Skymusings

Egypt and some challenges

2011-02-11T23:46:00.003-05:00

I challenge the Egyptian people to continue toward the path of self-rule and maintenance of friendly relations with the West. Do not let the medieval-minded force sharia law or other religious-based legal systems onto the government you will soon be forming. Prove to the world that democracy can spring up independently, that it does not have to be "imposed" by force or for ulterior motives. The United States and Egypt have been friends and allies for over 30 years. It is unfortunate that National Security required us to keep a petty dictator in place and enrich him while he maintained a police state; however, it was necessary, as those tactics allowed him to keep the fundamental Islamists from taking root and building a power base. Moreover, he was committed to peace and coexistence with Israel. There is now a vacancy in place, and it is critical to regional and world relationships that some semblance of friendship with both Israel and the U.S. will be maintained.

I challenge the President of the United States and the House and Senate to offer full support to the democratic movement in Egypt. Now that the thorny problem of Mubarak has been removed, the decision tree has been greatly simplified. This does not mean we should send the Marines in; on the contrary, this is the opportunity that the Left should have been waiting for: we can be a force that fosters freedom without the aftermath of war and the resulting infrastructure issues as well as relationships with locals. The stories of Iraq and Afghanistan having been popularized as epic failures in Bush leadership (nation-building, Mission Accomplished, etc.), Team O should be able to slam-dunk this one. Just be there for the Egyptian people, and be clear and firm that the expectation is a peaceful transition to some form of democratic rule. Anything short of that will result in a reshifting of power in the Middle East, and likely an Israeli-involved war that will inevitably drag the United States in.

Most importantly, I challenge the American people to pay attention to this event. All the platitudes that are thrown around during July 4th and the various anniversaries of D-Day etc are merely hollow words if the spirit behind them is no longer in the hearts of the people. We all know the stories of Valley Forge, and Washington's men marching for miles in the snow in bare feet, boiling their shoes for broth, etc., but we don't really have that drive -- their sacrifices and willingness to go up to the wall have led to peaceful and orderly lives of leisure for their progeny. We take so much for granted, and seeing millions of people living in a police state take to the streets with very good reason to fear for their lives and/or safety in order to protest a strong-man dictator, should be a wake-up call to remember how important freedom is. We must continue to apply these lessons to our own government, not from revolution, but from making sure through involvement that they understand who is to serve whom. Simply showing up at a primary and voting for the challenger to the incumbent (regardless of party) is a great start; removing an incumbent is the single hardest thing to do, and it is most easily done at the primary level when your vote is weighted more. We must rediscover our passion for freedom and ensure that we do not allow a government to become too powerful for the common man to control.

Checking In

2009-05-03T08:05:00.004-05:00

The coronation of Chairman O and the amateurish antics of his minions over the last few months certainly give plenty of fodder for a conservative blogger to chew on. Others have addressed these things far better than I can, and I simply haven't devoted any time to come up with anything to post that can provide an additional insight or different angle.

One thing that I don't want this blog to be is just another blowhard crank typing furiously about the latest outrage. As mentioned above, there's plenty of that already out there, and my contribution is hopefully not more noise. I'd rather be a silent bystander than just another guy shaking his fist.

The business of life is taking all my time at the moment, but please keep checking back occasionally. I have some ideas that I want to flesh out a bit before posting; this blog isn't dead -- just taking a nap.

Now, if you'll excuse me I must get back to work to pay for my share of the trillions that are being looted from the taxpayers.....

Well, that wasn't predictable at all....

2009-01-31T11:08:00.002-05:00

Iran says Obama's offer to talk shows US failure. Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying that the Dali Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed. He went on to say, "This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed." The kicker:

"Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change."

'Negotiation is secondary'.....so what exactly is the point of extending the proverbial Hand of Friendship? The idea is to talk, but what does it matter if the people you want to talk to DON'T WANT TO TALK BACK?

This is really an astounding development, no? Who could possibly have been able to guess that this would be the response? Oh, that's right....conservatives and about 50 million voters, that's who.

Forget the nonsensical Porkulus bill; this is a true and immediate danger to national security. Iran is a backwards civilization that does not believe in peaceful coexistence. They are barbaric, and they correctly sense weakness in our position. They kept their distance and shook their fists at us during the Bush administration, but they knew not to go too far because that would bring an immediate response -- they were scared of our power. Ten days in, the Obama administration has demonstrated that those days are over. There is no longer any need for Iran to keep a lid on things; they now have the upper hand because the aggressor ALWAYS has the upper hand when dealing with a pacifist.

They're going to have a shiny new nuke this Christmas. Once they send it to Israel, we will be committed to action, and I have zero faith that this president and administration will act in advance to prevent it or to react properly and appropriately when it does happen.

Obama said all through his campaign that we are a weak nation. Now it appears that 'we have become the ones we've been waiting for'.

POTUS vs. Rush -- not exactly Godzilla vs. Mothra

2009-01-25T10:02:00.006-05:00

It appears that the Dali Obama has succumbed to some fairly straightforward baiting by the Godfather. It took exactly 2 days of Limbaugh's programming to spur The One to respond. The central issue is that Rush quite correctly says that he doesn't want Obama to succeed in his socialist goals. Predictably, the Left and the Dali take this as not wanting him to succeed as President, and are in standard hypocritical shrieking harpy mode.

Although it is highly entertaining and my conservative friends and I get a huge laugh out of it, the situation is actually quite serious and very troubling on several fronts.

To begin with, what would Obama expect? He's the President and is 100% fair game for Rush's attention. Being diametrically opposites, it is absolutely a given that Rush is going to hit him as hard as possible and in as many entertaining and attention-getting ways possible. Rush is, after all, an entertainer, NOT a conservative think-tank leader and policy maker. For Obama to be hurt enough to fire back at all shows a thin-skinnedness and pettiness that is revealing.

Next is the idea that the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, especially given such serious issues that he faces, even has time to think about what a single commentator has to say, let alone craft and issue any sort of response. Does this man really have nothing better to do than this? Whether I voted for the guy or not, I want my President focused on issues and the business of the country, and this petty nonsense shows arrogance and self-centeredness.

Now we come to basic political savvy. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." It is obvious to anyone paying attention that the Republicans DON'T listen to Rush Limbaugh; if they did, McCain wouldn't have been the nominee and Dali wouldn't be POTUS today. This guy has absolutely no sense of who he is dealing with, elected and unelected. Basically Obama was saying that he doesn't want conservatives to be conservative; Rush is the convenient bugaboo because he is the biggest conservative name. The elephants aren't taking Rush any more seriously than they ever have, and they are obviously far more interested in laying down for the new Overlord than in standing firm to principled conservatism. His Eminence doesn't see this?

Finally there is matter of the hypocrites in the press. Can you imagine how they would have howled if W had taken public notice of the ranting of Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews? How about the NY Times? Like him or not, W was presidential and he knew that people are going to say bad things about him and that his position necessitated that he let it happen without interference. Not only does it look bad for the president's personality and strength, but it also calls into question where true Free Speech is. If the President is going to get into catfights with media figures, there is a real danger of that bad judgment leading to bad policy decisions -- think Fairness Doctrine.

These basic facets of The One' personality and acumen are not surprising, but the fact that neither he nor his advisors (mostly Clintonoids who are used to dealing with the press and hiding what they need to) thought this out is incredibly troubling for the reasons stated below.

You see, it's not bad enough that our President is a petty little bitch. It is far worse. I am a free citizen of the United States who is not especially brilliant or politically savvy, yet I am able to see these things clearly. It just takes paying a little attention.

Now imagine what is going on in Iran, China, Russia, Pakistan, and any number of other countries that are not our friends. There are people in charge of those places that are brilliant and politically savvy, and they are making plans against out country. And guess what they see?

They see a POTUS that has thin skin, can be easily baited into hasty words and actions, and is publicly fighting with a media figure. They see a preening vain little boy who cries when someone says they don't want him to win. They see weakness, arrogance, impotence, and most importantly, a man in charge who is not a Leader. In the Chess game of international politics, we have a guy who plays checkers, and who has to cheat at that. If he can be so easily provoked by a known commodity such as Rush, the odds that he gets rolled by someone truly at odds with our country and devious (say, Putin or whoever is Chinese premier at that point) are quite high.

Think back to W's first few months in office. It was relatively quiet and no one on either side was especially behind or against what he was doing. Then the Chinese downed one of our planes and took the crew prisoner. W passed this test by being strong and not letting himself get rolled. This strength was on display later in the days following 9/11. At that point there was no question that he was the Leader.

Obama is spending valuable time and energy whining about what a radio commentator (who will NEVER be on the same side as him) said. What on earth is this guy going to do in a real crisis? How will he and his team react? Will he Lead? Or will he whine, complain, and do exactly the wrong thing?

Based on what I've seen in the first week of His Obamaness' reign, I am not encouraged. We cannot hope that our enemies will not see these things and act on them; they do and they will.

Elephants, learn from Cardinals

2009-01-11T12:31:00.004-05:00

The Arizona Cardinals are truly a great story in this year's NFL playoffs, and their story should inspire Republicans how to win going forward.

The Cardinals made the playoffs by winning their division, the NFC West. This was a weak division that lost to everyone they played; basically, the Cards were the least-worst team, finishing barely above .500 at 9-7. They were considered the weakest team in the playoff field and were expected to lose big in the first playoff game.

The main knock against the Cards this season is that they had no run offense to speak of, and their defense as a whole was shaky and inconsistent. On both sides of the ball their line was pushed around by every team they played.

In their first playoff game, a Wildcard round against my Atlanta Falcons, they changed up. The Falcons came into the game as solid favorites due to an established run game, a solid passing game, and a bend-but-don't-break defense whose secondary really got its act together toward the end of the season. The Cards met this challenge with strong line play that shut down Atlanta's run game entirely, an aggressive defense that jumped pass routes to intercept or break up passes, and a highly effective running game that baffled the Falcons defense all afternoon. The Cards won that first game handily, with the Falcons never really in it much after the beginning of the 2nd half.

The Cards then moved on to play the Carolina Panthers and were even more of an underdog. Carolina's defense was expected to shut the Cards down, and Arizona's defense was expected to be ineffective against the Panthers' pass attack. The game against the Falcons, while not necessarily viewed as a fluke, was not seen as any sort of turning point. After allowing Carolina to score a touchdown on their first drive rather easily, the Cards owned every second of the game after that -- their defense picked off 5 interceptions, shut down every Carolina run and pass threat, and had a high-powered offense that marched down the field on every drive. They stomped the Panthers and are now in the championship round. More than this, they have a possibility of hosting the championship game should the Eagles prevail over the Giants today.

What has caused this change? A few factors spring to mind. First, the Cards have gone back to basics. They have changed their approach and focus to controlling the battle (line of scrimmage) as much as possible on offense and defense. Offensively they have established a strong running game, which allows their already-effective passing game to explode. Defensively they have gotten incredibly aggressive -- pass-rushing, anticipating pass routes, and strong linebacking that stops runs. Secondarily, there is obviously a new focus on Team. They know that this is a history-making season for them already, and that only by continuing to shoot for the larger goal will they succeed in winning immediate battles. Finally, the leadership, coaching and on-field, has found a way to communicate with the team in general and inspire their confidence and desire to be better than they had been.

The Republicans need to view this as a metaphor for what they need to do. They are down, decidedly the weaker team in every aspect at this time. Barring complete disaster from the Dem rule, there is currently no reason to expect that the Elephants at this time will do anything to capture enough votes in the next few elections to re-attain any real power. Even in the case of the Dem disaster, those votes will be in protest of the Dems, not in support of the Republicans. The leadership has not learned its lessons, the rank-and-file don't believe in them (or the Team) anymore, and we expect our season is over. And you can forget about Special Teams.

I know sports-as-metaphor is hackneyed, cliched, and tired. Too bad. Elephants, see what the Cards did? You can do that, too. They might lose the next game. They might win and go to the Super Bowl, where they might lose or win. In any event, they have succeeded far beyond their expectations, while the Elephants are underperforming by every possible measure, and their season is now a success regardless of what happens next.

Learn. Get back to being conservatives. Win the Crowd. Above all, do anything but what you are doing now, because that way ends the season under .500, watching others play for the Prize.

Go Jews, Go!

2009-01-10T12:32:00.002-05:00

Regarding the most recent unpleasantness in the Great Unpleasantness that is the Middle East, I am foursquare behind Israel's actions in the Gaza matter. Hamas has never ceased hostilities, whether verbal ("Israel has no right to exist") or physical (lobbing rockets into civilian areas DAILY).

The Israeli leaders have also correctly recognized that His Obamaness is going to be at best a lukewarm supporter and may very likely work against their interests in favor of dialogue with Hamas and Hezbollah. The recent announcement that the Obama administration would resume low-level diplomatic talks with Iran, with no preconditions, did not go unnoticed in the Knesset.

This is their time. If they're going to do anything to stamp out the Hamas cockroaches and still have any semblance of cover from the US, it must be right now, while President Bush still has a few days to be the solid support. Israel is obviously banking on a victory within the next 10 days or so, because once January 20 rolls around, they will be receiving a colder shoulder from their strongest ally.

Hamas leaders have openly admitted that they are surprised Israel is striking back at this time. Not only does that show how limited their understanding of international relations is, it also demonstrates a complete disconnect from their own situation.

Since it has come to war, I believe that Israel needs to go the next step. It is time they announce that they are going to meet their enemies on the same battlefield: Palestine has no right to exist, and civilians are fair game. They should declare that they intend to roll tanks through and destroy everything and kill everyone in Gaza unless unconditional demands are met and followed through. The leadership of Hamas must change or end, and those who would lead Gaza MUST be willing to coexist peacefully with Israel and her citizens. Anything less leads to annihilation. It is still far more than Hamas is willing to grant to Israel, and much more merciful than Hamas would be if the balance of power were shifted.

This won't happen, of course. But it is time that everyone involved completes the mental exercise of unilateral disarmament:

What happens if Hamas suddenly throws all their weapons into the ocean? Israel will live peacefully with their Arab neighbors.

What happens if Israel suddently throws all their weapons into the ocean? Hamas will instantly attack and attempt to destroy Israel.

Until both answers involve living peacefully together, Israel is correct to take any military action necessary to limit or destroy Hamas' ability to do harm.

I say, "Go Jews, Go!"

Blah

2009-01-10T01:02:00.005-05:00

So I was dead wrong about the recent popularity contest, and the Stupid party continues to disappoint.

Obama has thus far proven that he is determined to be a combination of Clinton's third term and Carter's second. The only good thing is the possibility of helping give birth to another Reagan.

The Stupid party appears to be going along with things, instead of digging in and fighting for puh-puh-puh-principled cuh-cuh-cuh-conservatism. They might not have the numbers to mount real resistance, but they could certainly make it as difficult as possible to move the USSA forward. At the very least, they should force the Dems to own every bailout.

Bush, what the hell is up with you and the FDR act on your way out? Tell the car execs "hell no" and veto the bailouts until the end -- make the inevitable financial avalanche your successor's legacy, not your own!

I am not one to say that the end of the earth is coming since His Obamaness will soon perch on the Cherry Blossom Throne; it certainly won't be as bad as many hysterical conservatives would believe. It won't be pretty, and it might be decades before the potential damage he will do can be undone, but we'll all get through it. The idea at this point is to learn from the failures that the 105th and 106th congresses wrought, rediscover conservatism, and get the ideas out there so the uninformed, scared, and soon-to-be-disillusioned have a chance to hear our side. Barring that, conservatism and what remains of the Republican party will be swept aside like the Whigs before them.

Unfortunately, it is still lunacy to consider a 3rd party. The last election showed that conservatives won't run to another party; they'll just stay home and say "to hell with you and your RINO ways". We MUST remove from our leadership those who do not stand for limited government, lowered taxes, reduced regulation, and reform from within.

McCain showed that he was Bob Dole '96 all over -- the old insider who was taking his turn. This is not our way; the Dems function like that, and every time we try it, failure is the result. And Republicans who voted for expanded spending deserve to be voted out. If we're going to slide further into socialism, it had damn well better be clearly on the backs of the Dems.

I understand and support the traditional plank on abortion. That being said, COOL IT with the promise of overturning Roe. It does not bring new voters in, and it turn off many who are on our side or could be otherwise convinced. This is a long-term idea that can only be implemented once we have solidified our position strongly in both houses of congress with a strong and committed conservative president. We will not win this battle until the majority of Americans can be brought to embrace the other salient conservative principles, which is what will enable the attainment of said majorities. Till then, knock it off.

Once in office, CUT SPENDING. Support anti-pork measures, and help other conservatives make the case for reducing or eliminating governmental services. Support lower taxes and resist the urge to dole out federal dollars for short-term political gain.

I have gotten very jaded about politics since the 2006 elections, and the 2008 election has certainly not helped at all. I finally "grew up" politically in 2000 by rejecting my youthful Libertarian fascination and embracing the Republicans as the best way to see my beliefs and goals advanced. Although my support still goes that way (the Dems are absolutely no home for my views), the fact that they simply will not execute has led to serious disillusionment, and I know that I am far from alone in this regard. Now I'm older and wiser, so there is no thought of returning to any 3rd parties, whether from belief or spite. So I support, but with a heavy heart and no expectations of success or follow-through. It is a very difficult place to be, politically speaking.

Republicans, clean up your damned house. Otherwise your liberal buddies are going to clean house for you, and we'll ALL be out in the cold looking in.

My 2008 National Election Prediction

2008-05-01T11:43:00.003-05:00

1. The Dems will have a very difficult time this summer in Denver. Even the superdelegates are going to be bitterly divided, and it will take a minimum of 30 votes to settle.
2. When the dust clears, the Dems will have decided that their fear of losing the black vote trumps their fear of Clinton retaliation. As a party they're nearly as sick of the Clintons as we are, and this is the chance to dump them for good.
3. Obama will indeed be the historic First Black Nominee. Whee.
4. The Rev. Wright debacle, combined with Obama's complete lack of presidentiality, will result in few white votes. These missing Dems probably won't vote for McCain; they'll just stay home. Blacks alone won't put him in the White House, and youth never vote as much as they talk.
5. Obama wasn't able to win primary victories in the top 10 electoral states, most of which are reliably blue. He will be lucky to win them in the general, and likely will not.
6. The general election will resemble the landslides of the 80s.....McCain will take 42 states at a minimum.
7. Congressional races will continue to show Dem gains. The Senate will still be just shy of 60, but with the RINOs helping, they will be a major force to be reckoned with. The House will remain solidly blue as well.

Here is the REAL problem with the upcoming election: The McCain landslide will be falsely attributed to a mandate for "moderates" and the further erosion of nationalism and capitalism vis a vis National Healthcare, Global Warming regulations, increased taxation, and continued tolerance of illegal immigration.

McCain WILL be president, with a strongly blue congress and a shiny new "mandate". Sadly, he'll work with them and continue to further the goals (with few exceptions) that an otherwise sensible Dem would have. We will, however, have escaped the abyss into which Clinton or Obama would have pushed us.

It is a time for conservatives to realize that we are back in the wilderness, even if "our" guy wins in November. Hopefully he will do little harm and not set the movement back too far for too long.

Predictions of victory have never seemed so depressing.

cough

2008-03-18T20:49:00.005-05:00

We are witnessing the beginning of the end of capitalism. The patient is not even close to bedridden, there is no real pain (especially in light of what will be felt later), no spots or swelling to speak of, and there is only a nagging, persistent cough at the moment. But make no mistake; the wrong treatment will kill it more quickly than doing nothing and letting the disease run its course.

The fools in charge of the monetary regulatory commissions, in concert with the fools in charge of the banks and lending institutions, have allowed the fools who couldn't be trusted to pay for their own Happy Meal at McDonald's to put the rest of us in a real fix. Thanks, y'all.......

There was a time when home ownership meant something. Specifically, it meant that the homeowner was responsible, stable, and honorable when it came to paying the bills. Not so long ago, a prospective borrower who had less than 50% of the home price to put down was laughed out of the bank.

But then money became devalued through ruinous fiscal policies in Washington, including taking the dollar off the gold standard, over-regulatory responses to the 70's gasoline supply issues, over-regulatory responses to the S&L crisis, over-regulatory responses to the internet bubble and post-911 'recession', and political correctness moving from the campus directly to the boardroom.

Money became so cheap, and interest rates so low, that EVERYONE was getting a mortgage. We all know the stories by now; interest-free, subprime, overbuying, flipping, ARMs, etc. What most people do not realize is that the government was all but demanding that banks provide new loan packages designed to provide a mortgage to people who previously could not even qualify for a credit line. The banks responded, every borrower got mortgages, every banker got money, and the market roared its bullish roar.

Everyone was now a homeowner, many in houses that were ridiculously beyond their means. Mortgage is in excess of 25% of your take-home? No biggie.... Your ARM readjusts in 6 months? Whatever..... Yeah, you have to pay the HOA fee on top of your mortgage or your water will get shut off..... Just refinance, baby....pay off those cards and get that new car because you're living in an ATM! Better yet, get more cards because you have a lot of furniture to buy to fill up the rooms of that new McMansion!

Then the most predictable of things happened: people who were overextended started having problems....lates on the mortgage, bankruptcy, foreclosure, just walking away from the house that was supposed to be so easy to pay for.....

Now the next most predictable of things is happening: the same financial geniuses who put pressure on the banks to lend to deadbeats, are now banging the drum to force those banks to forgive the loans, reduce the interest rates, provide the borrowers with bigger cushions of time. Madame Clinton even wants to use the power of government to force private businesses (banks) to go without collecting receivables for 6 months. The rest of the fools in congress are not much better, having a multitude of opinions on "how to fix this problem" that are socialist, fascist, and/or as equally poorly thought-out as the initial pressures to force banks to lend to deadbeats were in the first place.

Today we have the Fed manipulating the prime lending rate 3/4 of a percent at a time. Remember when Alan Greenspan got the quivers from adjusting it 1/4 of a percent? Moving the rate so low (we currently have 2.25% of room left) gives us ZERO headroom later. We have the President and Congress using the standard Election Year Bribe to pre-refund next year's tax returns. All around the decision-makers are trying to force us to buy, buy buy.....

It is lie, lie, lie. The wild swing of the prime rate may boost the Dow for a few days, but as long as the credit crunch continues, in concert with rising energy and cost-of-living prices and a dollar that is worth less by the minute, there will be no dancing in the Wall streets. The bulls are gone, and the bears are here to stay. In this atmosphere Ben Bernanke seems to think that tinkering with the Great Machine is a good idea.....

*THIS* is the real danger to our patient, Capitalism. Tinkering and manipulating things that are beyond the understanding of those playing around with it. Dropping the Fed .75% in one day is the financial equivalent of applying leeches to the arm when the patient has bowel cancer.

The absolutely correct course of action is:

To. Do. NOTHING.

1. The Fed should stop immediately. Leave the Prime where it's at.
2. Congress should spend some time naming libraries. Stay out of money; you didn't make it and you don't understand it.
3. Banks should let these loans fail and take their lumps. They overextended themselves, and their stocks will suffer accordingly.
4. Borrowers should sit down and realize what they've done. Sell the house while you can. You've overextended yourself and now have a huge house you can't pay for.
5. Everyone should begin to pay down debts as quickly as possible. It's suicide to pay someone else for the privilege of owing them money. And once they have their money, not only are you free but the former creditors are also more liquid and healthy. Hmmmm, stock, anyone?
6. With the prime so low, saving is pointless (for growth) -- keep some emergency money, but liquidate as much as possible to pay off debts.
7. Invest in Bear funds, gold and oil stocks, etc. For the immediate future, betting against the dollar and against our market growth will yield the wise investor plenty. There is nothing more capitalist than making money when the market is down, and it IS American to bet against America occasionally.

The Market WILL sort this out. It will hurt (if one is not positioned right). It will cost (if one is thinking in Standard terms). It will last awhile. And many people will be in financial crisis for the next few years. These people got themselves into trouble, and they will have to pay for it.

It's called a Correction for a reason. Real capitalists understand this and embrace it, seeing an opportunity to make money when others don't. The socialists in charge are proving with every action that they neither know nor care about how money and wealth-building are done. As long as their pockets are lined by constituents, lobbyists, or their own little government fiefdom, they cannot and will not see the real problem, let alone the solution.

To force responsible borrowers and taxpayers to bail out deadbeats and bad banking decisions is not only unfair, it is DEADLY to the very nature and existence of capitalism.

Sadly, I predict that most of my cautions and advice will go unheeded. The Congressional Meddlers and Fed Witch Doctors will continue to stick the Fork of Wishes into the Outlet of Unintended Consequences, and we will all get shocked very badly. In the meantime, the Deadbeats, like old movie zombies, will continue to grow their population and accordingly, their danger to the ones who were smart enough not to walk in the graveyard at midnight.

That cough is getting a little worse; think I'll lie down for awhile until the fever passes......

Super Tuesday coming.....

2008-01-30T11:02:00.000-05:00

But it sure doesn't feel Super. As of this morning, the realistic choices are McCain vs Romney and Obama vs Clinton. Bleah.....2 con men, 2 socialists.....

What is a conservative to do? Go with the flip-flopping and too-slick Romney, or the known problem child that McCain represents? Throw up the hands and curse a pox on both their houses?

In this instance I have an additional factor which either helps or hinders the decision-making process, depending on how you view it.

I live in Georgia, which is an open-primary state. This means that anyone can take whatever ballot they want (D or R) with no re-registering business. Dems can vote for squishy or weak Repubs, Repubs can do the same on the Dems' side. Sometimes it is used to weaken a strong candidate's support, other times it is used to remove a problem representative at the easier level to accomplish; this came in handy a couple of years ago when I used this process to assist in removing the ever-pesky Cynthia McKinney from her little perch in "representing" my district.

Since neither of my guys are in the race anymore (Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson), I'm not really in a position to care too much about the Republican race at this point. Given that Florida decided to screw the pooch last night by granting McCain the Golden Ticket, it seems pointless to pull too hard for Romney. The race is over; McCain will be the Republican nominee for President. I would prefer Romney (I think), but I don't believe he will overcome McCainmentum.

This makes me look at my crossover option -- obviously I cannot vote for Clinton under any circumstances, but I am interested in continuing Obama's quest for the nomination NOT because I believe in him or want him for POTUS, but because

It is time for the two-headed Clintonferatu to finally go away.
Obama is by far the weaker candidate for the general election in November.
The Dem race is still up in the air; the Repubs are done (in SOOO many ways).
Georgia, like South Carolina, is likely to get a lot of black votes out for Obama.
Despite my misgivings about McCain and Romney, either of them are preferable to either Dem in the Big Seat.

So my plan on Tuesday is to go into my polling place, ask for a Dem ballot in my second-straight primary, and touch the Diebold button for America's Second Black President, Barack Obama. Come November, I'll still grudgingly cast my vote for the Republican nominee.

Honestly, I think the open primary makes my decision easier; I have an option that gives SOME degree of interest and excitement in the process. My vote will count for far more this way than if I had to stay in the Repub box, and it is far easier to defeat Clinton at the primary level than at the general election level, particularly with such a divisive nominee as McCain will surely prove to be.

I will not tell anyone how to vote, but I do urge people in open-primary states to consider this option. It is a feature, not a bug, in the the electoral system, and in some cases actually does help to accomplish what would not otherwise be possible.

My Plan

2007-07-10T10:04:00.000-05:00

Step 1: Win the Presidency. Yeah, the first step is the hardest, but after that it's all gravy.
Step 2. In the Rousing Speech following the Oath, declare that one term is the goal; I will not seek my party's nomination for a second term, but I will accept it. If nominated, I will not run; however, if elected I will serve the second term. The point is to get things done and not waste half my time running again. If the people like what I'm doing, there is no better advertising or campaign slogan than "so vote him in again."
Step 3. Demonstrate the true power of the presidency of this nation. This comes in multiple parts:

Day 1: Take Oath of Office and deliver Rousing Speech. Party that night and enjoy being President. The world will likely NOT blow up that evening.
Day 2: Press Conference with party leaders of both sides present, including Speaker of the House and Senate Majority/Minority Leaders as well as whips and notable power players in both houses. Use flattery, intimidation, cash, and any other persuasive forms necessary to get all the news networks and channels to air it live. Also invite any and all political/legal bloggers and provide feeds/network connections/bandwidth. In this press conference, declare the following points:

1. The first bill to be signed into law will eliminate and criminalize the earmarking process; there will be no more sneaking of pork into bills -- every dollar accounted for at the time of delivery to the President is exactly what will be allocated. Also included will be lobbyist reform and Sunshine aspects to campaign funds, gifts and income of members of Congress, and a provision to increase likelihood of random IRS audits of members of Congress.
2. No other bills of any nature will be signed into law until this first one is passed and signed. Budget, national defense, etc will all wait until we clean up this first major problem of accountability on the part of elected officials. If the congress wishes to fight this attitude, then THEY can explain to the people why the federal budget and other important bills are being vetoed.
3. Once the Anti-Earmarking Bill is signed into law, National Defense and Budget bills will be allowed to be signed. Budgets in particular are encouraged to be streamlined in order to avoid their veto.
4. Similar to the attitude of the first bill, no further bills will be signed into law until Immigration Reform is settled. This includes Border Security First provisions, heavy sanctions for employers of illegals, approval of raids and deportations, and a shutdown of all non-emergency services to illegals. If the congress wishes to do a Comprehensive plan involving the normalization of illegals already here, the bill will be DOA. Normalize them in a separate bill after we have secured the border and encouraged many to leave of their own accord.
5. At this point, and only at this point, will any other bills be signed into law. There will be no "backlog" allowed -- any bill dated from before the signing of these other bills will be vetoed.

Contentious? Yes. Dictatorial? Only in the sense that the final link in the chain is "dictating" what will be acceptable at what time. Congress can pass all the bills it likes, as long as I get the 2 I demand. Otherwise, we're all sitting around and their staffers are taking phone calls -- not my problem.

Presidents use their veto power far too rarely, especially in the recent years of a divided congress that has little to no chance of overriding that veto. Recent presidents have been too worried about "going along to get along" in order to get a morsel of what they want from congress. Why not use the power of the presidency, namely the veto, to say "this is what is acceptable, this is not" and stick to it? If one is truly interested in public service and getting one's policies put into effect, it would seem that settling for part of it while having to give up even more in other places would make little sense.

These actions have ripple effects -- it forces the elected members to either clean themselves up or answer to their constituents why things like Federal Financial Aid applications aren't getting processed or paid out, or why block funds to states for highways are sitting there without authorization. As the president I will take plenty of heat, but I don't care -- congress has been told what the plan is, and in not holding up their end the responsibility is theirs.

There is no way that the blockage would persist for more than a couple of months -- once the normal time of getting the budget passed has been exceeded, the phone calls to the members' offices would begin, and an avalanche would follow. They would have NO choice but to deliver the specified bills.

Some would say this is dictatorial -- what is to stop a bad president from using the same tactics?

NOTHING!

But that is the system we already have -- and the evil president who does this for evil or selfish ends would most likely trip up and get herself (ahem) turned out at the first term or possibly impeached. It also would likely set up constitutional challenges which would determine just how bad those policies are. Besides, how many Evil policies have passed into law over the years? Jim Crow laws, Prohibition, BCRA, and many others are testament that the Regular process is quite capable of serving up bad law on its own -- no dicatator required.

At any rate, the people who CAN be president typically do not have the will to do this. Much like my article last year on how to make Condi the incumbent for 2008, it's all in looking at the rules we have in place, and using them in a way that others have not tried. They are not tried NOT because it is wrong or gaming the system, but because the political elite are too attracted to the power, wealth and prestige that comes from national public service.

If they only would stop, look at the rulebook again without the selfish streak, they would see that holding firm to a principle may get you turned out at the next election, but it may increase the likelihood of getting your policy enabled. Now, which aspect of "public service" do YOU think is more important?

Secondarily, this stance would feed down to the states and across to foreign nations. When the US has a president who is willing to take his own political life hostage, foreign leaders are going to buy into the Crazy. When confronted with the diplomatic version of Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon, they will quickly realize that messing with us and our interests is a good way to get noticed by a president who is willing to let the entire United States sit in limbo until he gets what he wants.

Why bother?

2007-04-16T09:42:00.000-05:00

Consider the most burning news stories of the last few months:

Anna Nicole Smith - the entire tawdry tale, not just the death thing (and was anyone REALLY surprised she died young and high?).

Imus, who has ALWAYS sounded like a mean drunk at the end of his fourth day on the wagon.

Early presidential campaigns in general; specifically, the current gaggle of no-account losers on both sides.

The drive-by media's breathless scorekeeping of said campaigns via fundraising numbers, which theoretically should be irrelevant and SMALL given the so-called restraints of the so-called Campaign Finance Reform era.

The ongoing Plamegate whatever thing that seems to have Capitol Hill in an uproar but no one else outside of party hacks really knows what went down, much less cares.

Tussles over troop funding and timetables and withdrawal dates.

Sorry, y'all....I really have nothing to talk or write about in terms of political commentary and current events. I suppose I should probably crank out some piece on political or conservative philosophy, but nothing is really inspiring me at the moment on this front.

Real life is far more important and entertaining right now, so check back in a few weeks/months when the presidential stuff has crystallized a bit, and/or I get inspired or fed up enough to be another internet crank again.....

Must-read (but please come back and read mine, too?)

2007-03-12T22:46:00.000-05:00

If you've been under a rock, IMAO is the funniest poliblog...... Well, now they're giving the Chuck Norris Facts treatment to Fred Thompson.

Yeah, I'm like everyone else....caught up in the "Draft Fred" fever....although I haven't gotten to do my post on the candidates yet, it's probably obvious I'm unimpressed by all at the moment. Some have a better chance than others, some would be preferable but could/should never win the primary, etc.....

But Fred's all right from what I see -- not perfect, but none will be -- seems to be good on immigration, taxation, regulation, and generally WoT....has issues with our strategies in Iraq but is prepared to do what it takes to fix it as quickly as possible.....best thing is that he's that Stand Up But Stuffy Boss DA guy on Law and Order. The guy has built-in recognizability to regular people who watch network TV, and even when his character has to decide something against what the viewer wants, it usually plays out that his was the correct choice (or at least he feels bad when it goes wrong....). I think this is a very strong positive for a potential candidate in such an entertainment-oriented society; people tend to confuse the character and the actor. It's easy to get caught up in the idea that this relatively popular actor, with Senate experience and a law career of his own, could capitalize on the parallels to the newly-popular Reagan and set up Law and Order: POTUS in January 2009.

More blather like this will be issued later with the candidates' post......

Oh, and did you know that if you do a Google search on "stolen dyson vacuum s arrest," you will find on the FIRST page a link to a prior Skymusings post?

It's true. See for yourself.....

A little smirking

2007-03-06T12:19:00.000-05:00

Over a year ago, in January 2006, I wrote a couple of posts regarding the end of President Bush's 2nd term and the possibilities he could theoretically pursue regarding the 2008 election and keeping his philosophy and staff as intact as possible. That particular set of ideas revolved around establishing Condi Rice in the power structure to make her a de facto incumbent, possibly a real incumbent.

See the original post here: "We want to be a nation that serves goals larger than self...."

Followup post here: "Cheney will retire after the 2006 elections...."

Obviously the President is not going to complete all the steps put forth in the original poli-fantasy. However, the first step is not only possible but appears all the more likely every day.

The 2008 election will be historic for a number of reasons, but a strong factor is the fact that there will be no incumbent president or vice-president angling for a promotion. I do not have the stat handy, but I believe it is the first time in nearly 80 years that this situation has existed.

Vice-President Cheney has made it clear from day one that he would serve as Veep for Little George and would not seek the presidency. Much of the reason involves his health issues combined with age. These are explored and detailed in my second link above. Basically, the man has had heart attacks since his 30s and is known to be a cardiopulmonary disaster waiting to happen. He is 65 years old and has made it clear that his family has been waiting for him to come home for some time. The president is officially a lame duck and there is little for Cheney to do since strong-arming the republican caucus in the congress is no longer the necessity it was in the past 6 years.

Now it appears that blood clotting in the Vice-President's legs will certainly cause a limitation on future travel plans and is fueling speculation that he will step down for health reasons.

Just a little bit of bragging here -- I called this over a year ago. I also called that Secretary of State Rice will be nominated to replace him. Since the 2006 elections did not go so well, it is unclear whether she would be confirmed by the Senate. Fortunately the dems have presidential candidates Obama and Clinton, so the idea of blacks/women being unqualified is laid to rest, and since she is already SecState there should be no question of her ability to serve.

What is most amusing about all this is that the rest of the world will be surprised at these turns of events. Just know you read them here first.

'08 -- Get a Grip

2007-02-23T18:05:00.001-05:00

McCain/Giuliani/Romney/Gingrich/Brownback/Hunter/et al....

Don't care. Really.

Yes, it is important who the Republicans choose as the flag-bearer for the Next Biggest Election Of Our Life This Time.

Yes, it is important to know that we have a clear winner that everyone on our side can get behind and support as well as draw the losers over from the squishy middle and some disaffected lefties.

Yes, it is important.....actually, no, it isn't. Not really. Not yet. We're still a year out from primaries, which is about 11 months too long in terms of public interest, probability of saying or doing something incredibly damaging to one's candidacy, and the overall fatigue in terms of news cycles and how much extraneous information will be required to fill the time.

Let's face it; none of these people are that compelling or have such amazing ideas that anyone outside of the political junkies really cares. So why subject themselves (and us) to their banal statements and potential gaffes so far out?

****************************************

The Founders were incredibly great (if flawed) men. They achieved the most amazing thing mankind has ever done, replaced only by the lunar landing nearly 200 years later.

These men were not professional politicians, nor were they power-mad wannabes. They were merchants, soldiers, gentlemen, financiers. Of course there were squabbles amongst themselves, but it was always about the best interests of this new nation they had created.

Most importantly, they were GIVEN power to lead our new country because they were responsible for the creation and stability of it. There were bitterly contested elections
early on, but it was a struggle between the best men of the time, the ones who wanted the power and frankly deserved it.

George Washington in particular is the most famous example of "republic first" thinking since Cincinnatus. He resisted the presidency initially, then chose to leave after two terms, setting a precedent that was honored until FDR served 4 terms and the Constitution was altered to force future presidents to limit themselves to no more time in office than the first Dubya had.

Adams, Jefferson, Madison -- these were the men who wrote the most sacred American political words we have. The Declaration and the Constitution, along with all of the letters and arguments leading up to these documents were the results of the framework built by towering minds.

****************************************

Today we have professional politicians, usually attorneys who made millions by milking the very system created by the above-termed Towering Minds, or by hiding out in one government job after another, climbing the political ladder. These men and women are not interested in serving the nation as much as they are in having the power. This of course is not a new complaint, but every single one of them is a transparent phony. Both sides are exhibiting a distinct lack of proper presidential material.

If you doubt this, imagine asking this question of each of them: "Candidate X, the developments of nuclear issues and terrorism are arguably the greatest challenge facing the next president. Can you please explain to me exactly why you are so bent on taking a job that will require you to deal with such issues as:

1. A hostile Iran with nuclear weapons, missile ability to hit anywhere in Israel, and a fanatical death cult in charge,
2. A situation in Iraq that continues to be very shaky due to the internecine struggles of the same death cult mingling with millenia-old conflicts,
3. The same situation in Iraq that is currently a political football in the hands of congress so it is likely that regardless of your plan, it will be watered-down at best and scuttled at worst,
4. The sure knowledge that leaving Iraq WILL result in a situation similar to that of Cambodia and Vietnam -- perhaps the name Pol Pot will ring a bell,
5. Syria and Lebanon continuing to be the outreach arm and suppliers of Hezbollah -- you know, the group that has killed more Americans than even Al Quaeda,
6. A nuclear North Korea continuing to test missiles that land near Hawaii and off the coast of California,
7. An increasingly industrialized/devoloped China that is in the process of testing its own ballistic missiles by shooting satellites, thereby increasing space debris and endangering our own satellites,
8. The sure knowledge that losing our GPS and communications satellites will instantly cripple our military strength and force us to fight (if necessary) on technological terms equal to, instead of superior to, any given enemy,
9. The looming crises of illegal immigration, social security bankruptcy, and healthcare provider issues resulting from the aging Boomer population,
10. A hostile congress regardless of election results -- both sides have largely moved to the socialist middle and pretty much only argue about details -- so any bold plans you might have are likely to stay just that: plans.

Of course, sir or madam, the perks of being POTUS are many. But given just these few things that you KNOW you will have to deal with, why exactly do you want the job?"

Answer: Insert some bland blathering about serving the nation and "getting us on the right track again" and "believing I am the one best suited to face these grave national challenges" etc....

The watering-down of talent and worth (in presidential candidates) over the history of this country has, in my opinion, reached an all-time low.

My next post will deal more with the candidates themselves.

War stance

2007-02-13T11:06:00.000-05:00

We are at war. You would think that would be obvious, but it's not.

Our nation has been drawn into a conflict that we did not choose, by the actions of religious fanatics, militias, and their governments' tacit approval and sometimes support. Our citizens, our allies, and our national interests have been under attack since 1979, including our embassies, military bases, civilians on airlines and cruise ships, and our own World Trade Center twice. Our allies have been invaded and we led a coalition to turn the aggressors back.

In response to these and other threats, our representatives in government have enacted legislation to unseat a dictator and replace his government with a democracy (Iraq Liberation Act of 1998), give wide discretionary latitude to the president in fighting terrorism, including detaining persons or property, enhanced surveillance, and general carte blanche as long as it is in the name of National Security (USA Act of 2001), and we have gone on to unseat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Iraqi situation is of particular note because it has been official US policy to do so since October 1998, enacted by the Clinton administration.
We have undertaken hostilities and unleashed part of the awesome might of our military upon sovereign nations who have attacked us.

Remember, these are pieces of legislation that were very close to being unanimous in terms of voting. Democrats and Republicans came together on both of these major bills, and only a few who did not vote or were lone holdouts did not support them.

The legality of our actions is unquestionable. The War on Terror is legal and was supported by those who are now most vocal in their antiwar stance. The members of the Senate who had access to Intelligence regarding Saddam's pursuit of nuclear and biological weapons in defiance of 17 UN resolutions, and who voted accordingly, have been engaged for years in calling the President a liar for his use of the exact same Intelligence in pursuing the option to dethrone the dictator.

Your senators and representatives voted for this. By extension, YOU voted for this.

But something has happened. Democrats and faithless Republicans have turned not only away from the war, but also their nation. Because of the continuing influence of the Baby Boom generation, there is a movement underway to paint President Bush as Nixon, the War in Iraq as Vietnam, and the Intelligence controversy as Watergate.

The war has not been fought (due to leadership failures, not because of our troops) to the extent necessary to crush the opponent. We have been less effective at sealing the borders of Iraq than our own. There has been a quick turnover of control to the provisional government of the Iraqis, and millenia-old rivalries and cultural impediments continue to plague the entire process. We have not used fear to tame the populace in the postwar reconstruction. External assistance for the enemy has not been pursued and eliminated. There is no doubt that while we did great in the war and have been quietly amazing in the postwar, it could be done much more efficiently and with less risk to our own troops.

Regardless of the negative aspects of the war, we citizens have a duty to stand behind our government and military forces. If there is truly a movement to end the war and bring the boys home, then those representatives and senators need to stand up and call for cutting the purse strings -- the President may have discretion to use the troops, but it is Congress who determines how long he can afford to have them. To take a stand against the war is perfectly fine and in the American spirit; to lob media spitballs and undercut the war effort without really doing anything to end it is cheap and underhanded.

The antiwar crowd decries the President because of the detainees (illegal combatants), increased wiretap and surveillance of known foreign hostiles communicating with Americans, the perceived quagmire of Iraq, and the incorrect Intelligence regarding Saddam's weapons program.

The obvious counter to these charges is twofold. First, look at history -- Franklin Roosevelt had no problem rounding up American citizens of Japanese descent and putting them in camps in the desert. Robert Kennedy, Attorney General for John F. Kennedy, was responsible for wiretapping Martin Luther King. Abraham Lincoln famously suspended habeas corpus and deported a member of Congress, Clement Vallandigham, for his antiwar actions -- the Confederacy didn't want him either -- and had the military arrest a Maryland civilian for his antiwar actions as well. George Washington tested the brand-new constitution when he used the military to put down the Whiskey Rebellion and prevent western Pennsylvania from seceding.

In each of these cases, the constitution was tested. In Lincoln's case in particular, the actions of the president were likely NOT constitutional (suspending the writ of habeas corpus is in the Constitution, but it is not clear whether that power lies in the President or the Congress), but the defense is that if the nation falls, then no Constitution matters anymore. In other words, the security of the nation ultimately DOES trump the guarantees of the Constitution when the nation itself is at stake.

As a libertarian-minded conservative, that last sentence burns me like it hopefully does you. Obviously, it is preferable to change the government than rework the nation and come up with a new constitution. In extreme cases, however, survival, like that of the individual, will quickly become the single most important thing to a nation. If that means some areas of the Constitution are suspended for a time, then that will happen -- this is already law based on many bills regarding Civil Defense dating back to the Cold War, and newly updated by the aspects of the Patriot Act.

In any case, the charges made toward President Bush, although they may appear similar on the surface, are completely irrelevant. Remember, the issues facing the President are legally sanctified by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and the USA Act of 2001. The actions of this president are not only NOT unconstitutional, but also upheld in legislation that practically requires him to perform as he has. Not only is the safety and security of this nation at risk, WE have given him the discretion and there is simply no constitutional problem with his actions.

For now we have to band together as we did on 9/12/01. Regardless of the letter after the name of the president or Speaker, we need to win. Whether we should be involved or not is academic; we are there, and the people not only allowed it but demanded it in the form of the 2 laws discussed here. We are in, for better or worse. We must win, and that will not happen with the division and cheap political shots that undercut the effort.

My parents and grandparents participated in rubber, gasoline, and metal recycling drives (long before the commie envirostalinists were around) for the war effort. People had rations for groceries, and the face of our workforce changed as women went to work in factories to build tanks and planes for their fathers, husbands, brothers, and boyfriends. Hollywood made film after film extolling the glory of the soldier and the romanticism of wartime. The entire fabric of our society was involved in the war, and it was unequivocal in its support of our winning. There were blowhard senators who harrumphed about the war, but they were not taken seriously and the entire country was behind Our Boys and wanted them to win so they could come home.

Can anyone seriously imagine the guy in the cubicle next to you giving up the SUV so the Marines could have more gas? How about the HR manager going without her nylons? Or a movie (Flags of Our Fathers is an exception) that tells the story in a positive way? For that matter, how about an actor or musician signing up to serve? Are you willing to let your house go dark a couple of nights a week to help conserve energy?

We have lost a great deal in this country, and our war stance compared to that of a generation or two ago, is the most striking proof of that. We have to win. In order to do that, we have to support the effort. Most do this as I am now, with words on a screen. My parents rationed food.

We *ARE* at war.

More on satellites and space debris

2007-02-07T13:13:00.000-05:00

I know it's the NY Times, but this article is still very much worth the read, and it illustrates perfectly my previous post on China's satellite-killer test a couple of weeks ago.....

Here's the article.

A curious state of affairs

2007-02-06T11:23:00.000-05:00

Republicans want to settle the Iraq tussle but lack the guts to do so decisively; whether this state is a result of their desire to look good with their new Dem overlords, their desire to look good with the DC/NY press, their desire to look good for CNN/MSNBC, or to get invited to the cocktail parties, is unknown. Most likely it is a combination of all these things, with a dash of political cowardice, a pinch of mealymouth, and the short-sightedness of political ambition.

Democrats claim to want to win, but their every action belies this. Some of these actions include endless comparisons to Viet Nam, speech after speech running down the Bush administration's intelligence-gathering (and fundamental honesty) while ignoring that the EXACT SAME INFORMATION was being put forth by the Clinton administration throughout the late 1990s, and various resolutions (non-binding, of course) that are "no-confidence" statements of the President and trial balloons involving cutting off funding for the war effort. Their own hypocrisy and cowardice are shown most effectively in this last example. If the dems were truly an "anti-war" and "anti-THIS-war" party, if they truly believed that what is happening in Iraq is wrong and goes against our American values and beliefs, if they truly think that 3000 American dead in 3 years is far too great a casualty toll to bear, then they have not only the right but also the RESPONSIBILITY to cut off funding. Period. They have the numbers in both the House and Senate; of course the President would veto it, but if the dems truly are united in this belief and have the ability to sway the weak Repubs their way, they could override that veto.

This is the curious situation -- enjoying large popular support from both sides in 2003, no one wants this war now. Too bad -- we're in it; the only option is to win it. Got that, Senator Clinton, and Mayor Giuliani? WE ARE IN TO WIN.

Background material here.

In 1998 all the dems wanted to go in and kick Saddam out and set up a democracy. In fact, John Kerry gave one of the best and most persuasive speeches of his life in support of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which calls for:

[Expresses] the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.

This act passed the House on October 5, 1998, by a margin of 359-38. Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha did not vote, along with 20 of their dem colleagues. The corresponding Senate bill passed with UNANIMOUS CONSENT on October 7, 1998. This means that no one in the Senate at that time (Kennedy, Reid, Kerry, Biden, etc.) had any qualms about this resolution or its consequences. There was no debate; all were on board and ready to go into Iraq. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton on October 31, 1998. In his signing statement, he remarked:

"...I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."

So it would appear that Bill Clinton and several of his policy supporters must have believed that peace among the factions was possible once the dictator had been removed. This is in stark contrast to the statements of many congressional figures in the months since we brought Saddam down.

It was established United States policy, two full years before the 2000 election, three full years before 9/11, and nearly six full years before the invasion of Iraq, that the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein would end, and that we would assist the Iraqis in defense of their country and development of a democratic regime so they could join the modern world in peace.

The dems have forgotten all this, the media has forgotten all this, and apparently the Republicans have as well. It is ultimately not going to matter much for the near future, since the 2008 elections are two years away, and there is neither the numerical strength nor the political integrity of the dems to truly undercut the war effort. They know that doing so will prove that they are not out to win; whether it is a political maneuver because they don't want Bush proven right or whether there is truly an anti-American-achievement streak that has been charged will make no difference.

Americans may not be the most subtle, or the most discerning, or most scholarly, or even the most united. But we all know that WE HATE LOSING. That is why we went from being a second-rate power at the end of the Civil War, to becoming a major power in World War I, to being the ultimate power in World War II. We did not allow the Germans to take over Europe twice, we did not allow the Japanese to dominate Asia, we stood up to our most fearsome rival the USSR, and bankrupted it into submission. We are not going to allow our soldiers and our national image be run out of a sandbox by a bunch of suicidal fanatics with delusions of grandeur.

The next couple of years will continue to be filled with hysterical talking-point media blitzes on the latest bombing or bloodbath. Dem leaders will continue to cluck about how horrible it all is while doing NOTHING to prevent it (and it is within their power to do so), and the Republicans will continue to give in because they have forgotten how fight as a minority party.

The only way for the dems to get behind this war is to give them the same circumstances that got us in: They will need to hold the House and Senate in the 2008 elections and capture the White House. That's it. Once they hold all the marbles, including the big one, there will be no room for excuses. They will be forced to decide how to win it and be done, or get behind their cut-and-run rhetoric and it will be that administration, that congress, that will be judged accordingly.

Obviously there are many other concerns about a dem majority that do not involve war/Iraq. Taxes, regulation, judges, etc., are always points of concern. But by 2008 not only will Iraq be significantly better or significantly worse off, the looming Iranian nuclear situation will be more sharply focused, the Norks and Chinese will be better positioned, and there is always the joy that is Hezbollah and the Palestinians with Syrian meddling to deal with.

Don't worry -- this blog will never make a call to root for the socialist dems. I do NOT want the Lizard Queen to get the throne, and will always prefer a squishy Republican to nearly any Democrat (in their current state). Even Joe Lieberman, as discussed many times here in the past, with his unyielding support for our efforts in Iraq and unavowed American defense support, is in so many other ways unacceptable to a conservative libertarian-ish point of view and is not preferred by this blog. Yes, I'll gladly take Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chaffee over Joe Lieberman ANY day.

It is merely as stated above -- a curious state of affairs that events have led me to even consider that giving the dems the trifecta in 2008 might just be the way to get this Iraq thing over with, for better or worse.

China

2007-01-19T23:54:00.000-05:00

Two pieces of information have been on my mind of late:

One is Demographics. According to this piece, China's one-child policy combined with technological advances allowing for reliable in-the-womb sex identification (and subsequent government-sponsored abortion of girls) means that by the year 2021 around 23.5 million Chinese men may be unable to find brides.

Twenty-three-point-five MILLION men between the ages of 18 and 45, with no family ties, fed a steady diet of propaganda that capitalism is to blame for their woes, and likely stunted financially by an increasingly authoritarian government, will probably be pretty antsy and would rather quickly sign up for employment through government service.

Sounds to me like China has gone and bred itself an army, comprised of young men that individually will view themselves as having little to lose.

The second thing on my mind is Secondary Use of Technology. The big news of today has been this piece, which details China's use of precision missile testing to shoot down one of its own satellites. The US government is outraged not only at the audacity of using aggressive space technology, but also at the space junk issue that is sure to be created by the results of this and other satellite-destroying tests.

Satellites are amazingly delicate things -- in order to reduce weight (and therefore launch cost and maintenance issues), they are built not as tanks but more like pinatas. Our orbital pathways are already littered with the detritus of previous launches (bolts, panels, paint flakes, hoses, etc.), all whizzing around at 25,000+ miles per hour, in different directions. It already takes a great deal of effort to track all this stuff, and even more to place satellites and our own space shuttle launches into relatively safe launch lanes.

Now for the point of my #2 idea: the real danger that we face is not China's ability to take out any given satellite. Not directly, anyway. If China were of a mind to do so, they now have the technology to shoot any number of satellites at any time, creating a relatively solid mass of space junk in the orbital lanes. The real danger is that it only takes one single launch of a battery of these missiles, directed at multiple satellites in different orbital altitudes, to render ALL future launches of any sort, impossible. This means that any attempt on our part to launch replacement satellites or space shuttles to do repairs, are instantly rendered mathematically infeasible.

No big deal, you say? Consider that virtually every aspect of the American lifestyle is dependent on satellites. From the inconvenient (cell phones, TV) to the problematic (GPS, airline communications) to the deadly (military GPS, missile tracking, military air communications), we are a society that has become in many ways overly dependent on our technology, specifically satellites in terms of this discussion.

The days after 9/11 were confused and unsettling, not only in terms of the basic fear of successful terrorist attacks, but also in the financial aftermath -- Wall Street was shut, air travel was suspended, financial operations of all kinds were cut temporarily. The results of a couple of hours that morning translated to months of financial uncertainty, a market correction (paranoids call it a mini-recession), and a general dis-ease regarding security in the future.

We bounced back pretty quickly from that time, mostly because of the indefatigable American spirit, but also because the larger framework of our society was intact. The infrastructure was largely undamaged, and the only real lasting effect (apart from political turmoil triggered by the WoT) is a crater in Manhattan. The Dow continues to close at record highs, jobs are plentiful, and the main target, our economy, has not only survived but flourished.

However, if the satellites go boom and we can't repair or replace them, a fundamental shift in our infrastructure will have taken place. Our technological society will take several steps backward, as will the rest of the world. The difference is that where they might take 2 or 3 steps back, we will be set back 8 or 9. This will have a disastrous effect on the average person's psyche and resolve, and will contribute to a horrendous erosion of our national will.

Enter idea #1 -- China with its 20-million-plus army and a history of expansionism, will find its main obstacles to Asian conquest (Japan and the US) cut off at the knees. We will all be like Bernard, confronted by his first live natural birth at a reservation far from his comfortable and technical home in the city. The savages will already understand, but the Alphas and Betas will be hobbled. Brave New World, indeed.

Perhaps this is the raving of a delusional paranoid. I certainly hope so, because there are 2 little stories out there that taken by themselves are a curiosity. When put together they form a frightening picture of vulnerability on a scale never before seen.

Iran's nuclear program is enough of a worry, but there is obviously attention being paid to the various scenarios involving it. There are also plans for various scenarios involving China and Taiwan. Hopefully someone in the pentagon is also looking at Ricochet Warfare and realizing that the Dragon is hatching a very large and aggressive egg.

How liberal/conservative are you?

2007-01-06T09:43:00.000-05:00

Update: Okay, so it's not THAT great; it's old, poorly-worded, and has a built-in bias, pretty much like every other online test out there. It's an interesting diversion, at least. Deputy Mayor, of COURSE you got 100% Libertarian on the quiz you mentioned; so did I and so would most conservatives. But that is not an indicator of ones' predilection toward unviable political parties; rather, it is a quick study of the individual's views on governmental power......

I found a great little online test that you should try. I got a 36, which puts me just to the right of Bob Dole and approaching Ronaldus Magnus....

http://franz.org/quiz.htm

Basic conservative primer

2006-12-22T10:26:00.000-05:00

Over at rightwingnews.com, there is a collection of older posts that address conservative/libertarian positions on many issues, including abortion, socsec, immigration, budgeting, education, flat tax, etc....it's all there.

Go here. Click. Read.

Merry Christmas to all!

Nap time

2006-11-28T15:17:00.000-05:00

Since the election (and post-election leadership elections) I haven't been particularly moved to write much. In addition, real life has gotten very hectic -- the Xmas show has been rehearsing and is now in tech week, final preparations for the gf's children's show are upon us, and I just learned that I'll need to track the next show (Godspell) in addition to completing the Guys & Dolls tracks for another contract. Finally, I'm working on my own webpage (not political/blog) and learning Flash in the process.

Therefore the blog has entered a sleepy period once again. But please check back every couple of weeks or so; by mid-January I should be posting again, especially when VP Cheney retires.

Bah

2006-11-16T12:35:00.000-05:00

Mitch McConnell as the Senate Minority Leader is okay with me. It does not exactly show the Republicans as being desirous of a new face at the helm, but at least the man is effective and does not seem to be a train wreck.

On the other hand, Trent Lott for Whip? Yeah, this is the guy who gave in and shared power with the dems after 2000, was forced to resign his leadership post after some ill-chosen racial-inflaming words regarding Strom Thurmond's presidential bid in 1948, and most recently came down hard on Porkbusters last year in a statement that basically asked constituents who requested fiscal responsibility to please SHUT UP.

Yeah, this really shows that the Stupid Party learned its lesson last week....keeping 2 good ol' boys who haven't been out of DC in decades (other than for re-election campaigns; Lott gets an extra for visiting his Katrina-destroyed home), and as such have very little in common with their old base let alone all the brown and black people they'd like to start voting for fellow Republican pals. Lott in particular can not be expected to win many NAACP converts.

Once again the Stupid Party continues to build plans for winning elections based almost entirely on the failings of their opponents instead of sticking to conservative principles and trusting in the conservatism of the voters. Sure, the dems are caught up in socialist infighting for the moment, but at some point they will awaken to discover that they are Americans as well, and will kick their commies out of leadership posts and be a real party again. As long as the reps continue to make their leadership choices from the rolls of the DC Country Club they can expect average voters to continue to reject them. 2008 looms larger than ever, and our front runners are McCain and Giuliani?

We laugh at the dems with the understanding that Kennedy and Truman would have no place in their party today, but the joke increasingly appears to be on the reps -- would Reagan have a place in our party today? Eisenhower?

Unfortunately I strangled my inner hippie to death some time ago and as such cannot support any 3rd party such as the Libertarians or the Constitutionalists. There simply is no effective path to power in that direction. The Dems are more or less the New Communist party, and the Reps are now FDR dems (strong national defense, social vote-buying and damn the budget).

So who am I to support? By default it has been and will probably continue to be the Stupid Party. The tangent of many other posts resonates fully today: "Where is a valid opposition party?" Although many voters chose to stay home or protest-vote 3rd-party or even dem last week, there were many others like me who chose to hold the nose and vote Republican across the board with the idea that a bad Republican currently beats a good Democrat.

Consider two people:

Lincoln Chaffee, arguably the worst RINO in the Senate (and possibly Congress as a whole), who chose not to vote for President Bush in 2004, has been an outspoken opponent of the War in Iraq, and is generally faithless, has a lifetime ACU rating of 37.

Joe Lieberman, hawkish Dem, who is foursquare with the President on the War on Terror, National Security, and Iraq, lost his primary to a peacenik knucklehead, and is generally praised by Republicans and conservatives for crossing the line on matters of security, has a lifetime ACU rating of 17.

That's right -- a terribly reviled Chaffee (and rightly so, in many cases) is an AWFUL republican. But he votes FOR tax cuts, AGAINST tax increases, and tends to support conservative judges. He's anti-war and hates strong defense, but he is 37% reliable on getting our agenda advanced. Lieberman, by contrast, is an unabashed liberal who not only is for increased spending on social programs and raising taxes, but also is a solid supporter of partial-birth abortion and yet is roundly held up as a bipartisan figure that is the "best of the dems" because of his war stance. Yet he votes for our agenda 17% of the time (which is 83% against, in case you're not paying attention).

Still think that forcing RINOs out in favor of dems is going to do anything to advance the conservative stance? The worst RINO is more than twice as reliable for our cause as the best Dem, and that Dem has our RINO beat on what is arguably the single most important issue of our time.

As the title says, "BAH!" It really stinks to be in this position, having to argue for the merits of the likes of Lincoln Chaffee and his ilk. But the broader picture must be observed. Obviously we would prefer more like John Kyl and Rick Santorum in the Senate, but if we can't have the good conservatives, we must still be willing to support the bad ones, the RINOs, because Lincoln Chaffee will get us closer than Joe Lieberman ever will.

In the meantime, the Republican leadership MUST show that they have heard what was screamed at them last week. It is bad enough that Lott is the whip, but to roll over for the dems and not push forward on the agenda harder than ever, would be a gross miscalculation and should be viewed as Political Malpractice.

Thank you

2006-11-09T02:06:00.000-05:00

Update: Welcome, Porkbusters readers! Thanks for the link!

Thank you, conservatives who decided to stay home or protest-vote for third-party or dem candidates. Because of your desire to "teach a lesson" we now face the worst possible outcome of the election -- loss of control of both houses. The war on terror, especially in Iraq, is now compromised. Justice Stevens is virtually guaranteed to retire or keel over any day now, and there is virtually no chance of getting another Roberts or Alito confirmed. Sunsetting the tax breaks is a certainty, and the immigration issue will shortly be settled by the granting of citizenship to 20 million criminals. Rangel is in charge of the House Appropriations, Leahy is in charge of Senate Judicial, and Howard Dean has every reason to keep yapping. Our most lethal enemies in the middle east and eastern Asia are now emboldened and encouraged.

Thank you, third-party Senate candidates, especially in:
Virginia -- the dem/rep difference was 8500; you took 26,000
Montana -- the dem/rep difference was 3000; you took 10,000
Missouri -- the dem/rep difference was 42,000; you took 65,000
Thanks to your presence in these races, the libertarians managed to affect 3 key close elections in favor of the party that wants increased government spending and governmental oversight of virtually every aspect of life, including healthcare, education, business and environmental regulation, and hostility to 2nd Amendment issues. The party that stands by the Kelo decision allowing increased state power with respect to eminent domain, is now in charge. Looks like your agenda has really been furthered....

Thank you, House and Senate Republicans. By forgetting the entirety of the Contract with America which helped you into power 12 years ago, you have made your own supporters decide that an insane opposition party in charge is preferable to you. Bloated spending, abuse of earmarks, open consort with shady lobbyists, blatant lack of desire to cut any programs in favor of expanding existing programs and creating new ones are only the tip of the financial irresponsibility you have demonstrated. Adding to this are the issues you ignored entirely or punted when the NY Times said mean things about you, including making tax cuts permanent, dropping SocSec reform, punting the illegal immigration and border enforcement issue until a few months before the election (special nod to the Senate for completely ignoring your constituents here; at least the House passed a semblance of wall/enforcement-first legislation).

Then there are the wondrous things you passed willingly, like the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act, the Bloated Medicare and Free Pills Bill, the various Farm, Highway, and Education bills that served only to increase the wealth of you and your lobbyists. Your judicial compromise in the Senate with the Gang of Fourteen got some nominees through with limited bloodshed, but it was cowardly and did not exhibit leadership or power.

Contributing to all these issues is the simple fact that the House and Senate Republicans never once acted like they had majorities, let alone control of either house. By "working with" the dems and "showing collegiality" you completely undercut your authority and gave them the boots with which they walked all over you. In the process your base sat out here scratching our heads trying to figure out why you didn't simply force them back.

Finally, I wish to thank President Bush. By never using the veto pen (except for the disastrous threat regarding Dubai Port World), you have allowed the misbehaving children in the Senate and the House to run up the spending and exhibit less control over the checkbook than a 16-year-old who just got paid on Friday afternoon. You went along with McCain-Feingold, wrote the Education bill with Ted Kennedy, have been completely wrong on immigration/borders, put up the disastrous Meiers nomination, and completely screwed the pooch on a PR level with the Dubai ports issue. In the meantime, you never grabbed Frist and Hastert by the collar and told them what they needed to get done a la LBJ. In not prosecuting the Iraqi occupation more forcefully you left yourself and our side open to legitimate and illegitimate criticism in the most sensitive time possible, and gave the dems the perfect electoral excuse.

I expected us to lose the House but only be down single-digit seats. We could have kept it, but it was historically destined to be lost, and only a massive burst of conservatism and enthusiasm would have saved it. That did not happen, and the expected loss happened. The Senate, on the other hand, was not not only keepable, but in fact SHOULD HAVE been kept. There was no historical or legitimate reason for us to lose both houses.

So thanks to everyone listed above. Now we have a terrible situation, even if it is not the end of the world. Losing the House is bad enough, but losing the Senate is disastrous. Now, not only do we not have the power and have a severely hobbled president, but that power is concentrated in incumbency for the dems in upcoming elections.

Incumbency was always a hard nut to crack, but now it is even harder to do thanks to McCain-Feingold. Republicans had the power and could have limited the damage. They chose not to, and the voters were faithless enough to allow them to lose. Now the dems are entrenched and will be even harder to dislodge in 2008, 2010, and 2012. In the meantime we have a war that will most certainly be subjected to Vietnamization, a SocSec and Medicare crisis that will only be solved by tax hikes, and 3 or 4 Supreme Court justices that will retire in the next 6-8 years that we most likely will not be able to replace with Thomases or Scalias.

Thanks, guys. That was sure fun, wasn't it? I hope those 12 years were worth the 35 or 40 you're going to spend trying to get the power back. And will the libertarians PLEASE GROW UP?

Yeah, we'll show THEM!!!!

2006-10-17T18:03:00.000-05:00

Some conservatives are falling prey to the media machine that is gleefully predicting the blue wave overtaking Congress in three weeks. In monitoring conservative websites and talk radio, I have heard and read a disconcerting number of responses that advocate sitting out this election in order to "teach the Republicans a lesson" and that being back in the wilderness for awhile will help galvanize "real" conservatives to nominate and elect better candidates.

Sure.

Do a quick memory check of 1992. Conservatives were understandably dismayed by many facets of Poppy Bush' administration. The good feelings from the Gulf War had faded, the president had backtracked on the now-infamous "Read My Lips" pledge and raised taxes; the 1991 recession was falling on his shoulders; he was responsible for appointing David Souter to the Supreme Court (and also Clarence Thomas, I might add); most of all the elder Bush seemed very disengaged from the lives of everyday citizens-- in addition to an apparent disinterest in domestic affairs, a series of well-publicized gaffes such as the fascination the President showed for an infrared scanner at a grocery store combined to paint a picture of an elitist who had already had his high points and was wilting before our very eyes. He even had his own quirks of vocabulary and speaking style as famously portrayed by comedian Dana Carvey. "Not gonna do it" and "Thousand points of light" trigger specific images and memories.

The result was a disheartened conservative base. There just was not a lot of excitement or passion to put the guy back on the throne again; in fact, *HE* didn't even really seem to care whether he won or not. Many conservatives decided to sit out the election either from boredom or disgust with a man who was Ronaldus Magnus' second-in-command and heir apparent. When the prince turned out to be a RINO who was unable or unwilling to fight the Democratic-held Congress to any degree of effectiveness, the base decided to teach him and all the other spineless Republicans a lesson.

The election season running up to November 1992 saw the entrance of a little-known governor from Arkansas who had learned that hiding his liberalism was the path to national power, and Bill Clinton showed a very warm and human candidate as opposed to the blueblood elitist in charge at the time.

That season also saw the entrance of Ross Perot, who captured the third-party rebellious fever that was not being satisfied in the hearts and minds of many conservatives. His over-the-top act was the conservative version of Howard Dean, and he was able to garner enthusiasm and votes from conservatives and libertarians. Or course, he never had a chance, but neither he nor his devout followers ever really saw that. Secondarily they did not take into account that the votes Ross would get might well have gone to George H. W. Bush, or if they did then it was a decidedly punitive action and they "would show him". In the end this candidacy did not truly have an impact -- Perot's votes were largely protest votes split evenly between Bush and Clinton, and even if Bush had taken all of Perot's votes it still would have left him short in the Electoral College. The most important aspect of Perot in the race was the media attention on his novelty campaign. This column does not suggest that Perot cost Bush the presidency.

That election saw Clinton eke out a victory with 43% of the popular vote but a commanding 370 electoral votes compared to Bush' 168. It was hardly a mandate, but it was a national decision. The people no longer wanted the elder Bush to be their president; they weren't sure they wanted Clinton but they knew they wanted Bush gone.

The conservatives felt betrayed in 1992 and voted with their feet; that is, they largely stayed home on election day and a few misguided rebels cast their lot with Perot. Many conservatives commented that it was time to teach the Republicans how to be conservative again, and that a little time out of power would do them some good. They *DESERVED* to lose.

But did the rest of us deserve to lose? With the Clinton presidency we were treated to decisions such as the appointments of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court, along with many hundreds of liberal activist judges at all levels of state and circuit courts. We were perilously close to having 11% of our economy nationalized into the HillaryCare healthcare scheme. We watched as the fiasco at Waco unfolded directly due to incompetence at the upper levels of the Justice department. We saw the first bombing of the World Trade Center and various other terrorist attacks on US interests and assets around the world for the next 8 years. We got tax increases and increased regulation of business and environmental interests. We stood idly by while Iraq armed itself, and then we actively helped North Korea develop rudimentary nuclear techniques. We gave China the ability to accurately shoot a ballistic missile. We got a First Lady who is now a New York senator and probable presidential candidate who is cut straight out of the Marxist/Leninist mold. We got a depleted and dispirited military that was forced to be a social experimental lab vis a vis gays and women.

Does anyone have any belief that Poppy Bush would have sat idly by when the WTC was bombed the first time? Or the embassy bombings in Kenya, or Black Hawk Down? How about the Cole? Of course, he would not have been president after 1996 due to term limits but it is reasonable that a conservative could have won that election. Many of the terror elements may not have happened if a president Bush the Elder goes on the attack after WTC I.

The Republicans didn't do much better 1996. Sad-sack Bob Dole was the sacrificial lamb since it was "his turn" and "he had earned" the opportunity. The conservatives were down and despite retaking the House in 1994, simply didn't buy into the larger ideal and put up an effective challenge to Clinton's re-election campaign. Perot ran again but it was even more pathetic than the first time. Clinton steamrolled them both and got four more years to do his best to enforce a Socialist/humanist take on the American landscape.

By 2000 the Dems made their own mistake in giving Gore his shot, and Bush the Younger was just conservative enough (and Gore scarily liberal enough) to energize conservatives again.

But in 1992 conservatives set out to teach a lesson and to show the Republicans in Washington that we didn't have to vote for them. They lost, and we lost even more. That folly was compounded in 1996, and we paid a grievous price on 9/11/2001.

I understand that conservatives are loathe to "reward" a RINO or misbehaving Republican with re-election. But this is not a ballgame -- by withholding votes from Republicans and costing them seats and possibly control of a chamber, we are effectively giving the other side homefield advantage for the entire next season.

There are plenty of issues that have not been properly addressed according to conservatives -- border control and immigration, permanent tax cuts, SocSec reform, the passing of McCain-Feingold, wishy-washy foreign policy, and many other issues. The situation is decidedly non-ideal.

Some would decide that our current leadership does not deserve any more time at the trough and are planning to stay home on election day or vote 3rd party.

If that happens, we *ALL* lose, not just the Republicans. No lessons will be learned, and we will be in for years of something much worse than NON-IDEAL. It will be catastrophic, and we will all wish that we could simply get back to non-ideal. There are times when it *IS* enough to vote for Republicans simply because they are not Democrats, and we are living in one at this moment.

The theme of many of my posts makes a return here: the time for ideals has passed along with the primaries. At this point the only rational option is to go out to your polling place November 7 and pull the lever for the candidate (for national office) with the "R" by his or her name. Even if that person is a raging RINO, that candidate is still FAR more in line with conservative beliefs than anyone with a "D" by their name, and they do count towards numerical control of their chamber. They also determine the makeup of the committees and chairs, and their party will determine the voting schedule. At this point the focus is on concentration of party power. The Republicans MUST hold both chambers of Congress. To withhold a vote at this point or to protest-vote is to be the same person who gave us the Clinton presidency in 1992.

Who exactly is showing whom? And what are they showing them?

Wow, so that's all it takes....

2006-10-16T09:28:00.000-05:00

According to this, China has begun erecting a fence along its border with North Korea.

Border-fence advocates in the United States are now encouraged to assist Mexico its own nuclear development programs. If all it takes to get a secured border is to provide their corrupt leaders with fissile material and gyroscopes, then we should by all means help them.

After all, no one would ever use these horrible weapons, would they? Really?

Apparently the United States is going to continue to lag behind communist regimes when it comes to security and economy -- see Russia with its flat tax and now China with its strengthened border security against a rogue neighbor.

China gets it, to a degree. Although they are stopping short of yanking the chain back on Kim Jong Il (their own Frankensteinian creation), they foresee a massive flood of refugees in the near future coming from the Paradise That Is North Korea. Famine and poverty continue to flourish and the "leaders" of NoKo continue to take aggressive (and unnecessary) steps toward inevitable confrontation over their precious nuclear weapons program; the UN continues to waffle and issue statements instead of strength; the US continues to work through diplomatic channels. The new Cold War of China vs US has entered a new phase, and China's agent in the matter scares the master as much as it does the opponent. I'm sure SunTzu had something to say on this but I'm too lazy too look it up at the moment.

Yes, China knows that in the next few years they can expect millions of poverty-stricken, diseased, maleducated foreigners into their territory that they will have to deal with in some manner. They have decided to limit this in advance.

We, of course, allow our own "guests" to get college admission at prices that Americans cannot, issue them ID and look the other way as they vote themselves more benefits, and wreck our institutions of healthcare, education, social welfare, and housing development.

Who is winning here?

I'll Tell You Why

2006-10-11T23:45:00.000-05:00

Redstate had a contest (which I missed out on -- darn work getting in the way of blogging!) in which they challenged readers to tell in 100 words or less, Why You Should Vote Republican in 2006. So here's my take:

Primaries are where ideals battle; general elections are about concentration of party power. In the end it is a zero-sum game; SOMEONE will win every election for every office, either a Republican or a Democrat, and most likely not ideal. To allow that seat, and possibly control of that chamber, to fall into the hands of the Socialist Democrats is unacceptable. Republicans aren't perfect, but there is no rational practical alternative at this time. The dems cannot be trusted with security, taxes, borders, or war. Don't think of it as rewarding RINOs; rather see it as limiting the damage.

heh -- 99 words.....

To paraphrase South Park's co-creator Matt Stone, I hate conservatives but I hate liberals even more. Let's face it -- there is no one party out there that makes everyone happy with every position. This causes a cessation of interest in many. That interest is further corroded by seeing the antics of members of both parties once they have get a taste of the power. Combined with a complete lack of fiscal control and utter disregard for constituents, both major parties begin to blur together and the average guy doesn't see a point to voting at all.

But looking at the underlying philosophy of each party yields sharp contrast. The conservative movement as currently embodied by the Republicans is largely about patriotism, family, duty, self-reliance, and responsibility. The liberal movement as currently embodied by the Democrats is very Socialistic, relying on big-government solutions, high taxes, personal release from societal norms, and dissolution of traditional societal structures in favor of a new humanistic view.

Both positions are fine -- it is a matter of the individual to determine which course (given ideal conditions and execution) would be the preferred form of national government. The recent decay of the Democrats into the world of the far-left has diluted their importance and viability as an option to the Republicans. An incoherent and irrational party that does not accept the basic premises our nation faces, simply cannot be trusted with power. The Reps have squandered a great deal of goodwill and political capital, but not nearly badly enough for people to legitimately look to the Dems as an alternative.

The Republicans' worst fault is that they don't follow through on their promises. The Democrats' worst fault is that they do.

Do not stay at home on election day, no matter what you think about Foley or borders or SocSec/taxes. Do not punish yourself and the rest of us by giving a tacit approval to the dem candidate of any national seat. Although it might do the Reps some good to sit out for awhile, we do not enjoy an atmosphere where this is acceptable. The primaries are over; you have had your chance to put up an ideal challenger to that despicable RINO infesting your congressional seat, and the RINO won. Too bad. This is the time to go into the booth and pull the lever marked (R).

I wish we had the option to teach some hard lessons. I wish the dems could be a viable opposition threat and could be trusted with power for a few years. I wish we could make the Republicans remember that conservatism wins when it is tried. I wish that voting for a RINO would not be construed as permission for more of the same.

We must keep at least one chamber red, if not both. If the House goes blue, the Beltway will be paralyzed by investigations and likely impeachment proceedings. If the Senate goes blue, conservative judges shouldn't even bother showing up for hearings. If both go blue, Iraq and all other military options are gone. I do not believe that even in the worst case the dems can take enough seats to override presidential vetoes, but it is still a guarantee of paralysis in a time when we can least afford it. Between the looming national security threats of Iran, North Korea, and our own southern border, the looming monetary threats of SocSec and lapsing tax cuts, and the certain retirement of at least 2 SupCourt justices in the next 4 years, we must have a functional and conservative leadership in place in both houses of Congress.

Vote in November, for Republicans. Save the ideals for the next primary and work harder in 2008, 2010, 2012, etc. Ditch the RINO at the primary. Until the dems regain some sanity we cannot allow them to run even the most inoffensive committee, let alone control either chamber.

And that may mean voting for a RINO. Suck it up. Pink may not be red, but it darn sure isn't blue.

Bored and cranky at work on a Wednesday

2006-09-27T11:50:00.000-05:00

The political party that is so utterly convinced that BushCo stole his presidential elections along with a conspiracy involving Halliburton and Diebold voting machines, is dead-set against requiring voter picture identification to prevent fraudulent voting.

Chimpy McHalliburton is retarded and barely keeps from peeing himself at any given moment, but he is also a brilliant mastermind that is able to control world oil and gasoline prices to pinpoint a price drop 60 days before an election. And steer hurricanes.

This same evil genius/retard has also obviously been keeping prices artificially high in order to somehow enrich his "oil buddies" while making himself terribly unpopular. Wouldn't it be easier and more effective to keep the prices low all the time, be popular, and revel in the profits from increased amount of gasoline sold due to lower prices? Oh, that's right, because this principle never works with tax cuts either.

Also on tax cuts, I have to say that on a personal note that they have hurt me TERRIBLY -- in fact, my portfolio of broad-indexed mutual funds is only up about 20% thanks to the horrible soupline economy we currently are subjected to in the wake of being forced to give my money to a rich person in dimes. The bastard even twirled his mustache mockingly when I asked for my bread crumbs in the Cockney accent.

Tax cuts also make me feel very bad; although my tax bracket is surprisingly not the highest, I still was only able to directly support 6 illegal alien families this year as compared to 8 last year.

Drilling in ANWR has become a dead issue once again. I have decided to do my part and ask my Brothers Who Hunt (Og, Grog, and Zog) to please travel to Alaska this year and shoot a caribou in my name. If we can't drill and kill the darn things, we're gonna have to go do it one at a time and eat of their sweet, sweet death.

Global warming has led directly to the historically active hurricane season in which we are currently embattled. After Katrina "proved" the global warming model, all subsequent models pointed to the terrible danger we would all face in 2006, with even more hurricanes popping up and more major storm events. The awful circumstances that our coasts have had to face this summer and early fall are testament to the power and accuracy of the Global Warming theory.

And was Katrina the result of global warming or Chimpy/Rove's Hurricane Steering Machine? Oh, that's right -- global warming set it up and made it big, and then the EvilCons steered it into a black neighborhood.....it's so absurdly simple, yet I never remember that!

Bill Clinton needs some vitamins -- I mean, it's *BAD* when Tom Cruise calls you up and says, "Dude, that was a little over the top." Perhaps Xenu was involved.

Regarding 2008, I am rooting for a Republican primary showdown between Mitt Romney and George Allen. Neither of them is necessarily my choice as a conservative; I just relish the thought of a Mormon and a Jew slugging it out for president on the GOP ticket. Maybe whoever wins will choose the other as his running mate, thoroughly upending all religious votes.

At any rate, Romney (the Mormon, remember) has been married exactly once, while fellow GOP hopefuls McCain, Giuliani, Allen cannot say the same. "They're more mormon than me. It's not 'extended' family values....."

2008 and the Dems? Who cares? They will undoubtedly nominate some posturing northeast liberal who will serve only as a speedbump while spouting incoherent nonsense about a mythical feelgood "plan" that would most assuredly fail even if it came to fruition. It won't be Hillary -- Iowa showed her that door this week. Look for Gore to finish the rush off the cliff for the dems.

Dems have also been up in arms recently about how statistics have shown that women with children tend to be conservative and Republican, leading to the obvious conclusion that the dems are being outbred. The Party of Abortion is screaming that this is unfair.

End of Line.

Gathering information

2006-09-26T09:58:00.000-05:00

The United States Senate is embroiled once again in a battle that involves by necessity ties to various concepts including national defense, information-gathering, preservation of historical treaties, validity of those same treaties, philosophy, self-image, external image, civilian/military relationships, and congressional power. This battle is of course the debate regarding "torture" and acceptable treatment of detainees captured in WoT battles, plucked from the fields of Afghanistan and the suburbs of Baghdad.

Most people paying attention are familiar with the basics of the conversation -- the detainees are held indefinitely in military prisons external to the US, are questioned through a variety of means to determine their knowledge of operations and to extract that knowledge, and then are processed and returned home for further imprisonment or freedom (such as it is in their native lands). The means of questioning range from good cop - bad cop to "aggressive questioning" methods, many of which are experienced on a daily basis in your average frat house or latch-key household where at least 4 teenaged boys gather. Sleep deprivation, waterboarding, attention-slapping, temperature control, and various forms of humiliation are all examples of these more aggressive methods. Sadly, some rogue soldiers, in the tradition of bad cops and bad teachers, chose to abuse that authority and perform acts of humiliation on the prisoners not for information-extraction purposes, but for their own amusement.

The infamous Guantanamo Bay photos were the end of a situation that never should have happened, and they triggered another situation that should not be happening now. The investigation by the military was well-established and was in the process of resolution and punishment of those soldiers by the time the photos were leaked to the press. The public outrage since led to the WoT being taken to the courtrooms instead of the battlefield. Zacarias Moussaoui was allowed to rant and rave for weeks in an open public platform with full media attention during his trial. The Supreme Court followed up by granting the detainees FULL POW STATUS (effectively putting the ball back in Congress' hands) in accordance with the Geneva Convention, despite the fact that they have not met the conditions laid down therein:

From Wikipedia:

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
- 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
- 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
  - that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
  - that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
  - that of carrying arms openly;
  - that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
- 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
- 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
- 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
- 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
- 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt as to whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The people at Gitmo are not innocent. They were taken prisoner either following a battle in which they attempted to kill American soldiers or in raids designed to break up and capture individuals planning on killing American soldiers or innocent civilians in the future. These are not passers-by, nor are they examples of the good parts of their society. They are not eligible for the same constitutional guarantees enjoyed by American citizens. They are military prisoners.

They are killers, and they wish to do to us what their brethren did on 9/11, and worse. They are cowards who hide behind civilians, who fire rockets and RPGs from civilian apartment buildings, who bury IEDs in public roads, who open fire on any group of people whether it be at a marketplace, schoolyard, or police station where others gather to join in the fight for civilization.

They swear allegiance to no nation save the Nation of Allah, carry no flag, are not a part of any national force bound by the legal definitions of war-making powers, and can in no way be classified "soldiers".

They have no respect for the Geneva Convention -- the unfortunates captured by the terrorists are in for true torture, starvation, beatings, rape, coerced conversion, forced confessions, death by shooting or beheading, and desecration of their corpse.

This is not to say that we should descend to the level of the barbarian. We *ARE* better than them, our civilization *IS* superior, and we owe it more to ourselves than to them that we treat them humanely. Torture is not, and should not be, an option.

However.....

To begin, most people misunderstand "torture," which is defined primarily as "the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty" and secondarily as "extreme anguish of body or mind; agony."

It does NOT mean "making someone uncomfortable." The word "excruciating" is key in the first definition, and "extreme" is key in the second. Perhaps I am jaded, but I do not view putting panties on someone's head "excruciating" or "extreme" (even if they need washing), as I am sure most Americans agree.

People love the cop shows like "Law and Order" and "CSI" where the Angry Cop throws the Really Bad Guy around the interrogation room until RBG tells AC where the body of his latest 5-year-old victim can be found. We cheer for Angry Cop and take great delight when Really Bad Guy gives in.

But let a Marine play Kid Rock loud and turn the air conditioning way down to 60 in order to make Mohammed Turban too uncomfortable to sleep, and the media (along with the sheeple) go nuts.

For pete's sake, we give these people prayer mats, specially-designed food so their "faith" remains intact, and even re-orient the toilets so they're not facing Mecca when they go Number Two!

And now we are told by our own Supreme Court and the court of world opinion that we are too harsh, that our methods are too severe and inhumane, and that we must simply ask the prisoners nicely to give us what they know.

So our Senate is embroiled in the debate mentioned above. We are attempting to codify the vaguely-worded sections of the Geneva Convention to be more precise so as to let our soldiers know exactly what the US considers appropriate and what it does not. Recently the President signed a bill that codified the military-tribunal requirement portion of the larger debate. Detractors (mostly the Dems but also a surprisingly large number of Repubs) claim that we are wrong to try to define the Geneva Convention for ourselves because that will allow other nations to do so as well, and that they might not be equal.

Well, yippee skip -- look who just discovered the inherent weakness of the Geneva Convention. It was a feel-good reactionary document that was largely ignored from its inception and has best been used as a club by Really Bad People against the collective national conscience of those who would abide by it. Like the United Nations, it was a nice idea that could not work in reality that has been around far too long and has attained far too much stature relative to its true worth. I would welcome withdrawing from both, as if that were a realistic possibility.

This post is not meant as a plea to perform torture. I do not wish to resort to beheadings, maimings, or other true forms of torture, even on the Really Bad Guys. But we need to leave our military guys alone -- the methods they have been using have worked far more often than they have not, and it is only when the media and Congress get involved that things go to hell.

Let them sleep-deprive the detainees, or waterboard (which is *NOT* torture), or slap 'em around a little. Take away the prayer mats, re-orient the toilets, and cut the food to simple water and basic nutritional requirements. Leave it in the realm of the military and get rid of the lawyers.

Most of all, make them aware that they are not going anywhere until either they talk or we are satisfied that they don't know anything. Make it indefinite, unpleasant, and therefore more worthwhile to submit. That is, after all, the literal translation of the name of their religion.

Growing Up is Hard

2006-09-13T08:25:00.000-05:00

The first presidential election I was able to participate in occurred in 1988. Being a freshman in college (a music major living in the 'arts' dorm) and convinced that The Man sucked, regardless of the color of his tie, I proudly voted Libertarian, confident in my callow youth that Revolution and Change were on my side. Not surprisingly, Andre Meroux garnered nary a tenth of a percent and no electoral college votes. But I was encouraged -- I had voted! So what if my guy lost to The Man? I'd had my say, and the Machine was forced to listen!

Off-year elections in which I bothered to vote I went either with firing the incumbent or voting Libertarian where I could. I don't believe I voted in a primary until 2000.

I followed the same patterns in 1992 and 1996, decreasingly about youthful idealism and increasingly about "making a statement" -- too bad I got the statement backwards; my "statement" said more about my own political ignorance than it did to the larger bipolar spectrum of Republicrats and Demicans.

Ultimately my votes in all 3 of these elections mattered not at all, since I lived in Kansas at the time and in all cases the Republican candidate took the state. If I were not voting Libertarian at the time, I most likely would have voted Republican -- in fact when there was no Libertarian candidate I frequently went with the elephant.

Throughout this time I was more or less conservative -- despite the artistic background and my brief flirtation with liberalism in college, I was foursquare for the 1991 action in Kuwait/Iraq, and in political discussions with friends I was always the one pushing for personal responsibility, welfare reform, military support, border control, and lower taxes.

By 2000 I was 30 years old, and my youthful indignation at the Machine as well as the peculiar freedom that is given solely to young adults were beginning to fade. My older brother had been diligent about giving me books on finance and money control throughout my 20s, and I was beginning to see the world more clearly. My conservatism was beginning to form a more consistent and coherent point of view.

In 2000 I decided that Libertarianism was a nice idea in theory, but in fact was a disaster. Regardless of whether it "should" be this way or not, our political system is well-managed by having the 2-party system firmly in place. It forces everyone into one of two camps, and sometimes that means mingling with people that you might not otherwise have anything to do with.

This is the ONLY way to keep the control of political decisions even remotely easy. One need only look at the disasters that are parliamentary elections in Europe to see the results of multiparty elections. Coalitions of different parties have to come together to get elected, but once the governing begins those coalitions quickly fall apart and government is paralyzed or so hopelessly beset by constant compromise WITH FACTIONS THAT DID NOT WIN, that nothing gets done. Or worse, the wrong thing gets done.

2000 saw my coming of age politically -- I was a conservative, and the Republican party is more or less the choice of conservatives in the 2-party system.

I have to share my tent with Republicans who want government to provide healthcare, or make illegals into citizens, or even want to curtail 1st amendment political speech. But it's a big tent, and the only other viable option has nothing to do with my views, and there are simply no other options for getting candidates with my views into positions of power.

For better or worse, I became a Republican in 2000. It was obvious to me that although I thought this Bush character wasn't really what I would want, Al Gore was absolutely not an option, and my 3rd-party voting days were done. I reluctantly cast my ballot for Bush, hoping for the best. In that election, I also participated in the primaries, casting votes for conservative candidates.

Since then the sky has cracked open and we see our world in a completely different light. George Bush became a real president on that horrible September day, and my conservatism was emboldened by seeing the antics of the Democrats from that point forward.

Fast forward to 2006 and the current primary season. As always, it is "crucial" and "the most important election ever" and so on and so forth. In many ways the Conventional Wisdom is correct -- at this time, with the arrogance and blatantly anti-US-interest views that the dems hold, combined with the fragility of support for the war, mixed with some concerns over SupCourt judges that WILL retire in the next 5-6 years, and a dash of "what the hell are we going to do about SocSec" and holding back socialized medical care, THE REPUBLICANS MUST HOLD BOTH HOUSES, PARTICULARLY THE SENATE.

I don't believe the national parties ought to be involved in primaries. They should be out of the picture until the nominee is chosen, then be all-out for their candidate in the general.

I have been mortified at the party's treatment of Steve Laffey in his attempt to take out Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island. The national party has been actively working against Laffey (who is far more conservative than Chaffee), pouring money into the race and running anti-Laffey ads worse than anything the dems would do.

Predictably, Chaffee has prevailed, and now he will attempt to hold his seat in November. This "republican", a man who voted against his party's candidate in 2004, who wants us out of Iraq, and votes against every tax cut and for every tax increase, is the national party's choice.

Laffey was a dead man walking. If he had won the primary, he would have gotten shellacked against the Dem candidate thanks to the socialist voters of Rhode Island. Laffey even stated in a debate, "I am NOT conservative" because he knows that true conservatives don't get seats in Rhode Island. The seat most certainly would have gone blue, and even thought Chaffee is a terrible Republican, he is still technically in our tent and he counts toward the Majority status.

So in order to preserve the seat, and the power, the national party did exactly the right thing. They involved themselves in a primary campaign and worked as hard as possible to keep the status quo, a faithless RINO who has more in common with the opposition party than his own, in a position to retain his seat. He still faces a tough campaign and may yet lose the seat, but he at least has a fighting chance. Laffey was done before the first primary ballot was cast.

Parallel this with the Connecticut race, where the Dems threw Joe Lieberman under the bus in favor of a candidate that is more in line with what their base is demanding. Now that seat is likely to stay with Lieberman, now running as an independent, and while it won't count necessarily for the Republican majority, it damn sure also won't count for the Dem majority either.

I don't like what the national party had to do, and every conservative cell in my body is writhing in agony at the thought of having to support Chaffee. But in a fragile political age where division is deep and majorities hinge on a very small number of votes, we do not have the luxury of being idealistic and demanding that our guy gets put in power and damn the consequences.

Growing up is hard, and this is why.

Roci rules.....

2006-08-29T09:36:00.000-05:00

Since today seems to be more about linking than writing, you should definitely check this cat out.....

Rocinante's Burdens is one of my favorite blogs -- like Shape of Days, I have found that even when I disagree with him, the entry is thought-provoking and well-written. Plus they're both angry bastards who are sick of the commutards trying to wreck an otherwise pretty good country.

It's an entry from right after the London plane-bomb bust a couple of weeks ago, but he goes on to make many larger points that are timeless. Many of the ideas he espouses are exactly in line with my own, and I believe that many of them will inevitably come to pass.

Go check it out and read it all.

The Katrina video Congress withheld

2006-08-29T09:26:00.000-05:00

Paul at Wizbang has an amazing post on the levee wall breaks and has some damning video, along with some very persuasive reasoning into why Hurricane Katrina actually SAVED 50,000 lives due to the inevitable flooding risk -- Katrina was simply there at the time.

It's well worth the read -- GO HERE and read it all.

USS New Jersey and Beirut, 1983-4

2006-08-28T11:44:00.000-05:00

My girlfriend is reading some pulpy thing about reincarnation, and one of the stories involved the "heartless United States bombing innocent civilians in Beirut" in 1983 and 84, from the decks of the USS New Jersey. She asked for my take on it, and not really knowing much about it, other than the timeframe fitting in roughly with the bombing of Marine barracks in October 1983, my guess was that was certainly part of it.

I decided to do a little research. The dates and events listed below come from this website. I have bolded and colored the more important ones. Comments in italics are mine. This is a bit of a tie-in to my previous post on the recent Israeli-Hezbollah dustup. Again, I stress that history tells us how to prepare for the future. This is even more important when dealing with a civilization that has not effectively progressed beyond the 14th century outside of external influences.

1982:

25 August -- Roughly 800 Marines of the 32d Marine Amphibious Unit (MAU), commanded by Colonel James M. Mead, landed in Beirut as part of a multinational peacekeeping force to oversee evacuation of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) guerrillas. The force also includes 400 French and 800 Italian soldiers.

This is the result of a UN resolution – Yassir Arafat and the PLO had stirred up a civil war in Lebanon since the mid-70’s. In response the UN decreed that a multinational force would host the evacuation of the PLO out of Lebanon and institute a peacekeeping force, and the US, French, and Italians were the point on this.

1983:

16 March -- Five Marines were wounded in action in first direct attack on American peacekeeping troops. An Islamic fundamentalist group claims responsibility.

18 April -- A large car bomb explodes at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, causing massive structural damage and killing 61, including 17 Americans. More than 100 were injured. Islamic fundamentalists again claim responsibility.

Attacking an embassy is a declaration of war. The car bomb was the favorite tactic of the 80s terrorist, and this was only a practice, a baby bomb, compared to what would come later. Note that the “Religion of Peace” claims responsibility for this and many other attacks following.

5 May -- Marine helicopter with six aboard, including Colonel Mead, is hit by ground fire as it investigates artillery duels between Druze and Christian gunners.

22 July -- Two Marines and one sailor wounded in action by shell fragments during shelling of Beirut International airport, part of a general pattern of increasing indirect fire against the Lebanese Army, the airport, and the multinational force.

10 August -- About 27 artillery and mortar rounds were fired by Druze militia from the high ground east of Beirut into Beirut International Airport, resulting in one Marine wounded in action. Rockets also hit the Defense Ministry and the Presidential Palace. Three Cabinet ministers were kidnapped by the Druze.

28 August -- A combat outpost manned by 30 Marines and Lebanese Army troops east of Beirut International Airport came under fire from semiautomatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades. Marines return fire for the first time, with rifles and M-60 machine guns. No friendly casualties, after a 90-minute firefight.

4 September -- Israeli forces withdrew to positions on the Awwali River, creating a void to be filled by factional hostilities among the Lebanese.

This was a response to a UN request, one which would have impact decades later, into 2006 and the recent hostilities.

6 September -- Rocket attack on Beirut International Airport from Druze positions in Shouf mountains resulted in two Marines killed, two Marines wounded. Total since 28 August: four KIA, 28 WIA.

10 September -- Battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62) was alerted for deployment to the Eastern Mediterranean.

19 September -- USS John Rodgers and USS Virginia (CGN-38) fire 338 five-inch rounds to help Lebanese Army troops retain hold on strategic Shouf Mountains village of Suq al Gharb. American role shifted from "presence" to direct support of Lebanese Armed Forces, in perception of rebel factions.

20 September -- Residence of U.S. ambassador was shelled; USS John Rodgers and USS Virginia responded.

21 September -- USS John Rodgers and USS Arthur Radford (DD-968) responded to shelling of Marines at Beirut International Airport.

At this point the US shifted from being strictly part of a “ peacekeeper” UN force to being an active participant siding with the Lebanese government in their civil war. Regardless of whether we should have or not, the idea was to get SOME group back in control of the country, and the UN clearly was not able to do it. The best chance for stability was to support the already-existing government. Note also that now the US ambassador’s private residence ( a non-military installation housing civilians) is considered fair game for the terrorists to attack.

26 September -- Cease-fire went into effect at 0600. Announced by Saudi Arabian and Syrian officials in Damascus, supported by Druze. Talks begin on formation of new coalition government for Lebanon. Marine casualties to date: five killed, 49 wounded.

The next few days will indicate how seriously these people take cease-fires.

1 October -- 31st MAU departed Mediterranean for Indian Ocean, in response to threatened crisis near Strait of Hormuz.

5 October -- Two Marine helicopters hit by ground fire.

8 October -- Two Marines wounded by sniper fire.

13 October -- One Marine wounded by grenade fragments.

14 October -- One Marine killed, three wounded by sniper fire. Marine sharpshooters responded, setting off three-hour fire-fight. Ceasefire of 26 September allegedly still in place.

15 October -- Marine sharpshooters kill four snipers.

16 October -- One Marine killed, five wounded by sniper fire.

23 October -- Suicide truck loaded with equivalent of 12,000 pounds of explosives destroyed headquarters building of BLT 1/8 at Beirut International Airport. Almost simultaneous suicide attack destroyed building occupied by French paratroopers. U.S. casualties: 241 killed, 70 wounded. French casualties: 58 killed. Marine replacement airlifts, via 13 C-141 aircraft, begin the same day.

This is arguably one of the worst days in Marine, military, and US history. We lost a lot of very good young men and women to a cowardly suicide attack while undergoing a mission to repair a fractured nation bent on tearing itself apart. The deaths were not part of any combat; they were in their barracks, still largely asleep at 6 am on a Sunday morning.

4 November -- Department of Defense established commission headed by Admiral Robert L.G. Long (USN (Ret.), to investigate 23 October suicide attack at Beirut International Airport. Suicide driver blows up Israeli headquarters in Tyre, killing 29 soldiers and 32 prisoners.

22 November -- Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger stated that the 23 October suicide attack on the Marines was carried out by Iranians with the "sponsorship, knowledge, and authority of the Syrian government."

Key statement – the barracks bomb was wholesale a Syrian operation. The Druze are aligned with the Syrians in this phase of the civil war, and their main bases are in the mountains east of Beirut (Syria is north and east of Lebanon/Beirut). Guess who is now a target?

4 December -- Marines at Beirut International Airport came under heavy fire from gun positions in Syrian-held territory. Marine casualties: eight killed, two wounded. Naval gunfire missions fired in retaliation. Earlier in the day, a 29-plane raid was conducted on Syrian antiaircraft positions in the mountains east of Beirut, in retaliation for Syrian fire directed at American aerial reconnaissance missions. Two U.S. aircraft are downed, in this first combat mission over Lebanon.

15 December -- The battleship USS New Jersey delivered 16-inch gunfire on antiaircraft positions in the Syrian-occupied mountains southeast of Beirut, as the Syrians continue to fire at U.S. reconnaissance flights over the area. This was the USS New Jersey's first action off Lebanon.

This is the first of 2 major actions for the New Jersey in this conflict.

1984:

15 January -- Druze gunners closed Beirut International Airport for three hours with intense 23mm fire on Marine positions east and southeast of the airport. U.S. forces responded with small arms fire, mortars, rockets, tank fire, and naval gunfire from the battleship USS New Jersey and destroyer USS Tattnall. No U.S. casualties.

3 February -- Shiite leadership called for resignation of Moslem cabinet members and urges Moslems in the Lebanese Army to disregard the orders of their leaders. Prime Minister Wazzan and the Lebanese cabinet resigned, to clear way for formation of new coalition government.

6 February -- Druze and Moslem militiamen seized much of Beirut in street fighting and demanded resignation of Gemayel.

7 February -- President Reagan announced decision to redeploy Marines from Beirut International Airport to ships offshore, leaving a residual force behind to protect the U.S. Embassy and other American interests. Increased reliance on air strikes and naval gunfire support indicated.

8 February -- USS New Jersey bombarded Druze and Syrian gun positions as part of the heaviest naval gunfire support since the arrival of the Marines in 1982.

This is probably the bombardment that the book discussed.

10-11 February -- American civilians and other foreign nationals were evacuated from Beirut by helicopter.

The beginning of modern history in US/mideast relations – our first retreat. It wasn’t sold as such, but essentially this was a “cut and run” similar to what the current doves in the US government would like us to do in Iraq. We did not have the national will to clean the place up and kill all the bad guys. 20 years later, when GWB decides to do just that, he is heavily criticized. None of this is easy, but it is necessary.

We have no problem scouring the crust and grime from a tub or pipe, or our own teeth, yet we are reluctant to do so in a society even when that corrupted society has declared war on our own.

21 February -- Marines began their redeployment to ships of the Sixth Fleet offshore. About 150 Marines departed in the first increment.

26 February -- Redeployment of the 22d MAU to offshore ships completed.

No word of John Kerry's reaction, nor that of Ted Kennedy. I can only assume they thought this was the correct resolution.

Granted, Reagan had to contend with the last days of the Cold War and deal with the very real threat posed by the Soviet Union, especially in light of the fallout from their invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq war. When compared to those events, of course the civil war in Lebanon ranked far below in Reagan's estimation with respect to America's interests. The events of that time have of course had direct and indirect effects on recent events in the area, and it is certainly interesting to wonder how Reagan might have handled events of today, given the fall of the Soviet Union and therefore allowing more interest to be paid to the troubled middle east.

The United States ultimately failed in its attempt to be part of a UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon. As has been proven over and over again, a "peacekeeping" force only works when there is a peace to keep. Usually these things are the result of awkward ceasefires such as the most recent one with Israel/Hezbollah. We got involved, started taking losses, took HUGE losses on 2 occasions, and did not press on to annihilate the enemy. Eventually the whole thing just sort of petered out, and our forces left, showing the first of many evidentiary instances of our power being that of a Paper Tiger.

True peace follows Victory.

When the Allies defeated Germany and Japan, it was total. There was no discussion about timed withdrawals or structured peace agreements. We bombed the daylights out of their cities, killed as many (or more) civilians as military, and accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender. We forced their civilians to realize that the entire enterprise their government had embarked on was a bad idea -- when the civvies are too scared to go to the factory, production of war materiele tends to stop, and defeat is swiftly inevitable. The firestorms of Dresden and Tokyo, the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the complete destruction of Berlin are all testaments to the power of total war.

Since that time, these two nations have become the closest of friends to the US and Britain. Japan is an economic and manufacturing superpower in its own right, and while Germany has its own problems and is not always as supportive, is still a valued ally.

Back to the original point -- the US (and the New Jersey) does not and did not just indiscriminately shell the mountains east of Beirut seeking to kill innocent civilians. It was war, declared or not, and it was in part a response to a major attack on our barracks and partly a support of a larger action to sap the Syrian/Druze forces.

Civvies got killed. It happens in war. But we ARE NOT the bad guy, and we take all pains to avoid hitting civilians. Our enemy knows this, and deliberately hides amongst them, sometimes with their permission, sometimes by forcing them. Our enemy also deliberately targets civilians on our side, knowing that they cannot survive a straight-up fight with our superb military forces. They also have a much better understanding of western media manipulation than our own media does, and they play our foolish newscasters like the proverbial fiddle.

Now I see it has become part of the pop culture in an innocuous passage in a crappy little new-age book that has found its way to my home.

Those who do not study history...

2006-08-01T11:57:00.000-05:00

Israel is almost heroic. There can be no doubt that the events of the last 3 weeks were inevitable and can be argued as being long overdue. The mythical "Land for Peace" concept has been proven to be a fluffy bit of rhetoric, comforting only to those who are naive, evil, or not paying attention.

In 1971, Lebanon gave cover to the PLO and a young Yasser Arafat. Over the course of the next decade they increasingly threatened Israel, using the now-tired tactics of rocket attacks, truck/car bombs, hijackings, and kidnappings. UN resolutions flew like confetti to no effect.

Embroiled in its own civil war, the government of Lebanon was tacitly supportive of the PLO, providing no infringement whatsoever on its activities. In 1982 Israel had their fill of it and attacked. They surrounded Beirut for 2 months and surely would have prevented many future problems. The UN Security Council proposed a ceasefire resolution that essentially was a slap to Israel, forcing the IDF to withdraw without penalty to the PLO. Then, as now, the US vetoed the measure on the grounds that it recognized the PLO as a viable political entity. The siege and violence continued.

After a few weeks, a negotiator was successful and the ceasefire happened. We convinced Israel to stand back and allow the Arafat thugs to leave unmolested with a multinational force made up of US, French, and Italians to guard against outbreaks of violence and for protection of civilians. Israel promptly occupied the area and set up new leadership.

Syria had the new president assassinated within a matter of weeks and the civil war started anew. The various factions, including PLO and Syrian troops, constantly violated treaty conditions amongst themselves and with Israel. A treaty in 1983, the May 17 Agreement, appeared to bring peace between Israel and Lebanon, calling for an Israeli withdrawal that was conditioned on the departure of Syrian troops. The IDF withdrew from the Beirut area but remained in the south (in deviance of UN resolution 425) until 2000. The Agreement appeared to many Arabs as a surrender and further weakened Lebanon's governing power.

Later that year attacks on US and western interests began. April 18, 1983 saw the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut, killing 63. October 23, 1983 was the date of the massive truckbomb attack on our Marine barracks, killing 241 Americans and 58 French servicemen. Many other attacks were documented in this time, but none as horrific as these two.

In February 1984 the Lebanese military collapsed and everything was up for grabs. The US Marines were in the process of preparing their pullout. Lebanon's government cancelled the May 17 Agreement under pressure from Syrian and radical muslim forces. Anti-US attacks continued, including a second bombing of the US embassy in Beirut on September 20, 1984, killing 9 (incl 2 servicemen).

During this time Hizbullah appeared as a splinter from another radical Shia sect the Amal Movement. With assistance from Iran, it prospered and grew. The civil war intensified, with Syrian-backed Amal striving to remove PLO from its Lebanese strongholds. During this time, Saddam Hussein entered the fray, supporting a new prime minister (Michel Aoun) following the assassination of his predecessor in 1987. Hussein, a Sunni, was working with Christian groups to counter the Shia influence of Amal and Hizbullah. Christian PM in a muslim nation? Yes, the civil war continued to rage.

When they weren't bashing each other, all sides would threaten and attack Israel periodically. This is an area of the world that simply lives to fight -- when they are not fighting their common enemy, Israel, they are fighting amongst themselves, Sunni vs. Shia. Israeli PM Golda Meir wisely observed, "Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us."

By 1991 the civil war had ground down and a peace of sorts was achieved. The Syrians immediately rushed in and took effective control over the terribly weak government born of the civil war. They continued to rule Lebanon until summer 2005, when the Cedar Revolution effectively ended that occupation and the Lebanese had an independent democracy for the first time. Syria had Lebanon's new PM, Hariri, assassinated in a massive truck bomb attack later that summer.

By this time Hizbullah had established enough power and influence, in no small part thanks to Iran for major funding, to become a political party and a force for social insitutions. Hizbullah members would ride around offering to fix doors and windows for people affected by the destruction of civil war. They fed the hungry and clothed the naked. They bought the goodwill of the everyday Lebanese by capitalizing on misery.

As a result, Hizbullah has become a major force in Lebanon. Imagine if the Democratic Party were to merge with the Crips and the Bloods -- the sense of social engineering that is native to the dems, combined with the lawless use of force and terror seen in the gangs, is an apt comparison to Hizbullah's position in the Lebanese power structure.

In September 2004, the UN drafted Resolution 1559, which called on Lebanon to establish sovereignty over its land, called on Syria to end their military presence in Lebanon and cease interfering in Lebanese politics, and it called on all Lebanese militias to disband. This includes Hizbullah.

Remember, Israel had withdrawn from southern Lebanon back in 2000. Hizbullah had moved in less than 2 months later and started setting up camps and military bases from which they launched over 2 dozen attacks in the next 6 years, including kidnappings, rocket attacks, and terrorist explosives.

Israel has had enough. The Lebanese are unable or unwilling to rope in Hizbullah. They have been suffering attacks physical and diplomatic for far too long. They have decided that "Land for Peace" only gives the enemy more land from which to attack. They have decided that attempting to talk to an implacable enemy who does not even recognize your right to exist, is foolish. They have decided to clean up the mess that Lebanon cannot or will not. They are exemplifying the Bush Doctrine perfectly -- there will be no distinction made between terrorists and the nations which harbor them.

The world opinion is against them regardless of what they do or not do, so they have decided that they don't care what the world thinks anymore. And good for them.

For this they are heroic.

Where they are "almost" heroic is similar to the squishy way in which they are fighting this new war. Air power alone will not do it. They need to send in a full invasion and if necessary declare a new war on Lebanon -- if Hizbullah is part of the government and PM Saniora is thanking Hizbullah for "their sacrifices" then it would seem no distinction can really be made between Hizbullah and Lebanon.

The US is correctly backing the Israelis quietly, clucking about the "need for peace" while allowing the IDF the time they need to get the job done.

Were I GWB, I would have a meeting with Saniora and let him know that the US is considering jumping in militarily -- on Israel's side. He can get Hizbullah reigned in, or we can assist Israel in doing so. He has 10 days.

Like Israel, the rest of the world loves to "Hate" us. So be it. Let's help our friend out. Why let our friend be poked with a stick when we could easily break the stick and the arm of the bully?

Check this out

2006-07-06T23:36:00.000-05:00

Politics is alternately boring and enraging me lately, and I haven't the foggiest idea how to advise the president on Iran and the Norks, so I'll leave that to more experienced hands and talk about something I know and care about for awhile......

Friends and family know that I spent most of the 90's in one band or another, some more successful than others. Stone's Throw and Flux were progressive rock, Bent was classic rock covers, Southern Drawl was country covers, and the Differents was original stoner blues-rock.

Flux in particular died problematically because we were still in studio at the time of the breakup. Consequently, our two most ambitious (one of which is arguably our best song) remained unfinished for over ten years. They are largely complete, lacking only final guitar tracks, one more egregiously than the other.

Perceptions was 95% done (except for the mix) -- we only lacked the guitar solo and some guitar parts that harmonized with the keyboard in the extended instrumental section.

Crack in the Mirror was less complete -- the guitar parts were only roughed in and mostly needed to be re-recorded properly.

The lead singer for Flux has been pushing the guitarist and myself to finish these tracks for years with little success -- motivating the guitarist (who is one of my nearest and dearest friends) is nigh impossible. Frustrated, the singer went ahead and did a mix of Perceptions by himself on his home system, then set up a myspace page to share it with the world. He's a dear friend and he reads this blog -- it was flat and unexciting. The missing pieces were obvious and the sound hadn't been treated or addressed properly.

I listened to it a few times and thought that I might be able to fill in the missing guitar pieces myself and mix it down with a better sound. After discussing it with him, he delivered to me copies of all the tracks for everything we did (not just these two songs), and I promptly loaded Perceptions onto my ProTools system and got to work.

First of all, I'm a keyboardist. My ProTools experience has been highly surface-oriented, and I have absolutely no formal sound engineering training or education. Everything I've learned has come from lurking in discussion groups for digidesign, reason, kvraudio, etc., and in googling for How-To articles on EQ, compression, reverb, and the like.

This stuff is HARD. I have learned a great deal from all this, and lots of little light bulbs have been going off in my head the last couple of weeks. Panning puts the instrument in a left-right spectrum. EQ puts the instument in a front-back spectrum. Delay can give up-down or front-back. Compression is a mystery from the gods and is truly understood by none save those who have sacrificed their babies to the monkey demon.

The trick is to make all the instruments and vocals be heard without distorting. That means the kick drum and bass get to hog all the low frequencies, and nobody else gets any. EQ. At the same time, the vocals get the mids, but they also have to have some high and some low to avoid sounding like a megaphone. EQ. Guitars just have to be loud. They get some lows (but not too much), some mids, and some highs. Keys get whatever they want because I'm a keyboardist. Snares have to snap, toms have to thump, cymbals have to sizzle, and so on. Everything has to be heard while everything else is playing. Some of that is physical placement through panning, but mostly it is through equalization of audio frequencies by instrument.

Mostly, you listen. A lot. Loudly, quietly, through monitors, through headphones. Solo the kicks. Add the snare. Now solo the left guitar and EQ. Both guitars. Solo kick and one guitar, then the other. Add bass. Solo guitar and re-EQ because you screwed it up so badly before. Drink. Solo kick and vocal. Cry because vocals are even more mysterious than compression. Ignore keys even though you're a keyboardist. Sigh. Try lots of things and save often. But listen to everything with everything else. A lot. Did I mention that it's 4:30 am and you have to be at work at 8? Grumble.....let's listen to this bassline one more time then hit bed. Now it's 6:15!!!!!

For filling in the missing guitar parts, I created a synthy-guitar sound for the harmonized part and then just threw in a fat Deep Purple Hammond B-3 solo (hey, he's had ten years to record his part....).

For all the complaining, this has been an incredibly rewarding learning experience. Working with tracks that were professionally recorded (so the basic sound itself was acceptable) makes things easier -- I didn't have to worry about mic phasing or clipped signals. Learning how to put things in their proper space, then adding effects to heighten the experience and tie the music to the vocal is truly an art and I have an even greater respect for those who do it professionally.

So without further ado, below is the link to my first produced track:

Flux: Perceptions

I hope you enjoy it. It is heavy progressive metal and goes on for about 8 minutes, but I think it is a good song and we performed it well. My production of it is my own and does not reflect any official release of The Band Formerly Known As Flux.

The Joos have had it....

2006-06-28T10:25:00.000-05:00

And good for them!

Hamas and the "Palestinians" got their wish over the last decade -- more land, removal of Israeli settlements, and sovereign control over their territory. Of course, they have squandered their gains by focusing more on their hatred of Israel than in building up the lives of their own people. Corruption is rampant, many civil services are unreliable or nonexistent, and their economy is flat.

So what is their solution? Sneak across the border wall with Israel and blow stuff up, kidnap or kill people, and generally be a major pain in the ass.

Throughout this process, Israel has been the epitome of restraint and grace. Every time a Pallie does something, the Bluestars respond with a series of deadly airstrikes. (note to pallies -- as surely as rock crushes scissors, F-16 vaporizes rock.....) The United States is constantly having to throttle back the Israeli desire to go in and clean the clocks of those who wish to destroy them.

No more. The Hamas morons have kidnapped a 19-year-old Israeli soldier and are boasting about it in typical lowlife muslim terrorist fashion, complete with video and self-congratulation. They have provided the provocation Israel needs to take action.

Gaza is pretty much forfeit at this point. IDF airstrikes destroyed 2 major bridges leading out of the area. Later the IDF took control of the abandoned airport in Dahaniyeh and the town of Shuka in southern Gaza in a move to cement their foothold in areas east of Rafah, a city on the Egyptian border. The area of Dahaniyeh represents a strategic control and observation point over the area of Rafah and the southern Gaza Strip.

Now the pallies can't escape into Egypt. Essentially the IDF is working to trap the Hamas militia between themselves and the Mediterranean. It appears that the current operation is not only about the retrieval of their kidnapped soldier; now it seems Israel has decided that enough is enough and that Hamas is going to get the fight it has been asking for.

Too bad for the pallies that their major defense against this in the past is no longer a factor -- remember that there are no Israeli settlements in Gaza anymore, so the IDF has little reason to worry about hitting their innocent civilians in the crossfire.

I say "GOOD FOR ISRAEL!" While war is always the least desireable way to settle differences, it is also frequently the most effective. With the bulk of the Hamas militia trapped, the IDF can (with a little political will) utterly destroy them and remove Palestine as an immediate threat. My advice to the IDF is to bomb the area until NOTHING moves. The pallies are going to continue their hatred regardless of the degree of restraint used, so my take is that they should wipe them out now and be done with it.

Israel must teach the Palestinians and the world that, like the United States, they are NOT to be messed with. In a military battle, you will lose. If you try to pick us apart a little at a time, we will hunt you down and kill you and everyone around you.

This is a followup to my previous post on Ruthlessness. Israel is about to teach us all that lesson once again, and I am 100% for it. It is about time the Middle East gets a good dose of reality -- Israel is there to stay, like it or not. The US will help make Iraq a free and sovereign nation, like it or not. The rest of the Arab/muslim world had better begin to take notice.

To regain the steel

2006-06-22T07:26:00.000-05:00

Alexander the Great. Napoleon. Sherman. Genghis Khan. Patton. Hannibal. Scipio. Xerxes. Washington. Saladin. Darius.

We remember their names and deeds, some more positively than others, because their lives were tied to the larger events that shaped our world and its constituent civilizations. They reacted to those events (or created them) in ways so effective as to become entrenched in the common legend. Some were imperial rulers. All were outstanding military leaders.

There is another commonality to these men.

All were ruthless.

When the goal is determined, actions must be completed in order to achieve that goal. This might mean burning your own fleet of ships so your soldiers could not retreat. It might mean destroying entire cities over a broken treaty. It might mean outrunning your own supply line and outflanking your main column, even competing with an ally. It could mean burning and rendering entire regions incapable of cover and food supply in your wake, or destroying all traces of a former ally.

In some cases (especially the leaders from antiquity), that also meant wholesale slaughter of innocents -- burning cities, executing civilians, burning lands and poisoning wells. It meant taking slaves, and rape, and pillaging. It meant torture and barbaric treatment of prisoners, whether civilian or military.

Modern civilization has abandoned many of the more ruthless aspects of conflict. The concept of humane treatment for all has been embraced by much of the world, if not practiced as evenly as we would like to see. Prisoners of a modern civilization, whether civil or military, know they will be fed and not tortured. No one has to fear being a slave of another. Social stratification exists, but essentially all people are recognized and basic rights and privileges guaranteed to all. A nation or city conquered by a civil society is not subject to punitive destruction, pillaging, or undue subjugation of the population. The wells will not poisoned; indeed, new and better ones will be dug. More electricity will be made available. Schools will be built, and a functioning local government will be encouraged with the backing of security provided by the conqueror. Even those resisting will be treated humanely once they are captured.

Obviously I am speaking specifically of the United States' occupation of Iraq. If GWB were truly the evil tyrant that the moonbats claim he is, then he would perform the ancient actions of killing all local leaders, destroying the mosques, taking slaves, and generally forcing the local population to swear allegiance to us or die. Leaders appointed by us would run regions and there would be minimal, if any, local leadership. There would be public executions, torture, disappearances, and probably the complete destruction of several cities. There would be a 51st star on our flag, and our oil drilling issues would no longer be issues.

Putting aside all moral arguments and the March of Progress in the Human Condition, there are aspects to the ancient ways that worked very well and are more effective than our modern civil approaches and definitions of victory.

They saw a Pyrhhic victory as acceptable. We try to win "hearts and minds."

They threw thousands of their own into certain death so that they might capture a field or hold a beach. We back away if a couple of guys are dragged through the streets and debate whether the deaths of 2500 over THREE YEARS is worth it.

They went to war over something as trivial as a misspelled name. We agonize over "conflict resolution" with known enemies and recently-acquired superweapons.

They sought to vanquish their enemy and destroy him utterly if necessary. We try to understand them.

They tortured and executed prisoners of war and mutilated their bodies. We give them every accomodation, even moving the toilets so they don't face a certain direction.

Their prisoners would be thrilled if the worst to happen to them was some underwear on the head. Ours are allowed to file lawsuits from air-conditioned cells.

Genghis Khan killed his own brother and executed a longtime ally and prospered. Patton slapped a coward and was relieved of command.

Our enemy is fundamental islamic fascism, a philosophy of hate and subjugation that seeks to place the entire world under its totalitarian rule. It relies on the poverty of wealth, spirit, and education that exists in many areas of the world to maintain the power base of its elite. The basic premise of islam is that all muslims are brothers in their submission to Allah, and all non-muslims are infidels and are fair game for death and destruction. The goal is to expand the religion to encompass all -- those who convert are allowed to live as second-class citizens, and all those who do not convert are to be destroyed and have absolutely no standing as humans. They have spread a holy war to all corners of the earth and view that holy war as a continuation of the Crusades, even calling our captured soldiers "Crusaders."

Our enemy believes that it is perfectly acceptable to do the following in accordance with their holy war:

Torture, kill, and mutilate prisoners. This includes decapitation, gouging of eyes, dismemberment, and removal of private parts.
Hide weapons and equipment in your own holy places. Garrison your forces there as well.
Hide within civilian populations. Use women and children as human shields.
Place explosives in public places specifically to maim and kill. Time explosives so that the Big One goes off while rescuers are around.
Leave poisonous gases in subways. Hijack and fly planes into buildings. Drive trucks laden with explosives into public places.

Clearly there is a gap in perceived civilization between our enemy and us. Certainly they view our society as godless and hedonistic. As the reigning superpower culturally and economically we are the prime target -- take us down and the rest of the world will fall that much faster. It is truly a clash of civilizations, and with the advent of advanced weaponry that includes nuclear and biological weapons, possibly the most important of our history, second only to the the Neanderthal/CroMagnon conflict in scope. The outcome of this war will determine the course of humanity and is the fork in the road between the last vestiges of barbarism and the next step in human advancement, an advancement brought about SOLELY on the basis of intellectual progress and embracing technological development.

Ever notice there aren't muslims in Star Trek? Can't build starships if the local mullah says Allah won't even let you listen to music.....

Obviously we cannot stoop to become our enemy in winning the war. We should not torture our prisoners, nor terrorize the innocent.

We can not currently be described as "ruthless." We worry far too much about how we are perceived, whether the prisoners are comfortable, how to keep our own people and civilians safe, and what our own press says about our military effort.

That being said, I believe it is time we become more ruthless in our approach -- more Alexander, less Montgomery. We need to let our military fight this war as the military should -- kill people and break things. We can and will be the best friends Iraq has ever had, but that means they must assist us with ridding themselves of those who would not be our friends.

If they pick up a kid, shoot through the kid if necessary. KILL the bad guy.
If the neighbors are hiding the terrorists, flatten the neighborhood.
If prisoners are found to have committed atrocities like those committed against our 2 privates this week, execute them publicly and roll them in pig fat before displaying their bodies.
Interrogate prisoners properly -- no koran or prayer mat, if they want to starve themselves to death that's fine, and no air conditioning. Hold them indefinitely in undesireable but humane conditions.
Airstrikes, airstrikes, airstrikes.
We must have some degree of terror from all so that we can more quickly end the terror of the innocents.

GWB can do some ruthless things, too:
Kick out all media and reporters, pro and con, from Iraq. Let the press get their news the old-fashioned way: through military dispatches.
Put the congress on notice that they voted for this -- while hostilities ensue, any attempts to undermine the effort will be met with suspension of habeas corpus (Lincoln precedent) and imprisonment. Charges of sedition and treason will be explored. Support the war fully or resign.

Obviously these steps will not be taken, especially at this late date. But until we are willing to take more steps APPROACHING this level of ruthlessness, the steady trickle of casualties will continue, and the remnants of the marxist defeatocrats will continue their pacifistic crusade against our noble efforts in order to cause us to withdraw. We should not gouge their eyes out, but neither should we shy from making them uncomfortable and scared of us.

Let no one doubt this: We Will Prevail. This war can and must be won by the forces of civilization, and the barbarians must die at the gate. There is no other acceptable course, and it is perfectly acceptable for us to let some of our rules of civilization lapse in order to achieve this. If we were fighting an honorable enemy with shared values, this would not be necessary. The march of freedom is not merely a slogan; it is a necessary approach to advancing humanity.

But our enemy is not honorable and does not share our basic values. There is little point to extending human rights to those who do not view us as humans. We must do what is necessary to exterminate this poisonous enemy in order that we might prosper ourselves.

Our most ruthless modern leader, Ronald Reagan, said, "Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose." He also said, "Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong." This man stared the Evil Empire down and DARED them to launch missiles. But his ruthlessness failed when the islamofascists drove a truck bomb into Marine barracks in Beirut and we pulled out. What lesson were they to take from that? America would stand up to the Soviets but not the Soldiers of Allah?

The sword of bronze will falter against the sword of iron. Which will we be? Soft metal or hard?

Amazing R/C Airplane demo

2006-06-07T10:30:00.000-05:00

Time to get practicing, dad.......

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2006/06/amazing_rc_airp.html

Bah

2006-06-05T09:49:00.000-05:00

My normal output of Blog Product, decidedly non-prodigious on the best of days, has attained a new level of apathy and slack.

You might ask why -- certainly my brother in Texas and my apparent fan in Winter Park, Florida might be (they are 2/3 of my normal visitors)....

The usual excuses apply, of course -- life has intruded and I've been very busy getting a production of The Fantasticks up on its feet (and the stage). Throw in a girlfriend's budding business venture combined with her best friend's addiction/intervention and some goofy paperwork issues on the house, and there is a recipe for doing Other Than Blogging types of work. Oh, and at work I've actually been working instead of hanging around waiting for something to do (not from sloth; it is the nature of my gig).

But the main factor is disgust; disgust with congressional leaders of both parties is the big one.

The Republicans are doing their darnedest to drive me away after having finally captured me in 2000. I held my nose voting for GWB the first time, knowing that Al Gore must NEVER get his wooden mitts on the button. 2002 and subsequent elections saw me supporting the Republicans down the line for the first time in my voting life.

Now we have the Senate delivering us the mess that is the "immigration reform act", following up on their prior hits "campgaign finance reform" and "prescription drug act".

Now we have the House leadership going to the mat for William Jefferson, a known dirty politician who kept bribe money in his freezer and resisted the subpoena to search his office for *EIGHT MONTHS*. Hastert actually trotted out the Separation of Powers argument, which is as specious as it gets.

Back when I was a dedicated Libertarian (okay, pothead...), I honestly saw no real difference between the two major parties. Now a little older and hopefully a little wiser, I see the differences more clearly in terms of philosophy and approach.

However, when it comes to governance, incumbent-protection, and elitist tendencies derived from too long on The Hill, there is no effective difference between the large parties. It is up to the individuals to distinguish themselves as being "Of, By, and For the People" and there are precious few of them around.

I still care. I still follow politics, because it *does* matter. But I'm kind of tired of trying to convince people (for the moment) that choosing Republican is the way to go. I still believe it, because sadly the Dems are offering NO rational alternative. But belief and passion are separate entities, and thus is my current state differentiated.

"A pox on both your houses" indeed.....

Never fear; I'll be back in form sooner or later. Just now the lot of them can leap off the cliff and I'd be just fine with that.

Code talk

2006-05-23T14:01:00.000-05:00

I saw a flick this weekend -- da Vinci something-or-other.....

When I read the book a couple of years ago, I pronounced it to be "interesting pulp nonsense" -- a set of intersecting conspiracy theories mixed with theological controversy, historical innacuracy/speculation, and absolutely silly characters and worse dialogue. The puzzles and connections were fun, but having to slog through the inane actions and speechifying of the wooden characters took some of the zing out of it.

In a word, it is hoohah....

Since then I've watched the world wake up to this little tale. The controversy absolutely baffles me, since (as usual) the people on each side appear to be mutually and equally insane/ignorant/obtuse. I speak of the Believers and the Bashers.

The Believers drive me crazy because they're conspiracy nuts who apprarently do not comprehend historical truth. If one is going to delve headlong into believing Dan Brown's ramblings as thinly-disguised journalism of reality, perhaps it would behoove one to learn something about Roman history, Medieval history, the development of the Catholic church through both, political and economic structures of medieval and Renaissance-era Europe, and have a general understanding of the fact that the viability of a secret is inversely proportional to the number of secret-holders.

The Bashers drive me crazy because they take this whole thing as seriously as the Believers do, and they view the book and movie as a threat to their belief system. The fear that a popular movement based in ignorance and supposition might bring down whatever flagging interest in organized religion exists, especially in the face of more serious problems that directly threaten that structure, is nothing new and shows a disconcerting lack of faith as well as a blindness to logical and realistic issues.

Basically, everybody on both sides tends to take this whole thing FAR too seriously -- it's a story, for ~~Christ's~~ Pete's sake!

The reviews of the movie have been horrendous -- "wooden characters", "too talky", "contrived plot points", "improbable escapes", "convenient arrangement of elements", and "no chemistry between" the leads) are some of the common complaints.

They're right -- but that is because these are weaknesses of the original book. The entire thing is a series of riddles and conspiracy theories told by people who would never exist, would never talk that way, and get too much easy information in accordance with ridiculous setup/escape bits. Never mind that this is a good explanation of MOST "thriller" films these days -- why is Da Vince Code held to the higher standard?

By the way, there should not be "chemistry" between the leads -- it's not a romantic setup; they are partners in solving a mystery and in the book are even hinted at being long-lost brother and sister. The book is terrible, and any attempt to be faithful to it will by necessity result in a terrible movie.

Except it's NOT a terrible movie. That is what astounded me. I went in prepared to hate it, and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was simply a matter of unscrewing the Logic circuit and enjoying the story on its own merits. Filming in the Louvre, sweeping shots of beautiful locations, and interesting visual effects made this (for me) a must-see-in-theater film. That's big, since I rarely see movies in the theater, preferring to rent and enjoy at home.

Bottom line -- I don't buy the premise at all, pretty much despised the book, and dreaded going to see it (I was dragged against my will). But I enjoyed the film and definitely recommend it to be seen if one is capable of allowing the story to be told without prejudice. The Believers and the Bashers have a great deal to learn in this regard.

Senate Repubs blow it again

2006-05-17T11:39:00.000-05:00

Senator Isakson proposed an amendment to the immigration bill that would prohibit the granting of legal status to any illegal immigrant UNTIL the border security measures addressed in Section 233 are fully completed and fully operational.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cf m?congress=109&session=2&vote=00121#top

It failed.

Here's why:

NAY
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS) -- wants to run for president?
Chafee (R-RI)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NOT VOTING
Cochran (R-MS)
Gregg (R-NH)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ) -- also wants to be president?

This vote was a travesty -- a completely sensible requirement to enforce
our border measures before any amnesty or guest worker provisions happen SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SLAM-DUNK for Republicans

Here are some Dems who for once looked at the United States' interest first
and voted for the amendment:
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Congratulations and thanks to these Dems for crossing over and doing the right thing when even the Republicans couldn't support their own.

Alabama's Senator Sessions was on Bennett's morning show today discussing the amendment and vote. He pointed out how the failure of this amendment was going to be a fundamental problem when the bill goes to conference with the House, since the House's position IS border-control first.

All in all, this is a ridiculous position for the Nay-voters to take, and I urge all Redstaters to contact their senators who voted against this amendment. We must remove them at the primaries at the next available opportunity.

Grading the Immigration speech

2006-05-15T23:14:00.000-05:00

It appears that many conservatives were just itching for GWB to give this speech so they could immediately start screaming "It's not enough!!!!"

Well, it's not enough. And it never was going to be.

But it IS a start, and the President showed with this speech that he has heard. He also showed that politics, especially on the national stage, is the art of not getting everything you want. Usually this is played in such a way that the other guy doesn't get what he wants either. It loosely applies here, but not as much as it would on, say, a budget bill.

Some quotes and commentary:

First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign Nation.

Bingo. Maybe it's just rhetoric, but it *IS* something that has not been stated forcefully enough by our leaders, especially our National Security President. A-minus

Some statements follow concerning funding additional Border Patrol agents, working out to doubling the total since he assumed office. Not bad -- I would like more, but this is a definite shot across Congress' bow. He is essentially saying, "Look, the unwashed masses want this, and I'm throwing them a bone -- do yourselves a favor and up the ante a little, okay?" B-plus

He then addresses one of the strengths of the US -- our technology. And he mentions The Fence! Again -- not enough out of the gate, but FAR more than we have heard. And it is another shot across Congress' bow. B-plus

Now we get the problematical part of the solution -- The National Guard. To begin with, most people don't understand the federal/state issues with military enforcement of civilian law.....mainly: THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED to do that job. People who are demanding we put active duty or national guard troops on the border don't realize that it is illegal to do so, unless the martial law has been declared and I missed it. Secondarily, the amount of Guard assigned is looked at as too low by those same people demanding troops on the border. So it is doubly misleading in that regard -- he needs to explain this better. The National Guard assignments are a HUGE improvement and will allow the Border Patrol to do border patrolling while the National Guard does what it does best -- handle logistics and Set Stuff Up. Finally, I am of the belief that we are stretching our National Guard too thin. Between the service in Iraq/Afghanistan and keeping various states reasonably safe and civil going into hurricane season, there just aren't a lot of Guard units available. I think in the short term it's a great idea, but they have to do their job and get out, which is going to drive the demanders CRAZY. B-minus to C-plus; I'm torn because the idea is fundamentally good but the reason and explanation are going to be unclear to most people.

Now for one of my pet causes:

...we will increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions. And we will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants.

Yep. THIS is a huge step in keeping the state/federal balance intact. Instead of bringing in troops from around the country to not-really defend the borders, it makes far more sense to throw some money at the people on the front line so THEY can hire and build the resources that will help them the most. Creative types, like the Mariposa County sheriff in Arizona, will be able to make miracles happen with respect to their hardest job. Again, this is sending a signal to Congress that it only takes some political courage and releasing a few bucks to make people happy and get some work done. I give this an A.

Another pet cause:

This practice, called “catch and release,” is unacceptable – and we will end it.

Like the phony drug war, the phony "immigration enforcement agency" practices have got to be addressed, and this is a great start. The raid at the pallet company last month that netted nearly 1,600 illegals resulted in less than 250 being deported. With assurances that caught illegals WILL be sent away immediately, the citizens of this country will feel better about giving resources to the government to use in this manner. A-plus!

Temporary worker program. Let's face it -- ya GOTTA throw a bone out there and give them a chance. Although I am of the camp that says it is possible to round up most of the illegals, I admit that in the meantime there should be a way for the hard workers, who want to be citizens, can get some breathing room while they work the red tape. Also, there is no way to get the liberals on both sides of the aisle to do the other things without this step. I don't particularly like it, but he addressed it well. B-plus

Probably my biggest cause in this fight:

...we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire.

This, more than any other step, will be the balance point in this mess. If the jobs dry up, the illegals stop jumping the border. The problem is that in order to make this happen, we have to set up yet ANOTHER massive bureaucracy. Hello, Homeland Security II. But it is incredibly important to have this step. Another shot across Congress' bow. A-minus

Adressing the Amnesty bit....he weaseled a little bit, but he did acknowledge that true amnesty is not an option, and neither is rounding 'em up....the middle ground is still amnesty to a degree. Sadly, he neglected to give details like how much penalty they pay, how to figure back taxes on someone who works for cash, and the mechanism for enforcing the English-learning requirement. This was particularly squishy and was the weakest part of the speech. I'll give it a D, and only because he acknowledged the middle path being better than outright amnesty.

Okay, so everyone "ought" to speak English. How about proposing some English-only legislation? Again, this was wormy and lacked the teeth of the earlier part of the speech. C-minus.

People are human beings and there are real consequences. Don't fight too hard and hurt each other. Grandma and Grandpa were immigrants, too. Like this war hero in the hospital (ech -- it's starting to look opportunistic to your supporters, George.....).

Overall, I think it was a good speech and went a LONG way toward addressing the problem. He laid a lot of things directly at Congress' feet and still showed the liberals that he wants to see some of their needs met as well. Some squishiness appeared at the end, but I'll give it a B overall.

Now....House Republicans:

UP THE ANTE. Take this ball and run -- pass the bill for MORE fence and money than the president requested. Force the Senate to say yea or nay on it, but make it a bold statement. The president came out and was as bold as he really can be. You don't have that problem.....the conservatives want more, and the liberals will hate anything you do anyway.

Senate: Get off your self-satisfied rear ends and wake up to what the average people are demanding. You have lost touch and are too in love with your own power, prestige, and political aspirations. You need to work with the House and put some teeth in this thing. The president WANTS to address the border and immigration (finally), so use this opportunity and your majority (while you still have one) and pass a good bill with some real enforcement.

Would you support this candidate?

2006-05-10T10:51:00.000-05:00

Tom is a conservative. While he is not a registered Republican, he tends to vote with the Republicans since there is no other viable voice of power for him.

- He wants a border wall and strong immigration enforcement.
- He rates national security and the WoT as our nation's highest priority.
- He knows that energy policy is right behind the WoT and wants to drill in ANWR and our continental shelf, as well as expand and upgrade refining capacity.
- He sees the injustice of the confiscatory progressive income tax, inheritance tax, and sundry other governmental stickups.
- He thinks we spend far too much public money on initiatives that would be better suited to private ventures. Specifically he thinks most of the cabinet departments could be defunded or abolished with little or no harm to the nation.
- He believes the demise of personal responsibility is the single greatest contributor to societal issues.
- He does not see the Constitution as "living, breathing", and supports strict constructionism.
- He sees the United Nations as a parasite and a cancer. He would eventually like the United States to withdraw from the UN and tell them to find some other country to host their little Dictators' Club.
- He does not believe we should be providing foreign aid to most of the countries that we do. He believes this aid ends up in the pockets of dictators instead of providing relief to the people in those nations.
- He believes in the exceptionalism of America and its people. Tom knows that despite the imperfections in our ways, it is the highest and best standard of civilization that we have come up with, and that to be an American is truly the single best opportunity to create a happy life for yourself and your family.

Tom is not a lawyer, nor is he "connected" via family or political means to any power base. He is a solid American citizen who pays his taxes and follows the law. He has a good education and has built on that education through his own study of government, philosophy, and ethics. He does his job well, is working on a small business of his own, and wants to become successful through honest hard work and dedication.

Tom is a good guy; he has no skeletons in his closet -- there are no "other women" (or "other men", or "children") issues, he's smoked pot in college (and inhaled) and can admit it, he has no legal or financial entaglements to anyone, and is by many accounts an Average Guy who is pursuing the American Dream the best he can. He is not a health nut, but is in good health. He likes a good steak. He does not drink much, doesn't smoke, doesn't gamble, and is honest to a fault. He loves his family and friends, and is trusted by all who know him. No one has a hold on him, and he does not keep hold over others. He did not serve in Vietnam, but it was not due to any strings being pulled -- he was ineligible to serve.

Tom has an idea that if the Republicans continue to support candidates that do not appear to share his views, than they should be replaced by people like himself.

Tom thinks that if there were less lawyers and "connected" people in the Beltway, then we could have a much more constructionist and conservative party, which would in turn be able to accomplish more of the agenda conservatives wish to see.

To believes that Rush is right -- Conservatism works when it's tried. Ronaldus Magnus proved this, and a generation later the lessons are forgotten as we view the antics of Frist, McCain, Specter, and President Bush.

Tom has fantasized about being president, as many other people do.

Tom would not hesitate to take the fight directly to the opposition, both in Congress and in the public arena.

He would put the Congress on notice at his inaugural that they have 100 days to send him legislation that authorizes:

- Funding for the wall, crackdowns on illegal aliens and their employers, and restructuring of the visa program to favor scientific and technical workers. This legislation would also severely curtail and restrict the student visa program. In addition, he would work directly with the border-state governors to find increased funding for their enforcement units and open discussion of using National Guard units to assist border control operations.
- Increased domestic energy production, including authorization and funding for increased drilling and refinery upgrading/construction. Secondarily, environmental restrictions must be re-assessed.
- Further support and funding for military operations regarding the WoT.

Tom would put teeth in this ultimatum by preparing Executive Orders for each of these issues. Tom knows that the President has access to the best legal minds and would work closely with them in order to have the Orders be unquestionably legal and legitimate. It is an opportunity for Congress to have the issue addressed as they would like to, or have it addressed for them.

Tom would continue his presidency by putting the Congress on notice that they are now on a shoestring budget -- no hidden funding, no earmarks, no pork, and SEVERE cutbacks in most governmental programs. Tom would make it plain to the American people through constant speeches that he intends to veto any funding legislation that does not meet those guidelines.

Tom would further make the reasons for vetoing budget bills plain by codifying and detailing each part that was objectionable, along with the name of the Senator or Representative that requested it.

Tom wants to throw the door open and let the American people see for themselves the activities of Congress. Not being one of the political elite, he has no reason to protect the legislators from the results of their shenanigans. If they won't clean themselves up, he will.

Tom will promise to serve only one term. He will also make constant appeals to the American people to replace their incumbents after a couple of terms -- it is not official term-limits, but something better: Constituent Control over the length of employment for their elected officials.

Tom would make voter education about the process of primaries/general elections and the unreasonable power of incumbency and districting a major priority. The ignorance and apathy of American voters is appalling to Tom.

Tom knows these ideas and actions will anger Congressional leaders of both parties, but it does not bother him. He believes that once the logjam is broken, then the people will begin clamoring for more of the same from their elected officials. It will not matter if he does not have a good relationship with Congress -- all he has to do is use the bully pulpit, and the Congress will respond to its constituents. Getting tax cuts and addressing SocSec concerns will follow. He would continue to use the threat of vetoes and Executive Orders to advance the agenda in a common-sense way.

It is a revolutionary idea, but Tom believes that he can do all these things. He does not care about being a lifetime elected official -- he just wants to get a few things done that must be done and then go home to his own life, leaving a more educated voting public and a more focused Republican party that stays true to conservative values.

So what do you think? Could you get behind Tom and work to get him on the ballot in every state as a Republican? Would you fight for him and get your friends to as well? Would you go out and vote in the primary for Tom?

Tom *IS* "of the people" and "by the people" and "for the people", MUCH more so than most of the denizens of the Beltway. He wants to serve and go home. Can you say that about ANY President, Senator or Representative currently in power?

Navel-gazing and beating the dead horse

2006-05-10T10:00:00.000-05:00

Lately my thoughts have been of the Republicans' tenuous hold on the Senate, House, and White House. The debates over at Redstate and my posts here have focused my thoughts on the necessity of retaining this control at pretty much any cost, even if the only reason is "so the Dems don't get control".

This has led to some degree of soul-searching, as well as dodging sticks and stones hurled at me for being a "liberal Republican" (and throwing a few back as well). It is interesting to look back on my past views, as an arrogant kid voting Libertarian for 10 years because both major parties were so phony, as a newly-focused conservative facing reality in 2000, a more stengthened and practical observer following 9/11 and the 2002/2004 elections, and more recently as a pragmatic observer and commentator of the body politic.

It is difficult to accept that one's ideals have to be so grossly set aside in favor of the larger picture. Perhaps it is part of the maturation process, one that I had already accepted in other areas of my life with respect to pursuing a musical career weighed against the practicalities of making a living to a standard above poverty. My political ideals have been sharpened and subsequently tempered, mostly by opening my eyes and imagining the alternative futures that result from application and abbrogation of those ideals.

For Dune fans, think of it as Muad'dib and his prescience versus the Golden Path.

The nest of vipers in Congress, especially the Senate, are a collective disgrace. Conservative voters have every reason to feel betrayed and ignored by our elected officials. The vehicle for conservative agenda-realization has historically been the Republican Party, and it continues to be today. The leadership of the Republicans, unfortunately, has proven to be weak, ineffective, unprepared/unwilling to govern, and ultimately more liberal in many ways than the opposition party of our fathers and grandfathers.

The dismay on the right has led many to consider sitting out the 2006 election, or to vote 3rd party, or to protest-vote for the Dems. This line of thought seeks to "punish" the Republicans by removing them from power and to give them a time-out to regroup for 2008 with a more conservative agenda push. Many proponents of this approach are perfectly fine with letting the Dems regain control; in their view the Republicans aren't doing our bidding, so we'll take away their toys for awhile.

Ye Gods.....

The fundamental problem with this attitude is that the Dems are currently not a valid opposition party that can be trusted to run things while we conservatives regroup and refocus. SOMEONE is going to win the election and take over the seat, possibly the legislative body. If we had a viable alternative, a party that we could trust not to steer us directly at the icebergs, then I can see this as a way to beat some sense into the Republicans. Sadly, the Dems are no better for our country than their Commie forebears would have been, and are thus not qualified to have the power that the hardcore conservatives would abrogate to them.

I have written exhaustively on this at http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/5/8/115618/6929. The main thrust is that although the Republicans are currently an imperfect ally, they are far better suited to advancing the conservative worldview than the Dems are. The Dems are pretty much an outright enemy to my views and values, and my pragmatism has led me to agree that supporting the imperfect ally is FAR better than allowing the outright enemy to have legislative and executive control over any legal attachments to my life.

The appalling short-sightedness of giving control of the Senate/House/White House to the Dems, in order to make a point, to me is nothing short of lunacy. Once the Dems are back in power, the incumbent-protection program, strengthened by McCain-Feingold, will ensure that the Republicans will be back out in the wilderness for a very long time. The events rushing toward the American people over the next 10 years WILL REQUIRE careful and sober legislative attention.

* Judges. Lose the Senate, and you can forget about any more Alito or Roberts nominations. The 2008/2012 president will have 2 to possibly 6 (my guess is 4) seats to fill.
* Taxes. Forget any permanent cuts. Prepare for hikes and a more aggressive "progressive" system. Spend your money now because your kids won't get any of it.
* National Security/War. Do I really have to address this?
* Illegals. It'll be instant amnesty for everyone, very sweeping and practically limitless. At least the House currently wants a wall; it won't after the Speaker Pelosi runs the show.
* Oil/Gas. The baby steps we are getting now on ANWR and increased refining capacity will be reversed. And the always-favorite Windfall Profit tax will be paid. By You. At the Pump. $4-5/gallon by 2010.
* Economy. Capital Gains taxes will certainly be raised. Ready to see your dividends disappear down the maw? You can also assume that Wal-mart and other big corporations will be targeted.
* SocSec/Medicare/Healthcare. Your new Soviet masters will take care of you, cradle to grave.

I share the frustrations of fellow conservatives. We have some major issues in this conservative movement to address with the political vehicle of choice -- the Party. But as bad as our guys are now, they ARE NOT and WILL NOT be worse for this nation than the Dems will be once they get power back.

To deliver control of the scheduling of votes and command of committees to the Marxists is simply not an option for me.

We have to change the leadership and membership at the primary level. Knock the RINOs off at that point, where it is easiest and least damaging. But we MUST continue to vote R in the general election, even if it puts a RINO back in his seat. The alternative is far, far worse.

It's not trolling is it?

2006-05-08T14:54:00.000-05:00

I stirred up the pot over at Redstate. Check it out. It has become a pretty good debate.

Ideals continued

2006-05-05T12:36:00.000-05:00

I got into a dustup with an idealist today at Redstate. Basically, the original premise of the post was about this guy's attempted electoral blackmail if the the Republicans did not do a laundry list by mid-summer. Some examples:

Cut entire federal budget by 25% (NOT A TYPO)
Flatten tax to one rate for all
Take over Middle East (all of it), wipe out radical Islam, and re-educate people
Withdraw from/expel the UN, establish new global security system
Outlaw: affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage, judicial filibuster (nuclear option)

Sigh.

I responded to several posts before deciding I had been trolled. By the way, I suspect Deputy Mayor in another guise....

The summary of my main response was this:

Senate Majority Leader Reid (you want HIM to schedule floor votes?)
Committees:
Judiciary - Chairman Leahy
Appropriations - Chairman Byrd
Armed Services - Chairman Levin
Foreign Relations - Chairman Biden (especially scary)
Small Business/Entrepreneurship - Chairman Kerry (scary and amusing)
Banking/Housing/Urban Affairs - Chairman Sarbanes
Veterans Affairs - Chairman Akaka
Intelligence - Chairman Rockefeller (absolutely shocking given his leaky past)
Health/Ed/Labor/Pensions - Chairman Kennedy (you want this guy running any of these?)
Rules - Chairman Dodd
Environment/Public Works - Chairman Jeffords (watch the "natural habitat" grabs grow)
UPDATE: A reader at Redstate informed that it would actually be Chairman Sanders, the out-and-out Socialist from Vermont....yipppeeee....
Ag/Nutrition/Forestry - Chairman Harkin

Read through the rest of the posts and responses if you wish -- basically I have learned that ideals are for philosophy classes; politics is about getting policies set in order to get things done, and that frequently involves tempering or suspending ideals.

My first election was 1988 -- I proudly voted Libertarian or "none of the above" for every election from 1988 through 1998. Living where I was at that time, I know that my 3rd-party votes did not cost the Republican candidate the Kansas electoral votes, but in a tipover state it might have. My older brother voted for Perot in 1992 and 1996. Again, being in Kansas it didn't really matter, but it was indicative of a larger problem:

Stay-at-homes and 3rd-party or protest voters gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton and the continuance of many Socialist congressional leaders.

Throwing a tantrum and voting out-of-party in the general election harms only your party, helps only the other party, and satisfies no one besides your own ego.

As I have repeatedly said in other posts, vote your conscience in the primary -- get the best originalist conservative in place at that time. When the primary is over, however, you must get behind the Republican (even John McCain) if that is the winner. To stay at home or vote 3rd-party is to vote for the Dem.

Even if a Republican president is in place, a Dem Senate controls which Supreme Court justices get out of committee and onto the floor. A Dem Senate controls spending for defense and the war on terror. A Dem Senate forces crushing environmental restrictions on businesses. A Dem Senate repeals tax breaks and begins raising taxes. A Dem Senate redistributes wealth in the manner of their intellectual mentors Lenin and Trotsky.

Regardless of your level of disgust with Frist and Specter, remember that it will be Reid and Leahy running things if we do not prevail.

It may be voting out of fear, but I don't care. My principles apply to my personal actions. When it comes to determing whether to be ruled by quasi-Socialists or outright Communists, I'll take the quasi-Socialists EVERY TIME.

Work at the primary level for your principles. After that, do your duty.

Please reference the above list for a refresher as necessary.

Who is "gouging" whom?

2006-05-02T09:16:00.000-05:00

JB Williams has created an amazing essay breaking down the economics of oil and gas. Below is a germane example.

Where Does All the Money Go?

Based upon a $3.00 gallon of gasoline, the average break-down is as follows:

Gasoline Retailer--------------->$0.01 per gallon
Oil Company-------------------->$0.08 per gallon
Refining------------------------->$0.29 per gallon
Marketing/Distribution--------->$0.32 per gallon
Taxes---------------------------->$0.59 per gallon
Cost of crude------------------>$1.71 per gallon (delivered)

Who is gouging who?

So the manager of the local Quiktrip gets a PENNY off your 3 bucks.
The evil oil company gets 8 PENNIES off your 3 bucks.
Uncle Sam takes 59 cents -- this is just under SEVEN TIMES what the producers make.
Refining and Distribution get 61 cents -- so Uncle Sam gets the same amount as the cost of running refineries and dstribution trucks. For doing what, exactly?
And of course the crude....our Arab and Venezuelan friends get $1.71 -- nearly 3x what Uncle Same gets, and NINETEEN TIMES what the capitalists make.

The oil companies are not the problem. Let them have their profit -- They Have Earned It.

My state, Georgia, is reasonable about this stuff. Last year they cut the state gas tax for 30 days. This year they are considering waiving it for 60 days. It will take that sort of leadership to have government effectively combat prices in the immediate short term.

Long-term? Drill. Drill. Drill. Build more refineries. Congress has got to loosen the death grip the enviromarxists have around their throats and wallets. The central reasons for the cost of gas (which are demonstrated in the above-mentioned article to be not really that high) are due to poor decision-making and asinine policy on the part of domestic production management.

Congress: Waive or lower the taxes. Allow drilling in ANWR and our continental shelf. Waive the crushing environmental bulwark against building and upgrading refineries. Ditto the nuclear power plants.

Until these things happen, oil prices and gas prices will remain high and the demagogic congressional elite will point the blame at the only ones who can't do much more than they already are -- the oil companies.

As mentioned in my article yesterday, just imagine if one of these companies says, "I've got enough money. Store's closed. Good Luck....."

Why it's probably good

2006-05-01T12:33:00.000-05:00

that I am not an oil company CEO:

Given:

1.) The cynical and hypocritical probings of professional politicians on both sides of the aisle purely for populist election-year soundbites and short-term political advantage,
2.) A profound ignorance of basic economics on the part of the American public and their leaders,
3.) A profound ignorance of basic constitutional concepts on the part of the same public and leaders,
4.) Successful implementation of class warfare on the part of the mass media,
5.) The free-market system will still be around for a short period of time, and
6.) An oil company CEO most likely has a comfortable cushion to weather a short-term lapse in employment.....

As an oil company CEO I would begin laying off workers, selling off equipment and assets (as scrap if necessary), and demonstrate to the world and Americans in particular what happens when Atlas Shrugs.

You think gas prices are high now? You think the occasional beginning-of-summer supply problems are bad now?

Just imagine what happens if a major oil company simply refuses to play anymore. What would they care? They already have more money than they can ever spend, and by simply getting out of the business of apparently unfairly gouging their customers and artificially inflating prices for their own devious ends, the consumer would in very short order be greeted with shortages, lines, higher-than-ever prices, and absolutely no relief. The remaining companies would profit even more, Congress would bloviate even more, and more regulations would ensue.

This would, no doubt, inspire other free-market-minded gentlemen to follow my lead. The cycle would become ever more vicious, and the system would collapse in on itself.

I'm not necessarily in favor of chaos, but my inner schadenfraude would be cackling with glee as I sip Mai Tais on a beach somewhere and check out the US news blogs on a laptop.

Gas prices are NOT terribly high, and they are entirely the result of over-environmentalizing, over-regulation, over-taxation, under-production domestically, under-refining domestically, short-term gaps due to hurricanes and old refineries not meeting new demand, and the entrance of China into the modern oil-using world.

If the people of this nation don't get a grip on this, we are going to see some very dark times indeed.

In 1990 I did not have email. I didn't miss it. But let my internet connection be down for a day, and I'm a raging fool. So too you, admit it.

It will be worse with oil -- not even about driving our cars; petroleum is in every aspect of our lives, and until this nation gets serious about increasing domestic production from our own sources and refineries (including building/upgrading), we are going to continue on the roller coaster, controlled by those who wish us dead and sold to us by those who want only what we want - to make a buck.

How to Destroy the Earth

2006-04-25T10:05:00.000-05:00

As a good conservative, I am of course completely FOR the decimation of our environment, the subjugation of anyone not white and male, the pursuit of profit at the expense of everyone and everything (bonus points for ruining perfectly good air and water), and sundry other evil little things that bother hippies and mediacrats.

With that, I present a link that will help advance our ultimate goal: Top Ten Ways To Bring About The Destruction Of Planet Earth. It goes beyond genocide and straight to making a big spinning rock into lots of little ones.

This has been a public service message. Other tutorials on subjugation and greed may or may not follow as my mood dictates.

The Minuteman Border Fence

2006-04-21T09:54:00.000-05:00

If you haven't heard about this, GO HERE.

At last look there were over 10,000,000 hits on this page. If every person donated a dollar, that would be enough for 70,000 miles of fence at the rate they propose.

Please donate to this cause. You are already paying tax dollars to a corrupt government that is supposed to be doing this. Once again, private industry is going where government can't or won't.

A response to a response

2006-04-21T08:38:00.000-05:00

This post started as a response to Deputy Mayor in the comments of my previous post on how conservatives should look at voting strategy in 2006 and 2008. DM is a friend of mine who is very intelligent and well-spoken and we argue about politics mostly from the same place but in different approaches. I am a realist; he is a Randist.

This post is not meant in any way to harm or mock DM; this is simply my response, and Haloscan said I exceeded the allowable word count for comments. And you, dear Reader, are privy to our conversation....

The original post.

Deputy Mayor's response:

Libertarians are right on immigration from a purely theoretical standpoint. Unfortunately, their view doesn't take into account reality. There are two things that stand in the way of the Libertarian immigration policy and reality. Security and welfare.

If there was no major threat from Muslim extremists, open borders would not be a so much of a security threat. (Some might argue that the 9/11 terrorists were legal. Maybe so, but why make it easier for future terrorists?)

Even if the threat of terrorism did not exist, there is another problem with open borders. The current state of our welfare system. There was a time when having immigrants come to this country was great! We had a worker shortage (as some claim we have now) and immigrants had two choices. Work when they got here or starve when they got here. Under the current semi-socialist system we currently live under, starvation is no longer an option. Now, one can come to this country and "live off the teet of society".

Fix these two problems (yeah, that's gonna happen) and I will return to the libertarian idea of open borders. Until then, build a wall.

And, for the record, I'm still all in favor of immigration. Just do it within the law. Is that so much to ask?Deputy Mayor Homepage 04.19.06 - 4:04 pm #

My response:

"Purely theoretical..."

Big deal; Communism THEORETICALLY works ideally in populations under 80,000....Socialism THEORETICALLY works for industrial societies.....Democracy THEORETICALLY works when people don't choose to vote themselves money from their neighbor's pockets.

Theoretically I should be touring the world with a band that brings together the best parts of Pink Floyd, the Beatles, Dream Theater, and Dead Can Dance in a Cirque du Bleah-style show.

Theoretically we all play nice and nobody needs any rules forced on them by anyone else, corporeal or spiritual.

Theoretically the government follows its own laws and the Constitution is the respected Law of the Land.

Theoretically All Men Are Created Equal.

Theoretically if everyone did the Ten Commandments and Golden Rule, the majority of laws on the books would be unnecessary. (Keep in mind I am in NO way religious; that's simply a pretty good set of rules that will build character sufficient to creating a good life).

Nations without borders are not nations. By extension, personal property is not definable without the external boundaries. If the national government is not allowed to set its own boundaries then it has no mandate to set personal boundaries. Ergo, no law enforcement.

If you want to be a truly theoretical libertarian under your argument, you should never lock your doors -- let people come in and do what they please, trusting that they will honor and respect your own property rights and traditions of behavior in "your" house. After all, nobody gets to tell them where they can't go, right?

"There was a time when having immigrants come to this country was great!

..."Fix these two problems (yeah, that's gonna happen) and I will return to the libertarian idea of open borders. Until then, build a wall."
"

There still is. You are confusing the issue -- the proponents of strenghening border security are not anti-immigration, only anti-ILLEGAL immigration.

If Juan Valdez wants to file the paperwork and come into the US legally to build my house or pick lettuce or pack meat, POWER TO HIM. He needs to learn English, have no criminal record at home or here, work toward citizenship, and choose to be an American as opposed to being a Reconquista. I want Juan to succeed and become fabulously wealthy and be the next 1st-generation success story.

Border-jumping Carlos, on the other hand, with his multiple arrests for drunk driving or assault or rape, who is only here to hang with his MS-13 pals and pick up welfare checks from his stolen SSN and use the free emergency rooms care for his various bullet/knife wounds and his anchor-babies borne by his various ho's, is *NOT* welcome and should be given no quarter. Why would the Libertarians wish to reward Carlos with free passage in and out of our home?

The current argument for letting Juan in to do Americans' dirty work is also letting Carlos in to do his own dirty work. This is a problem that require governmental intervention as well as that EEEEVIL intrusion on businesses.

Libertarianism, like all philosophies, falls short of its goals in the face of human frailty. As long as humans continue to try to get something for themselves at the cost to someone else, there will be a need for a Mommy/Daddy figure to create and enforce rules of civilized behavior. In the grownup world, that's the government. Idealism and theoretical discussions are for the ivy-league classrooms. The debates after graduation and moving out into the real world require something more flexible and less ideal, in order to generate a workable solution to a real problem.

Libertarianism is also confused with anarchism -- a libertarian is not anti-government; rather, he is for limited government. This necessarily involves some degree of intrusion on personal freedoms that in the theoretical world is not allowed.

You also undercut the theoretical nature of your own argument -- you will abandon the theoretically beautiful principle of open borders FOR NOW and build the wall, and then return to the theoretically beautiful principle of open borders once the Hard Work is done? If abandoning principle is allowed, then why even bring up the theoretical argument?

Bringing in the welfare system is a wholly different argument -- it is a separate issue that needs reform of its own, but its relevance to this issue will be moot once the proper immigration and border policy is enforced.

"Under the current semi-socialist system we currently live under, starvation is no longer an option. Now, one can come to this country and "live off the teet of society".

This is a great point, and reminds me of something else I read. Forgive the paraphrasing and lack of attribution; I'm not sure where I read this, but I'm certainly not claiming authorship:

"Hi. See over here? We have lots of work, and need people to do it cheap. Yeah, you'll make more doing this than anything you do at home. If you bring the kids, we'll teach them. If the wife has a kid born on our property within 5 minutes of arriving, the kid is a citizen. If you get a boo-boo, we'll fix it for free. You won't have to learn English or pay taxes. Now, see that border and that river? You can't cross that. If you do, you get all this other stuff. But don't cross it. Yeah, you can just step over the trickle in some points, and if we catch you we might send you back home or we might not. Don't cross that river....."

Thus is incoherent immigration policy born.

At any rate, the post was about voting strategy for conservatives, not borders/immigration policy. You have been chastised by the Master of the House for off-topic commenting.

I lock the doors of my house and decide who gets to come in. Why can't I do the same with my nation?

What to do in '06 and '08?

2006-04-14T10:37:00.000-05:00

The Repubs are absolutely fumbling the immigration issue, they're prosecuting the WoT ala Sir Joseph (from HMS Pinafore), and discretionary spending has expanded to the point that Lord Lott is Annoyed By The Pestering Of The Little People.

Understandably many of us are wondering where to go and seeing few options in the upcoming elections...we certainly don't want to reward these clowns with further public service employment, so voting FOR them is distasteful. Some are considering voting for 3rd parties or even switching, to make the point. Still others will stay at home and vote for "none of the above," so to speak.

Assuming one chooses to participate, what are the options?

The Dems are out of the question (and their minds).

The Libertarians are wrong on immigration and the Wot, and they're blinded by the glow of the Bic lighter reflecting off their bongs.

All other 3rd parties are so disorganized and powerless as to be 100% ineffective.

Independent means exactly that - a party of one.

Staying home is essentially an apathetic vote for the Socialists.

The correct strategy:

Support the more conservative primary challenger, making the point to the incumbent. This may or may not cost the seat in the general election, depending on the candidates. If the incumbent survives, a message has been sent. If the challenger prevails, an opportunity for conservatism is apparent.

When the general election rolls around, you have to vote for the Repub candidate, whoever that may be.

As fed up as we all are with the crop of RINOs, they are doing far less damage than the Socialist-Marxist Dems would do if given the majority of either or both houses. Make the point in the primary, but DO NOT STAY AT HOME on election day, and don't vote 3rd-party out of spite.

That way brought us 8 years of Klinton. Thanks, Ross...

For President, ditto -- support your preference in the primaries, but in the general election there is no logical choice other than pulling the lever for the Repub candidate, be it McCain, Frist, or any other RINO. A bad Republican is still better than any Democrat these days.

At this point it would seem to be all about limiting the damage, short of out-and-out revolution. Do your best for the guy you want, and if the "wrong one" wins the primary then swallow your pride and continue to vote (R) in the general.

Reading Assignment

2006-04-06T11:15:00.000-05:00

Trust me on this one.

Go here and read.

It's long but well worth it. I just wish I knew what the three words were; I have a few guesses.....

Take a census! Why didn't I think of that?

2006-04-04T11:24:00.000-05:00

Debra Saunders has an idea. Found it at Polipundit.

Bollocks.....

If you can find and count 'em, you can detain and deport 'em....

Immigration is a national security matter. Once Iraq is settled and voters can feel better about that side of things, we as a group are going to have to be willing to send a message:

"If you do not end illegal immigration and protect our borders, we will vote for whoever runs against you, regardless of party. If you vote to end illegal immigration and to protect our borders, will vote for you, regardless of party."

Unlike abortion, immigration is a single-issue voter phenomenon that can have an immediate and effective impact. We have to be willing to vote for either a primary challenger or even a member of the other party and possibly lose "control" of one house or the other, in order that we might replace the Amnesty First crowd with Security First people.

It will require considerable political will not only on the part of the elected officials, but also of the voting public.

I don't know about the rest of you, but a Dem who will shut down illegal immigration and strengthen our borders will win a lot more points with me that a Repub who is wobbly on the issue. It is entirely plausible that someone who will back my position on this issue will most likely be of a like mind (or at least not insane) regarding the War on Terror, national security ini general, and can be worked with regarding taxes. Zell Miller, where are you?

If the borders/immigration issues are not resolved soon, the entire argument regarding tax cuts, national security, and judges will be rendered moot. The Repubs have the chance RIGHT NOW to do something strong and important, and the Senate is fumbling it badly. I see little if any point to rewarding bad behavior with further job security for these clowns.

Get on the phone. If they don't get this one right, the others don't matter.

Sigh.....

2006-04-03T11:22:00.000-05:00

The House representative for my district:

Notice I did not say "my Representative".....

And of course all the Stone Mountain welfare groupies that put this red menace back into her congressional seat see absolutely nothing wrong with her recent actions; moreover, they view her as a hero for Standin Up To Da Man....

ye Gods, what would Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, and Jefferson say?

Viva America!

2006-04-02T08:28:00.000-05:00

Gangs of twerps skip school and shut down highways in California and storm courthouses in Texas. The major media broadcast 24/7 coverage of a "mass protest" and utterly miss the point. A US Senator, Sam Brownback, who also wants to be president, admits on Fox News that "enforcement simply doesn't work" despite the fact that enforcement hasn't really been tried. President Bush presses ahead with his amnesty deal, and McCain gets together with noted subversive Ted Kennedy to write his own amnesty bill. President Bush even goes on to say that whether it's illegal or not, people are going to participate in it anyway, so why not legalize it? By the way, we're talking about illegal immigration, not recreational pharmaceutical practices here....Every talking head complains about the lack of resources to move that many people around. And anyone who wants a border fence and/or deportation of illegals is a xenophobic, backward racist who wants to break up families.

Garbage.

You don't have to hunt down 11-25 MILLION people at once.

First -- Build the damn wall. You'd think a heart surgeon would know that you have to stop the bleeding before doing anything else.
Second -- Muster the political will to hit employers and landlords of illegals heavily. Shut the spigot off -- no work and no place to live will convince them very quickly to get back home. Secondary to this, legislation regarding the anchor baby phenomenon needs teeth.
Third -- Check the citizenship of every single person who is arrested, enters a hospital, jail, or government office for any reason, or applies for credit or banking services. If they are not legal, deport them immediately. The knock on this is that turns the US into a kind of "papers, please" society....while I'm not crazy about this picture, I know that it is necessary to correct the current course.
Fourth -- Get the Fair Tax in place. Besides being good tax reform, it would take an immediate 23-25% chunck out of every dollar these illegals are getting paid cash (and currently avoiding paying taxes). As illegals they would not be eligible for the "prebate", so they would learn in a hurry to go home and come back legally. Secondarily, it limits the available money for them to send back to Mexico, keeping those dollars here and in our Treasury.
Fifth -- Offer rewards for snitchers. And find some money/manpower to do the occasional sweep of the work hangouts and low-rent apartment communities.

The illegality of this situation is the problem. Most people are for controlled and legal immigration -- bright hardworking people who want to raise the American flag and learn English are certainly welcome in my neighborhood. The southwest is being reclaimed by Mexico, unofficially though it may be, and it is spreading.

Beyond the borders/immigration angle, the current situation is a terrible risk to our national security -- it boggles my mind that our President, who has pounded the drums for national security and providing security to Western Asia, has no political will to providing effective border control here at home.

You cannot truly hold the position that National Security is the most important duty, and allow the thousands of illegals to cross our borders every day, and further tolerate this action by not pursuing and deporting them, proposing amnesty, and making specious arguments about their "necessity" to our economy. Border Control is a fundamental part of national security, and to toss it aside as this administration and so many others before it have done, is to abdicate their constitutional duty to protect the American people from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I know how to get Americans to recognize the importance of implementing a coherent security policy with respect to our borders and immigration control. 4 steps:

1. Find a connected mercenary.
2. Give him a functioning dirty bomb in Mexico and huge pile of money to sneak it across the border and into Dallas.
3. Prior to delivery, put a GPS tracker and remote detonater inside the weapon. Also get the Minuteman movement to announce a major border surveillance operation, drawing hordes of press and other lefties to the site.
4. Detonate when the mule is just inside US territory but not in a major populated area.

You'll see a fence go up faster than the Towers fell. Shortly thereafter you will see enforcement of existing immigration law, as well as highly draconian search-and-remove operations for in-country illegals.

This is a ridiculous and extreme idea. Even more ridiculous is that it makes more sense than anything I hear coming out of Washington on this issue.

Boy, I sure am glad that Congress had the stones to chase those stinking Arabs away from our ports.....that could have been D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S......

Thieving opportunistic cowards

2006-03-10T15:51:00.000-05:00

Take a look at this:

Persian Gulf - UAE

See where the northern coast curves upward as it goes east? In this area are 2 major port cities: Abu Dhabi and Dubai. These cities are not only economically important, but also strategically critical to the interests of the United States.

You see, these ports are important shipyard facilities for repair and docking of our various naval units stationed in the Persian Gulf.

Look at the map again. What else is important about the location of these previously-FRIENDLY port cities?

The difficulty in writing about this is not necessarily the volume of info found elsewhere (usually more lucidly-written); it is trying to figure out exactly which facet of this truly Gordian knot one thinks will unravel the whole mess.

Basic Facts I: UAE has been a mostly-reliable ally in the WoT, even if it is a capable practicioner of the arab tendency to double-deal. They have been a friendly port for our navy, a strong business partner in both commercial and military commerce, and are as westernized as the Middle East gets. The capital, Abu Dhabi, is being engineered and re-energized as a 21st-century wonder built in the style (if not the spirit) of Las Vegas. In addition to oil, tourism and commercial business venture capitalism are the names of the games there. They understand, better than many Americans, that cozying up to the dollar is the quickest way out of the 8th century.

Basic Facts II: As well-described elsewhere, they are not "buying the ports", nor will they be responsible for the security. Communist China has many state-owned businesses that own multiple terminals of the ports of Los Angeles. The simple fact is that no US company has been willing to make bids on any of these ventures. The true security for these terminals is NOT at the destination, but at the point of origin. Dubai Ports is a multi-national organization that is already responsible for the checking the manifests and providing security for cargo ships bound for US ports. The terminals in question were already owned and run by a British firm. This whole deal was a transaction already done by the two companies in question and was vetted by appropriate mid-level security agencies within the US government like any other deal involving foreign companies and US entryways.

Basic Facts III: Bush screwed up by first not prepping the field, and second by sticking his finger in the eyes of Congress with the veto threat. This served only to excite the passions of the various blowhards in the House and Senate to demand the gratification of their own egos. It was bad enough that the Dems were going to make trouble for this all along, but it was made worse when the cowardly Republicans caved in to electoral-year polling fear. When the uproar came, Bush could easily have said,

"You know, I understand the concern over this matter. The administration has satisfied itself that this deal is not only good, but it is also in the best interests of the United States. However, I have asked Dubai Ports to submit to a secondary screening process by the US Congress. This should take between 30 and 60 days, and will have the benefit of resolving the concerns of the Congress and the American people while limiting the delay to the business concerns of Dubai Ports. It is important and vital to the United States commercially and strategically to resist the temptation to demagogue this issue and blow it out of proportion. I emphasize that this deal in no way threatens the security of our port system, and we look forward to showing the American people and congressional leaders exactly why it is both safe and beneficial.

Instead, there was a provocation and a true example of political tone-deafedness that afflicts all 2nd-termers. The King is used to getting his way and has come to a place where he expects that if he says "National Security" it will squeak through somehow with little or no effort on his part.

Congress raised up, the 45-day wait went into effect, and then Dems and Repubs fell all over themselves in order to be the first to kill it. It took less than a week for the House committee to give it the thumbs-down, tying it to an appropriations bill for troop funding in Iraq. Cute. So Bush can veto it, choosing the ports over his troops, or go with the troops and turn his back on our best Mideast ally.

Of course, Dubai pulled out entirely, and they intend to divest themselves of other American holdings. In addition, this will cost Boeing dearly, as Dubai will almost certainly go over to Airbus now for their aviation needs. We can also expect a cold shoulder regarding any future economic or commercial needs from Dubai. They could even conceivably limit or curtail our presence in their own ports, leaving our Navy few options in the Gulf. The royal family that runs UAE are understandably furious and feel betrayed. Economically, an important trading partner has been estranged.

The US has a capitalistic system. This means that the more people trade money, goods, and services, the better off we all are. The globalization initiatives of the last decade are working to insure that this concept is spread around the world. If the investors do not put their money in the US, they will most certainly put it somewhere else. We have given economic power away over irrational fear and unjustified knee-jerk overreaction.

Worse, just when things are heating up with Iran, when we will need access to the UAE ports and accessways, we are likely to be frozen out or severely limited. A good friend is about to become a casual acquaintance or maybe even a hostile one.

This deal might have been the disaster people were saying it was. It might have been the great blessing other people said it was. The point is, we will never know, because an irrational Congress, acting on ego, electoral fear, opportunism, and a false sense of urgency, has insured that the deal died long before an indepent audit could be performed. It can be argued that congress was doing the Will of the People, but the People were ignorant, misinformed, and irrational in this process. There are times when Representative Democracy requires that the leaders ignore the shouting mob and do what is right, rather that what the People want.

As stated in a previous post, it is rare that I am ashamed of my country. This entire issue has made me more angry and upset at my fellow citizens and our leaders than any issue ever has. James Madison and company gave us the framework for a deliberative body of leaders that would not be susceptible to the parliament-style antagonisms and populist results. This congress, on both sides of the aisle, have proven themselves absolutely unworthy of the great powers and trust bestowed upon them. The thieving opportunistic cowards "won" in this fight.

I believe this issue is going to be a cornerstone for future grief for our nation. At a time when we desperately need friends in the Mideast, we are showing the Ugly American face of bigotry, reactionaryism, and shortsightedness. Economically, militarily, and geopolitically this sequence of events is a baby step to the oblivion of our ability to project power in certain spheres of influence.

Thanks, congressional Repubs. Go back to diddling interns and feeding at your trough now. You're a bad bunch all right, and the sooner we're shut of your kind the better off we all will be. You've weakened your president, divided your base, given the Dems an "in" on national security, and have proven once again that you don't deserve the power you have. Might as well let the Dems run the show.....

Dubai/English port business

2006-02-24T17:12:00.000-05:00

It is of course required for anyone with any political leaning on their blog, to comment on the insanity over the port business.....

Well, I'm busy with my own stuff at the moment, and there are people out there saying exactly what I would, had I their gift for words, not to mention patience to wade through the billions of pixels devoted to the subject.

Enter Jeff Harrell, keeper of the Shape of Days blog -- one of my personal favorites for many reasons. The guy tells it like it is, pulling no punches, yet with heavy cerebral weight and great supporting research. Even on the issues where I disagree with him, he presents arguments that make me think and truly question my own ideas, occasionally winning me over.

Sadly, his blog is about to take a nap for awhile -- starting a new job that frowns on outside writing, especially of a controversial/political nature tends to do that.

He has nailed exactly my thoughts and feelings on this subject.

I only have a few things to add.....

1.) To begin with, it is a private transaction between a British company and a Dubai company. Only the arrogance and shortsightedness of the average US congresstwerp could lend any idea to "stopping" this deal.....are we as citizens prepared to allow Congress to intervene in private business transactions? A "yes" answer means that we are in favor of economic fascism: heavy governmental regulation of private enterprise.

2.) Yeah, yeah, Jimmah Carter is for it and normally one would run the other way. However, looking at people who are far more relevant trumps this. When Hilary Clinton opposes something, conservatives should support it. Easy, easy, easy. Ditto Schumer.

3.) GWB showed his butt on this one: by not prepping the field by getting support upfront from congressional and state legislators, and then by admitting he "heard about it in the news," he has killed the apparent credibility of the DoD, FBI, and HomeSec checks that would otherwise have been sufficient. Now all three of those agencies look just like the INS and state agencies that kept issuing ID's to the 9/11 hijackers. And Bush looks at best out of touch and behind on the issue. This is dividing Republicans in an election year, on their signature issue. AIEEEEE!

4.) Something good came out of this: the Dems now profess to believe that Arabs might contain bad apples amongst their population, and that we have to look at them closer. Also that there is in fact a reason to practice effective border control.

5.) To reinforce Jeff Harrell's piece, it is simply amazing to me that people on both sides of the aisle jumped up so quickly, with so little information, to take a stand against ARABS RUNNING A US PORT. Not only is this blatantly discriminatory, it undermines both the Bush doctrine of peaceful cohabitation with the non-Jihadis, but also of the classic liberal line that you can't discriminate against an entire race based on the actions of a few. Both sides look terrible here, and it makes the US look mean, bigoted, shortsighted, and hypocritical.

6.) If the point to the WoT is to bring the Mideast into the 21st century, it makes sense to start with the trading of dollars and dinars. Dubai is already a friendly US port, and they service our naval fleets in the Persian Gulf. It is a very westernized place that has been as good an ally in the WoT as we can expect from a heavily muslim state. Do we agree with everything they do? Nope. Is it annoying that the company is state-run? Yup. Hmmmmm, sounds like our dealings with Canada, Germany, France, Italy, and even England -- our strongest and closest friends.

So much shouting, by so many malinformed people, missing the entire point, and recklessly ignoring future implications of their actions......it is rare I am ashamed of my country, but this is one of those times.

Pretty much everybody has gotten this one wrong, and Congress has not only blundered, but is also about to exacerbate that blunder. GWB has lost a lot of credibility, and this nonissue has sucked so much oxygen out of the room that nothing else (other than tired Cheney shotgun jokes) is being discussed.

By the way, Iran is still building nukes. Just thought you might want to look into that.

Update: DJ at Polipundit also nails it.

Real Life

2006-02-14T08:41:00.000-05:00

has intruded; thus blogging has been nonexistent.

HMS Pinafore was a great success, both here in Atlanta and at the River center in Columbus. The last performance was Saturday, and by Monday night I was in rehearsal for Land of Smiles, while also doing some transcriptions, some transpositions, and juggling the insanely busy school-show schedule with the day job.

Besides, the news has been kind boring of late.....and there is nothing driving inspiration for one of my bizarre essays at the moment.

Iran has or is close to having nukes, and only the US and Israel seem concerned. Nothing new there.

Congress is holding hearings and browbeating people for various things. Yup.

Olympics. Bah.

Snow. In February. In the Northeast. Must be GLOBAL WARMING......

Cheney needs a Hunter Safety refresher. The White House press corps is offended that they weren't notified before the ambulance got there. Yawn.

Sorry, just not into it at the moment -- got stuff to do. The blog is taking a nap for the moment and the alarm is set for next week.

State of the Union 2006

2006-02-01T09:47:00.000-05:00

So here's the nutshell:

Bye Corretta. Congress, please play nice. 9/11, March of Freedom. Iran better learn from Iraq and Afghanistan -- don't f*** with us....we're your best friend or worst enemy. Dems better stop yammering about war and get behind us. Honor dead war hero. Iran again -- it's the government, not the people we hate -- we want to be pals, but your leaders suck. AIDS is bad; give me money. And the Patriot Act. And I *do* get to listen in on AQ calls to the US. Freedom is marching. Economy is good; could be better if you let me keep the illegals. Permanent tax cuts. Stop being corrupt; give me line-item veto. SocSec will bankrupt us soon, and Dems are laughing about it. Shut the borders but keep guest workers (huh?). Socialized healthcare. Addiction to oil -- need nuke plants and hydrogen cars like the Jetsons. Need to throw more money down the rathole of public education. Our kids are smart but appear dumb. Culture, gay marriage. Hey, I got 2 guys on the Court. Abortion bad (see how cleverly I hid that?). Congress needs to stop taking money from guys on the street. Don't do things half-assed.

Now to specifics.....

“Because America needs more than a temporary expansion, we need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly, and make the tax cuts permanent.”

Sure, I cheered, but the odds of this happening are moderately poor. There simply is not the backbone or desire in the Republican membership to make this happen, and the Dems, in concert with their RINO allies, will kill any attempt to make a meaningful tax cut permanent.

WHEN did it become unpopular in America to lower taxes? Maybe we should hook up a generator to the graves of the Founders, as the spinning therein could supply all our energy needs for centuries.

“Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars. Every year of my presidency, we have reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending – and last year you passed bills that cut this spending. This year my budget will cut it again, and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we will save the American taxpayer another 14 billion dollars next year – and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. I am pleased that Members of Congress are working on earmark reform – because the Federal budget has too many special interest projects. And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto.”

Nice start, but $14B is sadly just a drop in the bucket. It is hardly worth bragging about in a SotU speech. I applaud the concept, but surely with a Republican majority in both houses, we can be more small-government-minded than this.

Now about that line-item veto….Although I support the idea of giving a president line-item veto powers on non-emergency spending bills, we’ve been here before, with President Clinton.

In a 6-3 split, featuring unusual pairings, Stevens, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg voted to strike the line-item veto down as unconstitutional. Scalia, O’Connor, and Breyer dissented, with Scalia taking the position that the title of the act had nothing to do with the president’s action it authorizes.

In the end, the line-item veto was dead, in a liberal court, for a liberal president, and even the conservatives were split on the issue. It is unlikely that the Congress will give the president his line-item veto. The Court also has a precedent against it, so even the passage of this bill would likely end in a turnover.

Best use of giving an enemy the opportunity to gut himself with his own knife:

“Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security, {insert Democrats’ standing ovation and generally making asses of themselves while the President patiently waits} and yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away {ooooo, that’s gonna leave a mark; if each Dem that stood did not feel about ½-inch tall at this point, they had no soul} – and with every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse.”

Most disappointing series of responses:

“Our Nation needs orderly and secure borders. {TEPID applause}
To meet this goal, we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection. {TEPID applause}
And we must have a rational, humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty …{Long and strong applause, from both sides}”

My favorite slapdown:

“Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.”

Overall it was okay; the President is a lame duck and he knows it. Thus we got the constant reminders for setting partisanship aside and working together. The laundry list was pretty standard for a 6th-year speech, and there was a lot of wishful thinking in there that simply won’t happen. The hard anti-cloning bit bothered me at first until I realized it was his code for the abortion business. Scientific knowledge cannot be stopped by laws alone, and the cloning issue is something future generations will face, but to legislate on it at this time is equivalent to Theodore Roosevelt arguing for a ban against nuclear power.

Most telling was the absolutely UN-presidential demeanor of Senators Kerry and Clinton. In order to lead, one must recognize that sometimes the other guy gets his moment, and you have to at least pretend you think of him as a human. The elitism that literally drips from these two is truly frightening when juxtaposed with the idea of either of them attaining the presidency.

You HAVE the Power!

2006-01-26T11:19:00.000-05:00

Time for a rank amateur to give Congressional Republicans a huge hint: You get to make the rules.

A party that is serious about removing the pork and limiting or eliminating the money from politics, who has majorities in both Houses, can do so with no problem. Get some leading House and Senate guys together and draft the bills in tandem so there is no intercameral conflict. Need some ideas? Okay....

Try any or all of these....

1.) Require the final draft of all non-emergency spending bills to be posted, with all earmarks highlighted and documented by requestor, to be published on the house's website for 14 days prior to the vote.

2.) Require earmarks be voted up or down individually prior to voting on the bill entire. "If HR### should pass, shall Earmark 74, calling for $500,000 for research into mosquito mating habits, be funded? Yea or Nay." All failed earmarks are stricken from the main bill, and the vote is taken on the main bill.

UPDATE: According to this, #2 is already in the works.

3.) Require a supermajority for all non-emergency spending bills to pass.

4.) You run the committees! Refuse to send forward any spending bill with earmarks that are not specifically provided for by the bill's sponsors.

5.) Get with the Dems on this. If the leaders of both parties and both houses meet together and agree that is truly is a nonpartisan issue that eats at everyone's integrity, then some action can be had. Republicans have the power, if not the will, to ram it down the Dems' throats, but wouldn't it be cooler if you worked together on this one? It might make the War issue easier on everyone as well, and you can build from that first step.

Any of the ideas that involve "requiring" something is just a matter of writing a bill and passing it with 50% +1 (or 50 in the Senate and VP Cheney in session). GWB will sign it -- no problem there. It just takes the will to stand up and do it, knowing it may cost you the pork projects and will gain the ire of all the irresponsible legislators around you.

Here's the catch for the rest of us -- This Assumes That Politicians Care What We Think And Will Respond To Us. As long as Senator A thinks that saying "no" to Senator B's bridge might cost Senator A somewhere down the road, then no one will say "no" to anyone else.

Conservatives are up in arms. First Delay, then the Abramoff thing, now the slapfight over which liar gets to run the House Repubs.....plus all the nonsense in the Senate that turns one's stomach.

All that "serving the public" business is kind of an afterthought, apparently.

The Spirit of '94 is a ghost, no more relevant today than the Spirit of '76 truly is.

Every generation looks in despair on its ruling class and political professionals as a bunch of self-serving thieving scumbags out to enrich themselves and their ego at the ever-expanding public trough. Why should this one be any different?

A few things come to mind....

1.) Joe Average is much more plugged in now than ever before, and the internet and blogosphere have decimated the old media's lock on information dispensation.

2.) The elections of 2000 and 2004, combined with the facts of the post-9/11 world have caught the attention and imagination of people like never before.

3.) For the first time in nearly a century, the Republicans have the majority (if not control) of both the Senate and the House, and have a strong man in the White House.

So?

The roar for reform is getting louder. Add in the constant drumbeats for smaller government, border control, immigration reform, SS/Medicare reform, tax reform, and any number of other conservative issues, and it is plain that we are increasingly expectant of progress on the conservative front. It is equally plain that we are disappointed and angered at how the Dems (the MINORITY) are able to push our guys around and block things that they shouldn't be able to. You wanted the votes, you wanted the majorities -- you got them. So where are the results?

We're watching. And more of us are doing so all the time. And calling. And writing. And working on campaigns for your primary rival if you don't shape up.

DO WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, and leave off with all the personal enrichment power trips.

The power is there, in your hands. All you have to do is use it.

Settled Law

2006-01-12T13:59:00.000-05:00

We're familiar with the script by now:

1.) Republican president nominates a Supreme Court Justice
2.) Democrats demand during confirmation that the nominee pledges to uphold Roe v. Wade is a matter of "settled law"
3.) Nominee, realizing he/she is dealing with fools, accedes in order to get confirmed.

So the Dems simultaneously want every Supreme Court decision to be "settled law" yet hold the Constitution itself to be a living, breathing document with penumbras and socialist plugins.

Fair enough. Let's look at some "settled law" and see how the dems believe these settled laws exist in today's world.

Minor v. Happersett - 1875
The constitution of the State of Missouri ordains: "Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote."

Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not a "male citizen of the United States," but a woman.

The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in his favor; a judgment which the Supreme Court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error.

Multiple statements are given regarding the 14th amendment and state rights, but the big one is "A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States," is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote."

Settled law: If a state restricts voting rights to male citizens, then women in that state are not granted federal rights to overpower the state law and thus have no right to vote.

Plessy v. Ferguson - 1886
The statute of Louisiana, acts of 1890, c. 111 provided "separate but equal" accomodations on passenger trains, requiring railway companies to provide separate cars for whites and "colored races".
Plessy, who was "of mixed descent, in the proportion of seven eighths Caucasian and one eighth African blood," purchased a 1st-class ticket and boarded a White coach. He was subsequently arrested and imprisoned in a New Orleans jail.

The Court's opinion was that the above-mentioned statute acts "are not in conflict with the provisions either of the Thirteenth Amendment or of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Settled law: Separate-but-equal is a fact of life, and the darkies better stay in their place.

Muller v. Oregon - 1908
This case was involved in whether or not women could be forced to work in laundries for more than tne hours per day. The Court decided that "This Court takes judicial cognizance of all matters of general knowledge -- such as the fact that woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage which justifies a difference in legislation in regard to some of the burdens which rest upon her.

As healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well being of woman is an object of public interest. The regulation of her hour of labor falls within the police power of the State, and a statute directed exclusively to such regulation does not conflict with the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment."

So women's bodies and their reproductive health/viability is in fact a matter of concern where the state and federal government are concerned....the Court has plainly stated that "the physical well being of woman is an object of public interest" in terms of protecting her. Women enjoy the benefit of state power regarding their bodies, but are resistant to their responsibilities to state power?

Settled law: Although this is not directly related to abortion, women's bodies and their physical well-being are in fact a matter of public interest and regulation of such falls within police power of the state.

Buck v. Bell - 1927
1. The Virginia statute providing for the sexual sterilization of inmates of institutions supported by the State who shall be found to be afflicted with an hereditary form of insanity or imbecility, is within the power of the State under the Fourteenth Amendment.

2. Failure to extend the provision to persons outside the institutions named does not render it obnoxious to the Equal Protection Clause.

ERROR to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia which affirmed a judgment ordering the Superintendent of the State Colony of Epileptics and Feeble Minded to perform the operation of salpingectomy on Carrie Buck, the plaintiff in error.

Salpingectomy is removal of the fallopian tube, commonly done in conjuction with a complete hysterectomy.

Settled law: Sterilization of the mentally ill and retarded is just fine.

Wickard v. Filburn - 1942
Wheat surpluses led to quotas and limits on production. Wickard planted his wheat not for sale, interstate or otherwise, but entirely for personal home consumption. The Court said:

"A factor of such volume and variability as wheat grown for home consumption would have a substantial influence on price conditions on the wheat market, both because such wheat, with rising prices, may flow into the market and check price increases and, because, though never marketed, it supplies the need of the grower which would otherwise be satisfied by his purchases in the open market."

So what you produce for yourself, with no intent to sell to others, has enough effect on the market to put you under the power of the government's regulations.

Settled law: To each according to his need....

Schenck v. United States - 1919
In 1917, a circular designed to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment draft for WWI was passed around. Evidence of this circular was seized under a search warrant directed against a Socialist headquarters, held admissible in evidence, consistently with the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, in a criminal prosecution against the general secretary of a Socialist party, who had charge of the office. The Court asserted:

"Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. A conspiracy to circulate among men called and accepted for military service under the Selective Service Act of May 18, 1917, a circular tending to influence them to obstruct the draft, with the intent to effect that result, and followed by the sending of such circulars, is within the power of Congress to punish, and is punishable under the Espionage Act."

This case has associations with the current FISA and phonetapping kerfluffle. Wartime implications, anyone?

Settled law: Freedom of speech can be abridged when it involves the national security of this nation.

Scott v. Sandford - 1856
The notorious "Dred Scott" case, in which the Court stated:

"A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.

Settled law: Blacks are not citizens and do not enjoy the rights of citizens. Never have been, and never will be.

So the issues of women's suffrage, equal treatment for blacks, public concern over women's health, prisoner's rights, mental health, and personal freedoms, which are all historically democratic issues, are hereby rendered meaningless by the Left's concepts of "Settled Law." The cases mentioned above are deliberately taken from a time no less than 40 years distant to show how society and its concepts of rule of law have changed and will continue to change. By conforming to stare decisis, each of these decisions must stand.

Most if not all of the decisions above have been overruled in one case or another, and rightfully so. But the point remains -- rulings by the Supreme Court are not engraved in stone, and they are simply another precedent. Stare decisis is a tool, not a commandment. Precedents that are wrong or poorly decided not only are eligible for review but in fact SHOULD be reviewed. The methodology of the Roe decision is every bit as vulnerable as was Plessy, and Plessy's shortcomings were repaired by the case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, which explicitly states:

"Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment -- even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal......The "separate but equal" doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, has no place in the field of public education....."

In using stare decisis as the dems are now concerning Roe, the Court in 1954 would not have ruled as they did in Brown, and the cancer of "separate but equal" would have become another of these "super-duper" precedents.

The house of cards can only stand one way -- Stare decisis is either absolute or it is not. It can be a guide but should not be a chain. To deny a nominee because he or she does not consider Roe untouchable is not only ignorant of history (especially where Supreme Court decisions are concerned), but is obviously politically dishonest and should not be allowed to participate in any part of the important process of decision-making where lifetime appointments to the Court are concerned.

UPDATE: I found a similar post at Certain Slant of Light regarding stare decisis that is well worth the read. Check it out here.

UPDATE II: Another similar post at Right on the Left Coast. Check it out here.

Fire an incumbent!

2006-01-09T23:21:00.000-05:00

This article at Redstate is the latest example of why incumbency without term limits is a cancer. The Republicans have now been in power for nearly 12 years, beginning with the re-taking of the House in 1994. They swept in largely due to the now-defunct Contract with America, which promised among other things term limitation, emphasis on smaller government and less spending, and greater accountability to the voters.

That power was maintained through the Clinton years as a response to that administration, and reinforced in 2000 by sheer fear of the words "President Gore." The tragic events of 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror virtually guaranteed continuation in 2004 (along with a hefty dose of fear of the words "President Kerry").

Many people, myself included, voted Republican for the first time in 2000 and/or 2004. Conservatives who could not previously stomach the Republican party (Libertarians, Constitutionalists, etc.) chose to stand with the Republicans in a united effort against socialism and to continue the prosecution of the War on Terror. Many of us have been dismayed at the decidedly non-conservative aspects of the party with which we have associated for the last 6 years. Others have been Republican (or voted with the Republicans) for much longer and are also disappointed.

Non-military discretionary spending is through the roof. Border policy and immigration control are nonexistent. The concept of limited government is a distant memory. Depite superiority of numbers in both Houses, the President has had to fight an uphill battle on tax reform, social security reform, and in the arena of getting conservative judges confirmed. Recent scandals such as Jack Abramoff and the politically-motivated (but flaky) case of Tom Delay highlight the corruption that continues to infect the political class.

Now that flaky case is beginning to show further fallout in the form of the story linked above.

We have chosen to align ourselves with the lesser of two devils. One party is for intrusive big expensive self-serving faux socialism, and the other party is the Democrats.

The center cannot hold. Every failure of will and party discipline takes its toll on the resolve of the constituency. More and more people are asking themselves why exactly they should continue to contribute time, money, and their vote to the Republicans. To allow a majority party to be held hostage by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and Harry Reid is truly disgraceful.

The disillusionment will affect more than the party faithful. Fiscal conservatives and the libertarian wing are beginning to bolt.

It is time conservatives have a hard conversation with themselves. Which is more important -- long-term goals of limiting government and having conservatives hold seats of power, or maintaining a thin majority consisting largely of faithless RINOs? Although we are coming into a time that is crucial for Supreme Court justices (the 2008/2012 president(s) will have the opportunity to select as many as 4), the hold on numeric superiority means little. The President is simply not allowed (!) to nominate conservative justices with the current (and likely future) Senate, and those he can nominate have been ridiculously and unfairly savaged by a democratic minority that wields entirely too much power.

On the other hand, despite the problems listed above, Justice Roberts was confirmed, and Sam Alito will be as well. The center may be squishy, but they are not entirely stupid.

I am a strong advocate of term limits. Obviously the Congress will never enact such measures, but the people can choose to do so. 12 years (2 Senatorial terms or 6 Representative terms) should be enough for anyone. At that point they need to come home and remember how citizens live. To preclude the consolidation of power we see in the form of Senator Byrd, a doddering old man who has not been truly significant since the mid-1970s, would be a huge first step to shutting off the pork pipeline and ending the cult-of-personality lock that some wield on committees (Ted Stevens, I'm looking at you. You, too, Arlen...).

So it is up to us....we have the power. Want to make money in politics irrelevant, or end the culture of caesarship? Stop voting for incumbents, even if you like them. Give them their 12 years and then fire them. No one is so great or so good that they should be in Congress for a lifetime. If they are that effective, then the voters will respond accordingly and either suspend the 12-year rule or put them back in on the next term. It means voting for a primary challenger that may get slaughtered in the general election. So be it (maybe). What to do? Again, which is more important -- keeping that corrupt and largely ineffective majority, or holding out for true conservatives (meaning the libs get the chairs from time to time)?

I say it's worth holding out. What say you?

As the piece linked above says, "In 1976, Ronald Reagan stood up to the Republican establishment and ran against Gerald Ford. Ford had ignored conservatives and pushed the agenda of the liberal Republican establishment. Reagan knew that he could not win unless he was prepared to lose. Lose he did and the rest is history written in his favor."

Ronaldus Magnus knew it then, as did Lincoln over a century before him. Conservatism works when it's tried. Perhaps we need to give it a chance by making room in the crowded field of incumbents.

Cheny will retire after 2006 elections

2006-01-04T09:36:00.000-05:00

The response to my prior post on President Bush's opportunity has surprised me somewhat. Instead of confronting the central idea -- the drastic third step of resignation for the sake of making his VP the incumbent -- most saw the first step of Cheney resigning as the stumbling block. To me this is missing-the-forest-for-the-trees thinking.

I know this is an idea that has been floated since 2000 -- that Cheney is a "political anchor" or is "dirty" or "too unhealthy to serve" and "should resign". It is an idea that is popular with those on the right and the left. They have all been fantasies. The anchor and dirty arguments are silly and not worthy of discussion. The Vice-President's ethics and power/importance are inarguable. The health situation, on the other hand, is a valid point of discussion. It has not been particularly important, however, for most of Bush's term because there simply was no way short of a near-death experience that Cheney was going to step down -- between 9/11, the War on Terror, economic issues, political wrangling with the undisciplined Senate, and apparently uncontrollable intelligence leaks, the Vice-President has been too important a figure to Bush's presidency.

Things are changing. Iraq is being stabilized. We are winning the GWoT. The economy is booming. The Senate is the Senate; until the voters reset that board it's a wash. The intelligence leaks are being handled. We are now in the midst of the beginning of the campaign season for 2006.

Once the elections are over, his health concerns are going to override his commitment to the duties of the Vice President. Consider:

In 2006 he will be 65 (66 in January 2007). Given the assumption that Iraq will be more stable as time goes by and that Iran/Israel don't get particularly stupid with each other, combined with Bush's lame-duckness after the 2006 elections, I believe Cheney will determine that his role will be less crucial in 2007 and beyond.

Medically, he has some sort of atherosclerotic condition (can't remember exactly which one), but he has had 4 heart attacks beginning in 1978 (at age 37), in 1984, 1988, and 2001. He underwent four-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting in 1988, coronary artery stenting in November 2000, and urgent coronary balloon angioplasty in March 2001. In 2001 a cardiac defibrillator was implanted in his chest. In September 2005, Cheney had a catheter treatment in the artery behind each knee. The condition was discovered at a regular physical in July, and, while not life-threatening itself, is likely an indicator that Cheney's atherosclerotic disease is progressing despite aggressive treatment.

He will be 65 or 66, with a history of declining arterial health, knowing that his president can probably do without him for the last year or so of his term. He will want to spend time with his family, knowing that he served his country well.

That is not a fantasy. The man is getting older, with a failing cardiovascular system, and there will be little they will be able to accomplish after 2006, and little need for the president to lean on him so heavily. Any other qualified person at that point can and will do just as well for the president in the role of VP. These are the facts, and the smart men at the top are aware of it.

I don't *want* him to leave. But he will. And when it happens I will be linking back to both these articles. Condoleezza Rice will be nominated to replace him, and 2 of my steps will have come to fruition.

"We want to be a nation that serves goals larger than self. We've been offered a unique opportunity, and we must not let this moment pass."

2006-01-01T02:11:00.000-05:00

These words, spoken by President Bush in his State of the Union address of 2002, following the 9/11 attack, were a call to Americans to serve their country in a way that creates positive results, with more concern for their nation than for their own ends. These words, admittedly taken out of context, can have another meaning and the same principle applies. It can mean taking steps never considered previously, to create massive change in the political and social landscape of the United States.

President Bush has a unique opportunity to be a president who serves goals larger than self, and he must not let this moment pass. With 3 simple acts, he can:

1.) Resolve all issues the Republicans are having with determining a 2008 nominee;
2.) Guarantee Republican control of the White House through 2016;
3.) Continue the trend of taking seats in the House and Senate;
4.) Continue to prosecute the War on Terror consistent with the Bush Doctrine;
5.) Give the 2008/2012 president the opportunity to choose the anticipated 3-4 Court appointees;
6.) End the democratic lock on the black vote forever;
7.) End the perception of "Republicans are bigots" forever;
8.) Be hailed as the Lincoln of our time;
9.) Be hailed as the Washington/Cincinnatus of our time;
10.) Reduce the democratic party to the point that they will be forced to re-form into a viable opposition;
11.) Prove to be the Uniter he has promised for so long;
12.) Restore faith in the minds of the voters regarding political figures and service to the country.

The acts are very simple, albeit unusual and unprecedented. They require considerable personal and political will, especially the final one; if done correctly his name will be chiseled on pedestals from the Right and the Left as a great president and civil-rights champion.

Following the 2006 elections, there will be a 2-year period of relative lame-duckness in his administration. Iraq is becoming more stable by the day and can reasonably be predicted to be close to self-sufficiency by mid-2007. This point in time would be ideal for Vice-President Cheney to retire gracefully, having served his country proudly in a variety of positions spanning decades. His health concerns and desire to spend time with his family would begin to override the need to advise the president, and with Iraq stabilized he could rest secure in the knowledge that his services are no longer as necessary as they once were. Heartfelt congratulations abound, the "Cheney lightning rod" exits, and a grateful nation wishes the Vice-President well.

This would leave an opening for Vice-President.

That was Step One.

Step Two is probably obvious to most at this point: nominate Condoleezza Rice for Vice-President. There would be a small tussle for confirmation, but eventually she would be confirmed by the Republican majority and the dems who don't dare vote down a supremely qualified black woman for the Number Two spot. She was confirmed for State 85-13, so it is reasonable to assume she would also get the nod for promotion.

A secondary part of step two would be to bring Karen Hughes in at Sec'y of State -- she is already undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and is a known quantity for the president with regard to loyalty, shared vision, and experience. This resolves questions of Condi's replacement at State.

At this point he could stop. Condi would be the 2008 Republican frontrunner and would be running as the de facto incumbent, symbolizing the passing of the torch as Bush I did following Reagan, or as Gore attempted after Clinton. Bush would get points for the first black female VP, and Republicans would be able to breathe easier knowing they did not have to choose from the sorry lot available to us at the current time. She would likely pick up significant blacks and women in addition to strong Republican turnout and win in a landslide in 2008, setting up an incumbent run in 2012.

Bonus:The Lizard Queen would never get the throne.

But wait; There's More....

This part is the true test of character. In late 2007 Condi is confirmed and has been the VP for several months and has been brought up to speed. Of course, she has had a huge head start by being the president's national security advisor and secretary of state. There's probably very little she does not know already.

Step Three: George Bush steps down as president, declaring that the country is in good hands.

Yes, you read that right. The president, having done his duty in the protection of our country, knowing that a lame duck will struggle to get anything of significance passed, chooses instead to make history like never before: A United States president resigns not in disgrace but in glory, bequeathing the highest office in the land to a black woman born of sharecroppers who worked her way to the greatest height of power in the world.

The energy of this new president and her administration for the rest of 2007 and 2008 will be the head of a cresting wave that declares the Civil Right Movement to be fully realized. Republicans accept a black woman as their leader, fellow blacks feel confident voting for a Republican, the race warlords are neutered, the now-incumbent President Rice wins easily in 2008 and most likely 2012, the likelihood of continuing gains in the Court increases, the War on Terror continues according to Bush's template, and the democrats are reduced to an insignificant powder for a generation. George Bush is the new Lincoln, Washington, and Cincinnatus. Martin Luther King's dream is reality. We get our judges.

Despite the obvious setback for the dems, this is actually a good scenario for them as well, as it would force them to tear down the rotting platform they have now and re-assess what they stand for. In order to avoid political oblivion, they would be forced to become a valid opposition party that stands for something and the race-based victimization card they have been playing for so long would have to be discarded. We need a valid functional opposition consisting of rational adults, and this setup accomplishes that as well.

It is the best possible thing to do. Again, he could stop with appointing Rice as VP and serving out his term, but taking the drastic third step of resigning and leaving the country in her hands would accomplish so much more, and would be the proverbial dagger to the heart of racial division in this country. In addition, it would consolidate Republican power for a generation, create a presidential legacy even greater than his response to 9/11, and usher in a new era for politics in general. It would be a major moment in history that has the added practical benefit of being exactly what many would like to see but are unsure how to accomplish.

The trick is to avoid the normal electoral math, over which so many obsess, and utilize the contitutional tools that have been previously untried. A new paradigm, combined with unprecedented selflessness, results in THE political play of US history. It is foolproof and legal -- the dems cannot stop it except for confirming Ms. Rice as Vice-President, and that will not happen. Everything else is strictly and unquestioningly legal and constitutional. They could literally do nothing to stop this, and the public opinion will be overwhelmingly positive.

Checkmate in three moves.

Mr. President, you can actually do the most for your long-term agenda and this nation by resigning under the right circumstances at the right time. I have written this piece with the hope that somehow it gets to you, and that your decision-making inner circle will see, consider, and reflect on the staggering consequences of such actions. Please do not misunderstand: I do not wish you to resign for the sake of going away; rather, this is a one-time shot at accomplishing many things at once, not the least of which is a relatively guaranteed continuation of your own policies, but also precedent-setting actions on every level, and the truest victory of finally bridging the race gap. The last 2 years of your term are likely to be unproductive anyway, so why not go back to Crawford to relax and clear some brush, delivering a political nuclear blast on the way out while knowing that the fallout will be so very positive and in the nation's (and your legacy's) best interest? The framework is there, just waiting for someone of vision, patriotism, and strength to employ.

It is a mind-boggling thing to consider -- asking a sitting president to resign without any apparent reason to do so regarding himself, but with every possible reason for the good of the nation and continuity in his established policies. Crazy it may be, but it seems to me to be the correct course of action at the end of a relevant and vital presidency (and the beginning of another). Let's keep it going, on our terms, giving our person the best chance for keeping the seat in 2008, that of the power of incumbency. You can be a hero and do the right thing at the same time. These opportunities do not arise often. Please reflect on the words you spoke in January 2002; see that you have the greatest opportunity to serve goals larger than yourself, and that you must not allow this moment to pass.

WWII was illegal, badly run, and we lost!

2005-12-19T13:58:00.000-05:00

Well, at least according to modern Socialist Democrats' logic. Consider:

1. We should not have declared war on Germany or Italy. After all, it was Japan who attacked Pearl Harbor, not Germany. Europe should have sorted that one out.

(update: Yeeesh....yes, I know Germany/Italy declared war on us. It was Dec. 8, the same day we declared war on their ally Japan. Had we not declared war on Japan, the rest of the Axis likely would have stayed out of war with us for the time being. This is how alliances work. One attacks us, we declare war on that one, and the others join in. It's de facto war on all. The statement also is indicative of how the moonbats miss important facts in their zeal to make a point. Finally, it's SATIRE, and spelling out the intermediate steps kills the rhythm, as it has here.)

2. The warnings of German scientists who fled to the US regarding Hitler's plans to develop a "superbomb" were most likely inaccurate -- everyone knows that political refugees can't be trusted. Roosevelt probably made it up and lied to us anyway.
3. Roosevelt's family was involved in defense businesses. No war for money!
4. Roosevelt and his advisers knew in advance of the Japanese attack but did nothing about it, giving him an excuse to go to war and enslave the rest of us.
5. Rumors of enslavement and genocide of a certain racial minority were likely overblown. Besides, they were only Jooooos and don't really count.
6. The evil US government rounded up innocent Japanese-Americans and put them in a prison in the desert because of race-hate politics.
7. US casualties numbered nearly 420,000 killed. Who should be the last to die for a lie?
8. We never caught Hitler -- the entire war is obviously a failure.
9. We used a WMD on the utterly innocent people of Japan and showed the entire world how the REAL fascists operate.
10. The US and its puppet "allies" occupied Germany for 7 years trying to set up a government despite the actions of noble patriotic groups (consisting of former Nazis and sympathizers) constantly disrupting peacekeeping activities. Assassinations of local political leaders, terror-inducing explosions, and general societal disruption were all designed to weaken the resolve of the Americans to see the operation to its end. Regrettably, we prevailed.
11. 60 years later, we still have troops occupying Germany. Quagmire!!!!!!!

I am sure there are more examples but that should suffice. If the current Socialist Democrats were around in the mid-20th century, we would have never been able to prosecute WWII to its successful conclusion, and the struggle against global communism would have been over by the 1970s.

The sad irony is that the very freedom to speak that so moves the MoveOn crowd would never exist in the systems with which they seek to replace our Republic and Capitalist system. With freedom comes responsibility, and to spout the incoherent nonsense such as the points above, let alone from the mouths of US Senators and Representatives, is the epitome of irresponsibility. Not only is it damaging to the will and morale of US servicemen and the public in general, it completely undermines the entire system.

These same moonbats weep at what a fascist dictator we have in the form of King George, yet their frightening ignorance of history shows that if Lincoln were president right now, there would be several Senators and Representatives in jail for treason, and personal rights to free expression greatly curtailed in the short term so as not to disrupt the government's ability to wage war properly.

Dissent is important, but it has to be rational and in the spirit of being for the good of the country. "I hate it because George Bush is for it" is NOT proper reasoning or discourse, and the compliance of the media in their attempt to take down this president sets dangerous precedents and ignores historical events. Once the decision is made -- with the full support of those now opposing it as detailed in earlier posts -- then we need to come together as a nation and do what we all agree need to be done: Get Iraq secure and get out at the earliest reasonable juncture. Rational opponents of the war have to recognize that even if they were against going in, we ARE IN, and therefore we must continue to the most successful conclusion possible.

Thought experiment: If President Clinton had decided to act in 1997/1998 on Iraq and/or Osama bin Laden (meaning a full-on invasion and military plan as opposed to lobbing a few missiles), would he have support from his own party and conservatives? How about the US citizenry?

Vietnam and the Watergate episode have proven to be the most damaging time in our history, not so much for the actual events, but for the ripples which have crossed 40 years. That time emboldened anti-establishmentarians and the media in general, giving rise to several beliefs such as the government is always corrupt, war is wrong, if we scream loud enough we can force the war away and take a president down. Now this president is feeling the full effects of that time, and it takes tremendous will to face it and not cave in.

This essay has sprawled somewhat. My apologies; I'm getting a flu and am a little scattered. Anyway, hippies have always been a pox and need to be treated as the loud pottymouth children they are -- an irrational shortsighted unpatriotic minority who should never ever be given power. They would have lost WWII and the rest of the 20th Century and the US might not even exist today. The fact that so many of them are now Senators, Representatives, and presidential candidates is the real danger.

Print for a liberal

2005-12-12T12:09:00.000-05:00

An earlier post, Dems' case for war 98-99, consisted mostly of the raw data (so to speak) taken from the Mudville Gazette's highly complete history of the Iraq conflict. I received mixed reviews -- people like the info/quotes, but "it was just too long" for comprehension/interest.

Here's the narrative version based on these facts. Please hit both links above for the details.

Iraq has been a problem for a long time. More specifically, Iraq with Saddam Hussein in charge has been a problem for a long time. It is inarguable he was a totalitarian dictator, ruling autocratically in the style of Stalin complete with state-mandated terrorization of his own people. He invaded his neighbors Iran and Kuwait, using chemical weapons in both instances. He continued the reign of terror after Gulf War I by gassing Kurdish villages in his own country following a 90's version of the Bay of Pigs. In leaving Kuwait he committed major acts of environmental and economic terrorism by setting the wells on fire.

The Gulf War was never officially over -- following the bombing campaign and four-day ground action in 1991 there was a ceasefire predicated on Iraq's commitment to destroy all existing WMD's, discontinue work on developing and acquiring WMD's, and cooperating fully with UN inspectors. The ceasefire was understood by all concerned (the US, the UN, and Iraq) to be binding and inarguable -- do it yourself or we come back in and do it for you. And we're checking your math.

Saddam of course did not follow through on the good faith required by the ceasefire, and the Clinton administration did not enforce the ceasefire until forced to do so. Even then it was timid and had suspicious timing. Random airstrikes during periods of presidential scandal hardly mattered to Saddam's weapon machine. Other terrorist incidents (1993 WTC bombing, USS Cole bombing, Black Hawk Down, various attacks on civilian and military installations through the middle east) went largely unpursued and unpunished, giving rise to the notion that the US was weak and could not or would not follow through when confronted by muslim terrorism.

Saddam continued to develop chemical and nuclear weapons and was known to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. He also provided training camps and had known contacts with al Qaeda and other muslim terror groups.

While he did not share religious fervor with these groups, he still had the same goal -- destruction of Israel and the erosion of western and US influence in the region. The subjugation and terror of his own people continued, and the oil-for-food scandal allowed him to align western powers with him in secret. There is no doubt the man was preparing to build an arsenal of chemical and nuclear weapons and either use it or sell to the highest bidder.

We knew this at the time. Democrats, Republicans, inspectors, the UN, President Clinton and his administration.....read the quotes. They all speak of the need to reign in Saddam and disarm him. They all speak of the surety of his use of these weapons. They all speak of the horrors he visited on his people. The Iraq Liberation Act was passed unanimously in the Senate.

9/11 was a distraction from this situation, and confused the issue and has led to the current crisis of debate. Saddam may or may not have had anything to do with Atta -- it has not been proven either way, although we know he met with Atta at one point. After 9/11 we had to act, and Afghanistan was the result. When GWB returned to the issue of Iraq, it was not as a result of 9/11, it was despite it. The policy was not formed in 2001, it was formed in 1998 and he was pursuing it in accordance with his position, urged on by the serious nature exposed by 9/11.

The upshot of all this is that liberals need to think hard on how the facts reconcile with the popular positions of Bush lying about WMD's or starting a war for oil buddies/Halliburton or the ever-popular World Domination fantasy (complete with 9/11 conspiracy theories). The information above and in the other links all took place during President Clinton's watch, under UN oversight, long before GWB came close to being in power. The major players in the Clinton administration and Senate, including Kennedy, Kerry, and Hillary, were all in agreement in 1998 and 1999 that Saddam was in violation of the ceasefire agreement and was setting up for military action on our part.

The House and Senate passed a bill in 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. Read that again.

"It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."

1998. The Senate passed it unanimously. Kerry, Kennedy, Biden, and all the other Senate dems who are now yelling about evil Bush's war were in favor of removing Saddam and replacing his regime with a democracy. Never mind that they again voted for the secondary resolution after 9/11 authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

It is not about oil. It is not entirely about WMD's. It is not a conspiracy to make war profits. It is the result of a responsible president upholding his duties to follow through with decisions made not only by his administration, but also to carry out existing US policies as determined by his predecessors. It was decided by our government in 1998 to plant democracy in Baghdad.

Regarding the WMD's -- yeah, we haven't officially found much in Iraq, but keep in mind we spent 18 months arguing about it following Bush's speech saying that we were coming. That gave Saddam a year and a half to dismantle and move the stuff to Syria and elsewhere. There is also some speculation that our government is not broadcasting all that we have learned in order to catch the upper-level people involved. But ultimately, it was not about WMD's...they were a part of it, but the real issue has always been Saddam and the need to supplant him with rule of the people. That is what is occurring now. What exactly is the problem with understanding this?

One Marine's observations

2005-12-09T11:48:00.000-05:00

Over at Atlas Shrugs I found a great
post on one Marine's view of various US weaponry, insurgent tactics, and overall morale. Some great info there, especially for Og, Grog, and Zog (inside family joke).

I found the most interesting part to be the soldiers' preference for the WWII/Vietnam-era weaponry over the more modern tech. Reliability is the key to survival in close-quarters fighting, and the old stuff simply works better, doesn't jam up as easily, handles the elements, and kills more bad guys. Yeah, I love the videos of push-button videogame weaponry as much as the next guy, but when the guys in front are asking for old-fashioned Killems, one should pay attention.

Abortion

2005-12-01T11:33:00.000-05:00

The "A" word.

A knotty problem, to be sure. It is a topic that when fully argued has roots necessarily in philosophies of governmental power/limits, personal freedom/responsibility, protection of privacy, protection of rights both for a legally responsible adult and a legally vulnerable entity that cannot even speak for itself. Others have brought a religious angle in, but as this is a side of the argument that cannot be proven, I choose to leave it out of my discussion and focus more on the philosophical and practical points, relative to governmental power and responsibility.

My libertarian instincts knee-jerk toward the position that no government has the right to tell any woman whether she can be allowed to abort or not. However, that simplistic position is faulty. Our constitution seeks to codify and limit the power of the government in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, namely that we are all endowed with the natural right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life -- the first right mentioned. This goes in hand with the premise that among other functions, government is designed to protect the weak and vulnerable. At no time in life will anyone be more weak and vulnerable than in the womb. The libertarian argument is too weak to be consistent with the role our founders already laid out for governmental protection of life.

As a result, IF the government is to be involved at all, it should then be involved in the protection of life and the vulnerable infant still coming into being.

I oppose elective abortion. This does not come from a religious perspective, as I am in no way religious. Science increasingly pushes back the viability factor of prematurely-born infants, which in turn shows the increasing unjustness of abortion as gestation progresses. In late 2005 a pregnancy interrupted as prematurely as nine weeks is able to become a living baby. This is well before the timelines of viability as determined by 1970s technology. As time goes by and science pushes the viability backward, we may very well be able to determine a definite Yes/No point for Life and Personhood. Or not. At any rate, the technological developments of the 20th and 21st centuries have made childbearing a relatively safe endeavor, both for mother and child.

The Choice side works on the libertarian principles that the government does not control a woman's womb, along with some fuzzy math on 'Life Begins At' points of view to make it sound less horrific. Utlimately it is late contraception, a way for women who have been irresponsible with their sex to "get rid of the problem" and to shelter their existing lifestyles from the new reality of pregnancy and childrearing. It is not a new phenomenon. Women have been throwing themselves down stairways and having a friend hit them in the tummy for centuries. But these were the aberrations, and were done in secret. They knew what they were doing was wrong. If abortion is made illegal, there will undoubtedly be back-alley coathanger abortions. Fair enough -- maybe these women will catch an infection and be rendered infertile or even die. If the object is to terminate or prevent future pregnancies, it is certainly effective. But this again will be the aberration, since most women would probably make the proper sexual choices if this is their only option.

Choice: it seems to me and most rational people that the Choice was made when the woman engaged in sex. Whether contraception is used or not, whether the intent is pregnancy or not, we all know that Sex Can Lead To Pregnancy. She took the risk, she ended up pregnant, and now she uses a specious Right to Privacy argument to kill the child she created. As demonstrated above, the woman's right to her body was abbrogated BY HERSELF to the protection of the vulnerable infant inside and that protection must come from the governing authority if necessary.

Looking past all Choice arguments, abortion is murder, plain and simple. In performing an abortion, a woman is utilizing the services of a medically-trained professional to take the life developing in her womb, a life that if left alone would most likely gestate and be born successfully, and extinguish it. Although it is currently impossible to do so, the act is performed with no consultation with the fetus. The issue has become clouded over the years with feminist propaganda, junk science, political cowardice, and the burgeoning profit margin for medical practitioners. In no other instance is anyone allowed to decide that another person is a "problem" and coldly murdered without benefit of due process and trial.

I propose that the issue become what it should be -- a State issue. Roe was a poorly-decided and hamfisted approach to creating law out of whole cloth by an out-of-control activist Supreme Court. It should be subject to judicial review and then thrown out, which then allows each state to set up its own laws pertaining to abortion. Obviously California would have a different set of rules and laws than Kansas, and that is wholly consistent with each state working out the issue as it should -- from the people of each state in referenda.

Within the state debate, my position would be that abortion should not be legal, with the very narrow exception of outstanding circumstances:

1.) Parent mortality: Abortion would be allowed only if carrying the pregnancy to term would verifiably place the mother's life in danger. It would be a good idea to require at least 2 independent confirming physicals (suspended if emergency situation) prior to allowing the abortion. The main philosophical problem here is that in many cases the danger to the mother might not be detected until well into gestation, but if there is a true danger to the mother's life then I believe she has the right to decide to terminate the pregnancy, as her individual survival (right to life) trumps that of the infant.

2.) Rape/incest: While it seems unfair to force the young lady to carry to term, it seems even more unfair to me that the innocent 3rd party to these crimes should deserve to be executed without benefit of trial. If abortion in either of these cases were to be allowed, I would think that it should only occur within the first four weeks, and only in conjunction with a police report for the rape or incest complaint. The Supreme Court decided long ago that executing rapists was unconstitutional; how on earth can it be constitutional to execute the child that the rapist has wrought?

That's it. Pregnant and don't meet either exception? Better plan on the next 9 months being uncomfortable and then deciding to keep or adopt. Or go to Mexico. Maybe next time think about personal responsibility more when engaging in a act designed to create offspring.

Where does life begin? I don't know. Neither do you. We have our opinions, which may or may not agree. Ultimately to legally deny the life of another, an innocent, without due process, is clearly not in the intent of our Founding Fathers. To argue otherwise is to show a disconcerting lack of knowledge in the various philosophies of government, personal responsibility, and morality. One need not be a Religious Nut to be against murder, right?