Terry Jones may be a Idiot but actions reveal a double standard

While listening to a NPR program on Terry Jones' plan to burn Qurans on the anniversary of 9/11 I was struck by what a double standard there is between how we view Muslims and how they view us.
Of course this is a hair brained idea by Jones but that is all it is. Can anyone imagine this story getting the publicity if Muslims would burn Bibles? The majority of the public in the United States would say ho-hum what else is new? We have to only think of the fire storm and the deaths (mostly Muslims killing other Muslims when they perceived a offensive cartoon by a Danish cartoonist) to remember the mind boggling thinking process of those that embrace radical Islam.
Another issue non-Muslims have trouble wrapping their minds around is the idea that only a tiny segment of Muslims are radical and the majority want peace and are not inclined to radical Islam. This may be true but I can't help remembering images on tv world wide of Muslims celebrating on the streets and passing out candy and cheering on 9/11 when the towers fell.
Does anyone believe there would be people running through the streets in America and cheering and celebrating if American's in the name of Christianity flew a plane into buildings in Muslim cities in the Middle East?
As I write this I'm hearing on the radio people in the United States
organizing “Buy A Quran Day” and buying five Qurans for every one burned and organizing protests at the site of the burning. I then have been bombarded by tv and radio informing me how Americans abroad need to go down into a security lock down because of reprisals that will be inflicted upon themselves by Muslims offended by Terry Jones actions. More then likely these reprisals would take the form of death by those that disagree with what Jones is doing.
Again I wonder if there would be a “Buy a Bible Day” and protests and government warnings of Middle East governments of reprisals if the situation was reversed. I think not.
Terry Jones is a idiot but those that use this to cause death and anarchy in the name of Islam are also idiots and are little more then petty thugs that want to will their ideology on other Muslims. Oh, another thought to remember is if your not “their type of Muslim” then you better watch your backs also. Your the the same as a infidel. Not fit to live unless you agree with their thoughts on how a proper Muslim should live. Look at the different sects killing each other off in the Middle East right now with the excuses that each other are not “real” Muslims.
There is alot of informed, hateful people out there. Time to go down in lock down mode now.

United States Says No To Poker

Anyone up for a game of poker? The United States government answer is no. Online internet poker is not only allowed in just about every country in the world but most governments sponsor or regulate online poker and other games.
The United States has lost numerous suits brought against it through the World Trade Organization that accuses the United States of discriminating against online gambling offered by other countries.
The United States argument is that they can refuse products or services that are not socially accepted in society. The WTO ruled that the United States allows online betting on horse racing within the United States but is blocking other forms of regulated gambling outside of the United States.
Sounds like protectionism. This is the same government that lets you go down to your local 7-11 and buy a $20.00 scratch off ticket and has lotto's that finance almost every state government with mind boggling odds. What is the government really afraid of?
Sad to say it seems Republicans are leading this movement.
Being a Republican I just don't get it. I grew up learning that being a Republican meant less government in your life but this is the same party that comes into your house and tells you that you cannot play poker online with money you yourself have earned. A little off the subject but isn't this the same party that has tried to censor broadcast stations for content they deem could be offensive to the public? Talk about Government intruding into your personal life.
Poker unlike other forms of gambling is mostly a game of skill. Those that know the game more or less in the long run win the money. Sooner or later the United States Government will regulate and make it legal to gamble online and when they do the benefits of increased taxes will put smiles on their faces.
Until then you can gamble online under a set of murky laws put in place by the government or you can legally buy as many $20.00 scratch off tickets as you want or get online and do a little bet of horse racing.
Both of these make enormous sums of money for the government but to tell you the truth are just bad bets. If your good at poker then your odds have greatly increased but until the government here does the right thing your out of luck.

General John Kerry

Here's a news flash: President Obama just announced he won't be rushed into making a decision on whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan. That's a relief since it's only been longer then a month since his commander requested help.
President, Take your time, maybe address the UN again or start campaigning for the 2020 Olympics. Those combat troops in Afghanistan can wait. Heck, take yourself a vacation and relax maybe a vacation will help you think. There isn't a rush.
General John Kerry also just announced that President Obama's Commanding General in Afghanistan is moving too far and too fast in regards to his plea for additional troops. In the Same breath Kerry warned that the United States cannot risk a shift in strategy that would narrowly focus on hunting terrorists.
Gee, seems to me if General McChrystal doesn't get the troops he requested then the mission will have to shift to a more narrow focus. I mean at this point he's not getting the troops he requested to regain the initiative. Gen. McChystal is advising his President he doesn't have enough troops but Kerry doesn't want the mission in Afghanistan to downsize. Do the math, Kerry.
Gen. McChystal probably never thought he would have to deal with a Commander-in Chief that injects so much politics in trying to make military decisions. It almost looks like Obama is looking at the polls and seeing which way the wind is going to blow before he decides on his commander's plea.
Wouldn't surprise me if McChystal just throws his arms up and resigns.

Troops in Afghanistan need a Commander-in-Chief

President Obama has gone weeks without sending the additional troops to Afghanistan that were requested by his handpicked commander Gen. McChrystal. This delay was before the disputed election in that country. No matter. President Obama is now using that disputed election as a reason to continue the delay in sending help requested by his commander.
Mr. Obama, the troops on the ground couldn't care less about who wins what election. They are fighting for their lives and their commander has requested more troops now (Actually that now has been well over a month).
While Obama has playing politics back home his troops on the ground in Afghanistan are in trouble. Act like a Commander- in-Chief and send the requested troops or get them out of there. Seems to me the troops on the ground are being left out to dry. Why choose your General to command your troops but when he asks for help he's not heard? Tell you what, just fire this General as you did the previous one. Keep appointing new Generals until you find one that tells you what you want to hear.
Moral within the military has to be fading fast with a Commander-in-Chief that refuses to respond to his General's plea for help. Maybe Obama will end up sending more troops but when and will it all ready be too late?

Obama, Don't leave the troops out to dry

At first when reading articles about the top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChyrstal, I too thought he may have been out of line when at at a speech in London he appealed for more troops in Afghanistan but that all changed when I heard remarks by Obama's defense secretary Robert Gates.
Right after 8 American's got killed in a remote Afghan outpost (there is thoughts by many in the military that the troops were stretched too thin) Gates announced it may still take weeks to decide whether to send more troops to Afghanistan or not! Come on Obama has already had weeks to decide and the troops over there don't have the luxury of waiting while Obama is taking trips to such places as Copenhagen on behalf of Chicago for the Olympics. Somebody needs to take his plane away and sit him in that oval office and don't let him come out until he makes a decision.
American's are dying in Afghanistan and their top commander, hand picked by Obama, is asking for help with more troops.
Give him the troops or get them the hell out of there. Don't leave them out to dry while your trying to make up your mind.
The more I think about this controversy with Gen. McChyrstal the more I believe he knew exactly what he was doing. You don't become a four star Gen by being stupid. Maybe the situation is so dire in Afghanistan that he felt a fire had to be lit under Obama's ass to get him to decide which way he wants to go.

Let's fly to Cuba!

I used to be outraged when I was younger over the old Soviet Union who denied their citizens the ability to travel outside their country. A government should not be able to tell their own citizens where they can and cannot go. Freedom to travel I believe is a fundamental right of everyone.
In this day and age I cannot believe the United States restricts Americans from going to Cuba. Want to go to North Korea, China, or Iran? No problem. How about the tiny island nation of Cuba laying 90 miles off the cost of Florida? Don't even think about it.
Actually people do think about it and Americans that are determined to see Cuba usually go through Mexico or Canada. Once in Cuba immigration there will look at your passport and see your an American and usually won't stamp your passport so you don't get in trouble when you return to the United States.
The don't go to Cuba restrictions were put in place back in 1963. Maybe, just maybe someone in the government here can wake up and realize that these restrictions that deny Americans the right to travel to Cuba haven't worked in ending the communist rule there. All they have done with this policy has made us a joke in the eyes of Canadians and Europeans who have the freedom to travel and enjoy what Cuba has to offer.
I resent our government restricting my freedom. Cuba may not be everyone's cup of tea but those that would like to travel there, then why not?
There is a bill called “Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act” that was introduced to to congress in February 2009. It was read twice then referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. I doubt its going anywhere.
To the critics that want to continue this ban because of Cuba's suppression of its people I say so what? If we would put a ban on every country that suppressed their own people then half the world would be off limits to us.
Right now Cuba's government routinely blames the American embargo and travel restrictions as reasons why their economy is failing. What excuses would Cuba's government give to their people if we ended the embargo and travel restrictions?

Why you should be able to defend youself with a gun in Chicago

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge on the 27 year old gun ban in Chicago. It's about time. The gun ban was put into effect to curb urban violence which it has failed miserably to do.
I know liberals will see this as a tired old cliche but it is as true as ever. The gun ban only keeps hand guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. If you follow that logic then gun violence is not committed by law abiding citizens that should be able to own a gun.
Study after study has shown that licensed gun owners commit a miniscule amount of gun violence compared with unlicensed gun owners. Could it be again that registered gun owners are law abiding citizens?
Actually I think this whole gun control issue should be a liberal cause in favor of “freedom of choice”. If I choose to have a hand gun that should be my right. I'm not hurting anyone unless I'm threatened with bodily harm.
This whole insane idea of withholding handguns from law abiding citizens must really embolden criminals. They know there is little chance a private citizen can defend him or herself.
Let those people without violent criminal records have handguns and those that are caught with a unregistered gun or commit a crime with a gun get stiff jail time. No plea bargain. Example: robbing a gas station with a gun, two years for the robbery and 10 years for using a gun in commission of a crime. No plea bargain. It shouldn't be a crime just to own a gun that's in a private home laying in a drawer.
I wonder how many of those against handgun ownership would change their minds if they lived in some of the most drug, crime ridden parts of Chicago?

Man up Alan Grayson

In this day and age people throw around the word holocaust for shock value because of course the first thing that comes to a person's mind is the WWII holocaust that killed over 6 millions Jews.
Rep. Alan Grayson knew this when he called no health care “America's holocaust” after he made the announcement that “Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick”.
Well I consider myself a Republican as is a very large percentage of the people living here in the United States. So I guess Grayson was referring to almost half of the population wanting to see sick people die.
I haven't heard Obama or any other democratic leaders rebuking this man. Some people are comparing his remark to Joe Wilson's shout at President Obama “you Lie” during the President's speech. It was a bonehead thing to do. Joe Wilson apologized for the remark that should never have been made while the president was speaking. It was to say the least boorish behavior.
Alan Grayson on the other hand went beyond boorish behavior when he said Republican's want to see sick people die. He knows, I know and every reader knows he don't believe what he said. Grayson in trying to tie the health care debate to the holocaust demeans and belittles the 6 million Jews killed during the “real” holocaust.
Man up Alan and give the millions of us that are Republican's an apology. Funny when the democrats use inflammatory rhetoric and throw around words like holocaust and killing to put down the other party all we see are smug smiles from the democratic leadership with no apologies.

G20 protesters or Taliban in Disguise?

I think the G-20 protesters in Pittsburgh this past September have much more in common with the taliban then the average man in the street. Consider this: You have self-described anarchists wearing dark clothes and bandannas carrying black flags and smashing windows of businesses and shouting slogans such as “No hope in Capitalism” while banging on drums and throwing rocks.
What do these people want? What do the Taliban want? They both seem to hate Western governments, have no use for structure in peoples lives and they both have as many “causes” as their fanatics can come up with to justify their behavior.
The Taliban on any given day tells us that they justify their actions because there against democracy, women's rights, Christians, infidels on Muslim land, against certain other kind of Muslims, the list goes on. Now we have the so called self -described G20 anarchists. They want to abolish capitalism (like the Taliban wishes), rejection of corporate subsidies, global warming, different types of child-labor laws, no more corporate bailouts and African debt relief among other far ranging causes that they use to justify their anarchy.
I'm not exactly for corporate bailouts either but a lot of these G20 protesters
profess they are for the poor people, the small guy. Where do they think these low to middle income people will be once businesses like GM and Chrysler close down? Then you have the trickle down effect of people making minimum wage that supply parts to these companies and other surrounding businesses who cater to the employees of these companies such as the restaurants, mom and pop stores and such. Do they consider where these people will be without the bailouts?
What is also interesting is how they can justify African debt relief but not corporate bailouts. They want to bailout a African system that has fostered corruption, war, greed and human slave trade on its own people year after year. Isn't that what enablers do? Lets do away with their debt to help prop up these corrupt power systems in Africa.
These G20 protesters need to get a life and if they want to help mankind then go find a good charity where they can donate their own money and leave the world's problems to the mostly elected officials voted in by their own population, the common man, of the G20.