Timothy Long

“At a dinner recently, the 90th birthday party for former Governor and Ambassador Averell Harriman, Teddy Kennedy said that Averell’s age was only half as old as Ronald Reagan’s ideas. And you know, he’s absolutely right. The Constitution is almost 200 years old, and that is where I get my ideas.”

Ronald Reagan

so, according to barack obama, iran does not pose a serious threat to the united states. his reasoning: because they spend a fraction of what the united states does on military resources.

this man is not to be taken seriously. he is a fool, and has, to say the very least, a child’s understanding of unconventional warfare.

quick question, mr. obama: how much do you think the 9/11 hijackers invested in their box cutters?

a must read WSJ opinion article by alan dershowitz. welcome to the struggle.

the separation of church and state: one of the more backward interpretations of the united states constitution; and yet, for some, the most useful in perpetuating their simplistic perception of society.

few americans know that the phrase didn’t even exist until 14 years after the bill of rights had been developed. it was in a letter that thomas jefferson wrote to the danbury baptist association in connecticut to essentially give them assurances that the federal government could not declare a particular denomination as the official church of the land, to which all other faiths would be subservient to.

the amendment was not intended to be used as a tool to run god out of public society, schools, and government. it was to intended to protect the american people from the dangers of a theocracy.

yet, these days we find its misinterpretation used to appease the atheist, who’s contempt for america’s religious heritage and observances has led them to feel discriminated against. but it is only from a lack of understanding, and a willingness to promote equality and tolerance at any cost, that you see the ever-so dangerous removal of god in american society.

so, in the interest of feeding the sick inclinations i possess to keep step with all things media, i went to see the new film “lions for lambs.” having heard some of the bad reviews from the sources that i trust, and having heard some of the good reviews from the usual suspects that i do not trust, i had anticipated a 2-hour experience of biting my fingernails, shaking my head in disagreement, and feelings of regret for having spent $9 on an effort to demean american war efforts in iraq.

however, at the end of the film i found that many (if not all) of my predispositions had been put to rest. the film was relatively fair to both sides of the political spectrum with regard to US foreign policy; at least in the sense that both sides were allowed to present their opinions in a fashion that most partisans would identify with.

but to my surprise, i felt that the ultimate signification was that the right-wing, conservative value system was the more moral, more patriotic, and more decent of the two; something i thought not possible from an effort by robert redford. then again, maybe i’m missing something.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

iraqi prime minister nouri al-maliki recently lashed out at american criticism a day after president bush expressed frustration with the iraqi government’s inability to bridge political divisions.

“no one has the right to place timetables on the iraq government. it was elected by its people,” the shiite leader said at a news conference in damascus at the end of a three-day visit to syria.

“those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to syria. we will pay no attention. we care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere,” al-maliki said.

and yet, people wonder why they have been hesitant to trust the united states completely (president bush included). you have virtually every democratic presidential candidate talking about instituting a  timetable for withdrawal, in which every ally to the american war effort will be left at the mercy of a full-blown civil war. should we then provide sanctuary for those allies in america, or will we leave them subject to more bloodshed?

quotes snagged from associated press.

today i had the privilege of reading the current issue of newsweek; and i figured i’d share some of the more brilliant and wisdom-filled ideas that were conveyed to me during this momentous occasion.

a - amnesty is undoubtedly the best solution for america’s immigration problem. no euphemisms implied—just amnesty. the legalization of 12 million illegal immigrants (without reasonable assurance of a fully secure border) is in no way an invitation for anarchy. right.
b - “overstating the threat of terrorism risks making us less safe.” americans have become complacent, as we have learned to sense when terrorism is being exploited for personal gain; thus, we ought not to be mindful of the global threat that is islamic fundamentalism, regardless of how great (or minuscule) the chances are of another domestic attack. worry about where you’ll get your morning latte: a more practical concern.
c - we live in what andrew ferguson, author of land of lincoln: adventures in abe’s america, calls a “wised-up era”—where “skepticism about the country, its heroes and its history” is “a mark of worldliness and sophistication.” this point, to my surprise, was refuted by newsweek commentator william kristol. he stated that “historians, in the old days, were moralistic and patriotic (some of them, at least) — but no longer.” he recalled how lincoln saw that time diminishes the memory of our battles won against tyranny. lincoln explained, the events of the revolution and the founding remained “living history,” and those americans retained an emotional attachment to the political institutions that had been created. this, of course, is not the case today. to be a skeptic is to be “progressive,” and patriotism in its contemporary form is a product of ignorance.

i admit this post was a bit satirical and sarcastic; but seriously, i hate dumbed-down political rags. it’s almost worse than watching tv.

almost.

hands down the best commentary i’ve read on nuclear iran. i beg you to read this in its entirety.

in light of yesterday’s tragic incident at VA Tech, you can quite certainly expect a greater demand for gun control in this country. for many, yesterday’s events only affirmed the belief that government should have valid authority to impose regulations on guns. but before hopping on the bandwagon, ask yourself the purely logical question of what will preserve more innocent life: more gun control or more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

the question is not whether you like guns, want to own a gun, or like the “gun culture.” the question is would you rather support the choice to empower good people to defend themselves, or to leave them at the mercy of a violent criminal.

the divide is between those who act based upon what feels good inside, and those who act based upon what works best for society.