Kowabunga

The LA Times is running an opinion piece on what Ambassador Bolton is doing at the United Nations, and the writer is distinctly not happy.

At the root of the issue is the changes Bolton has put forth to a proposal of internal reforms and "world action against injustice, poverty, and environmental catastrophe." Sounds like a nice idea, right?

Bolton has introduced hundreds of amendments to the 62-page draft, which is supposed to be signed by the leaders of 175 nations during the U.N.'s 60th anniversary summit starting Sept. 14. Other nations, notably Russia, also have objections to the draft proposal and have submitted their own amendments, but they haven't caused the same turmoil.

I don't know what turmoil Bolton has caused with his proposed amendments, except for the fact that the Left simply hate Bolton.

The original proposal spelled out internal U.N. reforms, such as creation of a new human rights panel that would exclude rights violators, as well as pledges of increased foreign aid, measures to combat climate change and calls for nuclear disarmament. Bolton's amendments focus on cutting references to international efforts the U.S. has opposed, such as the International Criminal Court, while strengthening sections on spreading democracy, freeing markets and fighting terrorism.

Okay, based on tis, sounds like Bolton is on the right path. The United States is a SOVEREIGN Nation, and should not be subservient to foreign courts, especially when such courts are sponsored by countries hostile to the United States. As for strengthening the sections in regards "spreading democracy, freeing markets and fighting terrorism," there, again, Bolton is on the right path. Who could be opposed to such an agenda, except totalitarian dictators like Fidel Castro and other such ilk.

Although not mentioned in the piece, I hope he is also opposing so called "measures to combat climate change," which is to say, curb "global warming." Anyone truly knowledgeable on that topic knows that the global climate is dynamic and has changed throughout the several billion years the Earth has existed, from hot spells to ice ages.

Nuclear disarmament? Does anyone seriously believe that a United nations call to disarm will have any bearing on Red China, North Korea, Iran or France? Not to mention Pakistan and India? How about Israel? Such a call is targeted specifically at forcing the United States to disarm, leaving America vulnerable to nuclear black mail by hostile nations with nuclear arms, like Red China. Or North Korea (thanks to the Clintons and Jimmy Carter for setting that one up).

His most odious change was to delete all references to the Millennium Development Goals, which commit industrialized nations to cutting world poverty in half by 2015. Part of the deal was that rich countries would eventually contribute 0.7% of their gross national product to foreign aid. The goals were a world-changing burst of optimism from international leaders in 2000, a recognition that all people have the right to be free from misery, starvation and preventable disease and that those able to pay have some responsibility to alleviate needless suffering.

The editorial claims that most of Europe is "moving closer to the 0.7% goal" but does not specify which countries are reaching that goal. It does state that the United States is at 0.16% of GNP. This is wealth redistribution (socialism) with the aim to force the United States to tax the American people more, turning money over to corrupt governments who keep their populations in such a miserable state, instead of addressing the real problem in the third world: corrupt, totalitarian governments. Get rid of those, and allow the people to have true free will, and they will prosper.

The Millennium Declaration also goes a long way to eroding our sovereignty and calls for, you guessed it, nuclear disarmament. See my discussion a couple of paragraphs above.

There is no doubt in my mind that John Bolton is the right man to have sent to the United Nations. I hope he continues to perform such an outstanding job at the U.N.

Posted by Sqotty at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Every now and again, I traipse over to the SF Gate to see what is happening in my former stomping grounds. I was astounded by an opinion piece headlined "San Francisco Declares Itself a Military-Free Zone." The piece itself is fairly neutral, maybe even right leaning, merely pointing out the leftist agenda of the anti-war league in removing all things military from San Francisco.

The current endeavor is in the form of Proposition I, entitled College Not Combat, and seeks to ban all military recruiting at schools within San Francisco, despite that many of these schools are required to allow such recruiting in order to receive Federal money.

The proposition uses code terms like "economic draft" to explain why people of low and middle income choose to enlist, in order to gain job skills. I fell into this category when I chose to serve my country. Was I looking develop job skills so as to improve my life? Yes, however, I also wanted to serve (and always did want to serve), so, what is wrong with choosing the military as a means to develop job skills? There are many fields where the best training for success comes from the military, specifically, anything relating to aviation. The military is also a great place to develop many other skills, be it computers, or law enforcement, not to mention a strong focus on leadership.

The anti-military zealots are pushing this proposition hate the military and all it stands for and want to keep people who are poor from being able to pursue options that will help lift them out of poverty, thus denying them opportunities.

The ban is not likely to succeed, even if the propostion carries, as there is too much Federal money involved, and a school choosing to ban military recruiting will need to find other means to make up for the lost revenue. In the case of public schools, raising property taxes would be necessary to make up the shortfall; colleges and universities will need to raise tuition. Either way, the poor and middle class will continue to be shut out of receiving the education they need, acerbating the myth of an "economic draft."

The entire piece itself goes on to other anti-military posturing taking place in SF, and the writer is surprisingly fair in her analysis. Okay, surprising as it is someone in SF writing the piece. However, Cinnamon Stillwell gets it right.

Also touched on is the refusal to dock the U.S.S. Iowa as a monument; it is now in Stockton. Changing the name of Army Street to Caesar Chavez. Okay, I still refer to it as Army Street. Attempting to get the Summer Jam to end Navy sponsorship. And ending the age-old celebration of Fleet Week, which generates millions of dollars in revenues in San Francisco.

A great piece and well worth the read.

Posted by Sqotty at 11:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Great Raid, starring Benjamin Bratt and James Franco is the gripping tale of the raid to liberate some 500 POWs held in a Japanese prison camp on the Bataan peninsula. These POWs were survivors of the Bataan Death March after the surrender of the Philippines at the beginning of World War II.

The film opens with images of the fall of the Philippines, and a monologue filling in the background that lead up to the events of the actual raid, including the brutal murder of prisoners at another POW camp.

The story is based on actual events covering a five day period at the end of January, 1945. elements of the 6th Ranger Battalion performed this raid, and were supported by Philippine guerrillas.

These Army Rangers are in a race against time, with the Japanese controlling the time table, as they move through the Philippine jungles towards the prison camping, praying that they will be in time to save their fellow comrades in arms from sharing the same fate as the POWs at other prison camps.

The film revolves not only around the company of Rangers tasked with the rescue mission, but shows details of life in the prison camp in those final days, and of the Philippine underground.

If you thought Saving Private Ryan was a great film, then you should see The Great Raid.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Strib today is running an open letter from Clifford D. May to Cindy Sheehan. This is not the kind of opinion piece I am used to seeing in the Strib, so it has caught me by surprise, and has left me wondering why they printed it as it is critical of the anti-war movement.

As everyone knows, Cindy Sheehan is "trying" to get a second meeting with President Bush concerning the death of her son. The Sheehan family met with the President a few months after Specialist Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq. Now, she is demanding a second meeting, as she has become an beligerant anti-war protestor, backed by the likes of moveon(to Canada).org, and other extreme left organizations pushing a "hate Bush, hate America" agenda. There is a sound bite running around where Sheehan actually states she hopes the President doesn't meet with her a second time as it would diffuse her anti-war movement.

Currently, there are both the anti-war zealots and the support the troop movements camped out in Crawford, Texas. Wish I could squek in the time to go there my self.

But the subject of this post is May's open letter to Cindy Sheehan, inviting her to meet with him instead of the president. It is an excellent piece, and should be read by all anti-war zealots.

Here is part of what he has to say:

So let me suggest an alternative: Come visit with me. Our meeting probably won't get much publicity, but I can promise you an interesting discussion. I could have some people join us -- for example, a few of the many Iraqi freedom fighters with whom I've been working for the past several years, many of them women, as well as democracy and human-rights activists from Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon and other countries.

You say you want to know, "What is the noble cause that my son died for?" They would answer: Your son died fighting a war against an extremist movement intent on destroying free societies and replacing them with racist dictatorships.

The Iraqis will want to tell you what life was like under Saddam Hussein -- the mass murders of hundreds of thousands, the women and girls who were gang-raped by Saddam's cronies, the creative forms of torture that were ignored by the "international community."

May makes scores many points on why we are in Iraq, and why we should continue to remain until the people of Iraq are able to stand on their own feet, and not have to rely on U.S. intervention to secure basic human rights.

He also points out that for the U.S. led coalition to pull out (abandon) Iraq now would send a message to al Queda and its leaders; that the U.S. lacks the will to fight them. That we will use the Piccard Maneuver and surrender, caving in to the anti-war movement and the party of appeasement. Such an action of surrender would convince the enemies of Liberty that America is weak-kneed, and unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to defeat a vile enemy that routinely commits kidnappings and murder.

So, what do you think the odds are of Cindy Sheehan accepting May's invitation? Probably zero. She doesn't want to hear these things. She is blinded by the rhetoric of the extreme left, buying into the lies that Iraq is all about oil and that the people of Iraq were better off under the mass-murdering regime of Saddam Hussein.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I'll be at Keegan's tonight, hanging with the Antt-Strib crowd in bloggers row.

Also, next week is the monthly Townhall get together. I don't know what the agenda is, however, September is the month that Townhall splits off from meetup.com. Not sure how we'll continue communication as yet, however, townhall.com is supposed to setting up some means of driving it, and one can always stay tuned to the blogosphere. We are still meeting at the Park Tavern at 7PM. Be there, or be square.

I went to see The Great Raid the other night after hearing Hugh Hewitt talk about it on Monday's broadcast. Although I have written my review, have not posted it. I'll have it up tomorrow. Too darned busy as of late. In short: SEE IT!

Posted by Sqotty at 9:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It is tiring hearing all of the hate/blame America rhetoric day in and day out, blaming President Bush and Republicans for high gas prices, the war on terrorism, the recession or the failure to capture (or eliminate) Osama bin Laden. I think it is time to give thanks for the things that the Democratic Party has brought America.

Thanks to the Democrats, America abandoned South Vietnam, which fell to communists in 1975, resulting in the brutal murder of millions of people in South-East Asia.

Thanks to the Carter Administration and the Democrats for banning the reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods, creating serious storage problems of nuclear waste; waste, that had the fuel rods been reprocessed, could have been used to generate even more electricity to run our country. And thanks for putting an end to the construction of new nuclear reactors, forcing America to use less efficient means to generate electricity.

Thanks to the Carter Administration for abandoning the pro-Western Shah of Iran, whose government fell to fundamentalist Muslims, resulting in the tyrannical rule of Iran that carries on to this day, and contributed to the destabilization the Middle East.

Thanks to Jimmy Carter and the Clinton Administration for giving nuclear technology to North Korea, so that we now face another murderous tyrant with nuclear weapons, and who has a missile program that is moving closer to being able to strike the United States directly.

Thanks to the Clinton Administration for treating international terrorism as a criminal investigation, then refusing an offer from the government of Sudan that would have handed Osama bin Laden to the United States.

Thanks to the Clinton Administration for failing to eliminate Osama bin Laden on the several opportunities that had presented themselves, which, had Clinton acted on them, would have averted the murderous, terrorist attack of 9/11.

Thanks to the Clinton Administration for giving us the worst recession since the depression of 1929, a recession often blamed on President Bush, even though it began in 2000, before Bush took office.

Thanks to Democrats for the high cost of natural gas used to heat our homes in winter as electric companies switch from coal and oil to natural gas for generating electricity.

Thanks to Democrats everywhere for their continued unwillingness to open up a 2,000 acre site in ANWR, an area that is less than 1/100th the size of ANWR, and drilling supported by the vast majority of Alaskans, and forcing America to continue to be dependant on foreign sources of oil.

Thanks also to Democrats for their putting a stop to the exploration and tapping of resources on the outer continental shelf, thus compounding our dependencies of foreign sources of oil, which is now running over $60 per barrel.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Liberal-left get's the Constitution and our Bill of Rights wrong yet again. IN a recent interview for Minnesota Law and Politics, Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch was asked who his favorite judge is and why, his response:

Well, Warren, Earl Warren. Just because the Warren court really established all the basic rights for citizens, and incorporated the Fourteenth Amendment - Brown v. School Board. It took somebody like Warren, who was also a great judge, but frankly, a great governor, and what he did is he was able to - he wasn't going to issue that opinion until he got all nine of 'em to agree. He got the job done. For that alone; it was a remarkable decision, and it was wonderful.

Apparently, Mike Hatch has deleted the Bill of Rights from our Constitution, and eliminated the Declaration of Independence altogether.

No need to rehash what those great documents, the Declaration being the corner stone and the constitution with the Bill of Rights the foundation, of our government and our way of life.

The basic rights were not granted to us by some court, but recognized as being ingrained in our very nature by our Founding Fathers: the Right of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are NATURAL rights, not something that can be granted or taken away by a court or, under our system, by a legislative body.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This morning, I ran across a piece about Planned Parenthood Golden Gate's new cartoon video "Superhero for Choice" over on the Dawn Patrol. Dawn Patrol has a great deal to say about this video, all of it on the mark, and she has links to sites that have made the video available for download, so you should check it out for yourself.

In the video, they portray a shady character that looks like a cross between Boris Badinoff and Dick Dastardly promoting abstinence as the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. For the pregnancy counter, the kids mention using condoms (last I checked, 86% viable, providing they are used correctly) the "pill" (something on the order of 99%, again, only if used correctly) as a means to prevent pregnancy, but offer no items to counter STDs. The pro-abstinence character is portrayed as a very shady character deliberately to make teen sex look and sound cool, or as the video puts it, "safe is sexy." Dianysis, a deliberate choice of name to make the superhero sound both sexy and associate it with the CEO of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, then drowns the pro-abstinence promoter in a trash can filled with a lubricant PPGG recommends to teenagers for using in certain, ah, "activities," shall we say, and you can check out The Dawn Patrol for a more specific description.

Next up are a group of shadily portrayed "anti-choice" protestors, which, after acknowledging that they have a right to protest in front of abortion clinics, Dianysis fires her condom gun that encases the protestors in condoms, then explode, vaporizing the protestors. Semantics: people who view abortion as immoral are "Pro-Life" not "anti-choice". Also, the protestors are portrayed as ugly, contemptible creatures, who "often become unruly," meaning violent.

The video consistently portrays people who are pro-life and promote abstinence in a negative fashion, and is blatant in showing them as ugly and repressive, while the pro-death, damn the STDs, full sex ahead crowd are portrayed in a positive light, despite their drowning out opposed voices from the discourse, and portraying the killing of four people. The credits in the video even show a protestor being decapitated by a condom.

I am stunned to have learned that a Planned Parenthood organization would produce and distribute such a vile, unfairly biased and just plain contemptible video.

At this time, PPGG still refers to the video on the front page of their website, however, the link to the video has been removed. If you are interested, Dawn Patrol has a series of links to the video for download. Check it out and see for yourself.

The only "safe sex" is no sex outside of marriage (I know, I'm a fine to talk...), The video promotes teen sex, and even suggests that all STDs can be cured, if not avoided, which is patently false (AIDS, herpes, at least, are incurable).

Posted by Sqotty at 9:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

My friend Bill was in an auto-accident on Sunday. Although his vehicle was totaled, Bill has assured everyone that he is okay. At least, physically.

Bill reports on his blog that during the confusion at the accident scene and the towing, much of his Klingon gear was stolen, as well as his laptop and a digital camera that was loaned to him.

The laptop and camera will be hard to track, however, it may be worth it to keep an eye out for any Klingon gear showing up on the market, although I doubt the the cretin will try and sell it. Probably just look at it and think "cool...Halloween stuff..."

Anyrate, at least Bill wasn't hurt.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

What a day..I just got home from spending the late afternoon and evening at th Dakota County Fair. This is the first year I have been able to make it out there, and I had a good time down there.

There was a demonstration of early fire fighting techniques...we're talking late 19th century equipment; this was held in the Heritage Village at the Fair. The village even has an old fashion soda fountain and a post office, as well as talks on history.

The Army and related Guard units had various displays, including a rock climbing wall, an APC, a couple of humvees and the main section of a Huey Cobra gunship. Very cool.

This was followed by wandering around and chatting with various people, including Pat Garofalo, the State Rep for district 36B at the GOP booth.

County Fairs are so much fun to go to...hadn't been to one in a long time, although I have made it to the Minnesota State Fair the last couple of years. If you haven't been to a county fair in a while, look one up and go. They are a lot of fun. The one thing I didn't get is the friends I was with commenting on it being crowded. Being from California, where the county fairs I have been to are about the size of the State Fair here, I guess it is all kind of relative.

Not much more to say...just a busy day between work and fun. Tomorrow will be a different story...

Posted by Sqotty at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Star-Tribune is running an opinion piece advocating bankrupting the Social Security System.

But along with the promise, Roosevelt offered this warning: "Let us not allow ourselves to be misled by those who advocate short cuts to Utopia or fantastic financial schemes."

Today, the promise of Social Security has come under attack by backers of a scheme that clearly is a "short cut to Utopia": private accounts funded by money drained from Social Security.

