does it matter?  Why does it matter? Simple: Everyone who plays a game has agreed to a set of rules before participation.  It doesn’t matter whether they were good enough or not, they were breaking rules that they themselves agreed to follow.

If that’s the argument that’s going to be used, then why not get rid of penalties in football, or fouls in basketball, or throw out any reason for tossing a player out of a baseball game! They are all good enough to play in their respective professional sport, therefore, according to the talking heads at NBC, there should be no penalties for not playing by any rules!

I know, this sounds like a weird rant on sports, but actually, it’s not.  It’s about politics.  You see, the Left has applied this technique for years! Think about it: Whenever any politician on the Right has shown that they are human, and therefore capable of making a mistake, they are portrayed as the worst living human being of all time!  Mark Sanford, who cheated on his wife, an act that I find about as despicable as any offense a man can perform, was on my TV for a week straight! Nothing but dissecting his home life, his credit card receipts, going through his garbage looking for that next piece of evidence.  Not only that, but the Left began to attack his policy decisions.  I’m sorry, but I’m not sure how cheating on your wife relates to your belief on lower taxes… Could be me, but those two don’t seem to mix very well.

Where was all this when it happened to Bill Clinton?  Sure, they talked about his infidelity; they all asked how Hillary could stay with him, etc.  But, I never once heard about how this might affect his policy.

This is Alinsky’s rules straight out of the playbook.  #13 (#11 in some lists….): “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.”

The fact is, the Left will always try to personalize every attack.  Why? Because they know that if they were forced to have an honest debate on policy, the American people would choose the freer system every time, and that would almost always play to the Republican Party.  So, they choose, instead, to attack the individuals.  This isn’t just a Left/Right issue either.

Look at the way Hillary Clinton was treated in the 2008 Democratic Primary.  Wow!  The only person I have ever seen treated with as much contempt was Sarah Palin, and that was only after they had practiced on Clinton.

This isn’t just kept in current politics either.  I’m sure some of you have heard of Progressive History.  Progressive History is the idea that, in every lesson of history see how you can blame the US and embolden the enemy.  I’ve even heard that it was our fault for the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  They claim it was because of embargos placed on Japan that they Japanese felt the need to bomb Pearl.  Yes, we had embargos against Japan, there’s no denying that fact, but they were placed there because of increased aggression out of the Japanese mainland.

Furthermore, regarding the attacks on Pearl, please take a look at the words of FDR: “The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with the government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.”

We didn’t go to them with talks of peace, they came to us, and then, behind our backs attacked us.  Now, the Left, with their superior intellect, would tell us that it was all our fault.  They want nothing more than to denigrate all but the most Communist of societies, so for them, the atomic bombs dropped are more proof of the evil of America.

Let’s consider for a moment: We spent days giving warning to the Japanese that they bombs were coming, even going so far as to drop the famous “LeMay Bombing Leaflet” to give warning to the people of several cities that these “bombs have no eyes.  So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.”

Sure, the Left will probably take credit for this all the while blaming the bombing on the Right (though, it should be noted that Truman, along with FDR, were LIBERALS, not just Democrats…).  What the Left of today would rather have seen in 1945, was no atomic weapon and instead we send thousands, if not millions, of American soldiers to fight on the shores of Japan.

What they don’t realize is the honor of the Japanese people.  They would have fought until there was only one left standing, and that person would have died defending his home as well.  You see, the Left wants nothing more than the demoralization of their enemy.  They would send a million men to corner the Japanese, where we on the Right, would rather send a bomb and destroy the corner, thus allowing for a way out.

Sure, all of this sounds like one huge digression, but I assure you, it’s not.  The Left today is trying to do to the Republicans what they think should’ve been done to the Japanese, using the rules of the Chinese National Team: Humiliate our opponent, the rules be DAMNED!

I’m a firm believer that: “An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind”, as a Christian, I do not believe that it would be in the GOP’s best interest to resort to the despicable tactics of the Left, and I don’t think we need to, in order to win elections.  But, there is a time in every fight, in every war, in which one party must stand up, draw a line in the sand, and say “NO MORE!”, and that time is now.  If not now, when, if not us, who?

