The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Another cold day in you know where - NYT praises Bolton

I have stated that 2006 will be a fun political year many times. It seems I did not know how fun and how surprising things were going to be. Every time I turn around some political animal is changing their spots; at least temporarily. Now Newsmax is claiming that the New York Times is praising John Bolton for his efforts to reform the United Nations. Wow, the NYT and the Logic Lifeline agree on something.

The bottom line is that John Bolton is doing an awesome job and I am looking for the liberals to step up and admit they were wrong about him and draw attention to the circus environment created by the Democrats (and that little girl Voinavich) during his confirmation hearings. Where is the apology? I appreciate the NYT going this far, but it needs to go way farther and these clowns styling themselves as US Senators need to be called on the carpet for their irresponsible behavior.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

New addition to my blog list

Recently I saw that my friend LASunsett at the Political Yen/Yang makes a big fanfare when he adds a new link to his blogroll. I think this is a good practice. Of course this means I need to apologize to all the others on the list that I did not give a big fanfare to. LA also pointed out a good point: that he does not automatically reciprocate linking to a blog just because they link to him. While I did not have that policy in place, I have so far linked to only quality blogs that deserve the honor anyway (with one nepotistic exception - my sons somewhat short lived blog. Hopefully I can give him a kick in the seat of his pants to get posting again).

I am happy to introduce my link to the Generation Why blog. He is one of the few who does not write under an alias. Author Jason Smith is a Weblog Awards finalist for 2005. I have been looking at this blog for some time on a regular basis and have linked to a few of his posts. The last couple of weeks, Jason has been on quite a roll. Some recent great posts are the following:

- The sloppy New York Times
- The Democrats - If the election were held today fantasy
- The Texas Dorm Ricin Story
- The heartwarming basketball story of the autistic boy who scored 20 pts
- Democrats violate ethics rules to claim Republicans violated ethics rules
- The Bush Lied Impeachment case vs. the Saddam Tapes

So there it is. My fanfare welcome of Generation Why. I hope you visit this and my other great links often.

John Bolton continues tough stance on UN

Ok liberals, lets have a show of hands. How many of you want the UN to exercise authority over the governments of all the world's countries? How many of you think it is a great idea to have a global income tax to help impoverished countries? How many think the internet should be in the sole control of the UN? How many of you have been talking about a GOP "culture of corruption"?

Now that you know how massively corrupt the UN has been and continues to be, how many of you are now scared to death of enacting these things listed above? Judging from the silence of the left, I can only conclude that they still want to move ahead with further empowerment of the UN. While this does not make sense to me at all, I think it goes along with a statement I recently posted in a comment at the Political Yen Yang:
"As with all leftists they do not want a world that is prosperous, healthy and happy unless those conditions are the result of their policies enacted. The problem is that wherever their liberal policies are enacted we only see poverty, disease and misery in the worse case; with sluggish mediocre economies at best."
Most supporters of the UN lean left, so to deprive the UN of the opportunity to solve the world's problems is loathsome to them. To follow the capitalist example of the United States to expand wealth in the world is so disgusting to them they would rather the world's problems expand.

The UN, however, is so corrupt it holds no hope of solving any world problems. The left resisted the nomination of John Bolton so much, but his performance since being appointed by a recess appointment shows he is the perfect selection. According to Newsmax Bolton recently spoke at a Columbia Law School symposium. Bolton focused again on the management and corruption problems at the UN.
"We find an organization that is deeply troubled by bad management, by sex and corruption and by a growing lack of confidence in its ability to carry out missions that are given to them"

Bolton also criticized the member contribution budget "noting that two-thirds of members pay only 20 percent of the cost." Bolton also points out the UN failure regarding Iran. The Newsmax story states:

Bolton on Saturday also described the U.N. as inept for not being able to stop Iran's nuclear development and "devaluing the IAEA," the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"Through all of this, the U.S. has been encouraged by Europe to pursue action through the U.N.," Bolton said, adding that patience of the administration was wearing thin.

The left within the US and without seem to think everything should be handled through the UN. However, they also somehow think it falls most squarely on the shoulders of the US to deal with the Iranian nuclear crisis. They want the US to go through the UN, but if it fails they want to blame the US. The UN response to Saddam Hussein must have certainly inspired fear in the Iranian leader. Not. If anything they sent a clear signal that aggression will be met with looking the other way. Then if any takes up the cause, they will be accused of unilateralism.

Bolton is doing a great job. I am still waiting with bated breath to see the liberals admit that and apologize for blocking him under such ridiculous pretenses. I think agreeing with Chuck Schumer took up the quota for cold days in hell for awhile, though.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Generation Why says Governor Rendell dropped something

Generation Why has a post today that essentially says to PA. Governor Rendell "Oops, you dropped something". There is a bill coming before him that would require photo ID in elections. Rendell is threating to veto it using the usual pap according to this AP report:
He said people such as nursing home residents and poorer voters might not be able to meet the ID requirements.
Oops, that 'usual pap' is missing something. Gen. Why points out that Rendell is not talking about black being disenfranchised by the bill. He thinks it is because Rendell's opponent is black Republican Lynn Swan.