The plan for private accounts would not be funded by money drained from Social Security, but funded by payroll deductions from each participant’s paycheck. Personally, I don’t like the deceitful misrepresentation of the privatization plan that this opinion piece has put out.

It also fails to point out that Social Security is a Federally controlled benefit, to which nearly every worker in America is force to pay, and receive no guarantees of receiving a payout. It can be terminated or modified at the whim of Congress, leaving working Americans no choice but to continue to pay into this insolvent system.

Kimball also fails to point out that some FIVE MILLION Americans have been able to opt out of the Social Security program by working for certain state, county or local municipalities, or that anyone elected to public office have the ability to have their pay as an elected official shifted from Social Security to a fully private and matched retirement system similar to 401K retirement accounts. And at a lower rate (5%) as well.

Privatizing Social Security, even offering it as an option, would return control of some of our money back to the people it belongs, and that is the right course to take.

Yet this representative from the AARP uses leftist talking points to cloud the issue, that privatizing will make the situation worse and pile on a mountain of debt, without showing any substantive facts to back it up.

Social Security is far from secure, and the only way to fix it is to privatize, not bury one’s head in the sand and hope that the problem goes away, as Michelle Kimball advocates in her opinion piece.

It should also be pointed out that the plan for creating private accounts that workers could choose to pay into (they could also choose to stay fully in the soon to be bankrupt plan) does NOT take anything away from those retired workers receiving benefits, nor impact those nearing retirement age.

This is a fairly typical tactic of the Socialist left…they shoot down the plan without supporting their arguments, instead focusing on the Social Security program as being a “great legacy” of FDR, and should not be touched, except to tax American workers even more.

Further, the creation of private accounts would provide many poor workers with the means to pass some level of wealth on to their offspring, especially true of black men whose life expectancy is somewhere around 67, right around retirement age. And the money you pay into Social Security cannot be passed on to your children if you die without receiving an amount equivalent to what you paid into the system.

Let’s not forget that the current process, the pipeline of money forcibly (remember, this is not a voluntary participation plan) taken from young workers goes to pay those retired workers receiving benefits. This is not to say that retirees don’t deserve compensation: They do! However, it is unfair to the workers of today to be continually taxed without recourse to support a system that will provide them less than 85 cents for every dollar they pay into it, and then factor in inflation, and you have a losing proposition.

The system, as it stands today, does far more harm to poor Americans by preventing them a means of accumulating wealth that can be passed on from generation to generation. By denying the ability to pass wealth on, they condemn impoverished Americans to continue in a cycle of poverty for generations.

The implementation of private retirement accounts, even if it is only a portion of the employee tax, will go a long way in helping break the cycle of poverty, and create a whole new class of investors, who may learn the power of wealth accumulation. Perhaps that is what the AARP truly fears, impoverished people learning the truth that it is the Liberal/Leftist agenda that is keeping the shackles of poverty in place.

Kimball’s piece ends with the following statement:

Congress should follow FDR's wise counsel and put aside "short cuts to Utopia" that won't work and get serious about strengthening Social Security so it's fair for everybody.

Congress is trying to eliminate the “short cuts to Utopia” that Americans were shackled with by FDR, and the creation of private accounts will go along end to breaking those chains and putting Social Security on a course that is in keeping with our country’s founding principles of independence and self-reliance.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

GOPUSA has an interesting article on the failure by the ACLU and the Governemnt of Mexico to overturn an Arizona law that would require people applying for government benefits and services to prove their immigration status. Prop. 200 also requires proof of citizenship when regietering to vote and provide identification at the polls. Here's an excerpt:

An appeals court has rejected a bid by illegal immigrants to overturn Arizona's Proposition 200, which requires the state to verify the immigration status of people applying for benefits and services they are not allowed to receive under federal law.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed their challenge on the grounds that the illegal immigrants had no legal standing.

The Ninth Circuit Court got this one right, much to my surprise. This is the kind of law that needs to be put on the books in the rest of the Union.

Another choice quote:

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican government - which filed the suit - plan to take the case "to the Supreme Court and even the UN," warned Perry Pendley of Mountain States Legal Foundation, who represented the voters' interests before the appeals court.

Imagine that, taking it to the Supreme court, which should uphold the Ninth Circuit's ruling, and then going to the UNITED NATIONS? Wow, talk about a complete disregard for the Constitution and our sovereignty. Now, this is the kind of tactics I would expect from the Mexican government, but the ACLU, which purports to support the Constitution (even though we know the truth there)?