Posted in History, Politics, sports | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Taking Michael Moore to Seminary

Posted by darthkeller on October 8, 2009

In case you missed Tuesday night’s Hannity, here’s a clip of the interview with Michael Moore, please pay attention to what Michael says at 4:05

I’ve grown so tired of watching Liberals try to quote and interpret the Bible, and watch them slant every piece of scripture to their own political agenda. Michael tries to make it sound like a rich person CAN NEVER get into heaven. But what does the Bible actually say? Let’s take a look at that piece of scripture:

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. – Matthew 19:24

Here’s what Matthew Henry said in his condensed commentary on the Bible:

Christ’s words show that it is hard for a rich man to be a good Christian, and to be saved. The way to heaven is a narrow way to all, and the gate that leads into it, a strait gate; particularly so to rich people. More duties are expected from them than from others, and more sins easily beset them. It is hard not to be charmed with a smiling world. Rich people have a great account to make up for their opportunities above others. It is utterly impossible for a man that sets his heart upon his riches, to get to heaven. Christ used an expression, denoting a difficulty altogether unconquerable by the power of man. Nothing less than the almighty grace of God will enable a rich man to get over this difficulty. Who then can be saved? If riches hinder rich people, are not pride and sinful lusts found in those not rich, and as dangerous to them?

So, it’s not so much that having money is the problem, it’s the fact that, with money, sins seem to avail themselves to the rich more so than those without money.

Let’s take a look at an example: Let’s say a man became a Christian when he was a young boy. Throughout his entire life he served in his church, in his community, he served God everyday of his life. At the age of 80 his wife comes home and tells him that she has just won the lottery, 100 gazillion dollars! In his excitement, he has a heart attack and dies. Now – At the time of his death, he’s RICH! So, does that disqualify everything else in his life? Some might argue, “Well, he really wasn’t rich, she was just holding the winning ticket, not the actual money.” Okay… Let’s say it was a year later, and he passed away quietly in his sleep. Does that forfeit heaven? I would say “No”.

Here’s another verse that Liberals LOVE to spout:

Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. – Luke 18:22

“See, there it is right there! You have to be poor to get to heaven! This is the proof for redistribution of wealth!” All right Libs, hold on one sec. Let’s take a look at what was REALLY going on here. You see, if you read the verses preceding verse 22, you’ll find a rich man asking Jesus what he must do to get to heaven. Jesus tells him to follow all the commandments, which the man, by his own admission, has done. Then Jesus tells him to sell everything and give away all his money. So, why did Jesus tell him that? Simple: Jesus wanted to use this man to prove the point that no matter how hard you try, there will always be something that you are not willing to give up in your attempt to work your way into heaven. It’s impossible. Still want to argue with me… Let’s take another verse from the Bible then:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast. – Ephesians 2:8-9

There you go, the whole reason behind the rich man’s request and Christ’s answer: No matter what you do, it’ll never be enough, because there will always be that ONE THING that you will not be able to give up on your own

Let’s go back to Michael for just a moment. Here’s a weird question: If he’s so bent on the Bible being the infallible word of God, and the words of that “book” are to be used in everyday life situations, more than just a guide, but a guiding principle… How does he support a man who is so in favor of abortion?

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. – Jeremiah 1:5

Before you were two cells old, before you were a thought in your parent’s hearts, God knew you and had a plan for your life! That almost sounds like abortion is..………. MURDER! We can argue and bicker about trimesters and weeks, but the ultimate authority on life and death just said that He had a plan for you BEFORE YOU WERE FORMED! Therefore, by the time you begin to form, you’re way into the “living” stage in God’s eyes. But, Liberals won’t hear that. No, they will simply state that God’s plan for “fetus X” was to be aborted. I don’t presume to know the plans of God, and I think anyone who does is skating on VERY THIN ICE. I cannot believe that a God who wanted to create something as amazing as humans would then want to destroy that same thing without any reasoning behind it. Instead Liberals will try to say that the book of Jeremiah was largely prophetic, and all prophecy books are “symbol rich” (wonder if they get into heaven or not), so taking them at their word would not be the best thing to do. Ever get the feeling you’re playing a shell game when you argue with a Liberal? I’m starting to feel that way right now.

Or they will bring up all the murders in the Bible. I’m not going through all of them, but I have read enough to know, the few times that God told someone to kill someone else, there was always a reason. The rest of the murders were the murderer acting of his own accord. I’ll end that debate with that statement.

You see, for Liberals, quoting the Bible is just another way for them to pander to the crowd. “Hey, look at me, I’m a Christian because I can quote the Bible”. So what, the Bible says that even the Demons know the name of Jesus and they tremble before it. Using that logic, if I were to start quoting Anton Levey does that make me a Satanist? How about if I quote Karl Marx, does that make me a Marxist? No. It means I read a book, nothing more. All too often, when Liberals quote the Bible, they then mangle the interpretation so bad that the original meaning of the text is forever lost. Another great example of this: “Jesus believed in socialized medicine because he healed everyone!”

“Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.” – Luke 8:48

Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.” – Luke 17:19

Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.” – Luke 18:42

He listened to Paul as he was speaking. Paul looked directly at him, saw that he had faith to be healed and called out, “Stand up on your feet!” At that, the man jumped up and began to walk. – Acts 14:9-10

Now, I could be mistaken, but it looks as though there’s a lot of work being done on the part of the person being healed. They have to come to where Jesus (or Paul) are at, get their attention, display their faith, and then they get healed. So, if Liberals want to take the gospel and say that it has any commentary of healthcare, here’s what I think it says: IF YOU WANT HEALTHCARE, GO OUT AND GET IT YOURSELF! Jesus wasn’t handing out “healings”, He was taking the faith of the person and using that faith to heal them! You sure you still want to say that the Bible promotes socialism?

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” – 2 Thes 3:10

A slight change from the Liberal Bible… Maybe they should come over to my house and read mine.

So, Liberals, some advice… Don’t quote the Bible. When you do, you make yourself look goofier than you did before you quoted the Bible. Stick to something you know, like….

Okay, I got nothing….

Posted in Hollyweird, Politics | 3 Comments »

Happy Birthday Red China

Posted by darthkeller on September 30, 2009

On this day, 60 years ago (a day that the Left is so excited to celebrate), under the leadership of Mao Zedong, the People’s Republic of China was born.

Let’s PARTY!

On second thought, let’s take a look at what the Chinese communists have accomplished in the last 60 years:

  • Restrictions on freedom of speech
  • Restrictions on advocacy of independence
  • Restrictions on where you can live
  • Strict apartheid
  • Murder

But hey, that’s what the Left wants in this country, right? They have, for years, tried to shut-out the conservatives of this country, made every effort to implement socialism, cordoning off parts of American cities where conservatives are not welcome and requesting that presidents, with whom they don’t agree, be killed.

Sounds eerily similar to me…

Then there’s the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 which left hundreds dead. After the death of pro-democracy and anti-corruption official Hu Yaobang, millions gathered for his memorial. During that memorial, disillusioned Chinese Communist Party members, Trotskyists (those who followed Leon Trotsky’s idea of socialism), and free market reformers seemed to join forces in a protest against the Chinese government. From all accounts, from May 15 though May 20, there were no incidents of violence, but on May 20th the Chinese government implemented martial law. Though they were held back, on June 1 they returned, and this time marched into the heart of Tiananmen square. The exact number of deaths has never been reported.

And how about Mao Zedong? Let’s look at some of his quotes.

In class society, everyone lives as a member of a particular class, and every kind of thinking, without exception, is stamped with the brand of a class.

– “On Practice” (July 1937), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 296.

Wow! That sounds awesome! Like, once you’re born, either poor or rich, you’re stuck in that class! No chance of rising up the ladder! That’s pretty much the exact opposite of America! But hey, the Left wants SOCIALISM!

Our educational policy must enable everyone who receives an education to develop morally, intellectually and physically and become a worker with both socialist consciousness and culture.

– On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (February 27, 1959), 1st pocket ed., p. 44.

Hmmm… How about some education with your indoctrination? That sounds great! Almost sounds like “The Story of Stuff” that was recently shown to our kids in public schools. Or, how about teachers forcing their kids to sing songs about Obama (their reasoning: It was Black History Month… Ever hear of George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King, Jr, Harriet Tubman? How about we study those people? And, by the way, “learning about” and “singing praises to” are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!) .

We could talk about the Hundred Flowers Campaign… A period from 1956 until 1957 when the Communist Party of China allowed open dissent against the government. The idea was to have intellectuals discuss the country’s problems in order to promote new arts and new cultural institutions. However, in July 1957, Mao changed his mind, stating that many of the letters had violated the idea of “healthy criticism”, and that they had reached a “harmful and uncontrollable” level. The final result of the Hundred Flowers Campaign: Persecution of intellectuals, students, artists and dissidents labeled “rightists”. Over 550,000 people were imprisoned, tortured, or killed.

As I read this, I couldn’t help but be reminded of Hillary Clinton proudly proclaiming in 2005: “We are Americans, We have the right to participate and debate any administration.” Follow that with the words of Nancy Pelosi: “Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American” in reaction to the town-hall protests

Then there was the Great Leap Forward, which was intended as an alternative model for economic growth, a period in which private food production was banned for a more communal system, and peasants were forced to work on massive infrastructure projects and the small-scale production of iron and steel. During this time, Mao and other party leaders ordered the implementation of a variety of unproven and unscientific new agricultural techniques by the new communes. This led to a 15% drop in grain production in 1959, and another 10% drop in 1960, with no recovery in 1961.

This drop in food is indirectly linked to the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese peasants, and thought to be the cause of the Great Chinese Famine. This program was so bad that the Party leadership forced Mao to end it a year earlier than planned

All in all, Mao’s policies have been attributed to the deaths of between 40 and 70 million people

So, while the Left are out partying like it’s 1949, I’ll do my part to ensure that this type of government never takes hold in the United States!

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »