For the liberal left, it's never enough entitlement. Let's look at the latest 'success': the minimum wage increase. First of all, this was a scam to begin with, since the main argument was to give poor people a higher 'living wage'. The problem is that the biggest category of workers affected by the minimum wage are not heads of households trying to feed their families, but teenagers. Raising the minimum wage has definitely hurt that segment of the population. For example, in Arizona, Mark Messner, owner of Pepi's Pizza in south Phoenix, estimates he has employed more than 2,000 high school students since 1990. But he plans to lay off three teenage workers and decrease hours worked by others. Of his 25-person workforce, roughly 75 percent are in high school. And, his monthly cost to train an employee has jumped from $440 to $580 as the turnover rate remains high. The Employment Policies Institute in Washington (which opposed the legislation) cited comments by noted economist Milton Friedman that high teen unemployment rates are largely due to minimum wage laws. "After a wage hike, employers seek to take fewer chances on individuals with little education or experience," one institute researcher told lawmakers in 2004.
Despite that, the Democrats want more. As Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel said of the first minimum wage hike in 10 years, "You ain’t seen nothing yet", and Sen. Ted Kennedy said he was willing to raise the minimum wage much higher - to almost $10.00/hour!
When does the minimum wage become enough? When it's $12.50/hour? $15.00/hour? If that's a reasonable rate, then why not $25.00/hour or $35.00/hour? How about $50.00/hour? How reasonable is it to pay some kid $50.00/hour to serve french fries at McDonalds? It's not reasonable at all. But, by raising the minimum wage, the costs of running the business are also raised -- and the business still has to make money -- so the higher costs of the product or service the business produces gets passed along to its customers. Let's stick with the McDonalds analogy. With the minimum wage at $5.15/hour, let's say the cost of a Big Mac is $4.00. If the minimum wage goes up to $9.70/hour for almost all of McDonalds' employees (assuming that most work at the minimum wage level), you're potentially looking at a new cost of about $7.00 for a Big Mac.
Now, I'm no economist, so these numbers may not be 100% accurate, but the point is still valid - raising the wages of workers will in turn raise the costs to consumers. Add that to the fact that most people affected by the minimum wage aren't poor people trying to feed their families, and you've got a complete scam on the American public, simply to allow people to feel better about themselves. The problem here is that they're dictating what the minimum wage should be via their emotions rather than on numbers and facts. That's why there is -- to the liberal way of thinking -- no reasonable limit to what the minimum wage should be (i.e. "you ain't seen nothing yet"): you can't put a reasonable limit on emotions. But, given these simple examples, all it takes is a little common sense to see that emotions are a very bad way to dictate economic policy.
And, on a much grander scale, it's also a perfect example of what happens when conservatives give in to liberals - it's never enough. By compromising our core beliefs even a little bit, conservatives slowly give ground and never get it back because the liberal can never get enough. Well, at least not until conservatives are completely gone. That's why it is so important not to give ground in the first place.
Do this: write down the price of bread, milk, butter, and a few other items in your fridge. Then go to McDonalds and write down the price of a few of your favorite menu items. Put them away for the next three years, then pull them out and see how they compare to the prices in 2010, when the minimum wage will be almost $10.00/hour. Be sure not to choke on that Big Mac. Oh, and be sure not to vote for Democrats who want to fleece you to make themselves feel better.
There's my two cents.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Stacking the Supreme Court
The New York Times published an editorial last week revealing another plan by the Democrats to take back control of the Supreme Court. The basic scenario is that if the Supreme Court continues to lean right (originalist), they'll attempt to add new justices to the court the next chance they get. Here's a little background.
The current Court has nine justices on it. The number of members on the court isn't dictated by the Constitution, but rather by Congress, which is one of the checks and balances of our system of government. There have been a number of modifications to the court over the past two hundred years, with the court ranging from 5 to 10 justices, landing on our current number in 1868.
So, if this is a perfectly legal and acceptable -- as well as precedented -- action, what's my point? My point is simply to illustrate what you will get if Democrats control both Congress and the White House. As I've blogged about before, activist judges are extremely dangerous to the American way of life and the freedoms we possess per the Constitution. It should come as no surpise that a Democrat is likely to lean toward (and appoint) activist judges, just as Clinton did. It takes only a simple majority (51 votes) to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court, so it would be very possible if a Democrat won the White House in 2008 while retaining even a slim Congressional majority.
Picture this scenario: Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency in 2008 and the Democrats retain their majorities in both houses of Congress. Clinton could drive through a change that would increase the Supreme Court to 11 justices. She would then likely appoint far-left activist judges to fill the two new positions, stacking the Court with a 6-5 activist judge majority. It's not too far-fetched, if the Democrats win the next election cycle.
If you think that activist judges -- who impose their own bias on huge majorities of voters on critical issues including gay marriage, eminent domain, and civil rights for non-citizen terrorists -- are a problem now, just wait until the court is deliberately stacked toward the activist side.
There's my two cents.
The current Court has nine justices on it. The number of members on the court isn't dictated by the Constitution, but rather by Congress, which is one of the checks and balances of our system of government. There have been a number of modifications to the court over the past two hundred years, with the court ranging from 5 to 10 justices, landing on our current number in 1868.
So, if this is a perfectly legal and acceptable -- as well as precedented -- action, what's my point? My point is simply to illustrate what you will get if Democrats control both Congress and the White House. As I've blogged about before, activist judges are extremely dangerous to the American way of life and the freedoms we possess per the Constitution. It should come as no surpise that a Democrat is likely to lean toward (and appoint) activist judges, just as Clinton did. It takes only a simple majority (51 votes) to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court, so it would be very possible if a Democrat won the White House in 2008 while retaining even a slim Congressional majority.
Picture this scenario: Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency in 2008 and the Democrats retain their majorities in both houses of Congress. Clinton could drive through a change that would increase the Supreme Court to 11 justices. She would then likely appoint far-left activist judges to fill the two new positions, stacking the Court with a 6-5 activist judge majority. It's not too far-fetched, if the Democrats win the next election cycle.
If you think that activist judges -- who impose their own bias on huge majorities of voters on critical issues including gay marriage, eminent domain, and civil rights for non-citizen terrorists -- are a problem now, just wait until the court is deliberately stacked toward the activist side.
There's my two cents.
Illegal Aliens and Legal Hypocrisy
You hopefully caught my previous blog on the city of Hazleton, PA, where a federal judge struck down some city ordinances that cracked down on illegal aliens and those who support them. The Christian Science Monitor adds some more background to the story today.
Apparently, Hazleton has seen a population boom since 2001, straining schools and other taxpayer funded resources. By some estimates, a quarter of the city's 30,000 residents are illegal aliens. That makes it a bit easier to understand why the Mayor and city council took action. The worst part of the recent ruling, though, is that Hazleton officials didn't get to face their accusers in court since they were allowed to remain nameless. Even worse, federal immigrations agents did not show up to arrest the plaintiffs.
Hazelton is not alone - over 100 other cities across the country have taken similar measures since the federal government has failed to do so, and this wave of action is further proof that Congress needs to do something right on true immigration reform.
One problem on this issue is that liberal groups like the ACLU seem to have a one-sided view of it (I know, contain your shock). New Haven, CT recently began issuing municipal ID cards without requiring the applicant to prove citizenship. Supporters say that this program will "improve safety for illegal immigrants". Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform suggests that this policy will simply encourage more law-breaking. He also correctly points out the hypocrisy of the Hazelton ruling and the New Haven actions: "All of a sudden you have the ACLU and all these other groups coming in and filing lawsuits saying no, no, no, you can't do that, you're interfering in federal prerogative here, but when you have local governments like the city of New Haven, Connecticut, stepping in and saying we're going to make it easier for illegal aliens, all of a sudden the ACLU is nowhere to be found."
It's all about politics, and the ACLU is as one-sided as it gets.
Illegal immigration is a growing problem, and it will continue to get worse until Congress grows a spine and actually does something about it, whether enforcing current laws or enacting new ones. Either way, they've got to do something before things spin completely out of control. By the way, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are seeking support from La Raza, one of the biggest and most virulent illegal alien advocacy groups that had its tentacles deep inside the amnesty bill. That would make for an interesting Presidency, wouldn't it?
There's my two cents.
Apparently, Hazleton has seen a population boom since 2001, straining schools and other taxpayer funded resources. By some estimates, a quarter of the city's 30,000 residents are illegal aliens. That makes it a bit easier to understand why the Mayor and city council took action. The worst part of the recent ruling, though, is that Hazleton officials didn't get to face their accusers in court since they were allowed to remain nameless. Even worse, federal immigrations agents did not show up to arrest the plaintiffs.
Hazelton is not alone - over 100 other cities across the country have taken similar measures since the federal government has failed to do so, and this wave of action is further proof that Congress needs to do something right on true immigration reform.
One problem on this issue is that liberal groups like the ACLU seem to have a one-sided view of it (I know, contain your shock). New Haven, CT recently began issuing municipal ID cards without requiring the applicant to prove citizenship. Supporters say that this program will "improve safety for illegal immigrants". Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform suggests that this policy will simply encourage more law-breaking. He also correctly points out the hypocrisy of the Hazelton ruling and the New Haven actions: "All of a sudden you have the ACLU and all these other groups coming in and filing lawsuits saying no, no, no, you can't do that, you're interfering in federal prerogative here, but when you have local governments like the city of New Haven, Connecticut, stepping in and saying we're going to make it easier for illegal aliens, all of a sudden the ACLU is nowhere to be found."
It's all about politics, and the ACLU is as one-sided as it gets.
Illegal immigration is a growing problem, and it will continue to get worse until Congress grows a spine and actually does something about it, whether enforcing current laws or enacting new ones. Either way, they've got to do something before things spin completely out of control. By the way, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are seeking support from La Raza, one of the biggest and most virulent illegal alien advocacy groups that had its tentacles deep inside the amnesty bill. That would make for an interesting Presidency, wouldn't it?
There's my two cents.
Consumer Confidence At 6-Year High
The AP reports today that consumer confidence is at its highest point since just before 9/11. You can kiss all this growth goodbye if the Democrats get their tax increases signed into law.
There's my two cents.
There's my two cents.
Monday, July 30, 2007
More On Democrat Tax Increases
Republican Senator John Kyl of Arizona wrote an editorial on NRO Online about the tax increases you can expect from the new Democrat Congress.
This isn't anything new (see previous blog here), but this is a great simplification of the causes and effects of tax changes. If you don't understand the effect of tax cuts and tax increases on the economy -- and, more importantly, on your own paycheck -- you really need to read this entire article.
Here's a summary.
The Republican-led Congress, prodded by President Bush, passed major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. These cuts led to a booming economy, millions of new jobs, and new investment and innovation. As Kyl says, "[w]hen government gets out of the way, the American people will get to work."
Over the past five years, our overall economy has seen growth that is far better than the previous 30 years, and over 8 million new jobs have been created as part of that growth. Unemployment is at 4.5%, which is the lowest average in over 40 years. Wages have increased an average of $3,000 per person. At the same time, tax revenues have increased 37%, which has helped drive down the national deficit for the past three years, and right now the deficit is well below the average of the past 40 years.
All this is the result of Bush's tax cuts. Tax increases have the opposite effect. Kyl summarizes: "As rates increase, the rewards of labor and investment decrease. People see more of their income and the returns on their investments eaten up by taxes, and this gives them little incentive to work more or invest more. Without new labor and investment, economic growth grinds to a halt, and the economy stagnates."
Now, the Democrats leading Congress have approved a budget that fails to extend Bush's tax cuts, which in effect means a massive tax increase of over $700 billion. In addition, they're planning to increase the Alternative Minimum Tax, which will hammer wealthy Americans and most small business owners (who are usually taxed like individuals). Small businesses are responsible for 60-80% of the new jobs created over the last 10 years, and increasing the tax burden on them would do major damage to America's economy.
The most unbelievable part of this issue is that the results are not 'projected' or 'estimated' - they are concrete, tested, true, repeatable results. Anyone who is in favor of increasing taxes is simply ignoring the facts that such actions will inevitably harm America.
REMEMBER who wants to raise taxes on YOU.
There's my two cents.
This isn't anything new (see previous blog here), but this is a great simplification of the causes and effects of tax changes. If you don't understand the effect of tax cuts and tax increases on the economy -- and, more importantly, on your own paycheck -- you really need to read this entire article.
Here's a summary.
The Republican-led Congress, prodded by President Bush, passed major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. These cuts led to a booming economy, millions of new jobs, and new investment and innovation. As Kyl says, "[w]hen government gets out of the way, the American people will get to work."
Over the past five years, our overall economy has seen growth that is far better than the previous 30 years, and over 8 million new jobs have been created as part of that growth. Unemployment is at 4.5%, which is the lowest average in over 40 years. Wages have increased an average of $3,000 per person. At the same time, tax revenues have increased 37%, which has helped drive down the national deficit for the past three years, and right now the deficit is well below the average of the past 40 years.
All this is the result of Bush's tax cuts. Tax increases have the opposite effect. Kyl summarizes: "As rates increase, the rewards of labor and investment decrease. People see more of their income and the returns on their investments eaten up by taxes, and this gives them little incentive to work more or invest more. Without new labor and investment, economic growth grinds to a halt, and the economy stagnates."
Now, the Democrats leading Congress have approved a budget that fails to extend Bush's tax cuts, which in effect means a massive tax increase of over $700 billion. In addition, they're planning to increase the Alternative Minimum Tax, which will hammer wealthy Americans and most small business owners (who are usually taxed like individuals). Small businesses are responsible for 60-80% of the new jobs created over the last 10 years, and increasing the tax burden on them would do major damage to America's economy.
The most unbelievable part of this issue is that the results are not 'projected' or 'estimated' - they are concrete, tested, true, repeatable results. Anyone who is in favor of increasing taxes is simply ignoring the facts that such actions will inevitably harm America.
REMEMBER who wants to raise taxes on YOU.
There's my two cents.
Speaking of Defeat...
Given my last post, this column in the Washington Post seems especially ironic in its timing. Democrat leaders in the House are planning to play politics with their next defense spending bill. Pelosi and Murtha are planning to include three amendments on the bill that would do the following:
1. begin retreating from Iraq in 60 days
2. subject continued war funding to unattainable requirements
3. close Guantanamo Bay immediately
I hesitate to again go over all the reasons these three amendments would be disastrous due to space constraints, so I encourage you to check out the past couple weeks of my blog for numerous posts on these exact topics. In short, here are some bullet points:
1. We're winning now; why would we retreat? Because the Democrats have so viciously opposed the war (simply to oppose Bush) that they cannot allow a victory at this point.