The subject of election fraud is so mishandled by liberals to the point of laughter. In the lefty blogosphere you read all of the time about how the manufacturer of the voting machines is a big GOP supporter and that they are the reason Republicans keep winning elections. (Keep thinking that). However, when it comes to a full and comprehensive approach to preventing voter fraud that includes a required photo ID, they suddenly go silent. The cost of the photo IDs is such a red herring. Realistically, how many of the poor they are concerned about having to cough up a few bucks for an ID have cable TV, smoke regularly, go to the movies and eat out regularly, play the lottery regularly and go to the bar regularly? However, if that is still a problem shut up and fund it if you have to. Cleaner elections are worth it.

Generation Why has a good post and links to a post from November 2004 about actually seeing voter fraud first hand. Check it out.

John Stossel - Keep it coming!

I have posted previously about John Stossel's push for school choice as the best means of boosting the quality of education in this country; especially in the big cities. Stossel has a new piece showcased at RealClearPolitics showing the undeniable link between teacher's unions and mediocrity. The hardest hitting paragraph states:
Some teachers care about the students, so they want to do more than the contract requires. But astoundingly, some of them told me they are actually afraid to stay at school when the union says it's time to go home. They worry they'll "get in trouble with the union." It's as if the teachers, united, never to be defeated, made a decision: Instead of letting the administrators crack down on bad teachers, the union will protect the bad teachers by cracking down on the good ones.
We have heard about students that want to do well in school and succeed being ridiculed. Here we have the same genre of activity at the teacher's level. I applaud John Stossel for keeping these education related editorials coming. By comparison his fellow media associates are sorely lacking in their duty to tell this side of the story. The liberals in the media constantly whine about conservatives not doing enough for education. As the liberal who tries to pass grammar and spelling corrections as logical reasoning, these try to pass throwing more money at education as caring for the kids. Then they refuse to reveal the massacre the teacher's unions are committing on the education system. They refuse to take responsibility for the minority children affected the most by this bait and switch tactic while pretending to be their champions. Keep going John! You deserve a Pulitzer for this, but I doubt it will happen.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Congratulations to LASunsett

Yesterday while recovering from being sick, I was listening to Michael Savage talking about the Port issue. Somebody on his research team had scoured the blogosphere and given Savage a few examples of what people were saying. The third was a post from our friend LASunsett from the Political Yen/Yang blog. Savage named the blog and read about half of the post on national radio! Now that is exciting. LA had quoted me in that post, but Michael did not get that far. :(

I note that there are 4 items in that post that would appeal to Savage:
1) It talked about Michael Savage
2) It emphasized the independent nature of Savage
3) It named his 3 best sellers.
4) It named his 3 prong ongoing theme: borders, language and culture.

I am very happy for LA, who tells me he missed the reference. :( If any of you heard it on the radio, I would appreciate your confirmation. I'm sure he believes me, but it would be nice to hear from somebody else. It was in the first hour of the show.


Monday, February 20, 2006

Light blog warning

I was tempted last night to post a light blog warning. I have so much to do at work and at home that blogging will need to be squeezed in with a crow bar over the next few days.

Then the first day of my work week I get sick, so this warning is a foregone conclusion. I now have about 10 days of work to do in 4 remaining.

It is interesting to see the Portgate drama unfold. Hopefully by the time I come back it will be resolved. Other than that it looks like the most I will miss is more Cheney shooting coverage.

See you in a few. Thanks for everyone's support and I hope you come back.


Friday, February 17, 2006

Port issue a gift to the Dems?

The port takeover could wind up being a gift to the Democrats. For 5 years Dems have been trying to find an issue they can sink their teeth into to take down Bush. They may have had that issue fall right into their laps. The Bush Administration seems bent on allowing the transaction that will give a company owned by the United Arab Emirates control over the port security of several major seaports.

My first thought when I heard about this story was that some remote level of the administration bungled this and allowed the sale to Dubai World Ports, but then the White House comes out with statements that they don't see a problem. Michelle Malkin has a very comprehensive post on this topic. What we are seeing is that the administration is now fully aware of this sale and is choosing to defend it rather then even review it. I have heard many criticisms of Bush and have never seen anything legitimately proveable that mattered beyond the immigration and spending problem. This one is a big disappointment as it shows an error in judgement where Bush has been consistently strong: national security. I have been accused of being a kool-aid drinker, but that cannot be further from the truth. Bush needs to take a look at the dots and connect them before it is too late.

The Democrats have a real opportunity to capitalize on this issue, although they have some historical strikes against them. First, they have been in bed with the liberal media so long and the media has a real inconsistency with this story. This sale has been in the works since late November and was approved on Tuesday. The media has had this information all during the NSA Surveillance and most recently the Dick Cheney shooting. Ann Compton was so caught up in the Cheney story she did not even have a clue about this story when it was being reported in several sources. The media also has been so deeply in bed with radical Islam, they will have trouble ginning up outrage over this story with any credibility. Then after all the media criticism of Bush and Saudi Arabia, they were silent over Gore's sellout to the Saudis recently.

The liberal blogs will also have a tough time getting angry over this in a credible fashion. This week the Ostroy Report has had eight very long posts only about Dick Cheney's shooting incident. I am sure this is par for the course across the board. I spot checked a few and that seems to be the case. Daily Kos, however, stumbles in the starting gate by distorting the facts. The post title is "Bush Administration Sells Port Security To Highest Foreign Bidder". Sorry Kos, no money is coming to the US over this. The "Highest Bid" is simply part of the purchase process of one company by another. I don't think the liberal blogs are going to be able to handle this in a credible fashion.

Finally, there is the Dems. Their history does not give them much room to take this and run with it. Additionally, they will have a tough time not "overplaying their hand" as they usually do. If they stick with a simple set of points given regularly and at a non-shrill level they may have a chance. If they for the 100th time, for the 100th issue immediately go to "shrill" it will be tuned out.

If the Dems gain ground over this, it is a legitimate issue unlike all of the other failed attempts. For me, I simply want this security breach corrected. It will be challenging either way because they let it get this far.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

John Bolton doing an excellent job so where is the apology?

I was listening to a local Chicago talk show this morning where ambassador to the UN John Bolton was being interviewed. I only heard part and I don't have a transcript, but I was so impressed with the man. There are three points in the interview that stand out: the Security Council and Iran, UN reform, and the election of a new UN Secretary General.

His main point on the Security Council and Iran was completely in line with what I have been posting here: the Security Council must succeed in dealing with Iran or show themselves to be irrelavent and ineffective. This is the biggest test of the Security Council so far in our lifetime. It takes somebody like John Bolton, a UN skeptic rather than a UN worshipper, to come to the UN and demand they meet their obligations of face being revealed for what they truly are. A UN supporter with a world view is the last thing we needed to send to the UN. From all I have seen of this so called "world view" is the rest of the world reluctant to enact the policies that make the US great, and to do all they can to defang and weaken the US militarily and economically. To send an ambassador with a world view is like a court appointing the prosecutor to double as defense attorney for the accused.

John Bolton spoke of UN reform. There are those who would like to see the Oil-for-Food scandal just go away, but Bolton assured us that he will not let it go away until real reform has been put into place. Currently, their idea of reform is to outsource administrative work to save money. Bolton pointed out that Oil-for-Food did not just materialize out of thin air, but is the result of a longstanding culture that already existed at the UN. Now that is a culture of corruption. I have not heard many Democrats decrying it, though. Oh wait, they don't have anything to gain politically by doing so. The media does not say much of it either. Now that is very illogical because every world view media member must view the UN as "higher" than the US government. So a proven culture of corruption in the UN is by far a bigger story than a ginned up story about a culture of corruption in the GOP. The host of the show at this time brought up Bolton's quote that the best UN reform would come by simply "lopping" off the top ten floors of the UN building. I say, don't stop at 10.

Bolton also spoke about the upcoming selection of a new Secretary General to replace Kofi. Apparently for some reason in the middle of communist China rising as a military and economic power there is some push for putting an Asian in the position. "Asian" is very broad, but my bet would be if we went that route that someone with close ties to China would be selected. As Bush Senior would say "Wouldn't be prudent". Bolton did not denounce the idea, but handled the topic very well. He stated that if it were determined that an Asian were the best one for the job, that would be considered. Then he went to various parts of the world and said the same thing. Finally, he landed on brilliance by focusing on Eastern Europe. He stated there has never been a SG from Eastern Europe and that would be good to look into. I think someone from Eastern Europe is a fantastic idea. With threats of communism, appeasing socialism, despotism, etc. the one place in the world least affected by those factors and least likely to stab the US in the back would come from Eastern Europe.

In conclusion, John Bolton has shown himself to be doing a fantastic job as UN ambassador. He is firm and determined, but he is nothing as portrayed by the Democrats and their water-carrying media. It is both time to change his recess appointment to a full appointment and it is time to for a full and humble apology from the Democrats and from that crying Voinevich.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Why is there are virtual blackout on the United Arab Emirates port takeover?

Once again, the NY Post is playing point guard on the the purchase of a London company by a United Arab Emirates company that gives responsibility over the security details of 6 major sea ports in our country. The last story gave the impression that perhaps this sale had slipped by the Bush Administration and showed Chuck Schumer leading the charge in making them aware of it. With the initial story and Schumer's intervention giving the administration time to step in, it appears they have decided to allow it as the deal was finalized today. This is a huge error in judgement on Bush's part as I would find it very hard to believe he does not yet know about it.

What is shocking is that there appears to be a virtual media blackout on the entire affair. I am asking myself why the media is not going in for an obvious kill that has been handed to them on a silver platter? My only theory is that their pro-muslim world view blinds them to the serious nature of this transfer. But what about the others? I am not seeing any of the major conservative talk show hosts discussing it. Now I do not hear their entire shows, so maybe they slipped it in. If it is not being discussed, I would like to know why. I can only hope that this gets more attention and is somehow corrected.

Update: WorldNetDaily is now reporting on this as breaking news. Better late than never. I was beginning to wonder if it was a hoax, but the WorldNetDaily story has more quotes from Schumer, whom I have never had one good thing to say about...until now.

Another Update: Yahoo via AFP has the story, but you have to do a news search for it to find it. So it seems to be for real. The question is why the silence? Also, when are they going to fix it?

Were the flowers better under the Clinton administration?

Happy Valentines Day to all. On the lighter side, I would like to rant about the sad shape of flowers. As usual I was looking to get some roses for Olive Oil for Val-Day and literally spent 30 minutes staring at the selection. There were about 40 dozen reds (the only ones I was interested in) and I looked at each at least twice and most 3-4 times. There is always, always at least one bad rose in each bunch. Our anniversary, Olive's birthday and Val-Day come 3 months right in a row. Each time the selection was bad. I was on the brink of grabbing the florist and demanding they take apart a few dozen to combine to make one decent dozen, when I saw a 99% good set. One rose was open just a bit more than I cared; otherwise it was nice.

I seem to remember a few years ago being able to find good flowers (without paying an arm and a leg at the florist). In fact, the florist is an arm and a leg and their selection was also garbage in December. I think it was during Clinton's administration when the flowers were so good. Don't say I never said anything good about Clinton.

American Bolshevik Association denounces wiretapping

The American Bolshevik Association who styles themselves as the American Bar Association (ABA) has denounced Bush's wiretapping. This is the latest in a long line of bizarre antics from liberal leaning people and organizations. This comes from an AP story via One very odd line in the story states:
The ABA has urged Congress to affirm that when it authorized Bush to go to war, it did not intend to endorse warrantless spying.
So out of one side of their mouth, the ABA claims this is not legal. Out of the other side of their mouth it will take an act of Congress to make it illegal by clarifying their position on the authorization to go to war. Which is it ABA? Another bizarre legal aspect of this issue is how liberals have historically interpreted law in such a broad manner as to often swerve into interpretations so broad, the final interpretation has no shred in the original law. Roe vs. Wade is a prime example, where it is based on "privacy" which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. On issues of presidential power, however, liberals tend to favor the most constricting interpretation.

Since the first announcement of this issue in December, the Democrats have either been painting themselves into the corner of "rooting for the terrorists" or embarrassing themselves. Jimmy Carter is the poster boy of embarrassing himself on a regular basis and the latest is a crowning jewel. After using a funeral to bash Bush (these Dems and their funerals) where Carter blasted Bush's program as illegal; we now see that Carter did the exact same thing. According to the Washington Times Carter "authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam." Ouch. That's gotta hurt.

Then there is the incredible crumbling united front among Democrats. Tom Daschle and Jane Harmon claimed they were all for Bush's program on Meet the Press. Moments later they realized they had stepped in it and started adding qualifiers. The fact is that Democrats are absolutely beside themselves. A peek at the Rasmussen tracking poll for Bush may explain some of this. Bush had been in the mid 40's since December and 9 of the last 13 days Bush has been in the upper 40's. It seems like everytime the Democrats open their mouth Bush goes up a point. I wonder what would happen if they were silent for a month?

Monday, February 13, 2006

Generation Why finds second Bush-Abramoff Pic

Go to the Generation Why Blog to see commentary on the first published picture of Bush and Abramoff TOGETHER! Then scroll down to see a Generation Why EXCLUSIVE Second Pic. You won't believe your eyes! It's over for Bush.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Is somebody in the government smoking crack?

The NY Post is reporting something that has completely blown me away! Apparantly, we have a company named Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. in charge of the port operations that includes security for some of our ports. According to the Post, these ports include "New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami". The first kicker is that this company is based in London; meaning we have outsourced a major point of entry into our country to a foreign country. England may be our ally, but this is absolutely foolish.

It then gets worst; really worst. Here is where the crack comes in. Apparently, another company, Dubai Ports World , is purchasing Peninsular. If the name did not tip you off, this company is based in the United Arab Emirates. It would be absolutely insane for the DHS to allow a Middle East company to have any part in our security, even if it were an ally. As the Post points out, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has "financial links" to the September 11th attacks. According to the Post:

If shareholders approve the deal tomorrow, it will give control of various dock operations at some of the country's busiest points of entry to UAE-headquartered DP World.

The FBI has said most of the money for the 2001 terror attacks was funneled to hijackers through UAE banks, and much of the planning took place in the small but rich nation east of Saudi Arabia.

So if this goes through, the security for these ports will be the responsibility of a company from a country with terrorist ties. The story states that this purchase has been approved by the "U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an arm of the Treasury Department." Somebody in this committee needs to answer if the security link was even considered. If not, somebody needs to be accountable for being incompetent. If so, somebody needs to answer if DHS was informed and consulted of this. This is a huge bungle on somebody's part.

I will point out that Chuck Schumer has approached the Bush administration about this. While I appreciate his targeting this folly, it has the whiff of a plan to play another political card. It would really be admirable if he just did his job here and left politics out.

A related topic that I have mentioned before is the bureaucracy of governmental departments and the mixed political nature of appointees and employees in these departments. We not only suffer from a bloated, red-tape prone government; there is also the likelihood of those with differing partisan baggage they bring to their jobs inside these departments. All it takes is one partisan to make a blooper like this (or as mentioned before making an injured soldier pay for his own body armor damaged in the blast) to grab a huge negative headline that could even be used in campaigns. This is why these "mistakes" need to be fully investigated and to be sure to have accountability controls in place and enforced.

So going backwards, using a middle-eastern based company to secure our ports is insane. Outsourcing any of our security to any other country is foolish. The last thing we want is to see a nuclear device or other WMD come in through these ports.

Hat Tip:, although Glenn Reynolds does not seem as shocked as I am.

Hey Condi: Are you reading my blog?

The day after I post about Putin's fantasy of returning to the old Soviet Union, Condi Rice talks about this very topic on "Face the Nation" this morning. While Condi does not claim Putin wants to bring back the hammer and sickle like I do, she does state that Putin has brought Russia a few steps back from the peak of gains in democracy.

I think the moment of truth for Russina democracy will come when Putin's term expires. Putin has claimed he will not make changes to allow him to run again. Continued erosion of democracy could occur either mildly by changing the law to allow another term or dramatically by shamelessly taking the reins of power on a permanent basis. The iron hard look in Putin's eye tells me he would not hesitate to do this if he felt he could get away with it. I can't imagine Putin allowing another hardliner in power after him; not because of pure motives, but because he would want himself in power. I can't see anyone less than a hardliner, though.

My underlying point is that the Soviet Union took such a center stage in world events until the fall. Things have been too quiet, and I think events are budding for a resurgence to the world scene. With a simultaneous continued growth of China as a powerhouse, radical Islam's sleeper cell awakening in every major western country and the growing leftist movement in South America the movement of these world events promise a very challenging world future. The liberal elite do not understand the serious creature being created from the mixture of these areas, but it certainly cannot be addressed from a position of weakness and appeasement.

Saturday, February 11, 2006

Katie admires terrorist fashion

NewsBusters is pointing out how Katie Couric is reporting the latest Jill Carroll video. Katie apparently think there is 'a new breed of terrorists that are "not as vicious." ' Again we see the constant need of liberals to humanize these savages.

Katie next during an interview about the video begins to notice the backdrop selected by the kidnappers declaring "it's actually kind of a pretty setting." Either Katie was daydreaming about a recent shopping trip to redesign her living room, or she just cannot get it through her head that these people are evil. As Mark Finkelstein states that it is fair to point out that these captors seem to prefer negotiation to a quick kill, it is the fact that Katie hones in on some perceived "warm 'n fuzzy side" of the captors.

What is ironic is that liberals always seem to turn over every rock to find something bad to say about the GOP and specifically George Bush; they seem to just as fervently turn over every rock to find something good to say about terrorists. The mindset is absolutely astonishing.

When perspective is lacking and motives askew

It was a hot summer day and the sheriff of smalltown USA was sitting and sipping lemonaid. Along comes a sports car driving through town over 100 mph. The car strikes one pedestrian after another, with the violent spree ending as the car plowed through a group of children. The sports car doesn't even put on the brakes, and drives off out of town. With a dozen bloody townspeople and children lying on the ground where they fell, the sheriff takes another sip of his lemonaid and picks up a newspaper to read. Later in the day a car fails to stop fully at a stop sign and the sheriff chases the car down in his squad car, calling his deputy on the radio for backup.

The following story was made up if you have not guessed. However, the point of the story is to show a graphic picture of the feminist movement. I vividly remember after the Taliban fell in Afganistan, a feminist being interviewed was wondering if the women there would finally have the right to an abortion.

Mallot's Blog has a post on the latest outrage in Sharia law, and how the feminist movement ignores suffering by women that those in our country could never comprehend. The latest outrage is about a 17 year old Iranian girl who accidentally killed a man defending herself and her niece from a group of attackers trying to rape them. The girl is to be hanged. Between Sharia law and honor killings, women suffer from murder, rape, injustice, shame and much more all of the time. We have read stories of women that were raped and either have been stoned for fornication or have been killed by a family member out of honor. There was even a story last year of a woman who was forced to marry her rapist. There is of course the barbaric practice of female "circumcision" that takes away any prospect of sexual pleasure; while the men continue to enjoy their side of things.

Where are the feminists on these issues that really have destructive significance? They are strangely absent. They spend all of their time, money and energy fighting so every woman has the right to take the life of an unborn all the way up until the moment before birth. When a child survives the abortion process and some want laws made to protect the children who are now born, they fight that. When those who realize abortion cannot be stopped, but at least want forms that cause great suffering like the "partial birth" abortion, again they fight that. While they fight for me to pay for their children's daycare through my taxes women are being stoned in other parts of the world for being raped.

When I mentioned motives, my point is that addressing suffering women around the world will do nothing to advance political power here. My claim is that they have little or no desire to actually help women anywhere. They simply want to advance their political power. So while they fight against rolling stops and jaywalkers, they yawn when the sports cars massacre innocent pedestrians.

Update: I found an interesting post on the Beautiful Atrocities blog about a woment in Egypt who lost a paternity suit in spite of the fact DNA testing showed the man was the father. So here we have Sharia law based on faith trumping science. Maybe now they will draw some ire from the liberal who are always freaking out over the science/faith issue. If they put half the vitriol into this as they do against Intelligent Design, we might see some changes.

Two members of Security Council show why UN is worthless

Earlier in the week Russia's Putin declared the he does not consider Hamas a terrorist organization and that he planned to dialogue with them. With Russia's bloody and oppressive past, this is not very shocking. Since Gorbachev's Peristroika the liberal media worked very hard to humanize the communist regime. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, they have taken this many steps forward to picture in positive ways they have not yet earned. Putin is always there to remind us of the iron fist lurking in the shadows. Where it was and still is a difficult thing to generate hatred for communism in a liberal, in Russia's new skin liberals cannot see as conservatives do that Putin longs for the old Soviet Union.

Russia is the first Security Council member to take the lead in making overtures toward Hamas. As one of the five permanent members, Russia has truly walked away from their responsibility to the council by denying and warping the truth and by lending credibility to a group of killers.

Now a second member has dropped the ball. The NYT is reporting that France is backing Putin's decision. The article opens with:
France on Friday endorsed Russia's decision to hold talks on the Middle East conflict with Hamas, the radical Islamist Palestinian group, saying the discussion "can contribute to advancing our positions."
The UN has proven itself to be a joke over the decades, and this latest farse is just one in a long line of them. It is true that these decisions have not yet gone through the UN, but with two members already on record reflects on the body itself. We have to ask will disbanding the UN make the world a better place? I think it would. I wrote a paper on this very topic in high school and have not wavered from it for over 20 years.

Friday, February 10, 2006

EU Union want to throw freedom of the press under the bus

The European Union is suggesting throwing freedom of the press under the bus in an effort to show violent Muslims they will cave under any pressure. This appeasement to the bone mentality is one of the most dangerous mindsets of our generation. The strategy they propose makes me think of a man handing over his daughter to a violent man that broke into their house to do what he wants with her and leave so nobody gets hurt. It is truly a disgusting show of cowardice.

The liberals of Europe are coming to a crossroads. Recent events are shoving their nose into the fact that Bush was absolutely right in his choices to deal with the threat of radical Islam. Not only is appeasement so deeply engrained into their souls and the concept of meeting a threat with strength appalling to them; they also face the distasteful prospect of admitting Bush was right after making fools of themselves. While some seem willing of late to step up to the plate and meet the challenge, here we have others choosing to dig in deeper.

What needs to be fully realized is that we have a very large group that has entrenched themselves in every key country in the world. This group continues to insist that they be given their way or they will react violently. Somehow the appeasers think that giving in this time, and the next, and the next will teach them to change their ways. Any rational person would know that rewarding bad behavior will encourage and propagate it. Would these same appeasers look down on a mother in the food store buying candy for their 3 year old to calm the child down after throwing a fit? Will the child eat the candy and think that in the future it would be better NOT to throw the fit. NO. Next one will be bigger and better than this one.

Now or later these violent actions must be stopped. Inaction will lead to more and more until many are enslaved. Strong action may lead to a global conflict, but freedom and the right to live without the threat of violence is worth any sacrifice.

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Body armor story has a strange whiff to it

There is a strange story in the West Virginia Gazette about a wounded soldier being told he needed to reimburse the army $700 for damaged body armor when he sustained injuries from a road side bomb. There are several things that leap out of this story. First, the concept of charging an injured soldier for this is so completely bizarre that anyone who leaps onto its bandwagon must truly have their judgement questioned. Second, Senator Jay Rockefeller immediately jumped onto the bandwagon of outrage firing off a nasty letter to Don Rumsfeld demanding he give the money back. The third point is that Senator Byrd seems to have had a rational response.

What everyone continues to overlook is that the military is a bureaucratic entity just like any other government agency. It may be one of the more disciplined bureaucracies, but it is one nonetheless. Every time there is a snafu of this sort, the Dems and media are quick to jump all over it and will certainly make every attempt to portray this as Bush and Rumsfeld lacking care of the soldiers. Here we see Rockefeller going berzerk and writing a letter to Rumsfeld. He could have asked an aide to make a phone call to simply ask what this was about. Is there some new secretary, or processing agent that is not familiar with such things? Is somebody being a spiteful renegade? A simple "this is ridiculous and it needs to be corrected" is all that is needed, but the Dems simply can never pass up an opportunity to make a scene. Robert Byrd actually keeps his cool and wonders if this is standard practice?

I think this raises a specter in my mind of political ideologs in certain lower positions in government. I'm sure there are quite a number of lefties at the Pentagon, in the CIA, in the State Department, in the DHS and many other departments small and large. Here is a simple clerical "mistake" that happens to hit the papers. Can it be that some closet lefty might have done this so that we can plan on seeing claims of soldiers being charged for damaged armor in an explosion? I am sure this will get corrected immediately, but we will be seeing a commercial about this in the '06 and '08 elections no doubt.

Oddly enough a liberal blog was "Johnny on the spot" to raise money for the poor soldier:

The bulk of money for Rebrook was raised Tuesday after the soldier’s story was posted on, a popular liberal political blog.

Donations ranged from $1 to $400, said John Aravosis, who runs the Internet blog. More than 187 people gave money. About 200 people posted to the blog.

“Everybody thinks liberals hate soldiers,” Aravosis said. “But the majority of people get that it’s not right to abuse our troops.”

So we have a strange occurrence completely at odds with standard practice, Rockefeller firing off letters and making a big scene, a liberal blog raising money for the soldier and making claims of troop abuse. This one is so ripe I am not even seeing any reference about it on CNN.

The soldier William "Eddie" Rebrook has a great attitude. Almost $6000 was raised to give to him and he is not even keeping it. He is giving it to a woman who suffered from Katrina whose son helped save his life. He admits it was a tough pill to swallow, but the article states:

Despite the “bureaucratic snafu,” as Rebrook calls it, he holds no grudges. “I love the Army,” Rebrook said. “I love my soldiers. I loved being in it.”

Kudos to this great American for his service and his obvious love of country and serving it. Kudos to Robert Byrd for the second lucid moment this year. Shame on Rockefeller for continuing to politicize every single issue that comes his way.

What has fueled anti-Americanism around the globe

I recently made the following statement in a post: “Actually, the anti-Americanism around the globe fueled by the anti-Bush liberals in the US and abroad is likely the culprit for the situation in Iran.” This statement was criticized. My initial response was admittedly not carefully thought through which led to a series of back and forth posts. After careful inspection of the criticism, it seems to boil down to claims of not writing enough on the subject. This post is designed to address the topic of global anti-Americanism. My apologies in advance for the length of this post. It both answers items very fully where I have been questioned and also shows the ridiculous nature of an accusation that leaving out discussion of a, b and c calls a smaller post’s credibility into question.

When you look at the rest of the world you see different categories. You see totalitarian governments like China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria and many others. Russia is a recovering totalitarian government that seems to be in constant danger of falling off the wagon. Then there are the heavily socialist countries such as Western Europe, Canada and many South American countries. There are the impoverished countries such as many African countries and some that overlap with the socialist and totalitarian countries. Then there are the countries ranging from mildly socialist to capitalist. Included among these would be Australia and Eastern Europe.

In the totalitarian and heavily socialist countries, the government often has significant control over the media. In these countries I would be shocked if there were not a significant anti-American mindset among the governments, the people and the media. The socialist elite can be among the most arrogant of people. There is no such thing as ideological diversity in that group. So there should be no surprise if among these groups there is a propensity toward begrudging America to outright hating us. The only way to appeal to them is to be more like them. This is why Clinton enjoyed immense popularity among this group. By combining a mixture of appeasement, heavy socialist leanings, arrogance, position shifting and shamelessly sucking up to them; they reciprocated with adulation. I am sure this group was almost drooling when Hillary was pushing for socialized health care. That was the one time they had a chance at bringing our powerhouse economy down to their level.

As noted the impoverished countries are usually in the totalitarian or heavily socialistic categories. If so, the previous comments apply. If not, I can hardly imagine a feeling of goodwill when they view the stark difference between their lives and ours. This is in spite of the US being the most generous country in the world distributing billions in money, assistance and humanitarian aid around the globe.

Along comes Bush after Clinton. Regardless of whether you agree with Bush, or if Bush is right or wrong; Bush is different. Bush sticks by his decisions, has a moral compass (makes the elites want to retch), not an appeasement bone in his body, very capitalist and makes it clear he is going to do what he believes is right regardless of public opinion (here or abroad). Due to their hatred of his positions and actions (while I have made clear I agree with his decisions, for the sake of this discussion right or wrong does not matter) the socialist elites globally have declared war on Bush especially in their press and against the US for electing and re-electing him. They have also declared war on the US as a whole in order to attempt to cower us into turning on Bush so they will be our friends again.

Putting rightness and wrongness aside, the outcome was predictable due to the differences between them and Bush (and ultimately us). It is the stark differences between two strong points of view that have brought the dislike toward the US and its policies. To prove this point, as strongly as the French elites feel against the US, the US feels just as strongly against the French (freedom fries, boycott French wine, etc.). The French became anti-American while the US became anti-French. If claims are to be made that one country being anti-country automatically means that country must be wrong is shown to be false by the fact that two countries of opposing views assumed anti-views of the other country. There have been historical cases where BOTH sides are wrong. The bottom line is that differences of opinion on US policy caused anti-Americanism. Since we see that an “anti” stance can be assumed even when a country is in the right (since they were clearly opposite views either the US was correct or France was correct), the assumption cannot be made that since there is a high level of anti-Americanism around the globe that the US is presumed wrong.

Digging in deeper, I would expect that if a conflict arose between a totalitarian government and a capitalist freedom loving country, that other totalitarian countries would side with the side more like them. I would further expect a nation that leans heavily towards appeasement to obtain “peace in our time” would resent a nation that confronts the totalitarian government in hopes of winning “peace and freedom in their children’s time”. I would even further expect any country benefiting under the table illegally from a totalitarian government to resent a country that takes action that would threaten that benefit. I would much further expect if a group of economically and militarily weak nations due to failed socialist policies attempted to unite to strengthen their position against a strong capitalist nation would resent finding that said union was only as strong as its weakest link. The bottom line here is that there were built in propensities for many nations of the world to resent the United States prior to going into Iraq. There already existed a propensity to resent the United States going into Iraq even if shown beyond doubt to all to be the right thing to do. I contend the totalitarian mind, the elitist liberal mind and the mind of those suffering under extreme poverty have a built in propensity to resent the United States and that any disagreement in policy can cause a flare-up against the US; and that these groups comprise the majority of seats of power and influence from nations around the globe.

In conclusion, the sharp disagreement in policy caused a flare-up in anti-Americanism. The United States cannot allow itself to be held hostage out of fear that other nations will not like us if they disagree with our decisions. We must make what decision that the best available information shows to be right. It is no secret I believe Bush did the right thing in going into Iraq. Bush attempted to convince other nations we now know were “on the take” and they refused to join us. With a smaller coalition than desired Bush went into Iraq. At that time, the rest of the world should have taken a neutral or supportive posture toward the effort. They could have prefaced every statement with “We disagreed with going in, but now that you are in …”. This is especially true when the insurgency materialized in full force. With the specter of how protesting Vietnam demoralized the troops, sapped the nations will to continue and encouraged the Vietcong to continue; the United States should have kept a united front in this war and the rest of the world should have constructed a united front to push toward the fastest defeat of the insurgency and quickest transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqis. However, the mindset described previously cannot abide the thought of a successful operation in Iraq. It must either fail, or be dragged on so long before a final completion that the concept of victory can be plausibly denied. So in order to accomplish this, the strategy of lack of support (moral, financial or military), mass protests, ridicule at every challenge met, circus-like treatment of rising body-counts, constant references to Vietnam and “quagmire”, and a continual high pitched shrill of blame and criticism has been used. It is not that these have any inherent power to quickly resolve this; they have the power to demoralize. The choice was to demoralize US troops, or demoralize the insurgency. We know which one they picked.

Saturday, February 04, 2006

Sorting through the cartoon outrage

I have 'suffered' at the hands of creative artists who insist on being offensive and reacted with anger. I have not been too happy with some art work targeted at angering Christians by mixing Christian symbols with excremental matter, etc. So when I see how Muslims are reacting angrily I paused to ensure I am viewing this properly and consistently. As I look over the cartoons in question, I see that they are satirical cartoons designed to point out the radical elements of Islam that are using Islam to justify killing and injuring lives. Basically, the cartoons are stating "It is time to join the civilized world".

In the Christian world, I would not enjoy looking at satirical cartoons about abortion clinic bombers, men of the cloth molesting children or televangelists taking people's money deceitfully. Yet these things have happened and are free game for satire. I would renounce those disgraceful elements of those claiming to be within Christianity that do these dispicable acts to point out this is not a representation of the whole. My anger would not be directed at the cartoonist, it would be at those who have brought shame on my religion.

I have spoken about the disease SOS - Selective Outrage Syndrome that afflicts most of the liberal world. The Muslim world takes this to a level that is truly something to behold. Talk show host Neil Boortz fleshes this out with a list of items Muslims have and have not expressed outrage over:
  • Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
  • A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
  • Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
  • Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
  • Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
  • Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.
As far as free speech is concerned, I am all for free speech and recognize the right of publications to print whatever offensive material they want. If it is going to universally applied, I am not one that wants to call on organizations to fire somebody for what they say. Let the free market take care of that. If a publication continues to publish extremely offensive material, then people will stop purchasing their product. Of course it is not universally applied. It is usually Christians and conservatives that get fired at the drop of a hat while liberals continue to offend with impunity.

LASunsett at Political Yen/Yang has some good commentary and an assortment of link on the subject. Take a look.

My bottom line is that these cartoons fall within the realm of free speech and judging by the outrage have a very powerful punch to them that goes beyond simply showing a likeness of their prophet. In short, the truth hurts and they would rather protest than face the truth. That truth is "you need to clean house".

Mr. Bush build up this wall

When Ronald Reagan famously called on Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" it was under a context where freedom loving people wanted to exit from a totalitarian government. In this post I call on President Bush to build a wall on the US-Mexican border to protect the freedom loving people from entering in. During Bush's presidency there have been two major issues I have truly felt betrayed in: the growth in the size of government and the failure to shore up our borders to pander to the Hispanic voting block. This post addresses the latter.

I will first state that I have no issue with Hispanics coming into the US through the legal process. If you took the number of Hispanics coming over legally and illegally each year, I would have no problem allowing that total number coming across legally if all those coming illegally could be prevented. During the legal immigration process we could background check those coming over and prevent a host of issues that crossing illegally presents.

Bush has been continually courting the Hispanic vote which of itself is not a bad thing. The Hispanic people with their strong Roman Catholic backgrounds, strong family bonds and coming to the US to seek out a better life are truly in line with the conservative philosophy. Democrats have worked hard ensnaring many into dependency on government, shamelessly played the race card at every turn and have captured a large voting block with these tactics. It does take a significant amount of direct attention to attract these voters from their deceived position. However, risking the safety of the American people by failing to enforce the border in order to keep from offending a voting block is irresponsible. Of course, nearly the entire Democrat party and GOP moderates are guilty of this same thing.

Recent events have laid a gift at the feet of George Bush. Recently a series of tunnels were discovered that had been dug under the Mexican-US border. If this were not bad enough a new report today reveals that a huge weapons cache was found in Laredo, Tx. related to drug trafficing from Mexico. There are also reports of the Mexican military frequently crossing the border into the US, shockingly downplayed by DHS. I have always felt that once a terrorist strike occurs that can be shown to be connected to an illegal crossing of that weak border, immediate justification to crack down on the border would appear. That is too late. These new revelations are enough to make the case NOW.

With the border so big, the only real way to seal it is to build a wall or portions of a wall with the remaing patrolled. We can do it now, or we can do it later when we have been attacked. The wall would serve to protect against terrorist entry. It would protect against what we are starting to see: drug wars spilling over into our country. It would give us control to process Hispanic immigration in a way that would help the US and help those coming here to assimilate into our system and have a better chance to realize the American dream instead of bringing their poverty with them. In a goodwill gesture to Mexico, we could even hire a significant Mexican labor force to assist in building the wall. The money flowing into the Mexican border towns could fuel their local economy.

If Bush sees this opportunity and steps forward, the next level of responsibility would immediately fall on GOP and Democrat politicians and the media. The GOP pols could run scared at the prospect of doing something controversial. The Democrats could play the race card yet again and with their bedfellows in the media portray tough action as yet another issue to bash Bush with. On the other hand they could all see this as it is: a gift to do what needs to be done with impunity. It can only happen if all cooperate to do the right thing. So I say Mr. Bush, GOP, Dems and media - BUILD UP THIS WALL.