2007: The High-Water Mark of Global Warming

Could 2007 be the last year we are bombarded with articles on the coming Global Warming Apocalypse? Prominent scientists have questioned the man made global warming “consensus” for some time now. This year seems to have changed in that these scientists are beginning to be heard in main stream media, and no one is threatening to burn them at the stake.

Vice President Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” was released last year to praise and accolades by many in the press. It seemed impossible to find a media personality who didn’t think the movie was the most important work of our time. The media reported that the Vice President was more popular now than he was as Vice President. Mr. Gore seemed set to take in awards, and maybe even a Presidential nomination. In February, the Boston Globe compared global warming deniers with holocaust deniers. Since them, it would appear that the climate is changing, but not as Mr. Gore or the Boston Globe might have predicted.

Channel 4 in the UK recently aired a special entitled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” In it, Channel 4 shows a group of prominent scientist condemning the Global Warming theories. The program features nine scientists that are prominent experts in the fields of climatology, oceanography, meteorology, biogeography, and paleoclimatology. To the best of my knowledge, the program has not aired in the US yet, but with the talk it has generated, it probably won’t be long before it is available outside of the UK.

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an article quoting many of Al Gore’s critics and their complaints with “An Inconvenient Truth”. For Example, Don Easterbrook specifically pointed out that Mr. Gore’s movie has some inaccuracies. The emeritus professor said, “…there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.” Mr. Gore’s response to his critics for the Times article stated that while some of the “nuances and distinctions” were missing from his movie, it conveyed the “…most important points”.

As the New York Times and other media outlets began showcasing respected critics of man made global warming, the current “consensus” will change. While a debate on the points of global warming has been long overdue, I believe 2007 will show just how little we as humans really understand about the Earth and its climate.

Into the Belly of the Beast

David Scott, Democratic Representative from Georgia, had a town hall meeting this past Saturday. Representative Scott is also my representative in Congress. I have called my representative before, and decided to attend the Town Hall meeting.

I went to the meeting with a few ideas in my head of what I might face. I expected a very high percentage of Democrats at the meeting, and I wasn’t disappointed in that regards. I also expected a lot of talk about Iraq and President Bush. I was wrong in that regard.

The meeting was very heavily Democratic in its turn out. The Representative spent a few minutes welcoming everyone to the meeting and then opened the floor for questions. I grouped the number of questions into a few very broad categories below:

Topic	Number of Questions
Healthcare	4
Taxes	4
Iraq	4
Iran	2
Illegal Immigration	2
Others	11

The eleven questions on “other” topics were so diverse I couldn’t group them into any unifying topic. The number of questions is also not directly related to the amount of time spent on each topic. The Representative spent the vast majority of his time talking about the Fair Tax Act (HR 25) and Illegal Immigration. There was actually only a little time spent on the war in Iraq. About half the people present were for the war, and half were against the war.

Representative Scott is a supporter of the Fair Tax Act. He stated he is working on getting the bill a hearing in Congress so that some of the fine points of the bill could be worked out. Mr. Scott believes that our tax system is incredibly flawed and must be replaced. As I said, most of the people at this meeting were Democrats, but a lot of them were talking about the Fair Tax Act as well. A lot of the questions would end with something along the lines of, “…and I am also a supporter of the Fair Tax.” At one point Rep. Scott stopped the discussion and said that he can’t do a town hall meeting without talking about the Fair Tax Act.

Mr. Scott also wants to control Illegal Immigration by immediately moving 25,000 troops to the borders. Once the borders are secure he would next go after businesses that employ illegal immigrants.

I would encourage anyone reading this article to get in touch with your representative regardless of their political party. While you may not agree with your elected official, they are still there to represent you. The one thing I took from this meeting is that many of my neighbors feel the same way I do, even with a Democratic Representative.

Iraq the Model

I wanted to drop a quick note in here about a new blog I stumbled across. I saw an article from a site called Iraq the Model on Real Clear Politics. This blog is run by two brothers from Baghdad. In addition to numerous articles, the site contains many links to other Iraqi and Middle Eastern blogs. I have found the blog very interesting because it contains well thought out articles written about Iraq from the Iraqi point of view. Anyone interested in how the Iraqi’s view what is happening in Iraq, or want an unfiltered opinion of what is really happening in Iraq should check out Iraq the Model.

Rape Victim to be Punished under Islamic Law

Fox News is reporting that a rape victim in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone in a car with a man that wasn’t related to her. MSNBC and a few other sites have also run this article. The 19 year old girl is referred to as “G” in most of the articles to protect her identity. According to her story, she was seeing a man without her parent’s knowledge. The man threatened to reveal this to her parents unless she met him somewhere. Once she agreed to meet him, he convinced her to ride in his car with him where they were forced to the side of the road by another car with additional men.

Over the next several hours, she was abducted and raped 14 times by multiple people. One of the rapists took pictures of her naked and used that to keep her quiet. She stayed quiet, and even tried to commit suicide. At some point, the police found out, and quickly arrested the guys involved. The rapists were sentenced to between 10 months and 5 years of jail time, while the victim and her original companion were each sentenced to 90 lashes. The rape victim has appealed to the King of Saudi Arabia to intervene.

The Saudi ministry said the rape could not be proven under Islamic law. In order for rape to be proven, there must be two male witnesses who testify that they saw the actual rape. Because the victim had also broken Islamic law, she was sentenced to 90 lashes that will most likely be administered over two days.

This is not the first story I have seen like this. Unfortunately, I don’t believe it is the last I will see either. I have taken some criticism on this site and others for being critical of Islam. This story is an example as to why I am so critical. I have trouble believing a “Religion of Peace” would allow a young girl who was raped 14 times to be punished for it. If Islam is as progressive as its defenders say it is, why does a rape have to be witnessed by two men before it can be called a rape? In today’s world, rape can be proven without eye witnesses. According to Islamic law, not even the testimony of a woman who may have witnessed the event is suitable for a conviction. Why would any civilized society punish the victim of a terrible crime like this? The answer is simple: Islam, as practiced by many people all over the world, is not the religion of peace it claims to be. I challenge anyone who believes differently to justify the punishment “G” will be forced to endure after already being raped 14 times.

Should States Require HPV Vaccine?

Over the last few weeks many State Governments have debated if girls entering the sixth grade should be vaccinated against a particular sexually transmitted disease. The specific STD in this case is the human papiloma virus, or HPV. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HPV can lead to cervical cancer in some women. Gardasil is a new vaccine designed to protect against four of the HPV strains that account for 70 % of cervical cancer cases and 90 % of genital warts.

There are eight states currently debating if the state should require girls 11-12 years old get vaccinated for HPV before they can enter the sixth grade. The states are California, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas, and Virginia. Over the last few years, Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, has tested the vaccine in girls 9-26 years in age and have not noted any harmful side effects. However, this debate has led some to question if these state governments are overstepping their authority.

Many critics of the HPV vaccine question the wisdom of having an 11 year old girl vaccinated for a STD. The American College of Pediatricians has commended Merck for its ground breaking research, but is against any legislation requiring the vaccine. The organization believes the vaccine should be made available, but that patients and their parents (in the case of young girls) should be made aware of the limits of the knowledge of this vaccine. While there are no known harmful side effects from the vaccine, no one is certain how long the vaccine is good for. There is the possibility that booster shots could be required after the initial three shot series. The American College of Pediatricians argues that it makes more sense to give the vaccine when a girl is closer to sexual activity. When is that? For each girl that is a unique age that should be taken into account. The vaccine appears to work best in subjects within the first two years after receiving it. If a girl decides not to be sexually active until later in life, she might want to wait to get the vaccine until then when it can be most effective.

Because HPV is not a communicable disease, I don’t think the states have the right to force all girls to get this shot. If there is a compelling reason to protect the other students in the class, then I could be convinced to side with the states that want to require the shot. Currently, many kids are required to be vaccinated for Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and other highly communicable diseases. However, HPV is only transmitted though sex. For states to require a STD vaccine prior to entering the sixth grade or any other grade would be a precedent setting decision. If a state requires the STD vaccine, should it require other vaccines, such as Hepatitis? Will states start requiring children submit to a STD screening process before they can attend school each year?

I think this decision is best left to the individual doctors, parents, and girls. There are risks with any vaccine, and there is still more research that needs to be done on this one. Parents should have the flexibility to evaluate their children and decide when it is appropriate to give this shot to their children. I have a three year old daughter. One day, she will probably be vaccinated for HPV. But that should be at a time that my wife and I decide to have her vaccinated based on her doctors recommendation and her own maturity. Girls mature differently and families have different values. To require this “one size fits all” solution doesn’t accommodate different families with different values.

Democrats in a Quagmire

CNN has an interesting article on their website entitled Democrats struggle with next step on Iraq. After passing a non-binding resolution in the House, and working the following weekend in the Senate without passing the resolution, the Democrats seem to be a little confused on how to proceed.

This week, Rep Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania began discussing legislation he would like to use to prevent any reinforcements from going to Iraq. He has said he will tie readiness requirements to funding bills for troop deployments. At face value this might not be a bad idea. Murtha would put requirements on how much training, equipment, and time away from Iraq any particular unit needed before it could be deployed to Iraq. Murtha has said the limits he has sent are unachievable, and would prevent any troops from being deployed to Iraq. Murtha’s message would be loud and clear: Troops, you are on your own.

However, the Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate are unsure how they want to proceed. Speaker Pelosi has been non-committal on Murtha’s proposal, but is quoted in the AP article as saying, “Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops.” Senate Majority Leader Reid wishes to table the discussion on Iraq entirely. He plans on taking up debate on the 9/11 commission. Discussing when the Senate might pick up the debate on Iraq, Reid said, “Iraq is going to be there – it’s just a question of when we get back to it.” The article also quotes him as saying it would be days and not weeks before the Senate came back to the issue. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) stated that he understood there were some that thought the Senate should continue the debate on Iraq. However, both Durbin and Reid think they can implement all of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations quickly. Because of the emotional nature of some of the recommendations, and the fact that they haven’t been implemented yet, it might take some time before the Senate could agree on what recommendations to implement.

The article illustrates that the Democratic leadership is confused and unsure when it comes to the Iraq debate. The Senate is moving on to other things. Pelosi and Reid seem to be on different pages on what to do next. All of this illustrates one point: The Founding Fathers were right to give power to carry out a war to the Commander in Chief and not to the Congress. If the Congress can’t even make up its collective minds on how to proceed with the debate, how are they possibly going to manage a war requiring quick decisions? Reid and Pelosi may want to direct how we proceed in Iraq, but the Constitution says only Bush gets to make that decision. I think the way Congress has acted over the last few weeks illustrates why the Constitution decided one person could make decisions quicker than a collection of hundreds.

What if we win?

Could the President’s new path forward be working? There are some early signs of success, but it is still too early to tell. There have been some significant clashes between US forces and insurgents, militia leaders have fled or gone underground, and the Iraqi government is saying that there has been a decline in the number of dead bodies the police forces are finding each day. At the same time, the terrorist are now using their own form of a dirty bomb.

I think whether you believe in the surge or not, most people hope and pray it works. Americans want success in Iraq. Americans don’t like to loose. Based on the comments from many Democrats, I wonder if the Democratic Party wants success, or is hoping for a defeat. The Democrats have announced they are going to try to prevent reinforcements from going to Iraq; and they are going to try to prevent the President from doing what he thinks he needs to do to win. To me, that doesn’t sound like the Democrats want a victory in Iraq. They either want defeat, or at best, just want us to leave. Which brings the question, what happens to those Democrats and Republicans who are against the war right now, and against the President’s new path, if we do win?

Most Democrats and a few Republicans seem to be betting their political career on a failed war in Iraq. I believe these elected officials are doing everything in their power (knowingly or not) to bring about the same end to this war that Vietnam suffered from. The US didn’t loose in Vietnam, we gave up. In Iraq, we can win, but we will have to stay with it, probably into the next presidency.