2. see reason #1
3. What will we do with them? If we give them rights they don't deserve and give them a civilian trial, some will inevitably be let go on U.S. soil. This means that if you're a terrorist, you try to kill as many Americans as you can; if you succeed, great. If not, and you get picked up, you'll get a trial funded by American taxpayers or liberal advocacy groups, then you'll have a good chance of being released right in the heart of your primary target where you can kill more Americans.
Great ideas, Pelosi and Murtha.
I encourage all of you who are reading this to -- once again -- REMEMBER who is fighting hard for American defeat, and who is not.
There's my two cents.
1. begin retreating from Iraq in 60 days
2. subject continued war funding to unattainable requirements
3. close Guantanamo Bay immediately
I hesitate to again go over all the reasons these three amendments would be disastrous due to space constraints, so I encourage you to check out the past couple weeks of my blog for numerous posts on these exact topics. In short, here are some bullet points:
1. We're winning now; why would we retreat? Because the Democrats have so viciously opposed the war (simply to oppose Bush) that they cannot allow a victory at this point.
2. see reason #1
3. What will we do with them? If we give them rights they don't deserve and give them a civilian trial, some will inevitably be let go on U.S. soil. This means that if you're a terrorist, you try to kill as many Americans as you can; if you succeed, great. If not, and you get picked up, you'll get a trial funded by American taxpayers or liberal advocacy groups, then you'll have a good chance of being released right in the heart of your primary target where you can kill more Americans.
Great ideas, Pelosi and Murtha.
I encourage all of you who are reading this to -- once again -- REMEMBER who is fighting hard for American defeat, and who is not.
There's my two cents.
More Converts To The Surge's Success
Check out this editorial in the New York Times, of all places. Written by two lefties, it describes their surprise at the changes on the ground in a recent trip to Iraq from the last time they were there in 2005. To their credit, they tell the real deal (makes you wonder if they'll be fired soon), showing just how far the U.S. forces have come in Iraq. As an example, they mention how "just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor." To me, though, the key phrase is right there at the end: "there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."
If even left-wing reporters are this convinced at the progress being made there, there really can't be much doubt about whether or not we're winning anymore. Anyone who says otherwise must be playing a political agenda of some kind, and needs to have their motives examined very closely. Again, the real question is: why would we legislate a defeat when our forces on the ground are achieving victory?
Let's pressure our Congressmen and Senators to give our forces the time they need to secure that victory.
There's my two cents.
If even left-wing reporters are this convinced at the progress being made there, there really can't be much doubt about whether or not we're winning anymore. Anyone who says otherwise must be playing a political agenda of some kind, and needs to have their motives examined very closely. Again, the real question is: why would we legislate a defeat when our forces on the ground are achieving victory?
Let's pressure our Congressmen and Senators to give our forces the time they need to secure that victory.
There's my two cents.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Quick Hits: Abstinence, Freedom of Speech, Surging Success
Here are a few more quick hits for your weekend reading pleasure. Enjoy!
Quick Hit #1: Abstinence. I disagree with just about everything that the Democrat leadership is doing nowadays, but this was a refreshing burst of good news. The Democrat-led House of Representatives recently passed a Labor-HHS appropriations bill (H.R. 3043) that included a $28 million increase for abstinence education programs, with even ultra-liberal Speaker Nancy Pelosi voting for it! Even outside of the obvious religious implications, this policy is also common sense, and the House should be commended for helping it out.
Quick Hit #2: Gitmo and Al Qaeda. This story in the Wall Street Journal discusses the debate about what to do with captured Al Qaeda prisoners in relation to Gitmo. While no one really likes the portait painted of Gitmo, it serves a critical purpose - it allows us to obtain intelligence, especially from high-ranking Al Qaeda members, that we wouldn't otherwise get. Contrary to popular belief, the legality of Gitmo was upheld by the Supreme Court. Even so, any American leaders want to close it down, but no one has yet figured out what to do with the detainees already there. If we release them, they'll go back to kill more Americans (at least 30 already have) on the battlefield. If we give them the rights of Americans and put them into the court system (which is exactly what many left-wing liberals want to do), it is inevitable that a number of them would end up being released inside the U.S.. The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point recently examined the non-classified evidence about Gitmo detainees, and in a new report concludes that 73% were a "demonstrated threat" to U.S. forces. No less than 95% were a "potential threat." Wouldn't that be a great idea?
Quick Hit #3: No Money Means Freer Speech? Ramesh Ponnuru blogs at NRO's "The Corner" about a recently approved Mike Pence amendment that will prevent funding for the Justice Department to enforce the most controversial piece of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law: the part regulating political advertising just prior to an election. Basically, the law prevented political ads from running right before elections in a thinly-veiled ploy to protect incumbents from TV ads by challengers. While it would be better to have the law completely struck down, this lack of funding for enforcement could prove to be almost as good. It will be interesting to see what happens with this one.
Quick Hit #4: More Surge Success. Don Surber blogs about Republican Congressman Kevin Brady's recent trip to Iraq. In his comments, Brady said, "I really expected the worst. Instead I am very encouraged. Communities all across Iraq are turning against al Qaeda and working with Iraqi and coalition forces to take back their cities. Half of Baghdad is no longer safe for insurgents." He continued with a call to success: "while congress has the right to debate this war, it has the responsibility to help win it as well. That means letting this new strategy work to the end of the year or the beginning of the next if we are truly serious about a stable Iraq and safer America." Yet more proof that the surge is working.
Quick Hit #5: Winning in Iraq, Losing in Washington. Ralph Peters wrote a great column in the New York Post yesterday that perfectly framed the war in Iraq. There is far more information in that article than what I can summarize here, so I highly encourage you to go read the whole thing for yourself. Here are a few highlights:
- To a military professional, the tactical progress made in Iraq over the last few months is impressive. To a member of Congress, it's an annoyance.
- In the words of a senior officer known for his careful assessments, al Qaeda's terrorists in Iraq are "on their back foot and we're trying to knock them to their knees." Do our politicians really want to help al Qaeda regain its balance?
- Al Qaeda lost the support of Iraq's Sunni Arabs. The fanatics over-reached: They murdered popular sheiks, kidnapped tribal women for forced marriages, tried to outlaw any form of joy and (perhaps most fatally, given Iraqi habits) banned smoking. In response, the Arab version of the Marlboro Man rose up and started cutting terrorist throats.
- Since the tribes who once were fighting against us turned on al Qaeda, our troops not only captured the senior Iraqi in the organization -- which made brief headlines -- but also killed the three al Turki brothers, major-league pinch-hitters al Qaeda sent into Iraq to save the game.
- to quote that senior officer again, "our forces have been taking out their leaders faster than they can find qualified replacements."
- Even the Democrats yearning to become president admit, when pressed, that al Qaeda's a threat to America. So why didn't even one of them praise the success of our troops during their last debate?
- Republicans ... haven't rushed to applaud our progress, either. They'll give up Iraq, as long as they don't have to give up earmarks.
- It isn't only al Qaeda taking serious hits. After briefly showing the flag, Muqtada al-Sadr fled back to Iran again, trailed by his senior deputies. Mookie's No. 2 even moved his family to Iran. Why? Though he's been weak in the past, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is now green-lighting Iraqi operations against the Jaish al Mahdi, the Mookster's "Mahdi Army."
- In Baghdad, the surge isn't only about American successes - Iraqi security and intelligence forces conducted a series of hard-hitting operations against both al Qaeda and Iran-backed Special Group terrorists.
Peters' rousing conclusion: "Gen. Dave Petraeus and his subordinate commanders are by far the best team we've ever had in place in that wretched country. They're doing damned near everything right - with austere resources, despite the surge. And they're being abandoned by your elected leaders. Maybe the next presidential primary debate should be held in Baghdad."
Have a great weekend!
There's my two cents.
Quick Hit #1: Abstinence. I disagree with just about everything that the Democrat leadership is doing nowadays, but this was a refreshing burst of good news. The Democrat-led House of Representatives recently passed a Labor-HHS appropriations bill (H.R. 3043) that included a $28 million increase for abstinence education programs, with even ultra-liberal Speaker Nancy Pelosi voting for it! Even outside of the obvious religious implications, this policy is also common sense, and the House should be commended for helping it out.
Quick Hit #2: Gitmo and Al Qaeda. This story in the Wall Street Journal discusses the debate about what to do with captured Al Qaeda prisoners in relation to Gitmo. While no one really likes the portait painted of Gitmo, it serves a critical purpose - it allows us to obtain intelligence, especially from high-ranking Al Qaeda members, that we wouldn't otherwise get. Contrary to popular belief, the legality of Gitmo was upheld by the Supreme Court. Even so, any American leaders want to close it down, but no one has yet figured out what to do with the detainees already there. If we release them, they'll go back to kill more Americans (at least 30 already have) on the battlefield. If we give them the rights of Americans and put them into the court system (which is exactly what many left-wing liberals want to do), it is inevitable that a number of them would end up being released inside the U.S.. The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point recently examined the non-classified evidence about Gitmo detainees, and in a new report concludes that 73% were a "demonstrated threat" to U.S. forces. No less than 95% were a "potential threat." Wouldn't that be a great idea?
Quick Hit #3: No Money Means Freer Speech? Ramesh Ponnuru blogs at NRO's "The Corner" about a recently approved Mike Pence amendment that will prevent funding for the Justice Department to enforce the most controversial piece of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law: the part regulating political advertising just prior to an election. Basically, the law prevented political ads from running right before elections in a thinly-veiled ploy to protect incumbents from TV ads by challengers. While it would be better to have the law completely struck down, this lack of funding for enforcement could prove to be almost as good. It will be interesting to see what happens with this one.
Quick Hit #4: More Surge Success. Don Surber blogs about Republican Congressman Kevin Brady's recent trip to Iraq. In his comments, Brady said, "I really expected the worst. Instead I am very encouraged. Communities all across Iraq are turning against al Qaeda and working with Iraqi and coalition forces to take back their cities. Half of Baghdad is no longer safe for insurgents." He continued with a call to success: "while congress has the right to debate this war, it has the responsibility to help win it as well. That means letting this new strategy work to the end of the year or the beginning of the next if we are truly serious about a stable Iraq and safer America." Yet more proof that the surge is working.
Quick Hit #5: Winning in Iraq, Losing in Washington. Ralph Peters wrote a great column in the New York Post yesterday that perfectly framed the war in Iraq. There is far more information in that article than what I can summarize here, so I highly encourage you to go read the whole thing for yourself. Here are a few highlights:
- To a military professional, the tactical progress made in Iraq over the last few months is impressive. To a member of Congress, it's an annoyance.
- In the words of a senior officer known for his careful assessments, al Qaeda's terrorists in Iraq are "on their back foot and we're trying to knock them to their knees." Do our politicians really want to help al Qaeda regain its balance?
- Al Qaeda lost the support of Iraq's Sunni Arabs. The fanatics over-reached: They murdered popular sheiks, kidnapped tribal women for forced marriages, tried to outlaw any form of joy and (perhaps most fatally, given Iraqi habits) banned smoking. In response, the Arab version of the Marlboro Man rose up and started cutting terrorist throats.
- Since the tribes who once were fighting against us turned on al Qaeda, our troops not only captured the senior Iraqi in the organization -- which made brief headlines -- but also killed the three al Turki brothers, major-league pinch-hitters al Qaeda sent into Iraq to save the game.
- to quote that senior officer again, "our forces have been taking out their leaders faster than they can find qualified replacements."
- Even the Democrats yearning to become president admit, when pressed, that al Qaeda's a threat to America. So why didn't even one of them praise the success of our troops during their last debate?
- Republicans ... haven't rushed to applaud our progress, either. They'll give up Iraq, as long as they don't have to give up earmarks.
- It isn't only al Qaeda taking serious hits. After briefly showing the flag, Muqtada al-Sadr fled back to Iran again, trailed by his senior deputies. Mookie's No. 2 even moved his family to Iran. Why? Though he's been weak in the past, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is now green-lighting Iraqi operations against the Jaish al Mahdi, the Mookster's "Mahdi Army."
- In Baghdad, the surge isn't only about American successes - Iraqi security and intelligence forces conducted a series of hard-hitting operations against both al Qaeda and Iran-backed Special Group terrorists.
Peters' rousing conclusion: "Gen. Dave Petraeus and his subordinate commanders are by far the best team we've ever had in place in that wretched country. They're doing damned near everything right - with austere resources, despite the surge. And they're being abandoned by your elected leaders. Maybe the next presidential primary debate should be held in Baghdad."
Have a great weekend!
There's my two cents.
The Fox Guarding The Chicken House
Wow, this one is a doozy! Michelle Malkin reports on this story from yesterday which reveals that the Superior Court of Orange County in California outsources its traffic ticket data entry -- including drivers' license numbers, car license numbers, birth dates and addresses -- to a company in Mexico!
Naturally, the company defends its data security and policies, but can you blame Californians for being outraged at this? Talk about the fox guarding the chicken house...
There's my two cents.
Naturally, the company defends its data security and policies, but can you blame Californians for being outraged at this? Talk about the fox guarding the chicken house...
There's my two cents.
The Health Care Expansion Begins
Robert Moffit and Greg D’Angelo have an excellent column on RealClearPolitics.com today about two health care bills being considered in the Senate right now. They begin the piece this way: "the Senate is eying two plans to provide health coverage to those currently lacking insurance. Plan 1 would extend coverage to around 4 million Americans for billions of dollars. Plan 2 would extend coverage to 24 million for no more than we're spending now. Guess which approach Senate leaders are pushing? If you picked Plan 1, congratulations! You know that Washington almost always favors the least effective and costliest option available."
Not only does this beautifully point out one of the problems with the way government runs things (which I think we all acknowledge), but it's a serious issue to screw up on - it will likely be one of the major topics for next year's presidential debate. The general stance of the Democrat candidates is universal health care, while the general stance of the Republican candidates leans more toward healthcare reform by way of private insurance. More on health care in a future blog. But for now, this column provides a good first look at the two plans.
Moffit and D'Angelo write that the issue at hand is the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) -- a 10-year old program designed to subsidize health coverage for kids in low-income families that can't afford insurance but make too much to qualify for Medicaid. The Plan 1 above was introduced by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), and would loosen SCHIP eligibility requirements so the subsidies could flow to families earning three times the federal poverty line -- about $62,000 for a family of four. The problem here is that this program was intended to help children of low-income families...would you consider $62,000/year 'low' income? Hardly!
But wait, there's more.
Despite this massive expansion, half of the new children covered by this program will actually be middle class children who would lose their existing private coverage. The net effect of this bill would simply be to shift health insurance coverage from the private sector to the public sector. "In other words, the approach does far more to increase the government's role in controlling and financing health care than it does to expand health coverage."
And here's the kicker: funding SCHIP at its current level will cost $25 billion over the next 5 years. Baucus' bill would add an additional $35 billion to that, for a total cost of $60 billion over five years!
Moffit and D'Angelo then list a string of dependencies needed to provide the necessary funding:
- First, it would jack up federal tobacco taxes sharply -- to $1 per pack on cigarettes and up to 10 bucks per Havana on cigars (a 20,000% tax increase!!!. But even that is not enough to cover the costs...
- To get the higher "sin" taxes to generate the revenue needed to cover this new, middle-class entitlement, Congress would have to recruit at least 6.3 million new smokers within five years -- nearly three for every uninsured child added to the SCHIP rolls. To keep the program afloat for 10 years, 22 million new smokers would be needed. But even that is not enough to cover the costs...
- To keep the cost estimate at "only" $60 billion over five years, Baucus' bill projects spending will plunge 80 percent in the fifth year -- from $16 billion to $3.3 billion. The only way this could happen is if states kick 80 percent of the kids out of SCHIP in year five -- a political impossibility. I defy you to name one government program that has ever truly been 'cut', especially one in regard to children!
Now, let's look at Plan 2.
Introduced by Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), this proposal forsakes the path toward federalized health care and embraces tax reforms that would make the market work and make private health coverage affordable for tens of millions of those currently uninsured. It would offer generous tax credits for individuals and families, allowing Americans to own their own health insurance and take it with them from job to job. This budget-neutral plan would reduce the number of uninsured by an estimated 24 million over the next 10 years, six times the 5-year Baucus plan.
This is just the first example of the tax hikes and problems involved with 'universal' health care; many more will come out over the next few months, I assure you. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I urge you to REMEMBER when the next election rolls around who is trying to place responsibility and power into YOUR hands, and who is proposing these massive tax hikes and government expansions.
There's my two cents.
Not only does this beautifully point out one of the problems with the way government runs things (which I think we all acknowledge), but it's a serious issue to screw up on - it will likely be one of the major topics for next year's presidential debate. The general stance of the Democrat candidates is universal health care, while the general stance of the Republican candidates leans more toward healthcare reform by way of private insurance. More on health care in a future blog. But for now, this column provides a good first look at the two plans.
Moffit and D'Angelo write that the issue at hand is the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) -- a 10-year old program designed to subsidize health coverage for kids in low-income families that can't afford insurance but make too much to qualify for Medicaid. The Plan 1 above was introduced by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), and would loosen SCHIP eligibility requirements so the subsidies could flow to families earning three times the federal poverty line -- about $62,000 for a family of four. The problem here is that this program was intended to help children of low-income families...would you consider $62,000/year 'low' income? Hardly!
But wait, there's more.
Despite this massive expansion, half of the new children covered by this program will actually be middle class children who would lose their existing private coverage. The net effect of this bill would simply be to shift health insurance coverage from the private sector to the public sector. "In other words, the approach does far more to increase the government's role in controlling and financing health care than it does to expand health coverage."
And here's the kicker: funding SCHIP at its current level will cost $25 billion over the next 5 years. Baucus' bill would add an additional $35 billion to that, for a total cost of $60 billion over five years!
Moffit and D'Angelo then list a string of dependencies needed to provide the necessary funding:
- First, it would jack up federal tobacco taxes sharply -- to $1 per pack on cigarettes and up to 10 bucks per Havana on cigars (a 20,000% tax increase!!!. But even that is not enough to cover the costs...
- To get the higher "sin" taxes to generate the revenue needed to cover this new, middle-class entitlement, Congress would have to recruit at least 6.3 million new smokers within five years -- nearly three for every uninsured child added to the SCHIP rolls. To keep the program afloat for 10 years, 22 million new smokers would be needed. But even that is not enough to cover the costs...
- To keep the cost estimate at "only" $60 billion over five years, Baucus' bill projects spending will plunge 80 percent in the fifth year -- from $16 billion to $3.3 billion. The only way this could happen is if states kick 80 percent of the kids out of SCHIP in year five -- a political impossibility. I defy you to name one government program that has ever truly been 'cut', especially one in regard to children!
Now, let's look at Plan 2.
Introduced by Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), this proposal forsakes the path toward federalized health care and embraces tax reforms that would make the market work and make private health coverage affordable for tens of millions of those currently uninsured. It would offer generous tax credits for individuals and families, allowing Americans to own their own health insurance and take it with them from job to job. This budget-neutral plan would reduce the number of uninsured by an estimated 24 million over the next 10 years, six times the 5-year Baucus plan.
This is just the first example of the tax hikes and problems involved with 'universal' health care; many more will come out over the next few months, I assure you. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I urge you to REMEMBER when the next election rolls around who is trying to place responsibility and power into YOUR hands, and who is proposing these massive tax hikes and government expansions.
There's my two cents.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Illegal Immigration + Activist Judge = Big Problem!
Here's more proof that activist judges are a big, big problem. Michelle Malkin covers the story out of Hazleton, PA where a single activist judge (appointed by former President Clinton) has struck down a tough anti-immigration law that did for that city what Congress should have been doing for America for years. The Mayor of Hazleton, Lou Barletta, spearheaded an effort to adopt city ordinances that fined landlords who rented to illegal aliens, denied work permits for illegal aliens, and made English the official language of the city. Basically, all the things that our current laws say we should do already, and all the things that Americans of all stripes wanted rather than the amnesty bill a few weeks ago.
Naturally, the ACLU and other 'immigrants rights' groups sued on behalf of the illegal aliens.
Though the ordinances have now been struck down, the city is certain to appeal, so there will be more on this in the future. Check out Malkin's page for the full scoop.
This perfectly illustrates the entire point of my blog - to explain what's really going on to people who wouldn't normally pay much attention to politics. You may think that it doesn't really matter who wins elections, but I'm going to use this example to show how it does. First, let's rewind a bit and connect the dots.
The Clinton political machine played out an effective divide-and-conquer campaign to get into the White House (in two elections, Clinton never gained more than about 42-44% of the total vote, but the other candidates had even less). According to the Constitution, the President gets to appoint federal judges, so Clinton made his appointments as was his right to do. Traditionally, the Senate has simply given an up or down vote (yes or no) - if the appointee was competent, he/she was approved regardless of his/her views. In Clinton's case, most (if not all) of his appointees were activist judges. The ruling from Hazleton is what you get when you have an activist judge on the bench - an active attempt to subvert the existing laws of America by 'reinterpreting' them based on the judge's own personal bias. And, there's a new wrinkle now.
Remember all the talk last year about the 'nuclear option' and a potential showdown over judicial nominees? Well, it never materialized since a group of spineless Republicans joined with a group of equally spineless Democrats to force a stalemate on the issue. But, that potential showdown is exactly what this was all about. Since Bush has been in office, the Democrats in Congress have pulled some stunts to block many of his judicial appointments (most of whom are originalist judges) for years based on 'litmus tests' or other phony claims against their competence. This was an unprecedented development for a body that was simply supposed to say yes or no. Why did it start? The events in Hazleton give you the answer: if the Democrats can't accomplish their agenda by getting legislation pushed through Congress and signed into law, they're happy to do an end-around and accomplish their agenda through activist judges.
Do Republicans do this too? Not really. Remember that the majority of the Republican base is conservative, and conservative thought centers on limiting government and putting power into the hands of the American people. Activist judges are a perfect example of taking the power away from the American people and putting it into the hands of an 'elite' few.
So, the next time you think about skipping out on an election, remember this. Elections matter, and politics matters. It may get ugly, and it may get confusing, but by ignoring it, you could be setting yourself up to be the next Hazleton, PA. And you would have no one to blame but yourself.
There's my two cents.
Naturally, the ACLU and other 'immigrants rights' groups sued on behalf of the illegal aliens.
Though the ordinances have now been struck down, the city is certain to appeal, so there will be more on this in the future. Check out Malkin's page for the full scoop.
This perfectly illustrates the entire point of my blog - to explain what's really going on to people who wouldn't normally pay much attention to politics. You may think that it doesn't really matter who wins elections, but I'm going to use this example to show how it does. First, let's rewind a bit and connect the dots.
The Clinton political machine played out an effective divide-and-conquer campaign to get into the White House (in two elections, Clinton never gained more than about 42-44% of the total vote, but the other candidates had even less). According to the Constitution, the President gets to appoint federal judges, so Clinton made his appointments as was his right to do. Traditionally, the Senate has simply given an up or down vote (yes or no) - if the appointee was competent, he/she was approved regardless of his/her views. In Clinton's case, most (if not all) of his appointees were activist judges. The ruling from Hazleton is what you get when you have an activist judge on the bench - an active attempt to subvert the existing laws of America by 'reinterpreting' them based on the judge's own personal bias. And, there's a new wrinkle now.
Remember all the talk last year about the 'nuclear option' and a potential showdown over judicial nominees? Well, it never materialized since a group of spineless Republicans joined with a group of equally spineless Democrats to force a stalemate on the issue. But, that potential showdown is exactly what this was all about. Since Bush has been in office, the Democrats in Congress have pulled some stunts to block many of his judicial appointments (most of whom are originalist judges) for years based on 'litmus tests' or other phony claims against their competence. This was an unprecedented development for a body that was simply supposed to say yes or no. Why did it start? The events in Hazleton give you the answer: if the Democrats can't accomplish their agenda by getting legislation pushed through Congress and signed into law, they're happy to do an end-around and accomplish their agenda through activist judges.
Do Republicans do this too? Not really. Remember that the majority of the Republican base is conservative, and conservative thought centers on limiting government and putting power into the hands of the American people. Activist judges are a perfect example of taking the power away from the American people and putting it into the hands of an 'elite' few.
So, the next time you think about skipping out on an election, remember this. Elections matter, and politics matters. It may get ugly, and it may get confusing, but by ignoring it, you could be setting yourself up to be the next Hazleton, PA. And you would have no one to blame but yourself.
There's my two cents.
Another Mini-Amnesty, This Time In Agriculture
From NumbersUSA:
Senators Diane Feinstein (Dem,CA) and Larry Craig (Rep,ID) are telling everyone that they will offer an "AgJOBS" amnesty bill, which would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who work in agriculture. They have been joined by a chorus of senators determined to ram this amnesty down the American people's throats.
Don't their cries of "fruit rotting on the vine" fool you. The H-2A guestworker program provides the agricultural industry with all of the temporary labor it needs. But the H-2A program has wage requirements. The AgJOBS amnesty would relieve employers of that requirement, allowing them to set the wages for the indentured, formerly illegal workers at any level they wish, down to the minimum wage.
Since aliens will have to perform agricultural work in order to become permenent residents, they will have no choice but to work at whatever wages and working conditions employers choose to offer.
Once again, the Senate is trying to force an amnesty on the American people for the purposes of driving down wages!
Please call your senator on this note today and drive the message home that they should have learned after the "grand bargain" amnesty bill that rewards for illegal workers and their employers are NOT acceptable to American voters.
SAY "NO" TO AgJOBS AMNESTY!
Senators Diane Feinstein (Dem,CA) and Larry Craig (Rep,ID) are telling everyone that they will offer an "AgJOBS" amnesty bill, which would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who work in agriculture. They have been joined by a chorus of senators determined to ram this amnesty down the American people's throats.
Don't their cries of "fruit rotting on the vine" fool you. The H-2A guestworker program provides the agricultural industry with all of the temporary labor it needs. But the H-2A program has wage requirements. The AgJOBS amnesty would relieve employers of that requirement, allowing them to set the wages for the indentured, formerly illegal workers at any level they wish, down to the minimum wage.
Since aliens will have to perform agricultural work in order to become permenent residents, they will have no choice but to work at whatever wages and working conditions employers choose to offer.
Once again, the Senate is trying to force an amnesty on the American people for the purposes of driving down wages!
Please call your senator on this note today and drive the message home that they should have learned after the "grand bargain" amnesty bill that rewards for illegal workers and their employers are NOT acceptable to American voters.
SAY "NO" TO AgJOBS AMNESTY!
Vote On Terrorist Loophole Imminent - Take Action!
Just a couple days ago, I blogged about a loophole in the 9/11 Commission bills (S. 4 and H.R. 1) that were in the conference committee. Check out my previous blog for the details, but the short version is that there is currently a visa waiver program that relaxes the screenings of travelers from nations that are "friendly" to the U.S. Despite known problems with this program, these bills include an expansion of that program, which will allow terrorists to come here far more easily.
NumbersUSA is reporting that the committee did not remove the visa waiver expansion, and they're requesting that people call their Senators and Representatives TODAY to ask them to 're-commit the conference committee report back to conferees to strip out the visa waiver expansion'. A vote is expected in the House any day now, with action in the Senate following shortly after that. Contact info is, as always, at the top right side of this blog page.
Congress is gambling with our national security for the sake of tourism profits, and they should hear what you think about that.
There's my two cents.
NumbersUSA is reporting that the committee did not remove the visa waiver expansion, and they're requesting that people call their Senators and Representatives TODAY to ask them to 're-commit the conference committee report back to conferees to strip out the visa waiver expansion'. A vote is expected in the House any day now, with action in the Senate following shortly after that. Contact info is, as always, at the top right side of this blog page.
Congress is gambling with our national security for the sake of tourism profits, and they should hear what you think about that.
There's my two cents.
House Immigration Bill Is Needed!
Public pressure is still needed to push through meaningful immigration reform while the issue is still on the nation's mind. Two stories should be cause for concern to Americans who want to see progress on this front. First, an AP story out of Phoenix, Arizona, where Latino leaders and some faith-based organizations (though the report doesn't mention which ones) are pressuring Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to shut down a hotline he created for people to report illegal aliens. The line has received about 300 calls in just a few days, though none have been acted upon yet. Arpaio defends the hotline, saying it is not unconstitutional and pointing out that other federal agencies have similar hotlines. Opponents are whining about racial profiling.
Call me crazy, but how is enforcing the laws of the United States of America a bad thing?
The second story is in the Arizona Star, reporting that the number of National Guard troops posted along the Arizona/Mexico border will be cut in half by the end of next month despite providing much-needed assistance. "National Guard soldiers have helped free up agents to patrol by manning radios and control rooms, and repairing vehicles, roads and fences. They have also provided extra eyes and ears on the border with observation posts called entrance identification teams stationed along the border on hills or peaks." The extra security has also helped increase illegal alien arrests and drug seizures, as well as building primary fencing. Predictably, 'immigrant rights' opponents of border security are whining about the Guard presence, saying that the increased militarization there has forced illegal aliens to cross the border in much more remote places, thus making it more difficult.
Excuse me, but I thought that they weren't supposed to be coming here at all! Wouldn't it be good to make the crossing more difficult, thus deterring them from trying it?
This brings me to a final point: real progress. Republicans in the House of Representatives have introduced a bill (H.R.2954) called the Secure Borders FIRST (For Integrity, Reform, Safety, and Anti-Terrorism) Act of 2007. Among other things, it would actually enforce border security first by increasing personnel and resources, implement the VISIT program that was created back in the late '90s (but which has yet to be implemented) to track who is entering and leaving the country, increase penalties and crack down on certain illegal aliens (gang members, for example), establish requirements for employment verification, and establish English as our official language.
From what I can tell, and from what I've read about it, this is a good piece of legislation. If we're not going to simply enforce what's already on the books (which is what we should have been doing for the last 20 years!), this is the next best thing. We need to bring public pressure to bear on our Congressional leaders to get this done, and then make sure they DO IT. No more empty promises; the American people have the will to make this happen, but does Congress? They haven't yet. But, the will of the American people can force them to do the right thing even against their own will, as we saw with the amnesty bill. Let's make it happen!
There's my two cents.
Call me crazy, but how is enforcing the laws of the United States of America a bad thing?
The second story is in the Arizona Star, reporting that the number of National Guard troops posted along the Arizona/Mexico border will be cut in half by the end of next month despite providing much-needed assistance. "National Guard soldiers have helped free up agents to patrol by manning radios and control rooms, and repairing vehicles, roads and fences. They have also provided extra eyes and ears on the border with observation posts called entrance identification teams stationed along the border on hills or peaks." The extra security has also helped increase illegal alien arrests and drug seizures, as well as building primary fencing. Predictably, 'immigrant rights' opponents of border security are whining about the Guard presence, saying that the increased militarization there has forced illegal aliens to cross the border in much more remote places, thus making it more difficult.
Excuse me, but I thought that they weren't supposed to be coming here at all! Wouldn't it be good to make the crossing more difficult, thus deterring them from trying it?
This brings me to a final point: real progress. Republicans in the House of Representatives have introduced a bill (H.R.2954) called the Secure Borders FIRST (For Integrity, Reform, Safety, and Anti-Terrorism) Act of 2007. Among other things, it would actually enforce border security first by increasing personnel and resources, implement the VISIT program that was created back in the late '90s (but which has yet to be implemented) to track who is entering and leaving the country, increase penalties and crack down on certain illegal aliens (gang members, for example), establish requirements for employment verification, and establish English as our official language.
From what I can tell, and from what I've read about it, this is a good piece of legislation. If we're not going to simply enforce what's already on the books (which is what we should have been doing for the last 20 years!), this is the next best thing. We need to bring public pressure to bear on our Congressional leaders to get this done, and then make sure they DO IT. No more empty promises; the American people have the will to make this happen, but does Congress? They haven't yet. But, the will of the American people can force them to do the right thing even against their own will, as we saw with the amnesty bill. Let's make it happen!
There's my two cents.
Another Golden Opportunity!
The Washington Times has a story by Stephen Dinan today that illustrates a gift-wrapped golden opportunity for any conservative Republican that cares to make use of it: Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois announced that Democrats will not seek to address immigration reform until at least the second term of a prospective Democrat president.
This means they won't touch the issue until for at least another 6 years.
The obvious outrage that Americans of all stripes displayed on the the last attempt should be a bright, blinking neon sign with a tornado siren attached to it to any politician wondering what Americans want to see for immigration reform. Since the Democrats are not going to touch the issue, it's open season for a Republican to take ownership and drive through some good, legitimate, border-securing, law-enforcing immigration legislation with teeth (or, here's a novel idea - enforce what's already on the books) in it. This would not only accomplish something good for the country, it would provide the Republican base with a critical rally point, which they are currently lacking.
I've said several times that there isn't as much support for Democrat candidates right now as there is a lack of support for Republican candidates. Illegal immigration is clearly a lightning rod issue for the Republican base, and if properly handled could become a springboard for a major electoral victory.
Now, let's see if any Republican candidate has the guts and sense to do it.
There's my two cents.
This means they won't touch the issue until for at least another 6 years.
The obvious outrage that Americans of all stripes displayed on the the last attempt should be a bright, blinking neon sign with a tornado siren attached to it to any politician wondering what Americans want to see for immigration reform. Since the Democrats are not going to touch the issue, it's open season for a Republican to take ownership and drive through some good, legitimate, border-securing, law-enforcing immigration legislation with teeth (or, here's a novel idea - enforce what's already on the books) in it. This would not only accomplish something good for the country, it would provide the Republican base with a critical rally point, which they are currently lacking.
I've said several times that there isn't as much support for Democrat candidates right now as there is a lack of support for Republican candidates. Illegal immigration is clearly a lightning rod issue for the Republican base, and if properly handled could become a springboard for a major electoral victory.
Now, let's see if any Republican candidate has the guts and sense to do it.
There's my two cents.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Fun and Frivolity: Office Workers, or Monkeys?
In this story from Reuters yesterday, Sweden's tax office did a fast re-shuffle after ticking off its 11,000 employees. The office is reorganizing as the result of a study that shows the optimal group size is about 150 people. The problem here is that the studies cited for the reorg were based on primates!
"The office had intended to offer its employees a rationale for its decisions and had not realized the reference might upset them. The statement on Tuesday said it was unfortunate that the report had been portrayed by media in the way it had."
Right, it was all the media's fault.
I guess those clever CareerBuilder.com commercials with the one guy surrounded by a bunch of crazy monkeys weren't just commercials...
"The office had intended to offer its employees a rationale for its decisions and had not realized the reference might upset them. The statement on Tuesday said it was unfortunate that the report had been portrayed by media in the way it had."
Right, it was all the media's fault.
I guess those clever CareerBuilder.com commercials with the one guy surrounded by a bunch of crazy monkeys weren't just commercials...
John Doe Wins!
On an extremely positive note, it looks like the 'john doe' amendment will be enacted into law after all. A Washington Post story today indicates that a compromise has been reached on the homeland security bill, and it mentions that immunity for people reporting suspicious behavior was included. Hopefully they didn't have to water down this amendment to get it included, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. If it remained intact, it's truly a victory for American citizens, not only in the interests of national security, but also as further proof that this whole representation thing works if enough people get on board with it! For those of you who voiced your opinions, great job!
There's my two cents.
There's my two cents.
What Do Republicans Need To Do?
I heard an interview on the radio this morning with Frank Luntz, who provided a lot of background data for the Contract With America (which swept Republicans into power in 1994). Basically, Luntz is a professional poller and an expert in determining American opinions. I won't try to recount the entire interview, but one point did jump out at me. In response to the question of what Republicans need to do to win back the Congress, he said three things would gain them a resounding following:
1. put an end to wasteful spending (i.e. "earmarks")
2. no amnesty for illegal immigration and secure the borders
3. understand that the war on terror is being waged against us whether we acknowledge it or not, and that it is a clash of civilizations; we need to be prepared for it, and to succeed
I don't know about you, but this seems like the roadmap for success to me! As I've mentioned before, the Republicans have gotten way too spend-happy in recent years; earmarks are out of control on both sides of the aisle. We all saw what happened when Congress tried to provide amnesty - the American people were outraged, so much so that the Senate's phone bank was crashed by all the angry calls. And, I think that most Americans of both parties understand that the War on Terror will be fought; the only question is whether it will be overseas or here at home.
None of the major presidential candidates has encapsulated all three of these issues and communicated them clearly to the Republican base, and that's why there is an overall lack of interest from the base. In poll after poll, the Democrat candidate leads the Republican candidate; although I'm sure there are other reasons, it seems to me that the biggest is the same thing that plagued the Republican party in 2006 - there is no compelling reason to vote for any of the current Republicans. It's more a case of who's the least bad candidate, and that scenario will not win the day. Until someone steps up with a new "Contract With America", I'd say things look grim for 2008. The good news, of course, is that if someone does step into the conservative leadership vacuum, there is no shortage of problems with the recent Democrat party (anti-war, amnesty, lack of action, etc.), and that could potentially translate into a landslide victory for the Republicans.
The victory is there to be had...will anyone go get it? We'll see.
There's my two cents.
1. put an end to wasteful spending (i.e. "earmarks")
2. no amnesty for illegal immigration and secure the borders
3. understand that the war on terror is being waged against us whether we acknowledge it or not, and that it is a clash of civilizations; we need to be prepared for it, and to succeed
I don't know about you, but this seems like the roadmap for success to me! As I've mentioned before, the Republicans have gotten way too spend-happy in recent years; earmarks are out of control on both sides of the aisle. We all saw what happened when Congress tried to provide amnesty - the American people were outraged, so much so that the Senate's phone bank was crashed by all the angry calls. And, I think that most Americans of both parties understand that the War on Terror will be fought; the only question is whether it will be overseas or here at home.
None of the major presidential candidates has encapsulated all three of these issues and communicated them clearly to the Republican base, and that's why there is an overall lack of interest from the base. In poll after poll, the Democrat candidate leads the Republican candidate; although I'm sure there are other reasons, it seems to me that the biggest is the same thing that plagued the Republican party in 2006 - there is no compelling reason to vote for any of the current Republicans. It's more a case of who's the least bad candidate, and that scenario will not win the day. Until someone steps up with a new "Contract With America", I'd say things look grim for 2008. The good news, of course, is that if someone does step into the conservative leadership vacuum, there is no shortage of problems with the recent Democrat party (anti-war, amnesty, lack of action, etc.), and that could potentially translate into a landslide victory for the Republicans.
The victory is there to be had...will anyone go get it? We'll see.
There's my two cents.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
More Good Things From Iraq
Michael Totten is an embedded reporter with the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad right now. If you really want to understand what's happening on the ground in Iraq, you need to watch his blog here.
Today he has a lengthy post that's worth reading in its entirety, but one of the gems in it is something you simply won't hear in the MSM:
“Most of what we’re doing doesn’t get reported in the media,” [Lieutenant Wolf] said. “We’re not fighting a war here anymore, not in this area. We’ve moved way beyond that stage. We built a soccer field for the kids, bought all kinds of equipment, bought them school books and even chalk. Soon we’re installing 1,500 solar street lamps so they have light at night and can take some of the load off the power grid. The media only covers the gruesome stuff. We go to the sheiks and say hey man, what kind of projects do you want in this area? They give us a list and we submit the paperwork. When the projects get approved, we give them the money and help them buy stuff.”
Not everything they do is humanitarian work, unless you consider counter-terrorism humanitarian work. In my view, you should. Few Westerners think of personal security as a human right, but if you show up in Baghdad I’ll bet you will. Personal security may, in fact, be the most important human right. Without it the others mean little. People aren’t free if they have to hide in their homes from death squads and car bombs.
As you can see, things are really progressing now. Another great resource I just came across is a website called Victory Caucus. I encourage you to go check it out - it's a collection of data from Iraq that includes things like the latest headlines, details on operations, and lots of statistics like coalition casualties, average number of attacks per province, and incidents of sectarian violence. This is a great resource if you want to know what's going on over there!
A final thought on the war. President Bush has never -- in my opinion -- been great about communicating his message to the American public, even when I believe he's been absolutely right. But, in a speech today in South Carolina, Bush did exactly what he needed to do. He laid out the case for the war, why we're in it, and what it means for us to fail. I highly encourage you to take a few minutes and read the whole speech, but one passage strikes me in particular:
Nearly six years after the 9/11 attacks, America remains a nation at war. The terrorist network that attacked us that day is determined to strike our country again, and we must do everything in our power to stop them. A key lesson of September the 11th is that the best way to protect America is to go on the offense, to fight the terrorists overseas so we don't have to face them here at home. And that is exactly what our men and women in uniform are doing across the world.
The key theater in this global war is Iraq. Our troops are serving bravely in that country. They're opposing ruthless enemies, and no enemy is more ruthless in Iraq than al Qaeda. They send suicide bombers into crowded markets; they behead innocent captives and they murder American troops. They want to bring down Iraq's democracy so they can use that nation as a terrorist safe haven for attacks against our country. So our troops are standing strong with nearly 12 million Iraqis who voted for a future of peace, and they so for the security of Iraq and the safety of American citizens.
There's a debate in Washington about Iraq, and nothing wrong with a healthy debate. There's also a debate about al Qaeda's role in Iraq. Some say that Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. They complain when I say that the al Qaeda terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001. They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon, that it's independent of Osama bin Laden and that it's not interested in attacking America.
That would be news to Osama bin Laden. He's proclaimed that the "third world war is raging in Iraq." Osama bin Laden says, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever." I say that there will be a big defeat in Iraq and it will be the defeat of al Qaeda.
He goes on to detail -- and I mean detail -- fact after fact of who we face in this war and what they are attempting to do, as well as how our military is succeeding on a daily basis. Along the way, he obliterates myth after myth that is spouted by anti-war leftists in this country and around the world. This was a great speech, and every American should give it a read. Many who oppose the war will learn a great many things about the enemy and the stakes we face. We can only hope they'll come around and support our mission and our troops. It is support that is well-deserved and sadly withheld by a few in the liberal leadership in America.
There's my two cents.
Today he has a lengthy post that's worth reading in its entirety, but one of the gems in it is something you simply won't hear in the MSM:
“Most of what we’re doing doesn’t get reported in the media,” [Lieutenant Wolf] said. “We’re not fighting a war here anymore, not in this area. We’ve moved way beyond that stage. We built a soccer field for the kids, bought all kinds of equipment, bought them school books and even chalk. Soon we’re installing 1,500 solar street lamps so they have light at night and can take some of the load off the power grid. The media only covers the gruesome stuff. We go to the sheiks and say hey man, what kind of projects do you want in this area? They give us a list and we submit the paperwork. When the projects get approved, we give them the money and help them buy stuff.”
Not everything they do is humanitarian work, unless you consider counter-terrorism humanitarian work. In my view, you should. Few Westerners think of personal security as a human right, but if you show up in Baghdad I’ll bet you will. Personal security may, in fact, be the most important human right. Without it the others mean little. People aren’t free if they have to hide in their homes from death squads and car bombs.
As you can see, things are really progressing now. Another great resource I just came across is a website called Victory Caucus. I encourage you to go check it out - it's a collection of data from Iraq that includes things like the latest headlines, details on operations, and lots of statistics like coalition casualties, average number of attacks per province, and incidents of sectarian violence. This is a great resource if you want to know what's going on over there!
A final thought on the war. President Bush has never -- in my opinion -- been great about communicating his message to the American public, even when I believe he's been absolutely right. But, in a speech today in South Carolina, Bush did exactly what he needed to do. He laid out the case for the war, why we're in it, and what it means for us to fail. I highly encourage you to take a few minutes and read the whole speech, but one passage strikes me in particular:
Nearly six years after the 9/11 attacks, America remains a nation at war. The terrorist network that attacked us that day is determined to strike our country again, and we must do everything in our power to stop them. A key lesson of September the 11th is that the best way to protect America is to go on the offense, to fight the terrorists overseas so we don't have to face them here at home. And that is exactly what our men and women in uniform are doing across the world.
The key theater in this global war is Iraq. Our troops are serving bravely in that country. They're opposing ruthless enemies, and no enemy is more ruthless in Iraq than al Qaeda. They send suicide bombers into crowded markets; they behead innocent captives and they murder American troops. They want to bring down Iraq's democracy so they can use that nation as a terrorist safe haven for attacks against our country. So our troops are standing strong with nearly 12 million Iraqis who voted for a future of peace, and they so for the security of Iraq and the safety of American citizens.
There's a debate in Washington about Iraq, and nothing wrong with a healthy debate. There's also a debate about al Qaeda's role in Iraq. Some say that Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. They complain when I say that the al Qaeda terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001. They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon, that it's independent of Osama bin Laden and that it's not interested in attacking America.
That would be news to Osama bin Laden. He's proclaimed that the "third world war is raging in Iraq." Osama bin Laden says, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever." I say that there will be a big defeat in Iraq and it will be the defeat of al Qaeda.
He goes on to detail -- and I mean detail -- fact after fact of who we face in this war and what they are attempting to do, as well as how our military is succeeding on a daily basis. Along the way, he obliterates myth after myth that is spouted by anti-war leftists in this country and around the world. This was a great speech, and every American should give it a read. Many who oppose the war will learn a great many things about the enemy and the stakes we face. We can only hope they'll come around and support our mission and our troops. It is support that is well-deserved and sadly withheld by a few in the liberal leadership in America.
There's my two cents.
Are We Morally Paralyzed?
Thomas Sowell has an outstanding column on RealClearPolitics.com today. He states that "moral paralysis" is a term that can be applied to France, England, and other European democracies back in the 1930s as they sat back and watched Hitler build up a military that he would eventually use to attack them. He points out that those governments knew what Hitler was doing, but they refrained from taking action, even though they had more than enough military strength to put down Hitler's efforts early on.
Instead, they turned to negotiations.
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was wildly popular when he returned from Munich in 1938 with a signed treaty, declaring "peace in our time". A year later, World War II broke out, and millions of people were killed across Europe and Asia.
Sowell quotes Winston Churchill, who later said, "[T]here was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action." He goes on to show that in 1936, Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland in violation of two international treaties. At that point, France alone was far more powerful than Germany, and indeed Hitler himself later confided that the Germans would have had to retreat at any sign of French intervention at that time.
The French had the means but not the will - it was morally paralyzed. And look what it cost the world.
Sowell relates this situation from history to our own current time and actions. It is a complete joke to think that the U.N. will ever do anything to stop anyone from doing anything. So, it is up to those nations who have the means and the will to stop future Hitlers from succeeding. Right now, that's primarily the U.S., and the biggest red flag is Iran.
In the 1930s, Hitler made some of the best anti-war speeches because he knew what Western leaders wanted to hear. Iran, however, has made no such effort. They make only a token explanation of building "peaceful" nuclear power plants, even though they sit on one of the largest oil reserves in the world and have no need of nuclear power for electricity. [I would interject here that we know for certain that Iran is helping Al Qaeda in Iraq, and that Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has loudly and repeatedly stated that his goal as Iran's president is to "wipe Israel off the map" and "experience a world without the United States and Zionism", so they're not really even making a token attempt.]
Sowell concludes: "Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worst threat than Hitler ever was. But, before that happens, the big question is: Are we France? Are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally?"
It is something to think about. While you're thinking, keep in mind who opposes success in the War on Terror, who opposes protecting Americans from frivolous lawsuits, who opposes using U.S. military strength to protect American interests, and who wants to have negotiation after negotiation after negotiation. Hint: it ain't conservative Republicans...
There's my two cents.
Instead, they turned to negotiations.
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was wildly popular when he returned from Munich in 1938 with a signed treaty, declaring "peace in our time". A year later, World War II broke out, and millions of people were killed across Europe and Asia.
Sowell quotes Winston Churchill, who later said, "[T]here was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action." He goes on to show that in 1936, Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland in violation of two international treaties. At that point, France alone was far more powerful than Germany, and indeed Hitler himself later confided that the Germans would have had to retreat at any sign of French intervention at that time.
The French had the means but not the will - it was morally paralyzed. And look what it cost the world.
Sowell relates this situation from history to our own current time and actions. It is a complete joke to think that the U.N. will ever do anything to stop anyone from doing anything. So, it is up to those nations who have the means and the will to stop future Hitlers from succeeding. Right now, that's primarily the U.S., and the biggest red flag is Iran.
In the 1930s, Hitler made some of the best anti-war speeches because he knew what Western leaders wanted to hear. Iran, however, has made no such effort. They make only a token explanation of building "peaceful" nuclear power plants, even though they sit on one of the largest oil reserves in the world and have no need of nuclear power for electricity. [I would interject here that we know for certain that Iran is helping Al Qaeda in Iraq, and that Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has loudly and repeatedly stated that his goal as Iran's president is to "wipe Israel off the map" and "experience a world without the United States and Zionism", so they're not really even making a token attempt.]
Sowell concludes: "Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worst threat than Hitler ever was. But, before that happens, the big question is: Are we France? Are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally?"
It is something to think about. While you're thinking, keep in mind who opposes success in the War on Terror, who opposes protecting Americans from frivolous lawsuits, who opposes using U.S. military strength to protect American interests, and who wants to have negotiation after negotiation after negotiation. Hint: it ain't conservative Republicans...
There's my two cents.
Terrorist Loophole
NumbersUSA, one of the point organizations in the fight against illegal immigration, is warning of legislation in Congress that would exploit a huge loophole for terrorists in the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007.
Right now, the Visa Waiver program designates certain countries around the world as "friendly", which means they don't really screen travelers from those countries. The terrorists know this, and recruit people from those "friendly" nations (i.e. the Shoe Bomber from Great Britain) to come to the U.S. and overstay their visa in order to perpetrate terrorist acts or to prepare for such acts.
The key parts of the current legislation are House version H.R. 1 and Senate version S. 4. Both of these added a provision that would expand the Visa Waiver loophole rather than reduce it, even though a recent GAO (government accountability office) report found significant weaknesses in the existing program.
Representative Lamar Smith (Rep, TX) is the only member of the conference committee discussing the legislation that has vocally opposed this measure.
Why would any Congressperson support this loophole? Tourism. With fewer restrictions, people will be more likely to visit the U.S. from these "friendly" countries, thus bringing in more tourism revenue. While that's a fine thing, it's not the most important thing. After all, there's nothing like a real terrorist attack to put a damper on the tourism business.
The final bill is expected to come out of committee soon, possibly today, so call your Representatives and Senators TODAY and tell them to oppose this legislation!
There's my two cents.
Right now, the Visa Waiver program designates certain countries around the world as "friendly", which means they don't really screen travelers from those countries. The terrorists know this, and recruit people from those "friendly" nations (i.e. the Shoe Bomber from Great Britain) to come to the U.S. and overstay their visa in order to perpetrate terrorist acts or to prepare for such acts.
The key parts of the current legislation are House version H.R. 1 and Senate version S. 4. Both of these added a provision that would expand the Visa Waiver loophole rather than reduce it, even though a recent GAO (government accountability office) report found significant weaknesses in the existing program.
Representative Lamar Smith (Rep, TX) is the only member of the conference committee discussing the legislation that has vocally opposed this measure.
Why would any Congressperson support this loophole? Tourism. With fewer restrictions, people will be more likely to visit the U.S. from these "friendly" countries, thus bringing in more tourism revenue. While that's a fine thing, it's not the most important thing. After all, there's nothing like a real terrorist attack to put a damper on the tourism business.
The final bill is expected to come out of committee soon, possibly today, so call your Representatives and Senators TODAY and tell them to oppose this legislation!
There's my two cents.
John Doe Protection Not Dead Yet
The King amendment that the Democrat leadership has attempted to strip out of the transportation security bill going through Congress is causing quite a stir. Michelle Malkin reports on the most recent developments from Audrey Hudson of the Washington Times that there is mounting pressure from the public to put this legislation into effect. Despite the best efforts of leading Congressional Democrats, this issue has been kept alive by Senators Joe Lieberman (Ind, CT) and Susan Collins (Rep, ME), and Representative Peter King (Rep, NY). And, of course, by the huge numbers of American citizens that are pummeling Congress with angry calls and messages to get this provision into law.
It still blows my mind that anyone could fail to see how this basic protection of Americans following the 'see something say something' campaign introduced after 9/11 is anything but good. The only argument I've seen against it is that it could allow racial/ethnic profiling, but that's an incredibly flimsy excuse. For one thing, even the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) -- which is the group sponsoring the 'Flying Imams'' lawsuit -- has said it does not oppose immunity legislation: "Our concern has never been with reports made in good faith by ordinary people". For another thing, let's let common sense work in our favor here. If it looks like a tiger, roars like a tiger, and eats meat like a tiger, then chances are good it's a tiger. Should people be afraid to call a tiger a tiger? To do anything else would be insanity, and an invitation to 9/11 part 2.
As the editors of Investor's Business Daily write, "Despite overwhelming support in and out of Congress, legal protection for airline passengers who report suspicious behavior is being blocked by Democratic leaders." "Were it not for the courage and sacrifice of the passengers of United Flight 93 who forced their plane into a Pennsylvania field, many in Congress might not be here today, with a gaping hole where the U.S. Capitol still stands. We wonder if this fact is appreciated by those trying to block final passage of the so-called "John Doe" provision protecting from legal action those who report suspicious behavior on airplanes."
Keep calling and writing your own representatives, as well as the following key Democrats who are blocking the amendment:
Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
House
Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-4965
Bennie Thompson: 202-225-5876
John Conyers: 202-225-5126
Senate
Harry Reid: 202-224-3542
Patrick Leahy: 202-224-4242
Tell them that to neglect this basic protection of Americans attempting to protect themselves and their loved ones would be a horrible mistake for which they will be held responsible. The Democrat leadership is trying to kill this amendment, but a surge of opposition from the American people can -- as with the failed amnesty bill -- once again win the day and help protect 'John Doe'.
There's my two cents.
It still blows my mind that anyone could fail to see how this basic protection of Americans following the 'see something say something' campaign introduced after 9/11 is anything but good. The only argument I've seen against it is that it could allow racial/ethnic profiling, but that's an incredibly flimsy excuse. For one thing, even the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) -- which is the group sponsoring the 'Flying Imams'' lawsuit -- has said it does not oppose immunity legislation: "Our concern has never been with reports made in good faith by ordinary people". For another thing, let's let common sense work in our favor here. If it looks like a tiger, roars like a tiger, and eats meat like a tiger, then chances are good it's a tiger. Should people be afraid to call a tiger a tiger? To do anything else would be insanity, and an invitation to 9/11 part 2.
As the editors of Investor's Business Daily write, "Despite overwhelming support in and out of Congress, legal protection for airline passengers who report suspicious behavior is being blocked by Democratic leaders." "Were it not for the courage and sacrifice of the passengers of United Flight 93 who forced their plane into a Pennsylvania field, many in Congress might not be here today, with a gaping hole where the U.S. Capitol still stands. We wonder if this fact is appreciated by those trying to block final passage of the so-called "John Doe" provision protecting from legal action those who report suspicious behavior on airplanes."
Keep calling and writing your own representatives, as well as the following key Democrats who are blocking the amendment:
Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
House
Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-4965
Bennie Thompson: 202-225-5876
John Conyers: 202-225-5126
Senate
Harry Reid: 202-224-3542
Patrick Leahy: 202-224-4242
Tell them that to neglect this basic protection of Americans attempting to protect themselves and their loved ones would be a horrible mistake for which they will be held responsible. The Democrat leadership is trying to kill this amendment, but a surge of opposition from the American people can -- as with the failed amnesty bill -- once again win the day and help protect 'John Doe'.
There's my two cents.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Quick Hits: Genocide, MSM/Dems, Military Support
Another group of quick hits for you to ponder. Here you go...
Quick Hit #1: Obama - genocide not good enough reason. Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said last week that the U.S. shouldn't use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that a potential genocide isn't a good enough reason to keep us in Iraq. He points to Darfur and says if that was the case, we should have huge numbers of troops there. What Obama fails to note is the key difference - as tragic as it is, we didn't cause the genocide in Darfur. We did invade Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein's government, and we did it based on good and legitimate reasons (as I've blogged about before). So, it IS our responsibility to prevent such a genocide from happening. That Obama doesn't see the logical connection is disturbing, especially since he wants to be our next President.
Quick Hit #2: Why the MSM and Democrats are so tight. Hugh Hewitt blogs about a conversation of his with Jake Tapper, who is a MSM reporter that says he's 'objective'. As Hewitt says, "When an elephant shows up in your backyard, it isn't evidence that you run a zoo, it is an extraordinary occurrence that everyone talks about and points to." Translation: just because you asked one hard question doesn't mean you're objective. He goes on to show the consistent bias by the MSM in favor of the Democrats and shows how this agreement makes them think that they're the mainstream of the nation. In fact, Hewitt surmises: "It isn't journalism they practice, but a sort of high-end yodeling: shouting out cliches which, when echoed back, they take for proof positive of their prejudices. It is all very amusing - until you realize that the lives of millions of Iraqis and eventually millions of Americans are imperiled by their collective incompetence." 'Nuff said.
Quick Hit #3:Terrorists in the U.S. Lebanese Christian Brigitte Gabriel -- founder of American Congress for Truth -- on OneNewsNow.com warns of growing threat of terrorist cells in the U.S. She maintains that Hamas has over 40 cells already here, and that Hezbollah has almost a dozen. Good thing we've got such good, tight border control that keeps all these people out, huh?
Quick Hit #4:Reid Pulls Funding Beneficial To Troops. Senator Jeff Sessions criticized Harry Reid for pulling the Iraq funding bill due to the failure of the retreat amendment, saying it was an act of "pique and frustration" that makes no sense since the larger bill included pay raises and special 'wounded warrior' provisions for military personnel. If Reid was truly interested in protecting and supporting our troops, he would have allowed the bill to proceed despite the failure of the retreat amendment. Maybe Reid needs to...change course.
Quick Hit #5: They Really Don't Support the Troops. William Kristol reveals in the Weekly Standard that though the MSM says they support the troops, they really don't. With his typical relentless logic, Kristol outlines how Cindy Sheehan and stories of atrocities from a supposed soldier on the ground (the probability is that this 'person' doesn't actually exist, and these stories are frauds) are being used to erode support for the war. The line is that these stories allow people to oppose the war while still 'supporting the troops'. He poses a question that makes anti-war types uncomfortable: "How can you say with a straight face that you support the troops while advancing legislation that would undercut their mission and strengthen their enemies?" I certainly haven't seen a good answer to that. But, Kristol goes on, saying that although editing mistakes (i.e. allowing fictitious stories to be published) are always possible, "what is revealing about this mistake is that the editors must have wanted to suspend their disbelief in tales of gross misconduct by American troops." In a stark contrast of the media and most Americans: "Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support. They sense that history is progressing away from them--that these soldiers, fighting courageously in a just cause, could still win the war, that they are proud of their service, and that they will be future leaders of this country. They are not "Shock Troops." They are our best and bravest, fighting for all of us against a brutal enemy in a difficult and frustrating war. They are the 9/11 generation. The left slanders them. We support them. More than that, we admire them."
