Kanye West to Obama: Beyonce Should Have Won Nobel Prize

In another stunning turn of events this afternoon, Kanye West has given a press conference slamming Obama's win of the Nobel Peace Prize. What is most puzzling is that prior to the podium being completed for the announcement, Kanye West jumped onto the stage and grabbed the Microphone out of the set man's hands and began his speech impromptu.

Mr. West, most known for his famous outbursts and political rants, declared to the world that Beyonce should have won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

"I'm sorry Mr. Obama... I don't want to cut you off or anything, but Beyonce has done more to promote World Peace than anyone. That's just what I'm saying, Beyonce should have won"

After his jaw dropping statement, Kanye dropped the microphone onto the stage floor and stumbled off to the nearest bar.

Kanye has declined further comment on the issue.

CNN fact checkers have determined that Beyonce has, in fact, accomplished more in her career to promote Peace and Stability in the World than Obama.

In a related story, MSNBC slammed CNN fact checkers for joining the new vast right wing conspiracy, and have declared CNN a racist organization for questioning the President.

Remembrance Day

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month... The first great war came to an end - a war in which many men gave their lives and service to put an end to conquest between kingdoms of Europe. It brought to close a war that changed the way wars were fought - no longer was war a gentleman's feat. The Great War introduced chemical warfare, trench warfare, aerial combat, arms races which took advantage of industrial technologies, and a total warfare that would make Sherman blush.

It was an end to the "War to end all wars".

Unfortunately European Nationalism replaced monarchies, and the hellish scene was replayed a generation later - leading to the second great war, WWII.

By the closing days of WWII, fascism saw defeat, but the world saw a war machine that had gone nuclear, and was intending on a permanent presence.

Since then, the world has been in a constant state of war - that is to say that the United States itself has directly been involved in a hot/warm conflict since the beginning of WWII - 67 years of war - and it has begun to define the state of our union:

1941 -1945: WWII - heavy active combat in Europe, Africa, Middle East, and East Asia
1945 - 1989: Russia - Cold War instigated numerous conflicts world-wide
1945-1946: Philippines - Occupation for Independence
1945 - 2008: Korea - Initial occupation to fight socialists, then Korean War, then continued occupation. Actual HOT conflict 1950 - 1953
1950 - 1955: China - multiple small conflicts as the country fell to communists, ultimate US withdrawal of troops
1956 - 1958: Middle East - the US acted as security for international interest in the Suez Canal Crisis and the Lebanon Crisis
1955 - 1975: Vietnam - bailing out the French, the US became the main fighting force by 1959, marking the beginning of the Vietnam era in the US - including bombing campaigns of Cambodia and Laos along the Ho-Chi-Minh trail
1962: Thailand, Cuba, Laos - The US deployed troops around the world to fight the spread of communism
1973: Israel - US assists in delivering arms during the Yom Kippur War
1975 marked a near unilateral withdrawal from major conflict zones in the Middle East and Southeast Asia
1976: Korea - the US surges troops along the DMZ to reduce tension and NK aggression against the US and SK
1978: Congo - the US bails out the French and Belgians from central Africa
1978 - 1989: Afghanistan - covert war against the Soviet Union, funded by the US and fought with US weapons
1980 - 1990: Middle East - US is involved with operations in Iran, Libya, Sinai, Lebanon, Egypt, Persian Gulf (Iran) - acting as security forces for regional conflicts and protection of oil shipping lines
1988-1990: Central America/South America - The drug wars of Panama, Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru
1991 - Kuwait: First Persian Gulf War against Iraq, lead to occupation of Saudi and Kuwaiti territory from 1990 - 2003, enforcing no fly zones
1992 - Somalia: Part of Peace Keeping operations with cooperation in the UN
1993 - 1999 - Balkans: Us involved in ending armed conflict between ethnic groups
1998 - 1999 - Kenya, Tanzania, Afghanistan, Sudan: battle against al-Qaeda begins globally
2001 - 2008 - Afghanistan: war on terror
2003 - 2008 - Iraq: war against Saddam Hussein, became central front of war on terror

There you have it - 67 years of continuous US involved wars, conflicts, etc... The list is much more extensive, including deployment of small forces for training, special ops, etc... but the major battles and conflict are shown above, indicating a change in the world in the face of new war technologies.

So on this Remembrance Day, I ask that we not only remember the service and dedication to the missions that so many men and women have valiantly conducted their missions - but to also question the escalation of post WWII violence around the world.

I can speak for many when I say that there is an increased tension in world security, world peace, and ideological conflicts in our time - much more so, I would surmise, than in the years leading up to WWII.

This Veteran's Day, remember our service men and women - but also remember the intent of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month - a Remembrance of what the sacrifices of the Great War represented - a reminder that it is more important to strive for peace than for war... the toll is much too high, otherwise.

