Leave it to Cindy Sheehan to compel me to write a blog entry after so long out of the blogging fray. I, apparently unlike Cindy, have a real job that places real demands on my time. I don’t have the luxury of not working because I have bills to pay and so forth, much like the rest of Americans. But, alas, I am back at it to note the latest antics of my now favorite war protestor. After her alleged retirement from the protesting business, Cindy is back, far-fetched as ever.

Now, Cindy’s target is another of my favorite liberals, San Fran Nan. Yes, none other than the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

Cindy has announced her intentions to run against Nancy if her highness, check that, her speakerness, doesn’t bring articles of impeachment against President Bush. I do not wish to debate that subject now as the mere mention of impeachment leads to frantic and crazed debate from both sides of the political spectrum. However, I do want to mention that Ms. Pelosi has been quoted as saying that she would NOT seek said articles of impeachment against the President. Will the pressure of a potential challenge from Cindy change her mind? If it does, let the debate then rage over how power thirsty all of our elected officials are, from both parties. It boggles the mind.

But, here comes Cindy, yet again. What exactly qualifies her to be a US Representative? I mean, what qualifies most of them, but especially what qualifies Cindy? To my knowledge, she hasn’t held a job for the past two years. Now she wants to run on an antiwar platform to unseat one of her own. Cindy is disgruntled with all aspects of politics and feels that the Democrats haven’t done any better than the Republicans since the takeover of the November 2006 elections. To be honest, I have to agree with Cindy on that note, but obviously for far different reasons.

What is the point, Mr. Right Wing Zealot? The point is two-fold: First, Cindy just keeps on going, like the Energizer bunny. It is frightening that someone as shrill as she is can keep getting the media attention that she gets. The left seems to want to stop the war, fair enough, but also claims to support the troops. Yet, their version of “support” leaves quite a bit to be desired in my humble opinion. Point number two: Will Nancy Pelosi stand for this? The media is obviously going to run with this story, especially if Cindy actually does challenge her. I mean hell; even I took the time to write about it. But where will this leave Nancy, arguably the most powerful woman in American politics (sorry Hillary) and the now (dare I say) “mainstream” whacky liberal Democrats? And we all thought the 2008 presidential campaign would be exciting.

Cindy, perhaps NOW is the time to take the swan song and just fade away. I think Nancy might be a bit too much for even you to handle.

 Did anyone catch Cindy Sheehan’s performance as the new Democratic Congressional leaders tried to have a press event yesterday? I suppose you couldn’t miss it if you watched the news. When will this woman’s fifteen minutes of fame expire? Enough already! What makes the whole matter worse is her tone. Am I the only one who thinks she whines (or perhaps even squeals) as opposed to speaking? Actually, it is more like a whining shout.

Cindy and the far-left, antiwar lunatics continue their crusade against the war in Iraq. Like many conservatives, I have come to admit that the effort is not going well in many ways. However, I also feel that there was (and still is) a good reason for being there. My sentiments can be summed up by looking at a map of the Middle East and realizing the geographic location of Iraq. Couple that with the recent election results in Iran*, as well as other leaders in the region backing off (read, Khaddafi), and I think that the American presence is a good thing (hey, we’re still in Germany, Japan, and South Korea…not to mention Bosnia), but likely being administered in an awkward manner.

But back to Cindy…why does anyone care what she thinks (perhaps no one does) and why is she “newsworthy”, other than the fact that she is rude and thrusts herself upon the public at large? Why do I mention her? Answer: Because she keeps getting publicity. Much like Ann Coulter’s exposure of the ‘Jersey Girls’ in her book Godless, Cindy’s “victimhood” should not afford her special or sympathetic treatment when she inserts herself into the political arena. She gave up the mantra of ‘just a mother who lost a son in Iraq’ long ago. While I understand her right to take a stance and would fight (and die) for her right to protest and dissent, I cannot put up with her rhetoric. She is being unrealistic about what the reality of the world is and needs to realize that there is much to be said about the phrase “peace through superior firepower.” Or, to quote John Randolph, “The surest way to prevent war is not to fear it.”

Perhaps people like Cindy, and we as Americans, need to once again become willing to fight now in order to prevent the fight in the future.

*As a side note: I do believe Iran to be a threat, but I also liken Ahmadinejad to a barking dog. A barking dog is warning one of its intent while a quiet dog may be waiting to bite without provocation. This guy is a paper tiger; perhaps dangerous, but not much of a ‘poker player’. He will fall and fall hard at the hands of the US or Israeli military.