Think these are isolated incidents? Think again. Michelle Malkin has been keeping track for a long, long time. You need to understand who supports our troops -- and American victory -- and who doesn't.
There's my two cents.
Quick Hit #1: Obama - genocide not good enough reason. Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said last week that the U.S. shouldn't use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that a potential genocide isn't a good enough reason to keep us in Iraq. He points to Darfur and says if that was the case, we should have huge numbers of troops there. What Obama fails to note is the key difference - as tragic as it is, we didn't cause the genocide in Darfur. We did invade Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein's government, and we did it based on good and legitimate reasons (as I've blogged about before). So, it IS our responsibility to prevent such a genocide from happening. That Obama doesn't see the logical connection is disturbing, especially since he wants to be our next President.
Quick Hit #2: Why the MSM and Democrats are so tight. Hugh Hewitt blogs about a conversation of his with Jake Tapper, who is a MSM reporter that says he's 'objective'. As Hewitt says, "When an elephant shows up in your backyard, it isn't evidence that you run a zoo, it is an extraordinary occurrence that everyone talks about and points to." Translation: just because you asked one hard question doesn't mean you're objective. He goes on to show the consistent bias by the MSM in favor of the Democrats and shows how this agreement makes them think that they're the mainstream of the nation. In fact, Hewitt surmises: "It isn't journalism they practice, but a sort of high-end yodeling: shouting out cliches which, when echoed back, they take for proof positive of their prejudices. It is all very amusing - until you realize that the lives of millions of Iraqis and eventually millions of Americans are imperiled by their collective incompetence." 'Nuff said.
Quick Hit #3:Terrorists in the U.S. Lebanese Christian Brigitte Gabriel -- founder of American Congress for Truth -- on OneNewsNow.com warns of growing threat of terrorist cells in the U.S. She maintains that Hamas has over 40 cells already here, and that Hezbollah has almost a dozen. Good thing we've got such good, tight border control that keeps all these people out, huh?
Quick Hit #4:Reid Pulls Funding Beneficial To Troops. Senator Jeff Sessions criticized Harry Reid for pulling the Iraq funding bill due to the failure of the retreat amendment, saying it was an act of "pique and frustration" that makes no sense since the larger bill included pay raises and special 'wounded warrior' provisions for military personnel. If Reid was truly interested in protecting and supporting our troops, he would have allowed the bill to proceed despite the failure of the retreat amendment. Maybe Reid needs to...change course.
Quick Hit #5: They Really Don't Support the Troops. William Kristol reveals in the Weekly Standard that though the MSM says they support the troops, they really don't. With his typical relentless logic, Kristol outlines how Cindy Sheehan and stories of atrocities from a supposed soldier on the ground (the probability is that this 'person' doesn't actually exist, and these stories are frauds) are being used to erode support for the war. The line is that these stories allow people to oppose the war while still 'supporting the troops'. He poses a question that makes anti-war types uncomfortable: "How can you say with a straight face that you support the troops while advancing legislation that would undercut their mission and strengthen their enemies?" I certainly haven't seen a good answer to that. But, Kristol goes on, saying that although editing mistakes (i.e. allowing fictitious stories to be published) are always possible, "what is revealing about this mistake is that the editors must have wanted to suspend their disbelief in tales of gross misconduct by American troops." In a stark contrast of the media and most Americans: "Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support. They sense that history is progressing away from them--that these soldiers, fighting courageously in a just cause, could still win the war, that they are proud of their service, and that they will be future leaders of this country. They are not "Shock Troops." They are our best and bravest, fighting for all of us against a brutal enemy in a difficult and frustrating war. They are the 9/11 generation. The left slanders them. We support them. More than that, we admire them."
Think these are isolated incidents? Think again. Michelle Malkin has been keeping track for a long, long time. You need to understand who supports our troops -- and American victory -- and who doesn't.
There's my two cents.
Harry Reid's Hypocrisy
The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, either has an extremely poor memory, or he's a blatant hypocrite. In the last round of war funding debates, Reid whined about how the Republicans used the 60-vote requirement to block legislation to begin a retreat from Iraq, despite the long tradition of that particular Senate rule.
Here are Reid's own words, as reported by Hugh Hewitt:
After the pointless all-nighter in the Senate: "What went on last night was ridiculous. There’s no way to stop that unless…as the time ran. And we should change those rules, and I think it could be done with the Rules Committee. We may have to take a look at that. It just doesn’t help anybody."
From April of 2005, from the Senate Democrat’s press release on the web, then minority leader Reid said the following when discussing the potential Constitutional Option to change Senate rules in order to prevent judicial filibusters: "If they can't get everything they want, they try to break the rules. Based on the facts, it is clear that this attempt to strip away important checks and balances in our government is not about judges. It is about the desire for absolute power, and Senate Democrats are proud to stand with over 1 million Americans against this attempt to change the rules."
...But when the same rule worked in his favor...
From his own website, December 8th, 2006, Reid, applauding the Gang of 14 compromise deal on judicial filibusters, had this to say: "I emerged from the episode with a renewed appreciation for the majesty of the Senate rules. As Majority Leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules, and for the minority rights that the rules protect."
And this: "The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority. I’m sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of the Majority Leader next year. But I recognize this requirement as a tool that serves the long-term interests of the Senate and of the American people."
And this: "To be sure, there are times when I will need to use the rules to advance the Democratic agenda. But I will not resort to the nuclear option or any other illegitimate manipulation of the rules. When it is time to limit debate we will do so within the rules, under the terms of Rule XXII."
And this: "It is often said that laws are 'the system of wise restraints that set men free.' The same might be said of the Senate rules. I will do my part as Majority Leader to foster respect for the rules and traditions of our great institution."
Hugh Hewitt summarizes: "Maybe Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Rules Committee will remind Mr. Reid of his previous position on the importance of Senate rules. And then again, maybe an oak tree might spontaneously sprout out of my left elbow. Somehow, I don’t expect either one to happen anytime soon."
But, that's not all...
Let's look at Reid's comments on the War in Iraq as reported by Don Surber.
On Nov. 17, 2005: "This week, Senate Democrats and Republicans right here in this Senate voted overwhelmingly to send the President this message — it’s time to change course in Iraq."
On Jan. 18, 2006: "I really support Jack very much. He’s a good man. And we do agree that we must change course in Iraq and that the year 2006"
On Sept. 18, 2006: "For two years Democrats have offered constructive solutions to change course in Iraq, give our troops and the Iraqi people a chance for some type of stability and success"
The Surge began in June of 2007, and almost immediately showed signs of working. Did Reid change his course? No.
On July 9, 2007: "We believe that it’s time to change course."
Surber writes: "President Bush has changed course. The Surge began last month in an effort to tamp down the resistence. What hasn’t changed is Reid’s mantra of 'change course.'"
Is Reid's memory that faulty, or is he just playing politics? These are the facts, from Reid's own words...I'll let you decide.
There's my two cents.
Here are Reid's own words, as reported by Hugh Hewitt:
After the pointless all-nighter in the Senate: "What went on last night was ridiculous. There’s no way to stop that unless…as the time ran. And we should change those rules, and I think it could be done with the Rules Committee. We may have to take a look at that. It just doesn’t help anybody."
From April of 2005, from the Senate Democrat’s press release on the web, then minority leader Reid said the following when discussing the potential Constitutional Option to change Senate rules in order to prevent judicial filibusters: "If they can't get everything they want, they try to break the rules. Based on the facts, it is clear that this attempt to strip away important checks and balances in our government is not about judges. It is about the desire for absolute power, and Senate Democrats are proud to stand with over 1 million Americans against this attempt to change the rules."
...But when the same rule worked in his favor...
From his own website, December 8th, 2006, Reid, applauding the Gang of 14 compromise deal on judicial filibusters, had this to say: "I emerged from the episode with a renewed appreciation for the majesty of the Senate rules. As Majority Leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules, and for the minority rights that the rules protect."
And this: "The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority. I’m sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of the Majority Leader next year. But I recognize this requirement as a tool that serves the long-term interests of the Senate and of the American people."
And this: "To be sure, there are times when I will need to use the rules to advance the Democratic agenda. But I will not resort to the nuclear option or any other illegitimate manipulation of the rules. When it is time to limit debate we will do so within the rules, under the terms of Rule XXII."
And this: "It is often said that laws are 'the system of wise restraints that set men free.' The same might be said of the Senate rules. I will do my part as Majority Leader to foster respect for the rules and traditions of our great institution."
Hugh Hewitt summarizes: "Maybe Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Rules Committee will remind Mr. Reid of his previous position on the importance of Senate rules. And then again, maybe an oak tree might spontaneously sprout out of my left elbow. Somehow, I don’t expect either one to happen anytime soon."
But, that's not all...
Let's look at Reid's comments on the War in Iraq as reported by Don Surber.
On Nov. 17, 2005: "This week, Senate Democrats and Republicans right here in this Senate voted overwhelmingly to send the President this message — it’s time to change course in Iraq."
On Jan. 18, 2006: "I really support Jack very much. He’s a good man. And we do agree that we must change course in Iraq and that the year 2006"
On Sept. 18, 2006: "For two years Democrats have offered constructive solutions to change course in Iraq, give our troops and the Iraqi people a chance for some type of stability and success"
The Surge began in June of 2007, and almost immediately showed signs of working. Did Reid change his course? No.
On July 9, 2007: "We believe that it’s time to change course."
Surber writes: "President Bush has changed course. The Surge began last month in an effort to tamp down the resistence. What hasn’t changed is Reid’s mantra of 'change course.'"
Is Reid's memory that faulty, or is he just playing politics? These are the facts, from Reid's own words...I'll let you decide.
There's my two cents.
What If We Retreat Now?
The big question on the war right now is whether or not we should see the mission in Iraq through to a successful completion, meaning getting Iraq's new government off the ground. What's missing from the debate on this question is what happens if we quit now?
Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe addresses this question last week: "If US troops leave prematurely, the Iraqi government is likely to collapse, which could trigger violence on a far deadlier scale than Iraq is experiencing now. Iran's malignant influence will intensify, and with it the likelihood of intensified Sunni-Shiite conflict, and even a nuclear arms race, across the Middle East. Anti-American terrorists and fanatics worldwide will be emboldened. Iraq would emerge, in Senator John McCain's words, 'as a Wild West for terrorists, similar to Afghanistan before 9/11.' Once again -- as in Vietnam, in Lebanon, in Somalia -- the United States would have proven the weaker horse, unwilling to see a fight through to the finish."
He points out the similarities to the war in Vietnam, which anti-war types love to bring up. Okay, let's take a look at that. In March of 1975, despite President Ford's warning that 'the horror and the tragedy that we see on television' would only grow worse if the U.S. pulled out, Congress ended military aid to Cambodia. Then-Representative Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said: "The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns." The New York Times reported: "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, A Better Life." What happened after we left? The Khmer Rouge exterminated two million Cambodians through starvation, torture, and outright murder.
Jacoby says that the miscalculations of the U.S. could perhaps be blamed on the fact that we didn't know what Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge was capable of, but that is certainly not the case for Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic jihadists: "Beheadings. Suicide bombings. Lynchings. Child murder. Chlorine gas attacks. Bali. Madrid. 7/7. 9/11." He finishes by saying we're in a war with barbarians who proclaim their love of death and revel in the slaughter of innocents.
Frank Gaffney, a former defense policy expert in the Reagan administration, agrees: "if you fail, it will fall to your children and your grandchildren to fight this war. And trust me -- if totalitarians have taught us anything in history, it is that it gets harder to contend with them, let alone defeat them, as time goes on."
When the generals on the ground say they just need some more time, let's believe them and give it to them.
We don't have any excuse for not understanding what will happen if we retreat from Iraq - these terrorists have showed us exactly what they will do if they are not stopped. If you don't recall, just do a Google search on Daniel Pearl or any of the other Americans that have been brutally tortured and/or murdered by these thugs. If we retreat, the Middle East will explode in violence, likely dragging much of the rest of the world with it. This is our generation's watershed moment, and we need to step up to the plate. Our military is hitting the ball out of the park every day, so we need to keep supporting them and let them finish their mission.
There's my two cents.
Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe addresses this question last week: "If US troops leave prematurely, the Iraqi government is likely to collapse, which could trigger violence on a far deadlier scale than Iraq is experiencing now. Iran's malignant influence will intensify, and with it the likelihood of intensified Sunni-Shiite conflict, and even a nuclear arms race, across the Middle East. Anti-American terrorists and fanatics worldwide will be emboldened. Iraq would emerge, in Senator John McCain's words, 'as a Wild West for terrorists, similar to Afghanistan before 9/11.' Once again -- as in Vietnam, in Lebanon, in Somalia -- the United States would have proven the weaker horse, unwilling to see a fight through to the finish."
He points out the similarities to the war in Vietnam, which anti-war types love to bring up. Okay, let's take a look at that. In March of 1975, despite President Ford's warning that 'the horror and the tragedy that we see on television' would only grow worse if the U.S. pulled out, Congress ended military aid to Cambodia. Then-Representative Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said: "The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns." The New York Times reported: "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, A Better Life." What happened after we left? The Khmer Rouge exterminated two million Cambodians through starvation, torture, and outright murder.
Jacoby says that the miscalculations of the U.S. could perhaps be blamed on the fact that we didn't know what Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge was capable of, but that is certainly not the case for Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic jihadists: "Beheadings. Suicide bombings. Lynchings. Child murder. Chlorine gas attacks. Bali. Madrid. 7/7. 9/11." He finishes by saying we're in a war with barbarians who proclaim their love of death and revel in the slaughter of innocents.
Frank Gaffney, a former defense policy expert in the Reagan administration, agrees: "if you fail, it will fall to your children and your grandchildren to fight this war. And trust me -- if totalitarians have taught us anything in history, it is that it gets harder to contend with them, let alone defeat them, as time goes on."
When the generals on the ground say they just need some more time, let's believe them and give it to them.
We don't have any excuse for not understanding what will happen if we retreat from Iraq - these terrorists have showed us exactly what they will do if they are not stopped. If you don't recall, just do a Google search on Daniel Pearl or any of the other Americans that have been brutally tortured and/or murdered by these thugs. If we retreat, the Middle East will explode in violence, likely dragging much of the rest of the world with it. This is our generation's watershed moment, and we need to step up to the plate. Our military is hitting the ball out of the park every day, so we need to keep supporting them and let them finish their mission.
There's my two cents.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
On The Ground In Iraq
Monday's edition of the UK Times Online has a story about something that may seem small but is really very significant. The opening paragraph says it all: "Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a person’s face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are daring to become informants for the US military in a hostile Baghdad neighbourhood." The article goes on to illustrate how these low-level defections have helped bag some pretty major leaders. Why is this such a big deal?
Because it means there's a shift in the perception of the locals that the U.S. is winning and that Al Qaeda is losing.
That's huge, and all the more reason we should listen to General Petraeus when he says we need more time to let the surge finish its work. Speaking of Petraeus, he did an interview with Hugh Hewitt last week regarding the conditions on the ground in Iraq. You really should read the entire thing, but some highlights include:
- "we have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground"
- "Anbar Province has really become quite relatively clear of al Qaeda", "We have recently cleared Western Baquba, which was almost al Qaeda central, the capitol of the new caliphate that they have tried to establish here in Iraq"
- "there’s enormous potential implications for some of the courses of action that have been considered out there, and certainly, a precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq, in the region"
- [part of the Iraqi military] "is really quite impressive, and almost at the level, certainly in regional terms, of the special operations forces of our own country"
- [the enemy] "are losing many, many hundreds of their, of these different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the surge"
So, the man commanding the U.S. forces in Iraq has many positive things to say about our mission there (he doesn't gloss over the negative, though - he's very fair-minded). I think we should listen to him, don't you?
Charles Krauthammer at RealClearPolitics wrote an editorial last week about the new (American) vision for Iraq. He starts out by saying that everyone hoped the fledgling Iraqi government could come up with some political compromises to propel their own freedom forward; since that hasn't happened, the U.S. forces have had to go with a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al-Qaeda. The results of this new strategy are already being seen in Anbar province and Diyala province, where Al Qaeda has been almost completely flushed out. The tactics used by Petraeus (turning locals against the largely foreign Al Qaeda) include arming and aiding Sunnis to help fight alongside U.S. forces, and have a double-edge to them: some Iraqi leaders are concerned that a future civil war may be looming, and that all sides would have the strength to fight independently. While that may be the case, Krauthammer basically points out that since the Iraqi government couldn't accomplish what it needed to, the U.S. forces had to step up and do whatever was necessary to quell the insurgent violence. Once the violence is gone, the government can begin to function. If a civil war occurs after the U.S. leaves, that's Iraq's issue to deal with, not ours, and the fact that all sides have a certain measure of strength could prove to be a deterrent in the long run. The key point here is that if Iraqi leaders are worried about this, it is just further proof that our mission is succeeding.
Incidentally, if you want to read more about what's happening in Iraq, Michael Yon and Bryan Preston are two reporters traveling with U.S. forces there, and are giving first-hand accounts of what they see and hear. Check them out here and here.
In summary, by listening to the people who are there, we find yet again that a little bit more time is what is needed. Will everything be completed by September? No. But, these things take time, and the government will only become secure enough to rule on its own if we clear out the violence long enough for them to do their job. That's the mission we're on right now, and that's the mission that is succeeding. Urge your Reps and Senators to give Petraeus and our troops the time they need to complete that success. As I've said before, the only way we'll lose is if Congress legislates it.
There's my two cents.
Because it means there's a shift in the perception of the locals that the U.S. is winning and that Al Qaeda is losing.
That's huge, and all the more reason we should listen to General Petraeus when he says we need more time to let the surge finish its work. Speaking of Petraeus, he did an interview with Hugh Hewitt last week regarding the conditions on the ground in Iraq. You really should read the entire thing, but some highlights include:
- "we have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground"
- "Anbar Province has really become quite relatively clear of al Qaeda", "We have recently cleared Western Baquba, which was almost al Qaeda central, the capitol of the new caliphate that they have tried to establish here in Iraq"
- "there’s enormous potential implications for some of the courses of action that have been considered out there, and certainly, a precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq, in the region"
- [part of the Iraqi military] "is really quite impressive, and almost at the level, certainly in regional terms, of the special operations forces of our own country"
- [the enemy] "are losing many, many hundreds of their, of these different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the surge"
So, the man commanding the U.S. forces in Iraq has many positive things to say about our mission there (he doesn't gloss over the negative, though - he's very fair-minded). I think we should listen to him, don't you?
Charles Krauthammer at RealClearPolitics wrote an editorial last week about the new (American) vision for Iraq. He starts out by saying that everyone hoped the fledgling Iraqi government could come up with some political compromises to propel their own freedom forward; since that hasn't happened, the U.S. forces have had to go with a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al-Qaeda. The results of this new strategy are already being seen in Anbar province and Diyala province, where Al Qaeda has been almost completely flushed out. The tactics used by Petraeus (turning locals against the largely foreign Al Qaeda) include arming and aiding Sunnis to help fight alongside U.S. forces, and have a double-edge to them: some Iraqi leaders are concerned that a future civil war may be looming, and that all sides would have the strength to fight independently. While that may be the case, Krauthammer basically points out that since the Iraqi government couldn't accomplish what it needed to, the U.S. forces had to step up and do whatever was necessary to quell the insurgent violence. Once the violence is gone, the government can begin to function. If a civil war occurs after the U.S. leaves, that's Iraq's issue to deal with, not ours, and the fact that all sides have a certain measure of strength could prove to be a deterrent in the long run. The key point here is that if Iraqi leaders are worried about this, it is just further proof that our mission is succeeding.
Incidentally, if you want to read more about what's happening in Iraq, Michael Yon and Bryan Preston are two reporters traveling with U.S. forces there, and are giving first-hand accounts of what they see and hear. Check them out here and here.
In summary, by listening to the people who are there, we find yet again that a little bit more time is what is needed. Will everything be completed by September? No. But, these things take time, and the government will only become secure enough to rule on its own if we clear out the violence long enough for them to do their job. That's the mission we're on right now, and that's the mission that is succeeding. Urge your Reps and Senators to give Petraeus and our troops the time they need to complete that success. As I've said before, the only way we'll lose is if Congress legislates it.
There's my two cents.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Purely My Opinion: Democrat Leaders At Fault
I realize that I've been hammering 'Democrats' a lot lately on a variety of issues, and I'd just like to set the record straight. I have nothing against Democrats. In fact, if we were all one party, things would be awfully dull. It's good to have opposing viewpoints - it requires people on both sides to flesh out their ideas and be persuasive as to why theirs is the best idea. Ultimately, having multiple political parties is a form of capitalism in itself - in the marketplace of ideas, you must prove why yours is the best; if you do, you win. That's the heart of capitalism and democracy.
So, why do I hammer on Democats so much? Let me be clear: it's not Democrats that are the problem. It's their leaders.
The Democrat leadership has fallen so far out of touch with normal, everyday Americans that they've almost completely stopped representing their constituents. Instead, the Democrat party leadership has begun catering to their far-left kook supporters, like MoveOn.org, CodePink, CAIR, George Soros, and other complete wackos who hate pretty much everything about America and what America stands for. The goal of these wackos is to destroy America as it is now and rebuild it to their tastes. Unfortunately, most of those wackos are extreme socialists, and we know from history that socialism is a failed system, but it puts almost total control of everything into the hands of the elite, and that's why they like it. More on that in a future blog. Anyway, this is an extremely small segment of the population (and the Democrat party), but it's become very loud and has very deep pockets (Soros, for example, is a multi-billionaire). The end result is that the Democrat leadership has become very anti-American on a wide range of issues, from the War on Terror to tax increases to global warming to activist judges. The MSM has the same kind of bias, and that's why the Democrats and the MSM are so tightly in step on most issues.
Again, let me be clear: I do not believe these wackos are the mainstream of the Democrat party! Here's how I know - on the amnesty debate, there were just as many Democrats opposing it as there were Republicans. A number of freshman Democrats were elected to Congress in 2006 because they were conservatives, and Americans are (for the most part) fundamentally conservative people, regardless of Republican or Democrat. As far as I know, Democrats don't want to pay higher taxes any more than Republicans do, and Democrats generally don't hate America any more than Republicans do. But, the party leadership has caved in to the wackos, and in effect, they've hijacked the steering wheel of the party, driving away from their Democrat base. That's the real problem. So, when you hear me hammer on Democrats, please know that it's the Democrat leadership that I'm hammering, not normal Democrats.
So, what to do? Well, this one is up to Democrats. It's your party, and if you believe there are problems, you need to take steps to fix them. If you want to be represented in Congress by wackos who would raise your taxes through the roof, ignore voter fraud, demand retreat of American troops who are fighting and dying to protect our security, grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and then provide handout after handout for them regardless of the financial consequences on law-abiding American taxpayers, prevent protections for Americans reporting suspicious activity, then...do nothing. You're already being well represented.
If, however, you are unhappy with the way your leaders are behaving, you need to contact them and tell them so. Repeatedly, with intelligent arguments and facts to back them up. You need to object every time they bow to wackos, and praise them when they represent you. And, most of all, you need to pay attention to which Democrats most closely represent you, and which ones most closely represent the wackos; when it comes time to vote, vote for the one who stands for you.
I don't believe that most Democrats appreciate what Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, and many other Democrat leaders are doing in Congress (as evidenced by 14% Congressional approval ratings). I believe most Democrats are good, hard-working, America-loving people, just like me. We may disagree on some things, but we agree on many things, too. The problem is the leadership - they need to stop representing wackos, and start representing YOU.
There's my two cents.
So, why do I hammer on Democats so much? Let me be clear: it's not Democrats that are the problem. It's their leaders.
The Democrat leadership has fallen so far out of touch with normal, everyday Americans that they've almost completely stopped representing their constituents. Instead, the Democrat party leadership has begun catering to their far-left kook supporters, like MoveOn.org, CodePink, CAIR, George Soros, and other complete wackos who hate pretty much everything about America and what America stands for. The goal of these wackos is to destroy America as it is now and rebuild it to their tastes. Unfortunately, most of those wackos are extreme socialists, and we know from history that socialism is a failed system, but it puts almost total control of everything into the hands of the elite, and that's why they like it. More on that in a future blog. Anyway, this is an extremely small segment of the population (and the Democrat party), but it's become very loud and has very deep pockets (Soros, for example, is a multi-billionaire). The end result is that the Democrat leadership has become very anti-American on a wide range of issues, from the War on Terror to tax increases to global warming to activist judges. The MSM has the same kind of bias, and that's why the Democrats and the MSM are so tightly in step on most issues.
Again, let me be clear: I do not believe these wackos are the mainstream of the Democrat party! Here's how I know - on the amnesty debate, there were just as many Democrats opposing it as there were Republicans. A number of freshman Democrats were elected to Congress in 2006 because they were conservatives, and Americans are (for the most part) fundamentally conservative people, regardless of Republican or Democrat. As far as I know, Democrats don't want to pay higher taxes any more than Republicans do, and Democrats generally don't hate America any more than Republicans do. But, the party leadership has caved in to the wackos, and in effect, they've hijacked the steering wheel of the party, driving away from their Democrat base. That's the real problem. So, when you hear me hammer on Democrats, please know that it's the Democrat leadership that I'm hammering, not normal Democrats.
So, what to do? Well, this one is up to Democrats. It's your party, and if you believe there are problems, you need to take steps to fix them. If you want to be represented in Congress by wackos who would raise your taxes through the roof, ignore voter fraud, demand retreat of American troops who are fighting and dying to protect our security, grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and then provide handout after handout for them regardless of the financial consequences on law-abiding American taxpayers, prevent protections for Americans reporting suspicious activity, then...do nothing. You're already being well represented.
If, however, you are unhappy with the way your leaders are behaving, you need to contact them and tell them so. Repeatedly, with intelligent arguments and facts to back them up. You need to object every time they bow to wackos, and praise them when they represent you. And, most of all, you need to pay attention to which Democrats most closely represent you, and which ones most closely represent the wackos; when it comes time to vote, vote for the one who stands for you.
I don't believe that most Democrats appreciate what Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, and many other Democrat leaders are doing in Congress (as evidenced by 14% Congressional approval ratings). I believe most Democrats are good, hard-working, America-loving people, just like me. We may disagree on some things, but we agree on many things, too. The problem is the leadership - they need to stop representing wackos, and start representing YOU.
There's my two cents.
John Doe's Protection Eroding
As a result of Congressional Democrats' efforts to allow frivolous lawsuits against 'john doe' tipsters reporting suspicious behavior, Debra Burlingame, writing in the New York Daily News, questions "[w]hat could prevent any member of Congress from supporting no-brainer, bipartisan legislation that protects Good Samaritans from frivolous lawsuits". Initially rising from the 'Flying Imams' case last fall, this legislation could have a great impact on future terrorist attacks. She uses another recent example as perspective: the Fort Dix Six.
An alert Circuit City clerk who was converting a video to DVD for a customer noticed that the video showed several Middle Eastern-looking men shouting "Allah Akbar" while firing assault rifles and engaging in military-type maneuvers on the video. After discussing with his family, he decided to alert officials, and the Fort Dix Six plot was foiled, and the FBI rightfully called the clerk a hero. Burlingame poses the money questions: "But would he have made that call if he thought getting it wrong might require defending himself against a multimillion-dollar lawsuit? Would you?"
Why would these lawsuits be allowed? One reason: to fight against profiling.
Indeed, Burlingame reports about 9/11: "One of those most haunted by that day is the airline employee who checked in two of the hijackers that morning. He told the 9/11 commission that the pair, traveling on first class, one-way, e-tickets, 'didn't act right.' Though he selected them for secondary screening, he didn't request a more thorough search because 'I was worried about being accused of being 'racist' and letting 'prejudice' get in the way.'"
She argues that succumbing to political correctness (i.e. not profiling) like this simply disarms us, overriding common sense.
I agree. This is a perfect example of the dangers of political correctness: why should we ignore obvious warning signs that could lead to another tragedy like 9/11? We shouldn't. This amendment would have protected the willingness of Americans to come forward when those warning signs become apparent. Now, we might have someone who is too intimidated by the potential of a major (frivolous) lawsuit to come forward, just like that airline employee on 9/11. Think about the consequences. And, think about who blocked this legislation. Now, think about who you want running the country.
There's my two cents.
An alert Circuit City clerk who was converting a video to DVD for a customer noticed that the video showed several Middle Eastern-looking men shouting "Allah Akbar" while firing assault rifles and engaging in military-type maneuvers on the video. After discussing with his family, he decided to alert officials, and the Fort Dix Six plot was foiled, and the FBI rightfully called the clerk a hero. Burlingame poses the money questions: "But would he have made that call if he thought getting it wrong might require defending himself against a multimillion-dollar lawsuit? Would you?"
Why would these lawsuits be allowed? One reason: to fight against profiling.
Indeed, Burlingame reports about 9/11: "One of those most haunted by that day is the airline employee who checked in two of the hijackers that morning. He told the 9/11 commission that the pair, traveling on first class, one-way, e-tickets, 'didn't act right.' Though he selected them for secondary screening, he didn't request a more thorough search because 'I was worried about being accused of being 'racist' and letting 'prejudice' get in the way.'"
She argues that succumbing to political correctness (i.e. not profiling) like this simply disarms us, overriding common sense.
I agree. This is a perfect example of the dangers of political correctness: why should we ignore obvious warning signs that could lead to another tragedy like 9/11? We shouldn't. This amendment would have protected the willingness of Americans to come forward when those warning signs become apparent. Now, we might have someone who is too intimidated by the potential of a major (frivolous) lawsuit to come forward, just like that airline employee on 9/11. Think about the consequences. And, think about who blocked this legislation. Now, think about who you want running the country.
There's my two cents.
Voter Fraud - Who Supports It?
Michelle Malkin reports on a late-night Senate action to stop voter fraud perpetrated by illegal aliens and others. She's got a wealth of links about the issue, especially as it relates to illegal aliens, here and here. I'd highly recommend you check this out (I'll get into more of these details as we approach the next election, but not right now)!
Late last night, the Senate failed to take a stand against voter fraud. An amendment to a student loan bill that would require a valid photo ID to be presented when voting was rejected 42-54. Not a single Democrat voted in favor of the amendment.
What's the problem here? Why is it such a hardship to provide a photo ID in order to prove you are who you say you are when you vote? As I've blogged about before, there is no legitimate reason that anyone can't obtain a government-issued photo ID at very minimal cost and hassle. So, the argument about 'voter disenfranchisement' holds no water. What other reasonable objection is there? If you have one, please let me know, because I honestly can't think of one. Seriously, send me an e-mail, because this one completely escapes me.
The only logical conclusion I can come to for why anyone would not want to have this photo ID provision is that they actually want voter fraud to occur. Why would anyone want voter fraud to occur? Because the perpetrators of the fraud are voting for them. Now, I repeat: not a single Democrat voted in favor of the amendment. Let's connect the dots...
There's my two cents.
Late last night, the Senate failed to take a stand against voter fraud. An amendment to a student loan bill that would require a valid photo ID to be presented when voting was rejected 42-54. Not a single Democrat voted in favor of the amendment.
What's the problem here? Why is it such a hardship to provide a photo ID in order to prove you are who you say you are when you vote? As I've blogged about before, there is no legitimate reason that anyone can't obtain a government-issued photo ID at very minimal cost and hassle. So, the argument about 'voter disenfranchisement' holds no water. What other reasonable objection is there? If you have one, please let me know, because I honestly can't think of one. Seriously, send me an e-mail, because this one completely escapes me.
The only logical conclusion I can come to for why anyone would not want to have this photo ID provision is that they actually want voter fraud to occur. Why would anyone want voter fraud to occur? Because the perpetrators of the fraud are voting for them. Now, I repeat: not a single Democrat voted in favor of the amendment. Let's connect the dots...
There's my two cents.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
There Is No Outrage
Here's a follow up to a post I made a few days ago regarding Congressman Keith Ellison's comparison of Bush to Hitler. In that post, I posed the question of whether or not Ellison's comments were representative of the Democrat party, and that only a strong rebuke by the Democrat leadership would prove they were not.
Powerline has obtained a copy of a letter sent by Representatives Zach Wamp and Eric Cantor to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi about the incident. They blast Ellison's behavior and call on Pelosi to reprimand Ellison.
While it's great to see at least a few Democrats rightfully angered by this incident, I think it's very telling that Pelosi has yet to respond.
Remember, remember...
There's my two cents.
Powerline has obtained a copy of a letter sent by Representatives Zach Wamp and Eric Cantor to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi about the incident. They blast Ellison's behavior and call on Pelosi to reprimand Ellison.
While it's great to see at least a few Democrats rightfully angered by this incident, I think it's very telling that Pelosi has yet to respond.
Remember, remember...
There's my two cents.
The Battle for John Doe Protection
Well, a lot has happened this evening on the battle over the King amendment. Michelle Malkin has all the details. Here's a summary:
- the amendment was stripped out of the bill by the conference committee
- King was incensed: "This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists."
- Senator Susan Collins (Rep, ME) attempted to put the amendment on an education funding bill
- that measure failed by three votes since it was not directly related to the intent of the bill (full vote results here)
- voting against protecting Americans: McCaskill
- voting in favor of protecting Americans: Bond, Roberts
- not voting: Brownback (what's up with that, Sam? hedging again??)
Not a single Republican voted against this measure - the entire opposition was from Democrats. As Malkin summarizes: "The Dems believe that if you see something, you should just shut up." Interestingly, several Democratic Senators who are up for re-election in 2008 voted in favor of this bill, while several freshmen Senators did not (i.e. McCaskill). This vote was a calculated risk - they know the American people want this amendment (duh, it's common sense!), so those who will face election first can say they were 'tough on terrorism' while those freshmen are relying on time to dim the memories of this vote.
Again, this amendment would protect anonymous American citizens who report suspicious behavior from being sued. There is absolutely no legitimate reason this measure should have been killed.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but remember which party is trying to protect you, and which party is taking calculated risks with American lives.
There's my two cents.
- the amendment was stripped out of the bill by the conference committee
- King was incensed: "This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists."
- Senator Susan Collins (Rep, ME) attempted to put the amendment on an education funding bill
- that measure failed by three votes since it was not directly related to the intent of the bill (full vote results here)
- voting against protecting Americans: McCaskill
- voting in favor of protecting Americans: Bond, Roberts
- not voting: Brownback (what's up with that, Sam? hedging again??)
Not a single Republican voted against this measure - the entire opposition was from Democrats. As Malkin summarizes: "The Dems believe that if you see something, you should just shut up." Interestingly, several Democratic Senators who are up for re-election in 2008 voted in favor of this bill, while several freshmen Senators did not (i.e. McCaskill). This vote was a calculated risk - they know the American people want this amendment (duh, it's common sense!), so those who will face election first can say they were 'tough on terrorism' while those freshmen are relying on time to dim the memories of this vote.
Again, this amendment would protect anonymous American citizens who report suspicious behavior from being sued. There is absolutely no legitimate reason this measure should have been killed.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but remember which party is trying to protect you, and which party is taking calculated risks with American lives.
There's my two cents.
Fun and Frivolity: Money, Money, Money
Nothing political here, I just thought this was fascinating. If you've ever wondered how Bill Gates and Warren Buffett stack up against the richest Americans throughout the nation's history, check this out.
Twisting in the Wind
RealClearPolitics links to a column in the New York Post where Ralph Peters blasts the Democrats for their recent shenanigans on the war. He points out that Democrats have long accused the Bush administration of 'cherry-picking' intelligence data, but that's exactly what they did with this week's National Intelligence Estimate. Peters sums it up: "The Dems want to have it both ways. They claim we're not fighting al Qaeda. Then they insist we abandon Iraq to al Qaeda."
Peters goes on to say that although Democrats (and the MSM) is implying that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, that's actually not what the report says; it just says that they've regained a measure of their pre-9/11 strength after our devastating campaign against them since 2001. He points out that the Democrats still say we're less safe today than before 9/11, despite the fact that we haven't seen another successful attack on U.S. soil. He also lays out the case that we'll be fighting Islamic terrorism for a very long time by using an analogy that I've used in the past, too.
In a way, it's like law enforcement. You won't ever completely eradicate murders or rapes, but does that mean you stop trying? Absolutely not! You stop as much of it as you can, even though you know you're going to miss one every now and then. It's tragic when that happens, but you don't just give up the fight because you won't be 100% successful. The point is that we'll be fighting this fight for a very long time, and a victory in Iraq will just bolster our enemies that much more.
He calls on the Democrats to put forward their own plan for victory, and says that if they don't have one, they need to "shut up and help".
Speaking of terrorists, you've got to check this out. Little Green Footballs posts an audio file of a secretly recorded message from Mizanur Rahman -- one of the UK Islamic extremists sentenced to six years in jail yesterday for inciting violence -- while he was out on bail. Keep in mind that Rahman doesn't know he's being recorded here - this is his pure, unfiltered message. If this does not chill your blood and give you a glimpse of how they really think, nothing will.
How's that War on Terror looking now? Do you want to win, or would you rather surrender? Remember who stands for which side when it comes time to vote.
There's my two cents.
Peters goes on to say that although Democrats (and the MSM) is implying that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, that's actually not what the report says; it just says that they've regained a measure of their pre-9/11 strength after our devastating campaign against them since 2001. He points out that the Democrats still say we're less safe today than before 9/11, despite the fact that we haven't seen another successful attack on U.S. soil. He also lays out the case that we'll be fighting Islamic terrorism for a very long time by using an analogy that I've used in the past, too.
In a way, it's like law enforcement. You won't ever completely eradicate murders or rapes, but does that mean you stop trying? Absolutely not! You stop as much of it as you can, even though you know you're going to miss one every now and then. It's tragic when that happens, but you don't just give up the fight because you won't be 100% successful. The point is that we'll be fighting this fight for a very long time, and a victory in Iraq will just bolster our enemies that much more.
He calls on the Democrats to put forward their own plan for victory, and says that if they don't have one, they need to "shut up and help".
Speaking of terrorists, you've got to check this out. Little Green Footballs posts an audio file of a secretly recorded message from Mizanur Rahman -- one of the UK Islamic extremists sentenced to six years in jail yesterday for inciting violence -- while he was out on bail. Keep in mind that Rahman doesn't know he's being recorded here - this is his pure, unfiltered message. If this does not chill your blood and give you a glimpse of how they really think, nothing will.
How's that War on Terror looking now? Do you want to win, or would you rather surrender? Remember who stands for which side when it comes time to vote.
There's my two cents.
Protect John Doe (Yourself)!
***UPDATE
Audrey Hudson with the Washington Times provides this update:
A Senate Republican aide says they scored one victory when the chamber's parliamentarian ruled this morning that the 'John Doe' protections are within the scope of the legislation and can be included by amendment.
"Combine that with the public outcry and Democrats may be forced to cave," the aide said.
It's not a done deal yet, though, so keep contacting your representatives, and especially the Democrats who are trying to block this amendment.
Andy McCarthy writes at NRO about an amendment proposed by Representative Peter King (Rep, NY) to protect citizen 'john does' for reporting suspicious activities. A highly publicized example is the 'Flying Imams' incident that happened in November of 2006. Six Islamic leaders were removed from a U.S. Airways airplane when numerous citizens on that airplane became concerned about their behavior (sitting in exit-row seats that weren't theirs, praying loudly, asking for seat belt extensions even though they weren't fat, making anti-American statements, etc.). They were questioned and eventually released. In March, the six Imans sued U.S. Airways, as well as the citizen 'john doe' passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.
King quickly proposed an amendment which was overwhelmingly adopted by the House in March, 304-121, as an amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. Its intent was to protect citizens reporting suspicious activity from just this sort of frivolous lawsuit.
Now, House Democrats are attempting to strip the King amendment from the legislation due to an alleged technical violation of old House rules. McCarthy writes: "Given the variety of threats we face and terrorists' history of targeting mass transit systems, encouraging passengers to report strange behavior to authorities is really just common sense."
I agree. And, isn't that what our leaders were telling us after 9/11? Go about your lives, and if you see something say something. That's why you need to contact your Senators and Representatives today to tell them to keep the King amendment.
Since this bill is currently in conference committee (which means the House and Senate are working out the final version of the bill that will be voted upon), you need to apply pressure to some key people in the House and Senate. So, here are some other numbers you might need:
- Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
- Nancy Pelosi’s office: 202-225-4965
- Harry Reid's office: 202-224-3542
Call today - Michelle Malkin reports that the conference discussion about this amendment will happen today. This legislation is essential to protecting American citizens who are simply trying to protect themselves and their loved ones from another disaster like 9/11.
There's my two cents.
Audrey Hudson with the Washington Times provides this update:
A Senate Republican aide says they scored one victory when the chamber's parliamentarian ruled this morning that the 'John Doe' protections are within the scope of the legislation and can be included by amendment.
"Combine that with the public outcry and Democrats may be forced to cave," the aide said.
It's not a done deal yet, though, so keep contacting your representatives, and especially the Democrats who are trying to block this amendment.
Andy McCarthy writes at NRO about an amendment proposed by Representative Peter King (Rep, NY) to protect citizen 'john does' for reporting suspicious activities. A highly publicized example is the 'Flying Imams' incident that happened in November of 2006. Six Islamic leaders were removed from a U.S. Airways airplane when numerous citizens on that airplane became concerned about their behavior (sitting in exit-row seats that weren't theirs, praying loudly, asking for seat belt extensions even though they weren't fat, making anti-American statements, etc.). They were questioned and eventually released. In March, the six Imans sued U.S. Airways, as well as the citizen 'john doe' passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.
King quickly proposed an amendment which was overwhelmingly adopted by the House in March, 304-121, as an amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. Its intent was to protect citizens reporting suspicious activity from just this sort of frivolous lawsuit.
Now, House Democrats are attempting to strip the King amendment from the legislation due to an alleged technical violation of old House rules. McCarthy writes: "Given the variety of threats we face and terrorists' history of targeting mass transit systems, encouraging passengers to report strange behavior to authorities is really just common sense."
I agree. And, isn't that what our leaders were telling us after 9/11? Go about your lives, and if you see something say something. That's why you need to contact your Senators and Representatives today to tell them to keep the King amendment.
Since this bill is currently in conference committee (which means the House and Senate are working out the final version of the bill that will be voted upon), you need to apply pressure to some key people in the House and Senate. So, here are some other numbers you might need:
- Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
- Nancy Pelosi’s office: 202-225-4965
- Harry Reid's office: 202-224-3542
Call today - Michelle Malkin reports that the conference discussion about this amendment will happen today. This legislation is essential to protecting American citizens who are simply trying to protect themselves and their loved ones from another disaster like 9/11.
There's my two cents.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
If You're New to the Blogosphere...
In case you're just now starting to check out blogs for news, information, or entertainment, here is a helpful link that gives you some idea of what it's like from the blogger's point of view, and how you can support your favorite bloggers.
Believe it or not, blogs have become serious business, and some of the big ones have literally hundreds of thousands or even millions of visitors per day. The power wielded by major bloggers nowadays is significant - just ask Dan Rather or John Kerry. As Hugh Hewitt noted in his book, blogs are the future of mass communication, so jump on into the revolution - there's always room for more!
There's my two cents.
Believe it or not, blogs have become serious business, and some of the big ones have literally hundreds of thousands or even millions of visitors per day. The power wielded by major bloggers nowadays is significant - just ask Dan Rather or John Kerry. As Hugh Hewitt noted in his book, blogs are the future of mass communication, so jump on into the revolution - there's always room for more!
There's my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)