American Warmonger

Reflections of Christmas. Historically, Not Personally.

Most of you know that Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ our lord and savior. Many of you believe that Jesus was actually born on this date. Well, that may not be entirely true. I'm sorry to smash things up, but it matters to say such things. You see, Christmas wasn't always celebrated. Let me explain.

The most popular theory as to how Christmas came to be deals with Rome and the appeasement of the pagan people that lived there. You see, the shortest day of the year, the winter solstice, was considered to be on the 23rd of December. This was to signify the death of the sun god. Two days later, December 25th, was supposed to be the rebirth of the sun god because the days started to become longer again. This year the Winter Solstice was on the 21st, making Friday the 23rd the date of pagan celebration.

Another thing to point out is the symbols of Christmas. Take the Christmas tree, for starters. What religious significance does it have? It's religious significance lies in the bible telling us not to cast praise to the bright sparkly tree, for it's sort of like a false god. The best part comes when you look into the pagan religions that show the Christmas tree to be a symbol of fertility and a phallic structure. There are several other symbols of Christmas, such as holly being a symbol of fertility through a woman's menstrual cycle, but I digress. (Man, what's with the pagans and fertility?) We don't need to delve further into it. You should get the idea by now.

What I would like to direct your attention to now is the timeframe it is said that Mary and Joseph were looking for a place to sleep. Through the dates given that relate to the death of King Harod, Jesus may have been born at the Christmas timeframe. He could also have been born a few months before or after. This was because Jesus was supposed to have been born before the time of Harod's death in or around May to March. You see, dating isn't really the most accurate.

To further murk things up, we take a direct look at the phrase' "while sheppards kept watch of their flocks on the field". Now, unless they were taking a few extra hits off the frankincense the sheep should have been in the stables instead of the fields during the winter months. In fact, it's customary to have the sheep sleep in the barn after September. From this many people surmise that Jesus was born in September sometime.

Now, to confuse you a bit let me throw a monkey wrench into the September theory. The sheep of Bethlehem were being raised as a sacrifice for the birth of Jesus. In addition to that, Bethlehem sheep are traditionally kept outside year round. It is one of the very few places where this occurs.

The truth is that no one knows for sure the date of Jesus Christ's birthday. What we do know is that he sacrificed his live to save all of our souls. That God gave his only son for us. That is what we are celebrating. As the bible says, the date is immaterial.

Merry Christmas everyone. Whatever that date may be.

OH MY GOD!! WMD!!!

The following is the authorization for the use of force in Iraq. It is not a suggestion that we need to get angrier with them. It is the authorization by congress to use physical force in Iraq. What is said or pontificated upon quite frankly don't mean shit. This is what we went to war for. This is the justification for doing what we have done. Sorry to shock anyone, but the crap about "it was all for WMDs" is just that, crap. For those that don't understand what all the "whereas" points mean I'll try and do my best to explain:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

All this started back when Iraq decided to take Kuwait for its own and we, The United Nations Security Council, resolved to do something about it.

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

After we thoroughly trounced Saddam we made the deal that he could stay as long as he got rid of not just his stockpiles of Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, but the programs related to them. This includes the means required to deliver them as well.

We also put it on paper that Saddam would no longer support terrorist groups like Al Queda, Hammas, Al'Aqsue Martyr's Brigade and other groups that he's given money to lately.

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

We have reports from the old weapons inspectors, U.S. intelligence agencies and defectors from Iraq that he had large stockpiles of chemical weapons. Take note here that there is no statement of existing biological and/or nuclear weapons. The statement declares there are advancing programs for the future creation of biologic and nuclear weapons, not the smoking gun everyone is preaching about.

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Another violation of the original cease-fire was how he was incapable of allowing the original weapons inspectors to do their jobs. The inspectors continued to try and press the issue for years and finally gave up on October 31, 1998, after over six years of trying. They were never able to complete their investigation.

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Congress unanimously decided that Saddam was a threat that could not be ignored. Leaders such as McCain and Kerry (Yes, you heard me right.) stood up to declare that Saddam was basically a scourge upon the world that needed to be removed immediately. If you don't believe me here's the link. It is worthwhile to note that Kerry did not want to send in troops but to have Saddam overthrown by Iraqis. Basically he asked to start a civil war.

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Well, we asked him to stop. We told him to stop. We even made him sign papers saying he would stop. He didn't stop. He still has chemical weapons. He's still trying to make a nuke. He's still considered a refuge for terrorists and their organizations. (Don't forget who harbored Osama Bin Laden after the USS Cole bombing.)