I can see it now, the ACLU crying to the U.N. that they don't like our constitution and demanding that it be overturned.

Posted by Sqotty at 4:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

In a Star-Tribune Opinion piece, Coleen Rowley, a DFLer seeking the nomination for the Second Congressional District in 2006, writes:

There had been some early signs of clarity, however, despite the continuing disintegration of Iraq. With their eyes fixed on what apparently matters the most to them (the 2006 congressional elections), the president and his generals had begun to think of "cutting and running."

Of course, that's not what they'd call it. But avoiding the same drawn-out, bloody end as occurred in Vietnam is reason enough to let the administration play loose with its terms ... and perhaps even the truth.

The last I checked, although the terrorists are continuing their murderous attacks, the Liberation of Iraq has been, and still is, an overwhelming success. The first democratically elected government in several decades, free elections, women allowed to vote, the shut-down of the Saddam Hussein's torture chambers, and the rape rooms of his sons. A far cry from Vietnam, a war that was lost by "liberal" politicians to weak in the knees to do what was right, and prevent the communist takeover of South Vietnam, despite our treaty to support South Vietnam after the withdrawal of U.S. ground troops in 1973.

Furthermore, I resent her implication that the Bush Administration, the RNC, and Republicans in general are only concerned about the next election. This is patently false, and Rowley is politicizing the war on terrorism for her own political gain.

Rowley is another one of those week-in-the-knee wanna-be politicians, who is the type to cut and run, abandoning the newly freed peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan to succumb to tyranny. The people of Iraq are not yet ready to take full control of their country's security, however, it is getting better, and that day looks to be on the not to distant horizon.

And even if Iraq were "another Vietnam", as the "liberal" elites purport, why are our military men and women re-enlisting in record numbers? Answer: they recognize, overwhelmingly, that this job needs to be done.

She further writes:

Ending American/British occupation of Iraq will also remove at least some ideological fuel of the violent extremism that has caused terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world.

It is not the occupation of Iraq that is fueling terrorist attacks, it is their hatred of Western Culture and the Ideology of Liberty and Justice For All that is fueling these attacks.

Rowley, and many other leftists of her stripe, fail to realize a few important facts: the acts of terrorism in Iraq are being performed by freedom hating terrorists bent on murder, not insurgents. Many of these terrorists that Rowley refers to as "insurgents" are not, be definition, insurgents, but foreign agitators (terrorists), who have sworn allegiance to al-Qaeda.

Another point is that by abandoning Iraq, as she supports, we would be communicating to terrorists throughout the world that the United States does not have the will to counter their murderous acts, thus giving them the strength to execute greater acts of terrorism, and seek the means to carry these acts out within the United States.

This is an important fact to remember, that these cultures look at the "peace at any cost" movement as a sign of weakness, and the last thing we need is to display weakness.

The only way to defeat terrorism is to stand strong, united and vigilant, and to seek out and destroy terrorist cells wherever they might be entrenched. A show of strength is the only thing that they understand and respect, although it will not stop their rampages until they are completely eradicated.-----

Posted by Sqotty at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Even the U.K. has its own version of Senator Durbin, in the form of George Galloway, who had been booted from the labor Party over his remarks concerning the war and subsequent occupation of Iraq. BBC online has this piece on Galloway:

MP George Galloway has defended comments referring to insurgents in Iraq as "martyrs", insisting he has not put British troops at risk.

During a tour of the Middle East, Mr Galloway spoke of "poor Iraqis" using the most basic weapons to write the names of their towns "in the stars".

The Respect MP accused the UK and America of "raping" Baghdad and said the US was losing the war.

There are a few things I contest with his statements: first, they are, by definition, not insurgents, but are, in fact murdering terrorists. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not an Iraqi, but a Jordanian. As are many of his followers. Insurgents, by definiion, are a citizens (not foreign nationals) who is rebelling against his government. They also do not resort to kidnapping and brutally executing hostages, or bombing subway stations in other countries (or any of the other assorted terrorist acts that have been committed as of late). Second, they are not martyrs who are sacrificing their lives for a greater good, but murdering thugs bent on a return to totalitarian rule, killing innocents, and those Iraqi's who are trying to help improve Iraq.

