This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Topics - Amber
No, you assholes don't get to see my work before it is printed.
Ok, so I'm way excited. I'm in the best shape that I've been in about 5 years time (since I was in the military). And it's all because of one aerobics class that I found: BodyPUMP.
First of all, let me say that I was going to the gym every single day for the past 5 weeks straight. I got to a certain weight/body and could not go anywhere. I was running 20 minutes every single day; swimming 3 times a week and weightlifting. It had nothing to do with laziness that I was not getting results.
So I switched gyms last week. This new gym I go to had this BodyPUMP class, it is the entire reason why I switched.
Anyway, it's awesome. You squat, lunge, press and curl your way to a perfect body.
Anyway, I just wanted to share the love as I love this class.
It's on videotape somewhere, I think. Even if not, I recommend investing in a small barbell, weights, some fun music and doing lots of reps at low weight of the following:
Those last 2 are a real bitch.
On MSNBC they were scoffing the idea that Morton Kondracke could POSSIBLY think the idea that what Madeline Albright said to him wasn't a joke.
""Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Usama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?" Asked if she was joking, Mr. Kondracke replied, "She was not smiling." "
On MSNBC, the anchor asked, "Does Kondracke really think that a former Secretary of State would say something so stupid ... " My answer >>> yes. Then said, "Or at least would give something like that to him to say to the public." Maybe not. Who knows?
Anyway, here is an article by Ollie North about Howard Dean. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106139,00.html
Ollie North is really hot.
"Look ... your kind of story is exactly how feminists got their movement started. They took a lot of women who felt like victims, or were victims, and extrapolated their situation on to the population at large. They gained a lot of sympathy by taking REAL issues - like women being raped and then not getting justice - and made a huge propaganda out of it.
I am going to tell you what I would have, had I could have, said to women who were victims thus caught up in feminism: don't get caught up in the movement. They used female pain and exploited it - turning it into a hate movement.
Situations like yours were artifically created victim-cases. Men cannot and will not as easily play the victim card. So they had to do something awful to men in order to get them to join the socialist bandwagon, which necessarily means turning men into victims, and haters, and who feel like they are "owed" something as all socialists believe. That is exactly what I see happening.
I have said before: anything that is done in the name of "group" rights is evil. It is by definition a protectionist movement. This is exactly what the men's movement is and will continue to turn into. Look at all their fundamental tenets: they are the exact same thing as feminists. Look at how many MRA hate women - just like feminists. Were I accusing the feminists of hating men, they would tell me the same thing the MRA are trying to tell me - hey, we don't ALL hate men you know! Whatever, it doesn't matter. MRA also hate marriage and want to destroy chivalry. Here is why: because those pupeteering the strings know feminism is going to collapse shortly. It cannot stand public scrutiny - hardly any women consider themselves feminists anymore. They need to continue to wreak havoc on society and destroy things under a different name now, which is what guys like you - innocent victims - are going to help them do.
In your case, I would not suggest that a men's movement is necessary: but objectivite law and individual rights. You should be hacking away at feminists in the way that organizations like the IWF does - by exposing and showing their stupidity and advocating individual rights. You should challenge the collectivist notion of "women's rights." A movement should not, as the mens rights activists are doing, look at the protectionism women get and go "hey we want it too!" You may say you do not, but the fact is most MRA do.
The IWF does things for men often. The very reason why they started is because feminists were trying to ruin Clarence Thomas's career. This is an appropriate method to deal with it; not "mens rights" activism.
So there, that is my answer to you. "
I was asked to "be specific" about what men's rights activists do that I loathe. Frankly, I already have. My work on it is easily available on the internet. But, anyway, I'll start a running list of their behavior right here on this thread. If you want to state what MRA "accomplishments" are too, then list them. [And I suppose trying to get me banned/killed will be one of them ... pffffft! :laugh2:] I'll give you examples of what they do, the emails they send me, the articles they write, etc.
Lalalalala <hummging a song> ... god, this is so easy ...
Here is my first example.
I was talking to a "men's rights activist." One who has complimented me on having an "individual mind" in fact. He told me what I thought of a guy who couldn't get health insurance as he needed surgery to prevent some disease from getting worse.
