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

Sunday, April 30, 2006

The World Body Should Go to OPEC Countries for Aid to Poor

While the liberals focus on record profits from big oil companies, they are overlooking the real fat cats who are making money hand over fist. The OPEC partner countries have been given a free pass by the world. While the US is the most generous country in the world, we still are accused of not giving enough to the world poor. It does not matter how many billions the US gives for humanitarian aid, through the US government and through direct charitable giving, the world acts as if we give nothing.

It is time for the critics to turn their eyes on the Foreign Big Oil to cough up funds for the world's poor. It is time for Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran to buy food for Ethiopia, Somalia, Haiti and other poverty zones. It is time for them to donate a few billion to help with Africa's AIDS crisis.

Yet we all know these words will not likely see in print in a major publication. They only have such words for the whipping boy of the world: the US. Obscene profits are only evil for an American corporation.

America the Unique

If you listen to the world media and US liberals you would come away thinking:

  • The United States is the only country in the world that aggressively looks out for its best interests
  • The United States is the only country that has an immigration policy
  • The United States is the only country where people are concerned about losing their job to illegal immigrants
  • The United States is the only country where politics are influenced by religion
  • The United States is the only country that pollutes the air and water
  • The United States is the only country that spies on other countries
  • The United States is the only country that represents a miltary threat to the rest of the world
  • The United States is the only country with a national debt
  • The United States is the only country where greed exists
I could go on, but you get the idea. The fact is that in each of these categories we can find several to all countries that are the same or worse than the US, yet these countries are never criticized by the world community. If all countries were held by the same standard, we would not be hearing the constant drumbeat of criticism of the US.

Saturday, April 29, 2006

NYT Starts Off Good News With a Sucker Punch

Yet another mouth organ for the Democratic Party is insisting on watering down good economic news with bad. Recently I posted about USA Today, a long time Dem water carrier, mixing high new home sales with bad news.

Now the Grey Lady must have really scratched their heads and wrung their hands about just how they could portray a great 4.8% growth for the GDP in the first quarter. They finally decided a good sucker punch in the beginning of the story would do just the job. Here is the leading paragraph:
Gas prices are rising, as are mortgage rates. House prices in many once-hot markets have started slipping. The American automobile industry shows no sign of recovery. And the paychecks of most workers have not even kept up with inflation over the last four years.
While the title of the column claims the economy is expanding, I think most people would read this first paragraph and assume they read the title wrong and move on thinking "Yeah, tell me about it." This must be the hope of the author, because for a liberal it gets "worse". The news gets even better when they look under the hood at how the conomy is doing better. Some think the economy is simply being driven by a few lucky industries while the rest are suffering. The next section talks about the economy diversifying:

The industries leading the way are ones that have been receiving far less attention than cars or real estate, though they have been adding thousands of new workers each month. In the last year, hospitals, doctors' offices and other health care employers have created almost 300,000 jobs; restaurants have added 230,000; and local governments — including schools — have added 170,000.

"The good news for the U.S. is that growth has diversified," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight, an economic research firm. "We aren't just relying on the consumer and housing."

A diverse economy is a great sign of strength because a couple of bad turns in one industry doing well doesn't take down the whole economy. This economy is showing so much strength in so many areas. In fact the issue on everyone's mind, gas prices, are an undeniable indicator that this economy is doing well. So well that we are consuming a lot of fuel making demand challenge the supply limits. If Democrats were running Washington you can bet that these mouth organs would be shouting news of this economy on the rooftops. Instead every piece of good news must be watered down, distorted or some other tactic rather than just letting it stand alone. For once I would love to see good economic news without the circus antics.

Friday, April 28, 2006

Hamas helps overcome legal obstacle for Jerusalem fence

It is an amazing phenomenon that many Jewish people often act against their best interests. If you have ever read Ivanhoe and the treatment of Isaac the Jew it may explain some of this. Of course the Holocaust probably had most to do with it. I think they actually think they will make friends and influence people by doing things that will harm them in the end.

Israel decided to build a security fence around Jerusalem as protection against suicide bombers. The completion of the fence was halted by legal challenges with 25% still to be done. According to the New York Times:
The International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled in 2004 that building the fence inside the West Bank, where most of it is being erected, is a violation of international law. Israel rejected the decision, saying the barrier is necessary to prevent suicide bombings and other attacks.
As an aside, this is a reminder why the US should never cede it's sovereignty to the UN or world court. They make rulings such as "Sorry, you can't defend yourself. You have to just sit there and get blown up. Anything else would be downright Zionist."

So in response to legal action Israel set aside their own interests by calling a halt to the completion of the fence. While the 3/4 fence that is done has been very effective in limiting the bombers, the remaining 1/4 is not in one place. The Times says:
Israel's separation barrier still has numerous openings around Jerusalem, and Israeli security officials consider the city one of the places most vulnerable to attack.
Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters Blog comments on Hamas' recent endorsement of suicide bombers and how this has helped Israel break the logjam:

The Israelis have wanted to close off the barrier through Jerusalem for some time, but the West has opposed it, considering it too provocative and a potential negotiation-killer for peace talks. Israeli courts have also held up progress on the security wall, although they have given the green light to everything but its route by now. Ariel Sharon probably figured the proposed wall had more effect as a threat than as an actuality in getting the Palestinians to take peace talks seriously.

All of that flew out the window when Islamic Jihad conducted its last bombing, but especially when Hamas praised the operation as "self defense". Rather than conduct a military strike on Hamas and bolster their popularity among the Palestinians, Olmert has shrewdly selected a tactic that will stab at the heart of their enemy and create a backlash against the incompetent terrorists who govern them. Not only will Hamas and its intransigence on adhering to previous treaties and recognition of Israel left the Palestinian Authority completely bankrupt, but now their diplomatic fecklessness has lost them Jerusalem. The barrier will complete their humiliation.

Very shrewd. A self-defense strike in response to their women and children being mercilessly blown to pieces somehow seems to raise the ire of many around the world. So the response is to complete the fence and deny them future access with their bombs. I'm sure some will get through, but they will be much fewer and the bombers will need to work much harder. In the meantime, the increased poverty under Hamas should send a message to the people next time they go to the voting booth.

As Captain Ed says:
The Palestinians might finally wake up once they realize that their government has left them even more poor and even more isolated than Fatah could have dreamt.
No they will find a way to blame the Zionists and never learn.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

USA Today does the water down good news with bad trick again

USA Today joins the never ending line of MSM media sources to try to burst the housing market. The funny thing is that they use the announcement of good news about the housing market to launch their attack.

Apparantly after much gloom and doom handwringing about the bursting of the housing bubble, a new report shows new home sales are up 13.8% from Feb. to March. USA Today even mixes this great news with bad in the title by adding but prices fall. The story states:
In March, the median new-home price — half sold for more, half for less — was $224,200, down 2.2% from a year ago, Commerce said. It was the first time that the median price had fallen over a 12-month period since December 2003.
Then they tuck in some more good news about the median price of existing homes going up 7.4%:
The report followed one Tuesday from the National Association of Realtors, which said existing-home sales rose slightly in March vs. February. But the median price of existing homes rose 7.4% from a year ago.
Then you take another piece of the puzzle from the story showing the breakdown of new home sales increasing by region:

• In the West, up 35.7%.

• In the Midwest, up 10.8%.

• In the South, up 6.9%.

• In the Northeast, up 4.7%

What is interesting is that they did not seem to even consider what the median price of new homes might mean. The fact is that mortgage rates have been low for some time and the economy is getting stronger. In my area, there are many sections of new homes that are more affordably built. These affordable homes mixing with rates and good economy are encouraging more lower income people to invest in their own home instead of renting. Maybe this is a trend for building more affordable housing. Also, the largest growth is in the West and Midwest. This may mean that more affordable areas are experiencing the most growth. This same scenario would account for a shift in the overall pricing to be lower.

I am no expert here, but I do know that this media has been doing all they can to kill any part of the economy so they can beat Bush and the GOP over the head with it. They do not seem to be interested in considering alternative interpretations to the data. And the fact is it kills this media so much to have to report good news. They must constantly keep a stock of bad news and quotes of "experts" hostile to the administration on standby ready to be dropped in the mix. It never ends. At least not until the Dems get control and lo and behold that very day things get wonderful.

Big Oil Profit and Big Government Gouging

There is a lot in the news and blogs today surrounding the 8.5 Billion 3 month profit at Exxon just announced. Here are a few sources:

LA Sunsett at Political Yen/Yang showcases a writeup from Neal Boortz' Neal's Nuze about the oil profit broo-haha. Two snippets show some important points: 1) The government take of 50 cents per gallon is a lot more than the 12 cents per gallon earned by the gasoline retailers. And the gas retailers provide a steady gasoline supply and employment opportunities 2) The profit per dollar of revenue from the gas companies is less than pharmeceuticals and banks while on par with household goods and cosmetics companies.

According to this Gas Buddy Gas Price Map some Americans pay a lot more for gas than other Americans. California is paying almost $1 more per gallon than Wyoming, Montana, Utah and Idaho. Do you think that says something about why gas prices are so high? California has the most stringent requirements on the gas blends for environmental impact. Hmmm.

You can see in this FoxNews Story that Neil Cavuto makes my Illinois Senator Dick Durbin look like a fool. It has the whole interview where Cavuto hammers home that big oil companies make 9 cents of profit per gallon of gas compared to the already mentioned 50 cents per gallon government take. Durbin wants to focus on the 9 cents, but only in terms of the 8.5 billion in profit that he interestingly rounds off to 10 billion. This cavelier "what's 1.5 billion" attitude is what gets this country into financial trouble.

Mike's America Blog also discusses the Big Oil / Government profits and includes a nice graph. This graph shows his point: "Oil Profits Go Up and Down, Gas Taxes Only GO UP!"

The Mimmem Blog gives a nice summary about supply and demand, corporations and profit, and a nice challenge to walk the short hops instead of burning fuel.

The Powering Down Blog has some great links on the subject and discusses how since oil spiked, US oil imports went down by 15% (since 02/10/06). There is also a good section debunking the notion that big oil companies are getting together and setting prices. A 9-0 Supreme Court decisions adds some good support.

Finally, the Oil Drum has a very interesting article explaining why big oil is making a lot of money right now and why that is not obscene. It starts out examining the path of oil from the ground to your gas tank: "Oil companies sell to refiners. Refiners sell to distributors. Distributors sell to retailers." and how "At every level of these distribution chains, people are trying to buy low and sell high." There is an excellent section of why it would not help if "Exxon Mobil wanted to make a gesture of good faith. Could they sell the crude for cheaper in hopes of lower prices at the pump". Grab some coffee or a soda and camp out on this for awhile. It is a great read.

So, the summary of this is that Democrats are taking advantage of public ignorance to denounce $8.5 Billion in profit while hiding the $17 Billion the government takes. The Democrats also try to sweep under the rug their culpability in keeping us from tapping into more oil sources and preventing more oil refineries from being built. Nobody likes paying these gas prices, but the cheap political points trying to be scored when their fingerprints are all over the limited fuel supply requires an educated look. Hopefully these links and commentary add to that needed education.

Libs Always Want to Play that Race Card

Some comments on my posts regarding building the wall continue to be based on some faulty premise that I am a racist. Somehow they never have any criticism for the true racists marching in the streets against an illegal immigration crackdown. One of the big components of the marchers is a Hispanic superiority group called La Raca which means "the Race".

My opposition to illegal immigration is purely for reasons of economy and fairness. The US is a big country founded on waves of immigration and there is room for many more. However, this must be done fairly and in an organized manner. There are long lines of people all around the world waiting to come to the US and illegal immigrants are merely LINEJUMPERS.

From an economic standpoint we must bring them here in an organized manner. The load must be balanced so that we bring in people in a position to contribute to the country, not to sap it of economic resources. We must be able to immediately begin to capture income taxes from immigrants, not have a mechanism for them to dodge it by calling people racist. In the long term it is also important that immigrants assimilate to the American way of life. If they do not assimilate or melt in the big melting pot, the American way of life and dream becomes endangered. Most immigrants come from socialist or communist countries or even dictatorships. Immigrants must melt into our democratic republic and embrace being an American instead of walling themselves from the rest of the community. The picture I have added represents an unwillingness to melt into the great melting pot; not a desire to contribute to the American Dream.

Two Thumbs up for Tony Snow Pick

I have two thumbs up on the pick for Tony Snow to replace Scott McClellan as White House Spokesman. While I realize that Tony will need to speak for the WH and not himself, it is my hope that during negotiations he obtained permission to make things lively. I'm sure McClellan is a nice guy, but I think sometimes you just wanted to check his pulse. I hope Tony is allowed to cut loose a bit more than your usual spokesman. Otherwise they might as well have just kept Scottie.

I am sure what makes this very fun is the comments on the WH Press Corp Tony has made over the years. I look forward to his first interchange with Helen Thomas.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

United 93

Variety has an article about the showing of United 93 to the victim's families. United 93 opens this week and I thought it appropriate to create a post on it. I realize some may not go to see it for a variety of reasons. I have heard some valid ones. However, I will be seeing this for my reasons. I feel this is a way to honor those who went down in that plane trying to do something instead of just sitting there. I wish to honor the fact that never again will Americans sit and go to their deaths without making an attempt to thwart the plans of a terrorist.

We have seen the warnings about a day when attacks come to the United States. I think United 93 represents why such attempts will fail in the end. We will not stand by and be killed. We will rise up and defend ourselves. Just as the movie Pearl Harbor helps us remember the fighting spirit of Americans and the waking of the sleeping giant, so will United 93.

My other reason for seeing United 93 is that the liberals are grumbling about the movie and a high turnout will put a stick in their eye.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

WV Senatorial race getting interesting

Roman Stauffer over at the West Virginians for a Republican Majority blog has been reporting on the senate race. He has been talking about the likely challenger to Robert Byrd this fall for Senate. His recent post is entitled Raese vs. Byrd: Suddenly Nobody is Laughing. According to the Huntington News Network:
But while Raese achieving nominee status again was assumed, many thought that the former State GOP Chairman was simply "vying for the honor of losing to Byrd in the fall." But suddenly, those remarks are fading, and in their place a new consideration of what "Senator Raese" might mean is growing across West Virginia.

West Virginia is taking a Raese/Byrd match-up seriously. Here's why.
Read the rest of the post why they are taking John Raese seriously. I find it most interesting in a political environment that thinks the Dems will steal GOP seats and has taken a Byrd win for granted. To me the best part is that even if Byrd wins again, a cahllenging election will take attention and resources away from other races.

Some readers here may not often think of West Virginia. My father and his family are from West Virginia, so I am very interested. With an exciting race shaping up, keep checking back now until November for the latest at Roman's blog. I am sure his local view will give more insight than the national news.

They played on our fears?

Remeber Al Gore in meltdown mode shouting "They betrayed this country! They played on our fears!" Duke University scientists are beginning to reveal just who was playing on our fears and it appears to be Al Gore and company on Global Warming. From the Washington Times:
Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted. Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."
Al Gore has been screaming recently that we only have 10 years to reverse the course of Global Warming. We have had massive coverage of a NASA scientist claiming he has been muzzled (how does that work?). We have had the fear inducing movie "Day After Tomorrow" showing the Statue of Liberty under massive ice. Then we have them blaming the policies of Bush on the Gulf hurricanes like Katrina. We have predictions of polar ice caps melting and flooding our coasts - all with pictures of polar bears jumping among small icebergs. Then there is the new Al Gore video where the cover shows a "march of penguins" in desert sands instead of snow and ice. In short, fearmongering.

Duke's research finds the chances of major warming quite smaller than the dire gloom and doom warnings:
The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago.
Duke also points to pre-industrial warming cycles as evidence it is not simply the evil presence of man causing the problem:
The Duke research, however, found substantial ups and downs in the Earth's temperature before modern times, countering other studies that confine noticeable temperature increases to the industrialized era. Marked climate change in other centuries resulted from "external forcing," said the Duke findings, citing volcanic eruptions and other influences.
So when it comes to fearmongering, the liberal side takes the cake. For the war on terror "fearmongering" we have 3000 dead on 9-11 and global attacks from suicide bombers. While the global warming fearmongering is based on a few hot summers in Europe, mild winters and more hurricanes than usual. So who is the one playing on our fears?

Saturday, April 22, 2006

CIA leaker underlines point made before

I have made the point before that in a bureaucracy the various governmental agencies consist of people of all political perspectives. It is likely not feasible to get rid of all the people from each department every 4 or 8 years and replace them with known loyalists. The concept that all people in the department are interested in successfully fulfilling their responsibilities either because it is the right thing or out of loyalty is ludicrous. There are those who do not have the work ethic and skill sets to produce excellence for an administration they agree with, while the motivation of those in disagreement can be severely compromised.

One thread that I keep seeing again and again is the thorn in George Bush's side from former Clinton appointees. We have seen it among some of the famous criticizing generals and the latest is this CIA leaker, Mary McCarthy. According to this filed report:
National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger announced today the
appointment of Mary O'Neil McCarthy as Special Assistant to the
President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs. Mrs. McCarthy
succeeds Rand Beers.

Mary McCarthy had been Director of Intelligence Programs on the
National Security Council Staff since July 1996. Previously, Mrs.
McCarthy served as the National Intelligence Officer for Warning from
1994-1996 and as the Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Warning
from 1991-1994. She began government service in 1984 as an analyst in
the Directorate of Intelligence of the Central Intelligence Agency.
So basically this person working in the CIA that decided to leak classified information to the Washington Post was appointed by Sandy Berger during the Clinton Administration. These leaks are regarding alleged secret prisons in Europe:
The leak pertained to stories on the CIA’s rumored secret prisons in Eastern Europe, sources told NBC. The information was allegedly provided to Dana Priest of the Washington Post, who wrote about CIA prisons in November and was awarded a Pulitzer Prize on Monday for her reporting.
Of course there are recent reports questioning the validity of this report on secret prisons. So Mary McCarthy may not only be leaking classified information, but actually leaking false information. If that turns out to be the case, I wonder what will happen to the Pulitzer Prize awarded for this story.

It must be quite humorous to the individual both working for an administration and working to undermine that administration at the same time. To me, however, this is a very low individual with no character. If one cannot work for an administration, they should resign and do something else. I think once the person is caught as in this case, I am sure the humor ends.

The underlying point to this post is to recognize that in today's hostile political climate there are with certainty individuals within the government departments that are acting in a manner with the goal of making the administration look bad. This CIA appointee is just the tip of the iceberg. The CIA, the FBI and the State Department are likely in deep need of the "shakeup" the media keeps harping on in Bush's cabinet.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

LA Sunsett on a Roll

LA Sunsett is on a roll at his blog Political Yen/Yang. We have all had some slower spells and it is always exciting to see one of us break out with a burst of posts that are really worth reading. LA has done that. You can go straight to his blog here and read or go one by one below:

Some Perspective on Iran

A good call to think things through before action is taken.

Georgia Gets Touch: Passes New Law on Illegal Immigration

LA points out something worth celebrating; and to look for the never fail lawsuit that is sure to come.

The Regeneration of Maoism

As we eye the communist encroachment in Latin America, LA posts about the encroachment of Maoism in India and Nepal. Why does the world continue to shun a system proven by the US to work (capitalism) in order to pursue systems that have failed and failed miserably (not to mention causing massive untimely deaths)? We all know Einstein's definition of insanity.

The Deceptions of a Modern Leftist Writer

Whenever I hear the name Noam Chomsky, I think of a Russian Revolutionary. I don't know much about the guy, but it sounds like he would fantasize about being on Lenin's side in 1914. Oh, and he is a liar. Check out and save the PDF file in the list of 100 of his lies. Well worth it.

Who is the Dems' Best Chance to Re-Gain the White House

LA links to a story answering this. He does not name the person and I will not either. However, Chris Malott, if you read this you might want to check it out. I would love to hear your comments on that.

Great set of posts LA! Thanks for great reading material.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Beautiful Quote by Chris Malott

Chris Mallot provides a very nice poem in his post today. In the following commentary after the poem, Chris writes a beautiful statement I thought worth sharing:
When a young soldier dies in this struggle, he dies for me. And I owe him for every normal day, for every word I am free to speak, and for every step and breath I take as a free man.
Words worth remembering. Thanks Chris.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

The plague of uninsured motorists

Today we drove half way before realizing we forgot the food we were supposed to bring for Easter dinner. We went to an Easter service at a different church today pastored by my wife's cousin. He started the church a few years ago and as it slowly grows, he feels it encourages him and the other members if on special services the attendance is bumped by asking a few here and there to come.

After a very nice Easter service, we stopped at the nearby grocery store to see if we could save some face by buying something. We found something and as we were walking to our car I saw a big dent in the front I had not noticed before. After returning from London, the car only moved to the street Friday as I worked from home. At some point between then and later that night somebody bashed into my car and drove off without telling me. As I stewed about it for a couple of hours on my Easter Sunday, it dawned on me that due to the location and angle it must have been the neighbors across the street. When I got home this evening I called the police. We found a car in the driveway with a matching dent in the expected location if my theory were correct. To my surprise, the offender both had a drivers license AND admitted to hitting my car. She claimed she did not know she hit it, but when she saw the matching dents 'fessed up. I then found out what I already feared: no insurance.

Three weeks ago, we found a nearly new white pick-up truck for my wife and her new business. It is a fantastic truck and the price was definitely right. She was still enjoying driving her truck 10 days later when a kid pulls out in front of her without even looking. She slammed on the breaks so hard that the nose of the tall truck came down 1.5 feet to sustain damage on top of the hood. In addition to the police officer being a mega jerk to my wife (the victim), it now appears that the boy lied about insurance and does not have any.

So in two weeks we have sustained damage to both of our primary vehicles that we are making payments for and the offenders have no insurance. This truly makes me sick and angry that so many drive around without insurance. Something needs to be done.

And while we are on the subject - I wonder how many illegal aliens are driving around without insurance. I suspected these neighbors (who are living in the home until it sells) were illegal. For all I know they are but somehow have a drivers license. It is not enough that we pay for education and health care for illegals, but we also have to pay when they damage our cars and have no insurance? My brother's car was totaled by illegal aliens a few years back. His only satisfaction was seeing INS haul them away, but his insurance had to foot the bill. Will some illegal alien advocate try to tell me how this is fine?

Ann Coulter takes Logic Lifeline wall idea

I have posted a couple of times on the concept of a border wall that would be built by Mexican workers. I wonder if my idea has somehow reached the ears of Ann Coulter, or if we both thought of it. Here is a snippet from a NewsMax story:
Asked how she would solve the illegal immigration problem, Coulter told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly on Thursday: "I'd build a wall. In fact, I'd hire illegal immigrants to build the wall."
Great idea, Ann! The fact is that the US cannot simply allow all to come to the US who want to come. A completely open border would likely lead to an influx of up to a billion new immigrants. As much as the world supposedly criticizes the US, they still want to come here to live. As much as I would love to see the rest of the world have the opportunities I have, if everybody came it would bring such a dramatic change and strain the structure that it would cease to be what they are coming for. To make it fair, immigration needs to be sructured and fairly distributed to people of all countries and cultures. Current Mexican-US immigration policy does not allow for such a fair distribution. The only real solution is a wall and I think it fitting to hire Mexican labor to build it. Apparently, so does Ann.

Newsmax busts General Zinni for mega-flip-flop

I think one of liberalism's greatest enemies is the public record of past statements. General Zinni has risen to great heights among the liberal base by criticizing the Bush administration for its Iraq policy. He has accused Bush of cherry picking intelligence to justify going to war in Iraq. Well NewsMax is reporting some quotes by Zinni during his tenure during the Clinton administration and it looks like he has enough egg on his face to make a few omelettes. From 2000:

"Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," Zinni told Congress on March 15, 2000.

"Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased," the general-turned-war critic said, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW [chem-bio-weapons] payloads," Zinni said, in quotes unearthed Friday by the American Thinker blog.

Contrasted with a fanfare appearance on Meet the Press 2 weeks ago:
"What bothered me," Zinni told host Tim Russert, "[was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn’t fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD.
Here he is,again pre-Bush, going further commenting on even if Saddam had no WMD that he is still a serious threat:

In fact, Zinni's flip-flop was so acute he should be suffering from a case of rhetorical whiplash. Here's more from the old Zinni - here telling Congress that Saddam would remain a threat even if he gave up his WMDs:

"Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."

So somehow before Bush assumes office, it is obvious that Saddam would always be a threat until he was removed. After he takes office, these reasoning powers evaporate. They had and then lost the ability to realize that once sanctions and UN oversight were lifted, Saddam would be free to reconstitute his weapons program.

Liberals have lifted this man up very high. This revelation that Zinni's current comment are the workings of a political hack instead of military insight will be devastating to the lineup of Generals calling for Rumsfeld's head. After all, what have they said in the past that will come back to haunt them? I think we will soon find out. Public records, what a beautiful thing.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Off a few days - Happy Easter

All, I am out of the country and out of commission for a few days. Will not likely be back online until Monday. Have a great Easter, celebrating the atonement and resurrection of our Lord!

Monday, April 10, 2006

Liberals treat Docex Project like the plague

Interesting how there is a near deafening silence in the media surrounding the massive translation project Docex. True, there have been brief mentions here and there but very little. In Afghanistan and Iraq, many thousands of documents were captured and collected with the intention of translating. As time went on, it became obvious that there simply was not enough translating manpower to complete the effort for many years to come. At the urging of Stephen Hayes from the Weekly Standard and through the effort of a few congressmen the documents have been carefully scanned electronically and released to the public for translation. As the documents and video are translated, information is forming that strongly supports many of the allegations of the Bush administration prior to going to war. has a fascinating article on the project and the reaction of the media. It opens pointing to the day in and day out mantra of the media claiming "no wmd" ad nauseum. So "It comes as no surprise that when the Saddam Tapes came to light, they had to be dealt with." How did the media deal with it? Newsweek tried a quick hit and run:
The first salvo in the liberal media’s unsuccessful attempt to deep-six the tapes came from Newsweek, when they published “The Saddam Tapes, What They Don’t Prove” a week before the presentation of the tapes.
Newsweek then trotted out the “years old" response. According to this argument, since the tapes are years old, they are insignificant. The only relevant issue is whether the discussions took place during the time frame when Iraq said it was complying with UN resolutions.
Next ABC had a turn:
Next came ABC’s World News Tonight broadcast and Nightline segment three days before the presentation at the Intelligence Summit, a private conference where intelligence professionals and concerned citizens can discuss intelligence and national security matters away from the normal bureaucratic constrictions. To ABC’s credit, they did play a segment on Hussein Kamel stating how Iraq did not tell UNSCOM everything about their weapons program. However, on the discussion between Saddam and Tariq Aziz, they jumped to a suspect conclusion.
What was that suspect conclusion? That Saddam (out of the goodness of his heart, presumably) was warning the US and the UK of future WMD attacks by ??? Then ABC pulls the oldest media trick in the book: selective reporting. If ABC was actually reporting on the story instead of giving it lip service so they could not be accused of burying it, they would seek out and show the most qualified person to interview on the subject. Well, they did the seek and interview, but...
In preparation for their story, ABC interviewed a native Iraqi that not only knew Tikriti dialect, military and Baath Party jargon, but had actually addressed Saddam in similar meetings, General George Sada. According to General Sada, ABC asked him to listen to the tapes, and he stated that Saddam was probably discussing an attack through third parties to set up plausible denial if he were accused. He suggested that Saddam made the outburst of “terrorism is coming” during Tariq Aziz’s briefing, then realized he was on tape and came up with the "warning” to cover himself. This possibility adds yet another layer of complexity. Brian Ross went on to interview General Sada for forty minutes, attempting to get a sound bite to dismiss the tapes. The general knew his intention and didn't oblige; so this man, probably the most qualified man in the world available to the media, was omitted from ABC's story.
CNN also pulled some of the usual tricks. First, do some side reporting bolstering the story they have been stuffing down our throats to innoculate against what might come - then do a sorry reporting job:
Early on Saturday February 18th, the morning of the presentation, CNN ran a special on how the inspectors found nothing in Iraq. Later that day, they ran a television piece which filled the time focusing on their strenuous efforts to translate the tapes, and then in their television piece, reported only the Saddam – Aziz conversation. Apparently, status reports on rebuilding the chemical and nuclear weapons programs were not worth the cut.
FrontPageMag tells about a 2004 story in the Washington Post claiming the WMD arsenol was only on paper, then asks an important question:
The liberal media’s wishful thinking extends to print media also. On January 7, 2004, the Washington Post printed Barton Gellman’s story ”Iraq’s Arsenal Was Only on Paper.” In this article Gellman cites a letter supposedly written six days after a senior Iraqi official, Hussein Kamel, defected, which stated that “destruction of the biological weapons agents took place in the summer of 1991.” However, in 1995, UNSCOM forced the Iraqis to admit they had a facility used to produce biological weapons, which was destroyed in 1996. Are we to assume that they had a bioweapons facility between 1991 and 1996, but didn't produce any bioweapons?
Saddam was to prove destruction of his WMD to the UN. They lied about the bioweapons facility for over 5 years; then they admitted its existence before the facility was destroyed in 1996. Where did the bioweapons created in that facility go? Liberals are satisfied not knowing as long as it makes Bush look bad.

The full article is well worth reading and ends with:
The liberal media will continue to dissect any further information on the Iraqi weapons program according to their template that “Bush lied, people died.” With the continuing release of documents, it will be interesting to see how long they can keep it up before they finally admit "We were all wrong."
History is going to show George Bush was correct. The liberals must see Docex breathing over their shoulder and are trying their best to shake it off their trail by silence, distortion, partial reporting, hit and run reporting, etc. I'm not holding my breath on the admission of wrong by the liberals, though.

Here is the link to the Docex Project.

Chirac pulls typical liberal strategy - cut and run

In the face of violence, Chirac has tucked his tail between his legs and ran. Chirac says they will throw out a law that would allow businesses to look after their interests by instituting a trial period when hiring youthful employees. Currently, once hired employers are stuck with them for good (barring a virtual act of God). The law was good for France and good for the youth had they thought it through. Unemployment among youth is very high as employers do not want to take risks on those without a work record. This law would make employers more willing to give them a chance.

However, the youth reacted with continued violence and in the end Chirac caved. A typical liberal response. Where a conservative will stay the course in the face of a challenge, you can always count on a liberal to cut and run. The lesson is continuously taught, but too often not learned.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Media continuously plays stupid

For the ingnorant and uninformed the piece of information that a plan exists to strike Iran's nuclear sites would come with surprise and anxiety. The story I have linked to presents as news that such a plan exists. Such reporting has one single goal: to cause a negative picture of the Bush administration by deceptive means.

What the informed person knows is that at all times, the administration is working on military plans for offensive and defensive initiatives for any potentially hostile country or group. The informed person would be surprised if there was not a strategic plan to strike Iran. The underlying fact is that these plans are not developed overnight. Waiting until a threat is confirmed to have developed is not the best time to start planning for a response. It takes months to develop and so they should be working months ahead of time and have them on file and frequently updated to utilize at a moments notice.

The media continues to take advantage of the massive ignorance that exists among the general public in these matters. The media takes great glee in seeing Bush's approval numbers going down. What the Dems and their media water carriers fail to see is the correlation between Bush's numbers and their numbers going down. They are hemorraging credibility in their single minded quest to take down Bush. They must think it is worth it.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Liberals always want it both ways - and all three ways if they can get away with it

So which is it? Did Bush lie about justification for the war OR did Bush leak information that supported justification of the war? Half of the time we are being beset with the catch-phrase "Bush lied people died". Now during Libby's testimony it is "revealed" that Bush authorized "leaking" of classified information and that is why he discussed Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

Apparently, CNN was quick to point out that Bush authorized naming Valerie Plame. Unfortunately for CNN, they broke the story before they got the facts. According to NewsMax:
In fact, the so-called leak authorized by Bush had nothing to do with Plame - but instead covered Iraq war intelligence that was mostly already in the public domain.

CNN eventually realized its error and issued an on-air correction, forcing liberals coast-to-coast to cancel their planned impeachment parties.

I guess CNN was not happy with the amount of egg they got on their face. Later Bill Schneider, long time Democrat water carrier, claims the administration is hypocritical and looks foolish. According to NewsBusters, Schneider said:
"Well, the White House doesn't really want to get into a discussion of this issue. For one thing, it makes the President look a little, well, shall we say, hypocritical?...It was not a crime for the President to do that because, as the attorney in the White House said, anything he authorizes is instantly declassified. But it does make the President look a little foolish and deceptive, because this leak was authorized, again, according to Mr. Libby, to discredit a political critic of the administration. It was authorized for political reasons, and that’s a little bit embarrassing."
Schneider goes on to state:
"...Because if they did start to debate the issue of, when is a leak not a leak, then they’re going to be sounding very much like the debate, that you may remember, over ‘it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.’"
I think I know who is embarrassing himself. First, they state that Bush authorized the "leak" - their word. A leak by definition is the distribution of classified or secretive material by someone who does not have the legal or ethical right to do so. Where the president has inherent power to authorize declassification of the material in question, there is no leak. This is simply the release of information in a manner of their choosing. So by willfully choosing to use the word "leak" CNN sets up a straw man to argue against. Liberals are always so quick to criticize conservatives for bringing up Bill Clinton, yet here is Bill Schneider refering to Clinton's debate over the word "is". Where this information is authorized and the word "leak" is restricted to the arena of unauthorized, Bill Schneider is the one who ends up being hypocritical and embarrassed.

As for the distribution of information. Liberals and their friends in the media act as if management of war support is somehow inherently wrong or shady. I am a project manager and project management often requires communication of information in order to retain support for a project. It may require reiteration of the project justification, distribution of new information, clarification of information. Sometimes we need to review expected benefits. Even when benefits are what was projected, if costs exceed that, we may need to review benefits to see if there are other benefits we can declare. None of these actions are shady, unethical or wrong. They are management requirements in an environment that easily loses interest or support at the slightest obstacle.

Somehow, critics of the war seem to think that after the war starts only their side should be heard. They want to paint management of war support as dishonest, unethical or lies. It is the President's and his administration's job to manage war support, yet that is frowned upon. We know who the hypocrites and embarrasments are and it is not this administration.

Friday, April 07, 2006

Krauthammer calls for a wall

Charles Krauthammer is calling for a border wall to be built in a column entitled "First a Wall -- Then Amnesty". He eludes to the immigration debacle in Washington as Congress cannot seem to have to fortitude to do what needs to be done first - secure the border. He criticizes the notion of addressing the immigrant here first, then work on securing the border:
Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.

Start with the second. No one of good will wants to see these 11 million suffer. But the obvious problem is that legalization creates an enormous incentive for new illegals to come.

Most people reading this would not find that hard to understand and that is the problem. Liberals do understand it very well and realize if they fight for the first, they can keep the cycle going. He goes on to say:
We say, of course, that this will be the very last, very final, never-again, we're-not-kidding-this-time amnesty. The problem is that we say exactly the same thing with every new reform. And everyone knows it's phony.
The fact is that both the Democrats and Bush are looking at this issue from the standpoint of long term political strategy. For Democrats it is a much less risky plan on the surface and for the GOP it is a much more risky plan on the surface. Hispanics have historically voted Democrat as a majority, so it seems simple that the Dems would win this gambit by propogating the cycle. While I don't think Bush wants to propogate the cycle, he does not want to lose inroads into the Hispanic voting community by being too aggressive.

Both gambles could end up biting one side or the other. In order for Bush to succeed in his gamble the Hispanic community needs to continue its swift economic rise that has been happening for several years now. Poverty will always vote Democrat. One who is in poverty is likely not educated enough to see that massive socialism will keep them trapped in poverty. As Hispanics rise economically, more tend to vote GOP as they realize that the American dream is rooted in capitalism. Democrats on the other hand to succeed in their gamble must keep the Hispanic community from rising too much in the economic ladder. They will do this by massive socialist initiatives. So the economic future of Hispanics will determine the winner of the gamble of not securing the border.

On the surface I do not see Hispanic prosperity rising enough to offset rising "new voters" that lean Democrat. The next economic downturn could kill the momentum. Also, at some point there will be enough recognized voters (notice I did not say legal) to actually pass initiatives to grant Hispanic non-citizens the right to vote. It will start in California and the 9th circuit will support it.

The greatest risk for the Democrats is that very quickly they are going to alienate some of their long time supporters. First, the unions are going to begin turning on them. The unions have been critical of NAFTA, outsourcing and companies moving overseas for lower taxes and cheap labor. They simply cannot continue to ignore the fact that the same result happens when illegal immigrants come here: cheap labor and reduction in taxes costs. The net result is the same: union laborers suffer from job loss and suppressed wages. As I posted earlier, the AFL-CIO is already beginning to speak out on this very thing.

The second group the Democrats are at risk of alienating are Black Americans. Black Americans have been in the hip pocket of the Democrats for decades. It either has happened or soon will happen that the population of Hispanics grows higher than the Black population in the US. Democrats are already split in their attention between the two groups and it is only a matter of time before the Dems start obviously favoring Hispanics. Economically, illegal Hispanics are a threat to Blacks for the lower paying jobs and Hispanic entrepreneurs are a threat to Blacks looking to break from their historic poverty and participate in the American dream. The bottom line is that the Dems are at risk of losing the Black vote. The Black community and the unions would do themselves a favor by standing up now and demanding action.

Huge gambles here. I disagree that Bush needs to gamble, though. As the saying goes "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush". No pun intended. Politically a solidified energized base is stronger than a weakened, disgruntled base in order to "snag" a few votes from the other side. A wall on the border would supercharge the GOP base. I don't know of any other country that is so loose with their borders, unless it is a 3rd world country where nobody wants to go anyway. For economic and security reasons I have said before and say again, "Mr. Bush build up this wall!"

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Generation Why back as TexasRainMaker

The blog formerly known as Generation Why had some major problems with his blog host. (Not mentioning any names here) He has moved to his own host and rebuilt his template. He is now and his template is simple but sharp looking. I love that blue at the top.

Many of my favorites like LA, Malott, Galvin and EU Rota have been busy like me and not posting as much. Jason seems ready to go after being down a couple of weeks. This may keep us all getting a blog fix while the rest of us do what we need to do in our lives and post lightly. Looking forward to all of us getting back in gear. Until then, we do what we can.

Welcome back Jason - who does not know me from Adam :)

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Katie follows her heart and gut to embattled CBS

Katie Couric has announced her plan to leave the "Today" show to become the first solo female network news anchor. She states:
"...after listening to my heart and my gut -- two things that have served me pretty well in the past -- I've decided I'll be leaving 'Today' at the end of May"
So that explains her political leanings - using heart and gut instead of head. I have posted on this topic when it was merely a possibility. I think now as I thought then, that this is bad for Katie and CBS. She currently enjoys some success on the Today show. I think that early in the morning anybody will watch somebody that perky and upbeat as Katie is on camara. And what else is on in the morning outside of cable?

I do not think it will be that hard to replace her at Today. How hard can it be to find somebody who is so-so looking, doesn't think very deeply yet is upbeat that time in the morning? I actually think this is a win for the Today show, especially as it gets them out of the huge contract with the "Diva". I also predict their ratings will rise. I can think of a recommendation that would be good for both parties invovled: Paula Zahn. Zahn's star has been falling since leaving Fox and I think she only has a year or two at CNN before the ax comes down. A move to NBC would probably give her 10-15 years to finish her career and I think she would do well.

I again predict that Katie will have an initial fanfare at CBS that could last up to a year. Her coverage of the upcoming election could really sink her if she is as vacuously partisan as she has been on the Today show. She is both an intellectual and political lightweight and it shows easily once she leaves the "green zone" of broadcasting. The alternate media will take her apart if she tries. Once that starts to happen, it is over. Due to her status as first female solo anchor it will be extremely difficult for CBS to remove her once she is in. Being embroiled in controversy and tanked ratings will not be enough to swiftly end the pain.

My comments are not to be mistaken for my hoping for her or CBS' downfall. I am merely connecting the dots of her past performance with her new position and seeing an inevitable catastrophe. Well CBS, you are now saddled with her. You were warned.