The Defeat of America: Proof Positive - GET US OUT OF IRAQ

My Official Stance on the War in Iraq: GET THE US OUT NOW.

I am talking drop everything and head for the exits... no phased withdrawal, no permanent bases... Get out.

Have I become a Liberal Democratic Defeatist?

Quite the contrary. I simply refuse to stand by and support military action when our government does not have the resolve to conduct a war the way it needs to be conducted.

The Iraqi Islamic Party is calling for "the severest punishment" of a soldier who used the Koran as a target in Iraq. The punishment, they say, will serve as a warning to US soldiers to "consider the feelings of Muslims". And of course, the severest penalty, in their minds, is death. So the politicians of a defeated country are calling for the death of a US soldier in a country in which we are currently conducting a war. All the while, we are bending to their will by at least issuing an apology and sending the soldier back to the states.

"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Hammond said to tribal
leaders and others gathered. "In the most humble manner, I look in your eyes
today, and I say please forgive me and my soldiers."

Major General Jeff Hammond - a fearless leader in the US armed forces, humbly asking forgiveness from THE ENEMY.

That brings me to the point of this article:

HOW CAN WE FIGHT A WAR WITHOUT KNOWING THE ENEMY?

The "war" in Iraq is a fake war. It is not a war at all. In war, an enemy is defined and subsequently beaten into submission... You define the enemy, and take away the will or ability for the enemy to fight.

The "War On Terror" is an ambiguous war against a tactic of fighting, not an actual enemy. So who is the enemy? And how do we know when the "job is done" in Iraq? If we keep "fighting terror", the job will never be done.

The enemy is Islamic Totalitarianism, or Islamic Fundamentalism.

Saddam Hussein was actually a stabilizing force AGAINST Islamic Totalitarianism... making him the enemy of our enemy, and thus a friend. Not the best bedfellow, but a friend in this struggle.

We entered Iraq without adequately identifying the enemy of the Global War On Terror. Had we done so, we would not have allowed the SCIRI party of Iraq to take charge of the country... SCIRI, by the way, stands for: Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

SCIRI is a political party based in Islamic Totalitarianism...

That is right. We have invaded a country on the premise of fighting global terror, only to hand the country over to Islamic Totalitarian Forces.

This is equivalent to invading France prior to WWII and allowing the NAZI party to take the reigns.

We have done the work of the enemy, and are continuing to engage in a struggle to support a government that NOW represents the ideals that we should be attempting to eradicate!

HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE?

The two top fundraisers for Islamic Totalitarianism comes from the countries of Iran and Saudi Arabia. If we intend on ever actually winning the war against I.T. we need to take away the funding, and decimate the enemies will and ability to fight. THAT is a war!

War is not dropping food instead of bombs, keeping the population happy.

War is not apologizing to the enemy for insulting them.

War is not having your armed forces building the infrastructure of a country.

War IS removing the capability for the enemy to fight. Take away the will to fight. Annihilate the resources and eradicate the ability to make war.

This means destroying the Islamic leaders of Iran, and the Princes of Saudi Arabia... both groups are funding the expansion of Islamic Totalitarianism... Both groups are hell-bent on destroying the US... and both groups are responsible for ALL acts of terror around the world... Follow the money.

This is a Casus Belli - an act threatening our country, justifying war.

As long as we continue "humbly apologizing" to the enemy, instead of fighting the source of their ability to make war, The United States has NO BUSINESS putting our military in harm's way.

If we do not have the resolve to fight the war that needs to be fought, then we need to come home and hope that the next time we are attacked, the resolve will be strong enough to do what needs to be done.

We MUST engage Iran and Saudi Arabia with EXTREME PREJUDICE... secure the oil fields, destroy their economy, execute their leaders, and destroy the will of the people to revolt against our forces. Once this is accomplished, we will rebuild. No More Eggshells for me.

Name the True Enemy, Fight the battle that needs to be fought, and WIN THIS WAR!

I can change the world...

We hear about it in songs, we hear about it on the campaign trails, we even read about it to our children in their story books... being better people and making changes in this world.

As children, our imaginations run wild with fanciful ideas of a Utopian society... and somewhere along the way we grow into cynical old buggars, seemingly incapable of compromise or so overwhelmed that we find no use in attempting to make a change...

But what if it were simple... What if reaching out to help our fellow man was not any harder than acting on someone elses suggestion.

Take for instance "Do One Nice Thing" - a website committed to the simplest life changes that can help the earth, or putting a smile on someones face by sending a warm and fuzzy sweater to an Iraqi family.



The power of a smile can change the world in which we live.

And what about spreading freedom and democracy? War seems to be an interesting way to invoke peace... What if we led by example? What if there was a movement that put the power of the free market in the hands of the people around the world, in hopes that they will learn to stand on their own two feet and build a better life for their family, their community, their world?

Kiva.org is a great website, focused on micro lending. No more than $25 per requested loan is allowed per lender... and your $25 teamed with a few other folk's $25 gives the opportunity to someone in a poverty stricken third world country... be it a cattle grazer in Lebanon, or a fruit stand owner in Peru... In countries where traditional loans and banks do not exist, you can be part of the change in their society.



And what's better... your $25 is a loan, not a hand-out... More of a Hand Up! The individual receiving the loan has promised to pay you back. Free market at it's best!

I would highly recommend clicking on the link to KIVA.ORG, let them know that I sent you (to show that the word is being spread). You'll need my e-mail, and it is available in the "contact me" link.

I currently have three loans out. I challenge my readers to sign-up with KIVA and find an entrepreneurial spirit to support.

If you have ever been moved to make a change, this is as easy as it gets.

I fully support KIVA, and I endorse the micro-lending program. With this forward thinking helping hand, we can have a positive business minded impact in parts of the world we hardly knew existed... and make someones life a little easier.



My lender page.

A Different Approach to Israel

As I have said a number of times, I am a huge supporter of Israel, and her right to be a free and independent democracy.

As I was laying in bed the other night, I was trying to come up with a different approach to peace in the region...

There is much tension between Jewish Israel and her Muslim neighbors... there is much tension from the Arab Muslims within the country... friends and neighbors fight one another over religion and territorial boundaries...

Most all of the Palestinians live in squalor, uneducated, without the basic elements of stability: food, water, shelter, and safety.

The Palestinians have no vested interest in a successful Israel... The very existence of Israel means that at any moment their government could bulldoze their home, cut their power, or blockade and starve out their neighborhood.

So my question is this: How do you give the Palestinians something to fight for in Israel, rather than something to fight against?

My answer seemed radical, and I am going to do a LOT more research on this idea. Cursory searches have led to similar ideas, but seemingly for wrong reasons, or with the wrong approach. I will outline my thoughts, and I would love some comments... but keep in mind that this is just very early in the idea process, and there is much research for me to undertake.

My idea is similar to the "one nation" idea... But I want to ensure that Israel maintains it's ability to protect itself from foreign invaders and maintain order.

First I propose one nation: The Confederation of Israel/Palestine. There will be a weak central government in charge of national defense, ensuring resource allocation, maintaining infrastructure, and providing judicial oversight. The confederated central government will consist of One President, and One Prime Minister in the Executive Branch. The President will have control over internal affairs while the PM will have control over foreign affairs. Each will have to work together to ensure commonality for the nation. They will both be selected by the house of commons. 50 regional ministers, similar to congress, will be the legislative branch. There will be one house of commons (not two houses like the US) which consists of 25 members from Israel, 25 members from Palestine. They will have control over finances and laws/regulations, power to enact taxes, etc. The members will be elected by the people. The judicial members will be selected by the president, and certified by the HOC. They will have authority to review cases in the lower courts. This will resemble, in a sense, the structure of the US federal government, however, it will be a weak government, with the rights and powers left to the 2 states. The national capitol would be Jerusalem... a united district, similar to D.C., where neither state has authority over the city. They operate independent of either state.... this mean there is no division of Jerusalem, and both states can declare it their capitol.

Second, I propose the creation of two state governments, one of Israel, one of Palestine. The two state governments will be in charge of local security, police forces, crowd control, local judicial issues, and ensuring the basic rights are being met. They will have the authority to elect governors, and state representatives. They will focus on local commerce, trade, education and interstate relations.

The idea of the confederation was one that may allow the groundwork for distribution of opportunity, eduction, and infrastructure, as well as ensuring equal opportunity for employment, housing, water, and power.

My thought was that if we focus on the establishing and providing the basic elements of survival, food, shelter, and security... then back that with educating the population on the merits of joining in a democratic society, and the importance of ownership of their rights and land... that will provide the basis for peace and prosperity.

I think that if the Palestinians feel that they have equal rights, equal representation, and equal opportunity at a federal level, they will be less likely to want to destroy their own chance for progress. There may still be bitterness between the states, but the federal government would ensure that the regulated militias of each state are not used to attack one another.

That is where I am starting... Like I said, this is just a cursory idea, and I have much research to do. I came up with these ideas based on current relations in the region, current leadership, sentiment, etc... I think it may be possible to approach something like this...

I know one thing is for sure... the two state option leaves Palestine with no food, no money, no power (electricity), and no security. If the arrangements leave them with nothing, why would they be interested in going forward?

(I know that they have been given money, but used it to arm their militia and fight Israel, but they see Israel as the enemy... if we change the playing field, making Israel a partner, perhaps we can change the way the game is played)

Any thoughts? This is a radical idea... so I would love to hear some of your opinions.

Can Democracy Survive in the Middle East?

Our founding fathers made an astounding declaration to the tyrannical King of England in the late 1700's, stating that it is the natural order of humanity that we are endowed with Life, Liberty, and the freedom to Pursue Happiness. In doing so, they were effectively signing their own execution papers, should a Revolution Fail. But what they did was more than profound in a philosophical sense... it was the essential beginning to a people becoming self governing.

Their basis rejecting being ruled by the King of England was not in favor of rule by a church in their own land, rather a recognition of the basic rights of humanity, and building on that principle, founding a government of the people.

Now it is well discussed that during the American Revolution there were about 1/3 who were "gung-ho" for fighting the British, about 1/3 who decided to stay neutral, and about 1/3 who remained loyal to the crown. The Revolution came about on a political and militaristic front, keeping opposition at bay while maintaining and winning the war.

So now, I want to consider the requirements for freedom, and ask whether the people in the Middle East can actually survive in a democracy, and enjoy liberty.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

All of the countries of the middle east seem to have a Theocratic form of government... even the more secular countries are still under increased pressure from the Muslim Leaders. The theocratic rule is impossible to contest, because the laws and enforcement of those laws are the "word of god" (sic). And as we have seen in the last few years, the theocratic radicals are highly motivated to fight for maintaining their form of prophetic doctrine by ruling over the people with fear of having "god's punishment" handed to you. This would represent the 1/3 loyal to the crown, or in this case, loyal to their religious leaders.

In countries like Sudan, you are not only killed for being Christian, but you are sentenced to death without trial by the people for allowing a teddy bear to be named "Muhammad". In Saudi Arabia, you are not allowed to make the mark "X" as it too closely resembles the Christian Cross... punishment could include life imprisonment. In Iran you are hanged for homosexuality.

What we see is the ability for a democracy to be created, and to survive... if Democracy, in the crudest terms, simply meant "Majority Rule"... but American Democracy is something different... something that can not exist in that part of the world without drastic changes. American Democracy includes Liberty. The ability to lose a vote, but challenge the outcome... to be wrong, but still be heard... to live how one chooses without fear of persecution or death for choices... the only place where the mind, body, and spirit can be free (current government oversteps excluded - we are talking ideology here). In these countries, you do not have the same respect for basic human rights... You do not have the freedom to protest, not even in order to stay your own execution.

The 1/3 who want change in these countries cannot say so for fear of death. The other 1/3 seem content, until their son or daughter is killed by masked men because they were seen showing too much skin or not praying the correct way.

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"...give me liberty, or give me death!" - Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

If Democracy is becoming a gift given to people, misused by electing leadership that promises to harm others for political or religious gain... then Democracy is little more than a mob rule. We can fight to give it to any and all countries.. Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine... and it is a gift in which there is no understanding of the meaning, or the intent. The people are sure to squander it, and will find themselves once again in bondage.

But if Liberty is a prerequisite for Democracy, and the understanding of the principles of basic human rights are fully understood... well, then my friends, we will surely see a Middle East destined to be free.

Have we seen signs of this happening? For sure, there have been some. In Iraq, the people have begun rising up against the terrorists, fighting for their own peace. So there are signs of hope... but they are as brief flashes in a sea of despair. One can only hope that Liberty as well as Democracy takes hold in the Middle East, and true freedom and peace will prevail.

Why Islam is Dangerous

The more that I hear groups like CAIR and the Nation of Islam trying to convince me that they advocate for a religion of peace, I am intrigued by the daily reminders to the contrary.

In this case, the British crown has knighted an author who was at one point allegedly insulted Islam... (for which the Muslim leadership (Ayatollah) issued a fatwa calling for the author's death). And now there are protests in Pakistan calling for his death again, and for attacks (including suicide) against British interests...

So let me understand this:

*writing a book that "allegedly" insults you is cause for the author's
death... no judge or jury. No trial... just a slimy little man calling for
minions to carry out murder from the comforts of his home.

*The knighting of someone who has been "sentenced" to death by the
religion of peace is a call to arms for all suicide bombers around the
world?

Sounds peaceful enough... where do I sign up?

On second thought, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE! You are propagating violence and murder on a catastrophic level because some guy WROTE A BOOK. Or because some guy DREW A CARTOON. Are you frigging kidding me?

The groups listed above have a catchy little phrase used to throw at those of us who make statements about Islam... "You are just afraid because you don't understand it"...

Hey, Geniuses in the Religion of Peace: Try understanding that there are those of us who have a different opinion, and instead of fearfully calling for our killing, try understanding a different point of view.

I would like for ONE, JUST ONE Muslim leader to come out and try to calm the rhetoric, and calls for killing, and jihad talk... and I don't mean here on the safe streets of the USA... I mean in downtown Tehran, Baghdad, Islamabad, Cairo, Istanbul... I dare you!!! Then, and ONLY then will I consider that ANYONE can TRULY believe that Islam is a religion of peace.