Friday, November 30, 2007

Why I Joined

Please read and digest this MySpace entry that I found at

WarRoom is a website hosted by Quinn and Rose, local Conservative radio talk show hosts in Western, Pa. Their popularity is steadily growing as their syndicated show adds stations almost weekly.

I read this and wanted to share this fallen soldier's powerful words with our readers (and plug a local program at the same time).....

Original Link

2nd LT Mark Daily was killed in an IED attack
He was named the ROTC's outstanding cadet for 2005 and also a Distinguished Military Graduate, the highest ROTC award.

This was his MySpace post
Sunday, October 29, 2006

WHY I JOINED Current mood: optimistic

Why I Joined:
This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.
And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.
So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.
I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

On his MySpace front page, he featured this quote:

"Patience demolishes mountains" -Arab proverb
He wanted to be a journalist.

These are the kind and caliber of men who fight for us. Forever twenty-three years young. God rest his soul. And never, never forget.


So, the Religion of Peace is at it again, demanding that the British schoolteacher, Gillian Gibbons, that allowed her students to name a Teddy Bear Mohamoud be executed. Some are calling for her beheading, some want her killed by firing squad.

I think we ended Islamo-fascism Awareness Week a little too early.

Aparently, its just expecting too much for a group of individuals claiming to belong to a religion of peace to act in a rational manner about a children's toy--of course many Christians shopping the Friday after Thanksgiving are nearly as bad when going for the last Tickle-Me Elmo.

Personally, I believe that President Roosevelt is rolling over in his grave that toy bearing (sorry about the pun) his name is being called something so contrary to the Christian beliefs he held in life.

I think the fascists in Sudan should keep in mind that the children voted to name the bear that. We at too much liberty salute the democracy praticed by the school children of Sudan. I suppose its too much to ask their parents to appreciate it.

We think they have it all wrong--It is our opinion at Too Much Liberty that the Islamo-fascists in Sudan should be honored that a children's toy named after a famous American President should allowed to be named after their "prophet".

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Regarding Mitt Romney

Thus is a response to Sean’s post asking for any input on Mitt. If you Google “Mitt Romney” there are over 2.5 million hits; far too many to wade through. Most of the sites, I’m sure, are biased. We can only guess at some of the comments from the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, etc. One site that I found of interest is this one from Forbes. Though it may be argued that Forbes may be considered as having a capitalistic mindset, the site seems to give balance to interpreting the various positions that the various candidates have established. If nothing else, it is interesting to explore the various candidates that are listed after the section of a members of our Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans have made donations to a particular candidate. Powerline has a recent endorsement for Mitt that may be of concern to other conservative candidates.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Clinton Lying--Again.

Well, Clinton is lying on the campaign trail again. No, not that Clinton, the other one. No! The other one! I understand your confusion, as neither Clinton is apparently able to tell the truth.

This time, however, its Billy lying again. This time he is claiming that he opposed the liberation of Iraq "from the beginning". Now, this sounds like something that you would hear from a Defeatocrat, so it may not ring any alarm bells right away, but I remember this: "I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," said Clinton in 2003 while delivering commencement remarks at Tougaloo College in Jackson, Miss.

It would seem that neither Clinton can keep their stories straight!

Mitt Romney

What do you guys know about Mr. Romney? He seems pretty conservative, particularly for someone from Massachusetts. Please post in comments what you know.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Fabio, A Conservative Man’s Man?

I have had some opinions about a person who seems to have made a living out of beefcake and romance novels; most of them cynical and degrading. This article gave me some insights into Fabio of which I was not aware. With more information, opinions can change. Fabio seems to have a lot of conservative thoughts, not egocentric, enjoys life, and scorns Hollyweird stars. He lauds America as the place that allowed him achieve all that he has earned. Beefcake idol, though he is, he exudes a conservative attitude and belief system that is not often found in California. I only find fault with his reasoning and choice for the upcoming election.

Simplistic Solution To Terrorist States

Mojave Mark responded in a response post at Hot Air with a simplified method of resolving issues with terrorist countries. He referred to it as the Colter [sic] doctrine. I’m sure he meant “Coulter.” Regardless of a spelling, his concept seems to make some sort of unrealistic sense. He states that the doctrine is “Invade their countries, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity …problem solved.” It would be wonderful if it were that easy.

Monday, November 26, 2007

The Pot Calling the Kettle, uh, Black...

Hitlary came out the other day with an attack on Obama's experience. Read it here, if you can stomach it.

My question is this... don't they have nearly equivalent inexperience? I mean, Clinton's only real experience with the job is probably being a Senator... just like Obama.

Now, Clinton was the Senator for liberal New York, so she is probably much more socialist than Obama, who is just learning to be a Commie. Socialist tendencies and communist agendas aside, they seem to be pretty well matched.

My question is this: Does being the wife of the President of the United States of America (former) really qualify her for the job?

I mean, my wife is married to a person who operates a nuclear reactor, but smart as she is, I don't think that qualifies her to take up my job. I know that being President isn't exactly nuclear physics, but the fate of Western Free Society will be weighing on whomsoever gets put in that position.

Shouldn't the person we pick have better qualifications than having slept with a President once? Hell, Monica Lewinski could run on those grounds... at least we know she had sex with Bill.