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Iraq still does all sorts of cruel things that are not sanctioned by the UN to their own people. After resolutions and requests they still do really bad things to their own people. Not only have they been cruel to their own people, but they refuse to account for those persons held after Gulf War I, including an American Serviceman, just one. They have also refused to return all the gold they stole from Kuwait when they invaded before.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Saddam gassed the Iranians and gassed the Kurds, as well as other isolated incidents.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Saddam tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush back in 1993. He continues to shoot at U.S. and coalition planes in the no-fly zone. This wasn't just a couple of shots fired by the errant Iraqi. This was thousands of attempts to take down a U.S. and Coalition plane. I guess they just weren't abiding by the U.N. resolutions agreed to in the cease fire, were they?

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Al Qaida was the group responsible for the 9-11 attack. There are Al Qaida members that are known to be in Iraq. (Note that this does not say there are Al Qaida members that are responsible or planned for the 9-11 attacks in Iraq.)

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Al Qaida is not the only terrorist organization that Saddam associates himself with. He is known to help other groups as well.

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Because of 9-11 we are more aware and concerned with countries that try to get WMD (including chemical, biological and nuclear) and potentially give them to terrorists. Iraq fits the bill on this.

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Iraq has used WMD in the past against its own people. What makes you think they wouldn't use them against the U.S. or give them to terrorists that plan to use them against the U.S.? Wouldn't it be better to take out this known threat before this threat blows us the hell up?

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

The UN granted us the authority to use force in resolution 678 for no less than 4 other resolutions that Iraq has not complied with. There is nothing we are doing that hasn't already been approved by the UN. On the contrary, there are several resolutions that back our use of force in Iraq.

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Congress has already given the go ahead on using U.S. forces to enforce eleven Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq.

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

In 1991 congress stated that we needed to use all necessary means to end the repression of the Iraqi people. This was highlighted in UN Security Council resolutions and public law.

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

According to the Iraqi Liberation Act we, the U.S., should support efforts to overthrow Saddam and create a democratic government.

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

In 2002 Bush made the promise to enforce the U.S. and U.N. resolutions by all means necessary, including the use of force by American troops. According to the documents listed above he is not just allowed, but obligated to do so.

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Look, Iraq never completed their obligations to back down from everything related to the 1991 resolutions and, due to our heightened stance against terrorism and the current situation in the world it's time to take this mutha' out

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Look, you gave me the goa-ahead to hunt down terrorism and terrorists wherever I may found them. Well, I found a whole friggin' country full of the little Jihadi bastards.

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Rince and repeat. There are terrorists out there. It's my job as president to do something about it. Please let me do the job you tasked me to do.

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

It's constitutional to be acting on this. It's terrorism and you gave me the go-ahead. If you don't believe me read Public Law 107-40.

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Doing this will help restore peace to the Middle East. (Yeah, it's that corny.)

The rest is the legalese dealing with everything from when the president is supposed to do his briefs to how the paperwork is supposed to go through. It basically outlines the original article that Congress grants the power to the president to go to war. It provides some interesting reading but nothing related to the whys and wherefores of what this war is all about. let me reiterate something that has been said several times:

WE ARE WINNING!

============== ==============
============== ==============
============== ==============

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

Spying on America

There have been recent accusations, particularly the day after the Iraqi elections, that the Bush administration has conducted illegal spying operations against people on U.S. soil and American citizens. I find it rather suspect that something like this would come the day after the Iraqi elections. It's even more suspect that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and others had been briefed on this a long time ago but did and said nothing until now.

No, I do not suggest they conspired with Bush on this. These are the people that will dig at anything dealing with the president like a rabid gerbil chasing after the stick in Al Gore's backside. I'm suggesting they did nothing at the time because there was nothing illegal. I'm suggesting they held it until now because it would prevent a piece of good news to be suppressed. I can't say that they conspired to take action now, but I can say their speeches and presentations are pretty well rehearsed for being created on the spot.

As for the facts; there is only one I can speak on from first hand knowledge. The NSA and other agencies have listened in on conversations between the U.S. and other nations since well before 1993. I have heard that this was a fall back from the days of the cold war and an attempt to catch Russian spies. I've also heard this was done to eavesdrop on members of the United Nations legally. I don't know which is the truth, but I do know it was in effect throughout the terms of several presidents.

I have nothing further to say on the matter as I don't know what I can or can not say on the matter that violates secure intelligence laws.

Shhhhhh!!! Iraq the vote...

Don't tell the media or anything, but people are going to have a bunch of purple fingers today. The need to ignore this whole thing so they can continue the illusion that victory against terror and tyranny is a great big Michael Moore quality lie.

I'm sure the highlight will be more towards how many people were killed in Iraq instead of how many people voted. Hey, if it bleeds it leads, right? Maybe the voters should just cut a finger open instead of the purple ink? Would that make MSNBC nightly news? Obviously, Bush being anything other than a lying baby killer must have just been misreported. We now return you to your originally scheduled dose of trivial crap...Oh, and I won't be making my finger purple today. I'll reserve that for the ones proving thier freedom today: The Sunni Iraqis.

Yes, I specified Sunni because they're actually playing along with this whole democracy thing now. Oh, damn! I wasn't supposed to talk about things like that. The good people of the world might find out that Iraq isn't the living hell the MSM makes it out to be.

Forget all of this message. I don't know why I wrote it. We should be going against the wishes of the majority of Iraqis and "redeploy". (See cut-and-run) Oops, I did it again. (Not like Brittany) I let it out of the bag that the majority of Iraqis perfer there to be at least one American in each group of Iraqi military because they trust the U.S. more than their own soldiers.

Aww, hell. Who am I kidding. Everybody should have figured at least a couple of these things out by themselves. Not even the love child of Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite (*shudder*) can keep an image like this down.

May the god of your choice bless the freedom of Iraq!

Iraq the vote!

Note: You may also want to go visit Jay. He's having a link roundup of sorts. (Kinda fitting it's on a blogburst day.)

The Death Penalty and Tookie Williams

Personally I'm rather conflicted about this issue. I know he's slotted to be euthanized in about an hour, but I'm not 100% sure about weather I feel he should be getting the death penalty.

By the letter of the law he is absolutely guilty. There is little to no doubt that he committed the crimes everyone says he committed. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death by lethal injection. He never admitted his guilt, gave an apology or asked for redemption. He only asked to be pardoned and defends his innocence despite a quantity of evidence. I can't even fault the Governator for his decision. There was no legal recourse that would have kept him from the death chamber.

There is a part of this other than the mere letter of the law though. There is a part of this that brings us past the written words and pushes us towards logic. The logic I'm pushed towards deals with the purpose of the death penalty. From what I remember, the death penalty was not intended as a deterrent for future criminals that may chose to commit similar crimes. It was not intended as a penalty for doing something really, really bad. It was intended as a last recourse for someone that is so far beyond a peaceful society that even his fellow inmates are in danger from him.

Following this logic you have to ask yourself, "Was Tookie Williams a danger not only to society, but to his fellow inmates as well?" I do not know if anyone dealing with this case has made the same assertions towards this particular logic that I have, but I'd be willing to guess that most have not made their decisions based on this concept. Today law is not meant to be interpreted. It is to be followed like an instruction manual. To do otherwise turns you into a political activist for whatever party it appears is in favor of your decision. You become a political scapegoat for judging on logic instead of the letters. You become a victim of fear.

Now, what do I believe would be the right decision in this case? I can not make a judgment in this case. I know of his supposed efforts to save youths from joining gangs, but I also hear the reports that he refused on several occasions to turn state's evidence and still other reports of violence from him while he was in prison. I'm sure the political spin doctors have done a good number on this from both sides of the fence. They always do. However, since I do not have access to the court documents or prison reports I can make no personal decision in this particular case. I can only wish his soul god speed and pray the people do not riot and senselessly kill others.

What is wrong with me?

For some reason I decided to get that auto-email about my hit count to come daily. I did this a long time ago when I sort of cared about my hit count. I used to get around 100 or more hits a day and expected my numbers to dwindle down to near nothing. Well, I was wrong. I shrunk down to around 50 hits per day and stayed there. What the hell is wrong with you people? Didn't you get the memo that I quit?

What? I didn't send a memo? Aww crap. I guess I have to get back to work then. Waitaminute! I'm not gonna make this work! I'm gonna make this fun. I'm just gonna do whatever the hell I want to here. No more gimicks. No more blog wars. Just me talking into thin air....er..digital thin air. No, I won't join your blog ring. No I won't do a link exchange. Only people I feel are worthwhile get a link exchange. If you don't get a link it doesn't mean, "oh boo-hoo I suck". It just means I didn't link you. Get over it.

Now, with all this being said, it's time for me to clean this pig sty of a site up. I'll see you all soon.