Monday, April 03, 2006

Fascinating post by Dr Sanity about Islam and female sexuality

Ok, I don't usually delve into the topic of sex and am almost reluctant to do so now. However, this post by Dr. Sanity dives into a matter at the heart of Islam which is a valid topic. The post begins with a snippet from Memri TV that shows a debate by two Egyptian experts on the topic of female circumcision. I will leave the graphic details for others, but suffice it to say that this practice is quite barbaric, extremely painful and robs many Egyptian (and other Islamic) women of a gift from God. I think this is a topic worthy of the attention of feminists and protest marchers.

Dr. Sanity picks up from the interview snippet to focus on the fact that in spite of Islamic protestations of the West being too obsessed with sex, Islamic men are absolutely fixated on the subject of female sexuality. She hits the nail on the head by stating:
I don't pretend to be an expert on Islam, but it appears to me that much of Muslim culture (particularly in the Middle East) has evolved into a structure for the sole purpose of containing female sexuality. This containment has not only become a key aspect of the worship of their god; but it also is a key factor in individual personality development; as well as the main pollutant of all social interactions.
I find it quite interesting how the subject of male sexuality containment gets very little attention in the Islamic world. In fact it seems that as much as Dr. Sanity shows how much they are obsessed with containing female sexuality, they seem to be equally fixated on catering to male sexuality. She goes on to state:
It is ironic that both Muslim men and women are under the mistaken impression that Western society is oversexualized compared to them, when in fact, it is practically impossible to be more obsessed with sexual matters than they are in Muslim communities.
She points out several supporting points:
- The story of letting the girls die in a fire by locking them in a burning building because they were not dressed in headscarves and black robes and therefore not modest.
- The downing of women at every turn with subjugation, violence, humiliation and others
- The attire imposed on them
- Of course, the subject at hand: female circumcision

Dr. Sanity finds it ironic how these women themselves are brainwashed into thinking they are free from being "sex objects" and disputes that claim:
On the contrary, in Islamic society that is apparently the only role open to women. That, and breeders for the jihad.
Finally, she gets to the crux of the matter by pointing out why this obsession exists:
Without the subjugated woman, the entire house of cards of Islam and Arab culture will come tumbling down.

I have said it before and I will say it again here: the treatment of women under Islam is not only the key to understanding the pathology of the culture, but also the key to developing an antidote to its most poisonous and toxic elements.
I find it amazing to see Islamic women participating in the violence and protesting lately. You see them with signs promising violence just like the men. We are also seeing female suicide bombers. I think Dr. Sanity is onto something regarding the antidote for this whole culture of violence. World pressure needs to mount against the mistreatment of Islamic women and bring them from animal-like status to being equal before the law. If only we could get our feminists to truly start caring about women and do something about it instead of their continuous charade.

Saturday, April 01, 2006

I love it when two democrat supporting groups spar with each other

The Pueblo Chieftain is reporting that the AFL-CIO is speaking out against a "guest worker" plan. So this should get interesting as pro-illegal immigrant groups are on different sides as unions. We basically have unions concerned about guest workers taking jobs. What took them so long to speak up? That is what happens when unions have more loyalty to a political party than their members.

Iran may use terrorism if attacked

An interesting article in the WashPost kicking around the likelihood of Iran responding with terrorism if we attack them. The article states:
As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.
With the UN finally meeting a modicum of their responsibilities regarding Iran, the stakes are on the rise that something may come of this. Of course, the UN will talk big and make votes but they will not likely back up any of it especially considering the friendship between Iran, Russia and China.

Here is food for thought, though. If the UN does get the backbone to do what is right in Iran if they do not comply on their nuclear ambitions, imagine having to take military action against Iran with Iraq next door if we had not gone into Iraq. Talk about having to look over your shoulder. If you look on the map you will see that Iran resides directly between Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran must feel like the inside of an Oreo cookie.

Different fighting methods - conservative and liberal

As I was reading some old quotes by Ronald Reagan, I began thinking about my political journey in the last 20+ years which really began with the Gipper. I have observed many politicians and many pundits. It struck me that each side approaches the great debate in different ways. Almost always the conservative approaches the great debate like an arm wrestler. Here is my arm; bring up your arm and we see who is the strongest. While there is some strategy, for the most part it is brute strength against brute strength and the one who is strongest and has the most stamina wins. A conservative will take labels with very little objection and remain constant with the goal in the end of giving their best shot and having the most stamina. This is why when you clearly and concisely place conservative ideas against liberal ideas, conservatives win every time.

A liberal on the other hand, approaches the debate like a boxer. They are constantly moving and do not want to present a constant target. They are there one moment, but when you strike they are not there anymore and you "miss". Liberals do not like labels. They want to constantly move around with fancy footwork and dodges. A label to a liberal is like having your feet glued to the floor. The goal of the liberal is stealth, dodging hoping to cause the opponents strikes to miss while coming at their opponent with unexpected blows that land.

Where the liberal makes their mistake is that political debate is not confined to the boxing analogy. Liberals try to take that approach and if they succeed in tricking the conservative into going along with it, they will win. However, most conservatives have gotten smart about this. Instead of worrying about where the liberals are trying to project that they are, conservatives continue to strike blow after blow where they know liberals to actually be. Liberals continually try to act like conservatives are building a straw man and debating against that. In actuality they are ignoring the mirage man the liberal tries to present and actually debates against the real man. This is how talk radio and the new media continues to meet with success. They just keep landing blows where they know the liberals are, rather than going after where the liberals pretend to be. The inevitable "squealing like a stuck pig" reaction is all that is usually needed to know you have landed a blow.

Pelosi does not want to make a big deal out of a crimal assault

While Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Dems want to make mountains out of every Bush mole hill, she does not think that a congresswoman slugging a security officer is a big deal. Chronic embarrassment and supporter of Islamic radicals Cynthia McKinney slugs a security guard at the capitol because he did not recognize her. This is not her first problem with the guards.

Nancy Pelosi's response is:
"I would not make a big deal of this"
When are politicians going to realize that these are not the times for solidarity. They need to consistently denounce this irrational and especially criminal behavior. You blew this one Nancy.