Well I didn't tell him, but I think it is a guy who totally evaded responsiblity. A guy who waited until the shit hit the fan, and then when wet in it said ... "GEE I SHOULD HAVE PLANNED AHEAD!"
Then he moaned to me, right away, that "were I a woman I could have gotten insurance." Well, that may be true, but it's regardless. It's wrong a woman gets it because of the corrupt law and it would be wrong for the guy too.
Just one example of a "men's rights activist." Basically a guy that goes, "Hey look, women are getting away with evading personal responsiblity so we want to too!"
My CIA buddy was just on O'Reilly.
They talked about Saddam's interrogation. Mr. Simmons said that they are going to force Saddam to watch tapes of his crimes over and over until he breaks down.
Sounds like a good plan to me.
O'Reilly asked about truth serum. Simmons said it was fair game, but it seemed like he was trying to convince O'Reilly that it likely won't be necessary
2003 Top Ten Campus Follies
"Gender Blind" Dormitory and "Discriminatory" Flyer Top List
Our nation's education system continues to be weighted down with incidences of bias and political correctness. Young America's Foundation compiled a list of the top ten most shameful campus events in America's education system in 2003:
10. Gonzaga University (Spokane, WA) administration officials censored a conservative student group's flyer advertising a Young America's Foundation organized lecture because the word "hate" was used on the flyer. The flyer in question featured the topic of guest speaker Dan Flynn's speech, "Why the Left Hates America," which is also the title of his book. The administration first approved the flyer then rescinded the approval after some professors purportedly complained of the use of the word "hate." Furthermore, in a letter obtained by the Foundation, Gonzaga's Office of Student Activities informed the conservative student group that a complaint was made against the group because some individuals felt "the Left Hates..." printed on the flyer was "discriminatory." The letter did not identify who raised objections to the flyer.
9. Park Ridge elementary school officials in Nampa, Idaho told an 11-year-old student to stop wearing his patriotic military theme T-shirt to school. The T-shirt depicts a monument at the Fort Lewis military base in the state of Washington. It shows "Iron Mike" hoisting a rifle with a star in the background. After public pressure, school officials reversed their decision and admitted the T-shirt did not fit under the school's policy prohibiting clothing depicting guns or gangs.
8. Students at Smith College, an all-female school in Massachusetts, voted to remove all feminine pronouns from the school constitution and replace them with gender-neutral ones. The editing of the constitution is part of an effort to make transgender students feel more welcome on the campus.
7. The president of the University of Arizona sent out a formal letter to the class of 2003 stating that tortillas will not be allowed at their commencement. Throwing tortillas is a tradition at the university's graduation ceremony, but the university president thought the tradition was disrespectful to many of the school's Hispanic and American Indian community members. Members of the Chicano/Hispano Student Affairs (CHSA) organization said they know the tradition is celebratory and not meant to offend.
6. A group of teachers and parents at Jefferson Elementary School in Berkeley, California is pushing to rename the school because Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder. Supporters of the name change say that it is insensitive to leave the name of a slaveholder on a building with a large black student population.
5. A 14-year-old New Jersey student was suspended for five days for drawing a picture of a stick figure U.S. Marine shooting a Taliban fighter. School officials said the student was being punished for the drawing, that it was "highly inappropriate," and the school took it "very seriously." The student's dad and step-dad are in the military.
4. The Roger Williams University (RI) administration froze funding and attacked a conservative campus organization for advocating diversity of thought through the group's publication, The Hawk's Right Eye. The university's president, Roy Nirschel, sent an email to all students and faculty denouncing the paper and claiming the organization flirted with racism and "crossed seriously over the lines of propriety." He went on to state that while the university affirms "the right of campus organizations to hold different points of view and to disagree, the university will not condone publications that create a hostile environment for our students and community" and added that the university is "too busy for hate." Student activist Jason Mattera says the harassment by administration officials began when his group published articles in their newspaper countering attacks on Christianity, freedom of association, and diversity of thought made by two university sponsored guest speakers this fall. The guest speakers were Judy Shepard, mother of slain homosexual Matthew Shepard, and James Dale, a gay man excluded from the Boy Scouts. Shepard stated during her Welcome Week speech that "churches are damaging us as a society. They don't allow us to grow." Dale castigated the Boy Scouts and trivialized its right of free association.
3. A professor at Citrus College in Glendora, California forced students in her Speech 106 class, a required course, to write anti-war letters to President Bush and penalized their grades after some refused. When several students asked if they could write letters supportive of Bush's policies instead, the professor refused and informed the students their grades would suffer if they wrote such letters. The college sanctioned the professor and apologized to the students.
2. Professor Nicholas De Genova of Columbia University stated during a six-hour university teach-in on the war in Iraq that he would like to see "a million Mogadishus"--a reference to the eighteen American soldiers who were ambushed and killed in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993.
#1. Wesleyan University in Connecticut now offers a "Gender Blind" dormitory floor for incoming students who aren't sure what sex they are. Students who ask for the floor will have roommates appointed without regard to their sex, perceived or otherwise. The rooms will be set aside for transgender students, described as those students born with ambiguous genitalia or who don't identify with their physical sex.
Emotional Sophistication not Suffocation
Today it is popular to think that emotions and reason are antagonistic to each other. The belief is emotions and reason are severed from each other, and one must choose one or the other. One is either a wild, untamed brat or a boring, passionless robot. This is the reason-emotion dichotomy.
The robot, deeming emotions to be nothing but wild, untamed possessors of man, seeks to deal with them the same way "liberals" want to deal with guns: by completely eradicating them.
The only way to maintain objectivity, the robot believes, is to completely deny all emotions within oneself. Otherwise they will be thrown into a chaotic abyss where they cannot run their lives correctly or make sound decisions.
The opposite side of this dichotomy is fully advocated on college campuses; they are the ones who have a vested interest in perpetuating this dichotomy. Reason, most college professors preach, belongs to the boring and uptight. It is the passion-less yet practical older couple down the street; it is the boring accountant. Reject this, they say, and follow your "reptilian" brain.
Ironically, those who adopt the emotion side of the reason-emotion dichotomy do so also, they believe, to maintain objectivity. Reason, they believe, necessarily means lies, fraudulence, and evasion. Emotions and intuition, to them, are genuine.
Indeed, this is the entire crutch underlying this whole false dichotomy. The reason-emotion dichotomy will come crumbling down as soon as a person answers this question: what is objectivity?
Objectivity is the philosophical recognition that reality is external to oneself and that the human mind comprehends that reality. Subjectivists abandon reality in favor of the mind; intrinsics abandon the mind in favor of reality. Subjectivists believe truth is in human consciousness - an arbitrary preference; intrinsics believe truth is in reality but no amount of human thought processes it - it happens through faith or revelation. Objectivity rejects both. Objectivity is like a laser scanning information. It is a mind focused on reality - coming to valid conclusions that.
There is only one thing that blocks objectivity: dishonesty. That is - anything that stops a person from evaluating reality with an honest lens intent on finding out something is.
Emotions do not cloud objectivity. A person can be consumed with rage, love, fear, or ecstatic joy, so as long as their mind is willing to evaluate the facts of reality honestly, they maintain objectivity. For an example of this, think of a military officer being raided by an enemy, who might be consumed with urgency and anxiety, but still gathers data correctly and leads his troops as best his mind can. Objectivity deals with how a mind functions. Unless a person is drunk, massively confused, or worse - has a mind that was produced by today's educational system, they can maintain objectivity. Objectivity does not mean to approach an issue with no personal stake at hand or without emotion; it means a willingness to understand the facts of reality correctly.
Those who adopt the emotion side of the reason-emotion dichotomy have no hope of objectivity. They live in their inner world and hate the outer world. They may be fiercely honest with their emotions, but they are never honest with reality.
Neither emotions nor certainly the mind stop a person from objectivity. A person who believes this must re-evaluate their premises.
Professors have a vested interest in advocating the reason-emotion dichotomy. It gives them an excuse: to be in favor of emotion one thus must allegedly reject reason. They do not love emotion; they hate reason. The robots are in the same camp, however. They do not love reason; they hate emotion.
Reason and emotion are not antagonistic to each other. Reason guides emotion. The goal is not to suffocate emotion but to manage it. The completion of an adult is not to turn into Mr. Spock; nor will the human race be completely "evolved" when our reptilian brain is weeded out. Life without fear and anger may perhaps be nice, but life would not even be worth living without love, passion, joy.
An emotional response, even an automatic one, to one's surroundings is a healthy thing. Ayn Rand called this is a sense of life. She defined it as "pre conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence." Man's reactive mind, i.e. his automatic response to his surroundings, does not need eradicated but programmed. When evaluating the world, there is no reason to be cold or unresponsive to it. If it weren't for man's reactive mind, things like love at first sight would be impossible.
(Love at first sight is not the product of someone who has no convictions and just miraculously finds something he, for no apparent reason, regards as beautiful. It is a product of man's fundamental convictions and understanding of what he finds to be virtuous, which is then executed simply and effortlessly upon seeing his love.)
Many great people who contributed great things on this earth embraced emotion. Imagine the accomplishments of George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., or Ronald Reagan without the emotional element.
Embracing emotions as guided by reason sets one on the path to real emotional maturity: emotional sophistication not emotional suffocation.
This is reason #4173 to get rid of the Islamic regime in Iran and not accept Shirin Ebadi to do that.
Fakhravar Badly Beaten Up
Amir Abbas (Siavash) Fakhravar, jailed Iranian student and the subject of the
recent Channel 4 documentary, Iran Uncovered, has been badly beaten up by other
criminal inmates. The prison authorities have refused to provide him medical
Fakhravar is kept in a cell with 25 other common criminals at the Qasr prison.
All are dangerous prisoners jailed for serious offences. There are still 3000
prisoners kept at Qasr prison while the other 5000 have been moved to another
It is a customary practice by Islamic Republic to keep political prisoners with
common criminals and use these thugs to beat up political prisoners.
Fakhravar was visited by Shirin Ebadi before she left for Oslo to collect her
Nobel peace prize. Fakhravar begged her to mention the plight of jailed Iranian
students, but Shirin Ebadi refused saying the speech was already written and
sent off for translation. Fakhravar then reminded her that she could mention
the atrocities in her press interviews but again Shirin Ebadi refused saying
she does not want to meddle in Iranian politics. Fakhravar then reminded Ebadi
that if she does not want to meddle in politics then she should not ask the
Iranian people to participate in the next Islamic elections either which are
due to be held in February where candidates are pre-selected and approved by
the unelected Guardian Council before and after the "elections".
Well to set this up ... this guy said in the topic line of this post that I wasn't supposed to read this thread. He IMd me once and said I was the only girl he's met who has a clue, so I am assuming me meant I was an exception. Anyway, this guy and I also got into it because he was saying sex was free and fun, and hey ... live it up! in response to my article about "damaging the goods." This was my response to him.
-They are a sweet, friendly, caring person until you disagree with them
(then they turn into a raging bitch)
-They manipulate their way through life using their "sexuality"
-They do anything they can to win your heart until you you marry them
(and then they get fat, nasty, and refuse to give blow jobs)
-They act as if you criticize them, it is a crime against humanity
(but they can criticize "pig guys" all day long and it's cool)
-They are your soul mate and one and only until your first fight
(then you must kiss their ass to get them back even though they are
half the reason for the fight!)
-Many many more examples....what would you include?
Ok well I know I wasn't supposed to read this but I caved.
I have a relatively crazy idea. Perhaps, maybe ... JUST MAYBE THOUGH... oh, and I was told I have to start saying things are "JUST MY OPINION" too .... but, anyway, just maybe if you looked for a quality girl, one who knows she is worth marrying and actually prepares for a solid marriage, instead of, oh I don't know ... going in and out of the hook-up scene, thereby blinding you to look for sex parts not quality character... maybe, just maybe .... it would be condusive to finding a better wife?
One, you know, that will give the blowjobs after not before marriage? I'm guessing giving after and for then on perhaps is a little more preferable ... no?
I get shit like this more than once, but they mention syg in it so I thought it would be fun to look at. This is a guest book signature.
"I just wanted to say you are a closet feminist anti male propagandist who rides on the coat tails of intellectuals; albeit ignorant of said intellectual's position. Ayn Rand would hide in shame to be on the same ticket with you, Ms. Pawlik. You are a pathetic example of objectivism and pure understanding of gender. Dudley Do Right has more on the ball with Natashia and Bullwinkle than you and your panty sniffing, palm chaffing, jack-off sporting, shit eating loser fair weather friends at stand your ground.com."
I get accused of being a "feminist apologis" rather often. Mostly, I just see it as a lot of small minded people trying to categorize me into something they hate so they can have a legitimate reason to hate me.
So my challenge is: why? Why am I a "feminist?"
I suppose my anti feminist club at Penn State, staunch opposal to every single feminist tenet; etc., make me a feminist. I mean .. what is it? What about me is feminist? Because I believe in marriage and women having some type of self interest? Oh ... because I advocate career women? That's about as 'feminist' as I come. I'm putting a challenge out there to all my haters to tell me why I am a feminist. Confront me here, on a public space that it is well known I post at. For some reason, no one ever does that ... I usually get fly by comments like this.
". Dudley Do Right has more on the ball with Natashia and Bullwinkle than you and your panty sniffing, palm chaffing, jack-off sporting, shit eating loser fair weather friends at stand your ground.com."
Panty sniffing .. obviously someone familiar with Shethinks, specifically Dan ... shit eating ... where have I heard that before? :scratching_chin: And Bullwinkle sounds familiar from somewhere ... was that brought up on this board or shethinks before?
Personally I think UR just got more clever at disguising who he is when signing my guest book so I don't autmoatically delete it ... as I delete not necessarily all nasty entrys but rather ones that are clearly trolls.
One of my more recent articles called "Experience Means Baggage" sparked quite a thread on the mensnewsdaily.com forums.
Basically, they accused me of being a feminist who wants to "tell men what to do." Well, I've noticed that among mens rights activists, like feminists, men do not want to be "told what to do." They want to do whatever they want. They are like little kids.
Anyway, one guy says he "went ballistic" over me. My article specifically has the premise that marriage is a good thing. BECAUSE of this, I state that going in and out of relationships before marriage and having lots of sex is a bad thing. It doesn't lead to a good marriage. That somehow makes me a feminists. :?
Here is what it comes down to: men's rights activists hate marriage. They do not want to ever get married. Their goal is NOT to clean up the mess known as divorce court. They LIKE that being the way it is. For them, it is an EXCUSE not to get married.
Their problem is not that I am a supposed feminist, a young person who doesn't know anything, or anything of the sort. Their problem is that I advocated marriage.
Don't worry, men's rights activists. I would never hold any of your feet to the fire as I would never be interested in dating any of you. I can't think of a woman of self esteem who would.
The position that I advocated in my EMB piece is also a Christian belief. It is something that the Bible has advocated for 2000 years. Yet, somehow, my position is naive based on the ad hominem that I am young, therefore what I say has no truth at all.
Come on: is the true nature of men's rights activism not being exposed? What the fuck has to happen until your eyes are opened up?
I find it ridiculous in particular that they accuse me of being a feminist. I mean ... COME ON, can't they at least provide a semi-intelligent critique of me. It is the evidence of small minds. They don't like what I am saying, so they need to pigeon hole me into something they hate - feminism. Even though I don't fit that mold, and precisely because they can't hate me for any valid reason, they need to associate me with feminism, making it easier to hate me.
By all means, start a boycott at MND to get my columns off. It doesn't really matter. Within a year, I'll have bigger, better publications. I'll still send my articles to Mike if he wants them. I have a large fan base, including the very editor at MND, much to the MRA chagrin, I'm sure. I'm not sure if you leftist twits realized it, but the site is a CONSERVATIVE site. You know, CONSERVATIVES advocate things like MARRIAGE and morals and strong foreign policy, etc. These are not things MRA favor.
I'm not sure how much exposing has to be done until people realize this movement is just a hate movement. However, I am fully confident that most intelligent people can see that already, including most female and many male posters here. This is all the time I am giving to the MRA from now on ... they are, for the most part, irrelevant.
By the way is "JG" on MND "Galt"?
I'd like to get this up on websites like now so please give me feedback ASAP.
The US is the World's Liberator
The recent capture of brutal dictator Saddam Hussein disproves what Chomsky-ite leftists have been trying to propagandize for decades: that capitalism necessarily leads to military imperialism. In fact it is the opposite: capitalist nations export freedom, security, and liberation around the world.
The current anti-war zealots infesting campuses everywhere are not Marxists. They are Leninists. Their hatred is not aimed at what a capitalist nation supposedly does to proletarians but to all the poor, oppressed people around the world. It is taken as an axiom that capitalism, by sin of producing a robust economy and strong military might, necessarily leads to military imperialism.
The evidence for this is weak. When Chomsky, for instance, accuses the US of killing as many people as Hitler, he will reference US bombing of a pharmaceutical company in Sudan Africa - Clinton's doing. In his twisted logic, since this did not just kill the people at that bombing but caused many people to be without medical supplies, the US is necessarily responsible for thousands of deaths - just like Hitler. [Although if you want to compare Clinton to Hitler, I perhaps wouldn't mind seeing that headline on CNN news].
The logic in this is absurd, but this is the type of evidence these Leninists give. Of course, there is another dictator comparable to Hitler: Saddam Hussein, someone whom Chomsky rarely, if ever, condemns.
Saddam Hussein has killed upwards of one million people by direct, conscious will - including his own people. He gassed people at whim, including children; he would hang women upside down during menstruation to humiliate them; his sons would point to women they wanted, then raped them - just to name a few of the evils this regime was responsible for. (please note that I am using past tense!)
This scum bucket, as of this morning of December 14, 2003, was captured and detained, and all Iraqis can rest assured that they will never suffer terror at the hands of that monster ever again. It wasn't Canada that captured him; it wasn't Mexico; it wasn't Germany; it wasn't France: it was the United States, the freest, most capitalistic nation in the world today or ever.
Every American should be not only thankful but proud to be an American today. Message to the Iraqi people: Merry Christmas!
Is this the nation that these anti-American Chomsky-ites accuse of being a military tyrant? The country that ridded the world of Hitler and now Hussein? When Britain was at its prime, it would ransack, takeover, and control defeated countries. They ransacked the Taj Mahal for their own personal profit, just as one example. Of the countries the US invaded in the past, excluding the current situation, which one is occupied by US forces? Japan? Germany? The accusations of Leninists are bogus. A capitalist nation has no desire to pull the strings of another country: that would be way too cumbersome.
When terrorists caught Danny Pearl, by sin of being a Jew, he was captured, held hostage, and shot to death - leaving his pregnant wife behind. Images of Danny being detained with a gun to his head were all over the media. When we caught Saddam Hussein today, the first image we have seen is him getting a medical examination. Further proof of a tyrannical America - giving medical aid to our goddam enemies.
Every benevolent, peace-loving person and nation is happy today, happy that Saddam Hussein was caught -even France! But the silence from the Democrats is still deafening. I went to the gym today and random strangers come up to me to tell others and me they were "Happy that guy was caught!" You'd have to have a pretty cold heart and nasty political agenda not to be caught up in patriotic fever, joy for the Iraqi people, and thankfulness to the Bush administration today. To his credit, Howard Dean has done the smart thing already and congratulated US troops and even the administration for capturing Saddam. Good for him, but remember were Dean elected already; he would have pulled us out of Iraq. The military invasion would have been futile and the people of Iraq would still be unable to sleep at night, worrying Saddam will come back.
Of course, give them a few days, the Democrats will come out with some clever sound-bytes to put daggers in this joyous day. I can already hear them, "Saddam was a bad guy, but he wasn't THE bad guy!" "If Osama had oil, we would have caught him already!"
Guess what Democrats: freedom-loving people all over the Middle East are rejoicing at Saddam's capture. The countries (read: governments) that manufacture terrorism are shaking in their shoes, knowing the fall of Saddam mean their fall too. Note to Democrats: this is a moment that is going down in history, and you are going to be on the wrong side.
Republicans should seize the moment and do what they have to in the war on terror: remind Americans that it isn't over with the capture of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was a scum bucket to be taken out, for sure. But taking down Iraq was like shooting at the arm not the head. We need to aim at the head and rid the world of the largest manufacturer of terrorism: the Ayatollah Iranian government.
People tell me, "We need to stabilize Iraq before we go after Iran." Nonsense. We need to go after Iran to stabilize Iraq. They are up to no good, sending terrorists over to that area, attacking our soldiers, wearing them thin.
An attack in Iran would be quick, devastating, and eternally beneficial. The Iranian people hate their government, they love America, and the soldiers working for the Iranian government will quickly turn their back on the government and work for the people if they had the certainty that the people will follow through with topping this regime. It should happen now - it should have happened yesterday.
Today is a proud day to be an American.