 

 I have been absent (or say missing in action) from my blog posts and political punditry for quite some time. Truthfully, the negative campaigning and blurred (if not dishonest) messages of the midterm elections left me with so many thoughts and so much "material" that I could have quit my job and just "blogged". Alas, I have bills to pay and, to be honest, was so sick of the midterm campaigns and the chicanery that went with them, that I took myself out of the mix for awhile. (Plus, there was football season and, being the Scarlet & Gray fanatic that I am, the Buckeyes took up a ton of my time.) Add to that a very hectic schedule at my real job and I found time to be extremely limited. That limit of time kept me from reading many good books (although I found State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan to be very thought provoking and Godless by Ann Coulter to be...quintessential Ann) and reading much "news". And let's face it, much of the "news" of past several months has been celebrity drivel, Mel Gibson and Michael Richards' rants, Rosie and Trump's war of words, and Paris and Britney's...well, you know.
At any rate, in about 14 short hours it will be 2007. My resolution is to get "plugged back in" and try to post my thoughts regularly and hopefully even more frequently than I had before. I hope you read them and comment, whether you agree or disagree.
Here is hoping that you had a wonderful Christmas and will have a great and prosperous new year. God Bless our troops in harm's way.

Oh yeah, and GO BUCKEYES!

the zealot, 12/31/06

 

Because I have a real job, I sometimes have to leave gaps between my writing. It is an unfortunate reality in my life and I only wish that I had more time and availability to speak out on the issues of the day. That is my true passion.

I must, however, comment on that idiot, Danny Glover. Danny, as opposed to myself, has a job that, while lucrative, does NOT do anything to further the well being of mankind. He is an actor and he pretends to be something he is not. For the record, I am a pharmacist. I make a decent living and I actually help people.

Anyway, my issue with Danny (and I have had them before; see http://therightwingzealot.blogspot.com) is that this idiot is suddenly buddies with Hugo Chavez. Is Danny really that much of an idiot? I understand the left-wing ideology and, while I disagree, can understand a left-leaning passion. However, “representing” for Hugo Chavez is beyond ‘off the charts.’ Come on Danny, you simpleton, this guy is a dictator in a third world country and is bashing the President of the United Sates of America, the very country where you have made your fortune. Do you really want to be aligned with him? Is your leftist agenda and hatred of George Bush REALLY that strong? Even Charles Rangel (D, NY) and Nancy Pelosi (D, Ca) found Hugo’s comments offensive. Not only did you endorse him, you introduced him.

Danny, wake up. You are either a complete idiot (and that is said with my sincere apologies to all of the other idiots out there) or you are blinded by ideology. Wake up Danny, America is what made you rich and Hugo, Fidel, and the other leftist dictators of the world will only ruin the America dream. Wake up America. We are at war, we are despised, and we need to unite to fight the evil in the world. Stunts like this are beyond foolish; they are insane…and dangerous.

the zealot, 9/21/06

 After a long hiatus, I want to introduce what I will call "The Rear View". This idea was inspired by Thomas Sowell and his columns entitled Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene. The Rear View will [perhaps] be odd observations of current events that I have pondered during an “absence”, but not written about. So, the Rear View for July 2006…

Why did no high profile black activists come to the aid of William Jefferson, like they did for Cynthia McKinney? Did it have anything to do with the seriousness of the crime that either is alleged to have committed? Why does she get the ‘rock star treatment’ from the Harry Bellefonte crowd, but William Jefferson only gets support from his colleagues in Congress…both Democrats and Republicans?

Speaking of William Jefferson…much has been made about the FBI raid of his office. While I do understand the Constitutional implications of this raid as they relate to the speech and debate clause, I also understand that the guy was caught with $90,000 (in cash) in the freezer at his residence. Does anyone else keep that much cash in their freezer? I will consent to the notion that this is still only alleged bribe money. I would hope that everyone else might consent to the notion that, since the guy was ignoring a subpoena, perhaps the FBI had probable cause to conduct such a raid. I am guessing that, given the same evidence and ignoring of a subpoena, I might be the “victim” of an FBI raid as well. I for one think that our lawmakers should be afforded some Constitutional ‘protections’, but this one might be a bit ridiculous.

Speaking of the ridiculous protections given to Mr. Jefferson…how about the way that congressman all circled the wagons around him? Talk about bi-partisanship! Is this what our Founders had in mind when they set out to establish a republican form of government? My guess is no. I think that the federal government has become the ultimate money laundering machine and this case pretty much proves it. Maybe Nan Pelosi is on to something with her “culture of corruption”. Unfortunately, the apples seem to fall pretty close to the tree when it comes to money in politics.

Speaking of money in politics…shy of debating “campaign finance reform”, is anyone else sick of the ongoing attempts to silence the dissenters? It seems that each party wants to keep the other side’s view hushed. Again, I am not about to debate this at present; perhaps as the November elections draw closer. But gosh, most of the ongoing discussion about campaign finance reform makes the gerrymandering that takes place in drawing congressional districts seem almost fair. [Insert overtly sarcastic tone please.]

Back to Cynthia McKinney…does anyone else think that they could “engage” a police officer in the manner she did and NOT be charged, much less not be convicted of anything? As an aside, what about Patrick Kennedy and his “drive” to the Capitol where he side-swiped a few cars? Again, apparently the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree and it is obvious that his mother didn’t teach him how to drive. But, it is standard operating procedure for the Capitol Hill police to drive an intoxicated person home when something like this occurs. I think I might go take a cruise around the Capitol after I’ve had a few martinis and put the theory to the test.

What about all of this global warming nonsense? For the life of me, I cannot believe that so many people are taken in by all of this. I mean, I realize that the political agenda of the environmentalists has succeeded in squelching any scientific dissension, but is no one out there curious? Are Americans so dumbed-down that they cannot think out-of-the-box on this issue? (Don’t answer that.) There is tons of evidence that this global warming phenomenon is likely naturally occurring (if occurring at all) and that human produced “greenhouse gas emissions” likely don’t contribute extensively to what may or may not be happening. I’ve heard that Brad Pitt is encouraging the reconstruction in New Orleans to “go green”. Like Brad Pitt is a scientific authority on anything (see below). I have even heard suggestions that we should eat less red meat to decrease livestock herds and thus decrease the methane that these large herds produce. I am not kidding! Is that an alliance of the left or what? (The Greens and PETA tell us all how to live.)

Speaking of global warming…I will consider that it might be a problem when Al Gore and his hangers-on and all of the leftists who are on the global warming bandwagon COMPLETELY abandon everything that they do that contributes to said alleged global warming (that is allegedly caused by human initiated CO2 emissions). Again, everything. No flights on jets (private or commercial), period. You have to cross an ocean…sailboat. No limos. Get rid of the mansions, not to mention multiple homes. Do a movie where everything is done in the enviro-friendly manner you support. (I guess you’re going to need some windmills to generate electricity. Just don’t build them off the coast of Massachusetts.) And then, suggest a treaty to replace Kyoto that places extremely harsh standards on all nations, not just the USA, and keep these demands going. When I see Al Gore living in a teepee, riding a bike everywhere he goes and truly leaving the absolute minimal “carbon footprint” that any human could possibly leave, then, and only then, will I consider giving up my gas-guzzling pick-up.

Is anyone else perplexed by the “outrage” over Ann Coulter’s latest book, Godless? Ann is just expressing her opinion and exercising her First Amendment rights in doing so. No one is mad at the New York Times for doing [supposedly] the exact same thing “in the public interest.” [Oops. Quite a few people are mad at the Times; myself included.] Ok, nobody is mad at Valerie Plame or Joseph Wilson for their (obviously frivolous) lawsuit regarding Valerie’s “outing” as a CIA “operative”. Man, did they not get the memo that the special prosecutor didn’t find that the “alleged crime” of “outing an agent” was committed? Note to Val and Joe, your fifteen minutes of fame are over…unless the New York Times decides that it is in the public interest to give another fifteen (God forbid). [Note to complainers: I am not a lapdog for Ann Coulter. I just find it refreshing that she is not afraid to say what she thinks and her ‘no holds barred’ style is refreshing in its own right.]

I must end this edition with a comment on the world scene. Why is it that the UN can immediately issue a resolution against Israel and the action being taken by the Israelis in response to the ongoing terrorists’ attacks that they face, and yet resolutions against obvious terror states never materialize? The UN is a non-factor in global issues. It has failed on so many levels that it isn’t even relevant anymore. The UN cannot even support its own resolutions (unless of course it is by US military might). It is time to abandon a failed “institution” and develop a union of nations who will try to lead other nations to a more unified and peaceful world (even if it means it is sometimes done by military force). We need a union of nations that will fight terrorists, rogue states, and corruption (read Oil For Food) around the globe and truly advance a peace. The UN wants global government and control of the masses. I want American sovereignty and peace through superior firepower. Here’s to expelling the UN from New York and being global leaders for a true global good.

God Bless America!