These people hate Liberty, and Galloway is taking their side, accusing the U.K. and the U.S.A. for the terrorist acts that have been perpetrated throughout the world, whether by al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or any other terrorist organization that routinely targets non-combatants, especially children.

To refer to terrorist thugs who are killing American, British, and Australian troops (as well as other soldiers in the Coalition Forces) as martyrs, as though they have died in a great cause is not only repugnant, it further endangers those soldiers now serving in the field, and the lives of all people at home.

Posted by Sqotty at 7:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Just ran across this article out of the Weekend Australian:

"Osama bin Laden, he is a great man," he (Benbrika) told ABC radio. "Osama bin Laden was a great man before 11 September, which they said he did it, until now nobody knows who did it." During ASIO interviews, Mr Benbrika said he supported the right of Australians to engage in militant action overseas. He also said Australian authorities had no right to interfere with individuals who wanted to die in another country.

Posted by Sqotty at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

As usual, I was early for the Townhall Meetup. This is not a big surprise as the place where we meet has free wi-fi available, so I fired up my laptop and filled in the time til other folks began showing up by working on my new project/business, ConservaGear.

Townhall.com did not provide an agenda as they usually do, so tonight's meeting was rather freeform, or, more accurately, chaotic.

We did touch on immigration reform to which Tracy, our fearless president for life of the group, brought up one of the most overlooked reasons for sealing the borders to eliminate, or at least reduce the amount of, illegal immigration: diseases. There are three serious diseases that had been eradicated from the United States that have now resurged due to the large influx of illegal immigrants: tuberculosis, leprosy, and polio.

When people who are immigrating legally through our ports, they must submit to health checks, including for these diseases. In fact, when I returned from overseas duty, I had to take a TB test (I passed). If an immigrant has any of these, or a host of other, diseases, they are quarantined until it is under control, or denied entry.

Illegal immigrants bypass this health check, and so have been a major contributor to the resurgence of tuberculosis and other diseases.

Tracy also gave an update on the number of bars in Minneapolis that have closed since the smoking ban went into effect a few months ago. The tally now stands at 17. More importantly is the ripple effect these smoking bans are having on the local economy; since bars and restaurants are experiencing reduced business, they are not ordering as much goods/supplies, so the suppliers in turn have lower revenues due to a lack of orders from the businesses they supply, and so on. The reduction of business in bars is also resulting in lower tax revenues at the local level, which means the tax and spend liberals will be clamoring to raise taxes to make up for the shortfall in revenues, and, no doubt, will seek to blame the smokers who have taken their business to other counties, or are staying at home.

Let's face, the short-sightedness of the county commissioners who passed the smoking ban is causing the local economy to stall, and, in the event that local taxes are increased to make up the short fall, will refuse to accept the blame for the problems they have created.

By the way, I don't smokenever have, never will.

The discussion meandered around all over the map, and as a side benefit, when discussing all the varieties of taxes, such as on pull-tabs, I was introduced to what pull-tabs are. You see, I had never heard of them before. We don't have pull-tabs in California. At least, not that I am aware of.

Overall, the meeting was a pretty good time, with about 15 in attendance, including two new faces. The service and the food were good, and the beer was Guinness.

Posted by Sqotty at 2:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

President Bush has used his constitutionally granted power to appoint John Bolton as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. We have been without proper representation to that body for sometime now while awaiting the Senate to hold a vote on Bolton's nomination. This recess appointment will expire at the end of the next session of Congress.

The Constitution, under Article Two, Section 3, states:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next session.

Since the Senate Democrats refuse to allow a vote on Bolton's nomination, it is only appropriate that the President should such power as granted to him to fill this very important vacancy that has been allowed to lay fallow for far too long.

"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform. So today I've used my constitutional authority to appoint John Bolton to serve as America's ambassador to the United Nations."

President Bush said during his announcement from the Roosevelt Room in the White House.

"The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues. ... It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N."

Senator Ted Kennedy bloviated his response to the announcement of Bolton's appointment to the United Nations.

Bolton's nomination became stalled some months ago, blocked by Democrats and their partisan bickering. It comes as no surprise that some would make such outrageous statements such as the one made by Ted Kennedy.

Somehow, it is only outrageous when a conservative Republican uses their Constitutionally granted power, but it is a-ok for a Liberal Democrat, such as the former President Clinton, who made 140 recess appointments. (Bush has made 106 such appointments.)

Posted by Sqotty at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions