Battered Person Syndrome in Liberal Form

Battered person syndrome is a psychological condition resulting from the suffering of abuse at the hands of someone else. This results in the victim having a low self-esteem, believing the abuse is their fault, and seeking out the abuser for comfort. Although this is associated with a physical abuse situation I think some of the same principles can be applied to liberals and their feelings about terrorism. And maybe I would not associate it to all liberals but the far left acolytes of liberalism who seek to blame America first for inviting the terrorists to attack us. It is a mentality that I can not get any grasp of. How someone could blame us for the heinous and evil acts perpetrated by radical Islamists. But we have heard the voices of individuals like a Cindy Sheehan who denounce our actions against the radical Islamic fringe and instead refer to our leaders as war criminals for taking such actions. Even those on the other side of the aisle like Ron Paul want to limit our intervention and instead resort to a policy of stick your head in the sand a.k.a. isolationism. He made the comments during one debate seeming to say that we have brought the wrath of the radicals on ourselves with our policies towards the Middle East. I find it disappointing to say the least that an elected official would claim that we would be to blame for men flying planes into buildings on our shores whatever our foreign policy. I think some of this talk is a result of those on the left who are so concerned with how we as a nation are viewed by the rest of the world. We tell our children early on in life that they should not be concerned with how other people think of them and that they should be their own person. Well the message is not resonating and we end up with individuals who are obsessed with implementing the European model into our country. I think these people need to seek professional help with their infliction. It is not only a disappointing position to take but potentially a dangerous one. That mindset leaves us open to real threats and dangers by simply dismissing them as unreal or even worse our fault.

The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself, and Radical Islam

I think that is probably how the statement would go had it been uttered in today's environment. I say this as a proud American who realizes the greatness of our country and its resolve to deal with any adversity and conquer it. But we must realize the threat that radical Islam poses to our country and democracy around the world. I fear our country's resolve to deal with this danger fell drastically as a result of the results of last November's election. The danger is a nation becoming complacent and fall into a false sense of security. This is especially possible when certain political forces play down the threat from radical Islam. I think that attitude comes from the fact that they do not see the risk of terrorists following us to our shores as credible. The fact is when you have people that want to destroy us and an unprotected border you have an equation with disaster on the other side of the equal sign. But we may not have to wait for those to follow us home from Iraq. As the situation at Fort Dix showed us terrorism can be homemade as terror cells populate within our borders. And if a certain political party keeps attacking and wanting to take away all our tactics to fight these terrorists, the peace we have had these past few years since 9/11 may go up in smoke, literally. If we take this attitude as has been adopted by so many then we really will have something to fear. The best strategy we have is to go on offense and take the fight to the enemy. But we must be willing to go all the way in this fight. Right now we have a leader who understands this, but it may change in the next election cycle. War fatigue is frankly not an option. We will not solve this problem in a year or two. With a seemingly growing crop of new radicals being brainwashed and cultivated our commitment is needed now more than ever. We were once a nation that put democracy on a pedestal as a model for other nations to follow. Unfortunately that pedestal has been losing its support as a result of comments and actions of some, and is not as firmly in place as it once was. We are attacked for wanting to give other nations the security, prosperity, and freedom we enjoy. It may be unrealistic to expect every nation to be our duplicate. But if they can escape the violence and persecution of the evil entities that control them is not our campaign a noble and necessary one? Because planting democracy over there might just save ours over here.

Why Do Democrats Hate Minorities?

Why do Democrats hate minorities? I know many of you are saying to yourself that Democrats do not hate minorities, but embrace them into their party. I believe this is the general opinion of most Democrats because they are the big-tent party of minorities.I would agree with that statement. Minorities, especially African-Americans, have voted more for Democrats than Republicans. Another question I could pose is why do they? I would tie both questions together because they relate to each other in a cause and effect or action and consequence way. I pose this question because I think there is some evidence Democrats do hate minorities. The main reason is the policies they set and try to implement. Not only do they not work but they end up doing more harm then good. I fault the Democrats ideology as well-intentioned but misguided. They set up programs like welfare, social programs that create a dependence on the government. These types of social programs rarely are successful and cost the taxpayers millions if not billions over their lifetime. Why would you work any harder if you knew the government was going to take care of you? This nanny-state mentality is absurd and a wrong course of action.Take for example New Orleans which has been Democrat-run for decades. We all saw the conditions of the town when Hurricane Katrina hit. What should have been a panacea turned out to be anything but. What we got was a city crying out for the government to save them as if the government can really be counted on for much of anything. It seems like Democrats want to keep their core constituents under their thumb never wanting them to fully reach their potention for fear of losing their vote. When you are a party that constantly tells your voters that the government is keeping them from succeeding why would they ever try in the first place.Democrats even fail on one of the most important areas, education. Education is the cornerstone of personal success. But when it comes to school vouchers the liberal teachers union vote a resounding no. As a result many minority students fade away in poor schools. Maybe if we were truly focused on education and responsible choices we would not have the degree of minority teenage mothers that we do. We have children who are having children themselves at an alarming rate. As a result we have mothers with no education and very often no husband to help support them. Basically these women are starting life out with two strikes against them.Another smaller point deals with language. Democrats oppose making English the official language. They call it simply rascist and part of a far-right agenda. How successful a nation can we be when entire towns are unable to communicate with us and do not have enough workers who speak English, the language of success? Unfortunately this is a reality is at least one California town.Do I really think Democrats hate minorities? The answer to that is no, but based on their policies I wonder if they are truly concerned about their welfare as opposed to someone who will blindly vote for them. It might be a corny line but a hand up is better then a hand out.

The Real Crisis in America

When liberals talk about global warming they tend to present it as fact. More importantly, they portray global warming as an absolute fact not open for discussion or debate. I find this more than infuriating on many levels. First, liberals state there is a consensus on the issue and secondly, they close their minds to any reality that does not fit into their ideology. The truth is there is a significant segment of scientists and weather experts not yet willing to concede to this. Liberals, however, are tuned out to this message because it challenges one of their principle tenets, the environment. The "Blame America First" crowd has declared the Earth is on an ever increasing warming curve and humans are solely to blame. I hate that these are the same people that up until the early nineties thought we would encounter the next ice age. Well I must tell you that there are no polar bears or penguins in my backyard. But now we are to believe these individuals and their weather models. Sorry, but I ain't buying what they are selling.Listen, the earth may be warming but attributing it to humans is ridiculous. I am more than ready to blame the sun than humans for the warming. But I do thank Al Gore for telling our children that polar bears are going to die and the Earth will burn up. I thought the Republicans were the ones who played the fear card. I wish liberals would focus on the real and imminent threats to the planet like cancer. This disease, which takes the life of millions, is a real and present threat to humanity-- much more so than global warming. I do not know of a single person whose cause of death has been global warming, but I know many that have lost their lives as a result of cancer. How about throwing money at a real problem and not on carbon credits which are nothing more than modern day indulgences. Let's wise up, America, to the realities of our world. I fear this will not happen until the radical left stops seeing an SUV driving on a highway as a hate crime against nature.

Don Gets Dumped: The Bitter End of Don Imus

America's original shock jock falls amid an outrage that spawned from his choice of words, directed at the women's basketball team at Rutgers University. MSNBC, which ran Imus' radio simulcast, was the first to act by cancelling their simulcast and was followed days later by CBS radio. The story started off small, but grew in intensity as more and more outlets became involved in the story: namely Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who called for Don Imus to be fired for his comments. The popular show, which was able to bring many high-profile individuals in the political and journalism domains onto its airwaves, has been known to originate other controversial statements in the past. One of the interesting points to this story is the selective outrage by many of the people who have recently commented on this story, and especially Reverends Sharpton and Jackson. The people who went on the Don Imus show knew what had been said in the past by Imus and his crew, but only now called for him to be fired. Others I have heard claim a kind of ignorance which I find laughable. This attempt at a plausible denial is implausible. I think what Imus said was over the line especially when you look at who he was directing it at. These were young women who had achieved a great deal of success and were caught in Imus' cross-hair. But I also think we should look at how this story gained steam like it did. We had Sharpton and Jackson involved, like they always are in situations like this. These are two men who have not met soapbox they would not stand on to spout their opinions. These self-declared spokesmen for all African-Americans called for the head of Don Imus. This, at the time that the Rutgers' women had met with Imus and accepted his apology. But it was too late for Don Imus as sponsor after sponsor pulled out and the executives got scared and reacted. This reaction of course was not immediate, but after a few days when I guess Imus' words had gotten worse over time. The main point of my diatribe is focused on Sharpton and Jackson. These are two men who hardly have the moral authority to be denouncing anyone's words. I am sick of these two men constantly inserting themselves into every issue or event. I am really sick of the selective moral outrage shown by these two men. They condemn people like Imus but refuse to focus their attention on the music industry where such degrading speech is a constant presence. It seems they are blind to the real crises that the African-American community is confronted with like teenage pregnancy and school drop-outs. But individuals like Sharpton and Jackson have an agenda and instead look for easy prey that they can target and exploit for their own personal gain.

Pelosi Does Damascus: Nancy's Middle East Quest For Peace

Despite being told to keep out of Syria, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would not be denied the opportunity to speak with the state sponsors of terrorism. In doing so, Mrs. Pelosi may have violated a U.S. law against such actions.The Democrats want us to remember the elections of last fall, but it is they who should remember who was elected president. The constitution provides the House of Representatives with many responsibilites, but setting U.S. foreign policy is not one of them. The president is given this responsibility, and the Democrats seem to want to forget that.In fact, the House has no real foreign responsibility given to them. The Senate is the legislative body that is in charge of foreign treaties. It is bad policy and setting a bad precedent for the Democrats to provide competing foreign policies, especially to nations whose Hezbollah party is a major terrorist organization.Speaker Pelosi has turned herself into a propaganda tool that can be used by these evil actors to claim some right of legitimacy.I know some people have complained about the focus being solely put on Mrs. Pelosi and not on the Republican congressman that accompanied her. In answer: First of all, Mrs. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and being of such a high office, should realize the credibility that title carries to nations like Syria. I will concede that these congressman from the right side of the aisle should not have made the trip into Syria either. By meeting with individuals like Syrian President Assad, they condone a country who is a state sponser of terrorism and wants to destroy Israel.How do we rationally talk with people who will not recognize the right to exist of our greatest regional ally? Besides, what has the talking of the past decades gotten us? The answer to that, in my opinion, is nowhere.It seems to me that Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats think they have some grand design to bring about peace in a region marred by war and destruction. I, personally, doubt it. The Democrats appear to have this perspective about the entire Middle East. How can we negotiate with nations like Iran, who have repeatedly denied the Holocaust, or Israel's right to exist? To me that kind of mindset is a deal breaker at the negotiation table. Democrats preach diplomacy. But unless that diplomacy is backed up with the threat of force it has no power.