If the President’s policy works, then those Democrats like Murtha, Reid, and Pelosi who are doing everything they can to try and bleed our forces dry will be in a tough spot. In an interview this week, Vice President Cheney pointed out we have had successes in Iraq. We have removed Saddam from power. We have had elections in Iraq. There is a constitution written in Iraq. Saddam had his day in court, and was executed. If we are able to defeat the terrorist and insurgents now battling us in Iraq, and leave Iraq with the democratically elected government able to handle its own affairs, then we will have done something incredible in Iraq. The Democrats (and some Republicans) will be on the record saying there is no way for the surge to work. They will be on the record saying we should run away from Iraq. Will that affect their re-election chances? Will it affect the chances of a Democratic Nominee winning the White House in 2008 or even in 2012?

A World Without America

This is from a British website that is trying to remind the world of the great things America has done. Enjoy:

Book Review: Because They Hate

I have seen many reports and specials on the Middle East that feature commentary by Brigitte Gabriel. When I heard about her book Because They Hate, I wanted to read it for two reasons. First, I have always been impressed with her knowledge of the Middle East and her understanding of militant Islam. Second, I wanted to hear the story of someone who grew up in the Middle East and I was curious how that might affect her thoughts on what is happening in the Middle East today.

Because they Hate is an incredible account of a Christian growing up in Lebanon. She describes her life before Militant Islamic Fanatics came to her country and started killing Christians in the mid 1970’s. The first attack on her city destroyed her home and almost killed her. She describes how her family was able to survive the constant attacks by Muslims and some of the ordeals her family survived.

One of the tactics Mrs. Gabriel describes was designed to kill Jews in Israel and Christians in Lebanon. The Muslims would set up weapons in a Christian area, fire at Israel and leave. Once their rockets hit Israel, Israel would return fire, hitting the Christian area. She also described what life was like hiding from snipers, and trying to dodge bombs while hoping the Americans would come to their rescue. When a UN peace force was later placed in Lebanon to secure peace, she didn’t feel there was any difference from before the UN force arrived.

Mrs. Gabriel would survive the war in Lebanon and go on to anchor a prominent news show in the Middle East. She details how that changed her life. She was given access to news stories from around the world, without any Arabic spin put on the stories. She would compare the information she was given with what was being reported throughout the Middle East. Sometimes the difference was like night and day.

Because They Hate is also a warning to the United States and the West. Mrs. Gabriel warns that terrorist and Islamic religious authorities say they want to destroy our country and they will succeed if we don’t start taking them seriously and act accordingly. She argues that many Islamic Scholars are teaching hate towards Israel and the United States. Some of this teaching is even occurring on our campuses here in the United States.

As cliché as it may sound, I think all Americans need to read this book. This is an account of a woman who has seen first hand the terrible face of Islamic fundamentalist. Her native country was destroyed by the same people who would like to attack us. She wrote this book as a warning to the United States. She is now an American citizen and doesn’t want the same fate to happen to our country as it did to her native country.

Was Islam involved in the Utah shootings?

As authorities, the media, and family members search for a reason for the brutal murders at a mall on Monday, Robert Spencer points out a fact I haven’t heard covered anywhere else. Sulejmen Talovic killed five people and wounded four in a Salt Lake City mall before police shot and killed him. The new piece of information is that Sulejmen was also a Bosnian Muslim.

We may never know what caused Sulejmen to do what he did. However, if we can understand what led to it, maybe we can prevent it from happening again. Does it matter that he was Muslim? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. However, Robert Spencer reminds us of a few things that have happened recently in the United States:

Ismail Yassin Mohamed stole a car in Minneapolis and, after he rammed the car into other cars, he stole a van and continued to hit random cars. Reportedly he said, “Allah made me do it.”

Ommed Aziz Popal killed one and injured fourteen during a drive through San Francisco in August of 2006. He targeted people in crosswalks and sidewalks. He initially identified himself as a terrorist.

Naveed Afzal Haq killed one and injured five more in July of 2006 at a Jewish Center in Seattle. Before he started shooting people, he said, “I’m a Muslim American; I’m angry at Israel.”

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove an SUV onto the University of North Carolina campus trying to kill people but instead injured nine. At a court appearance he said he was, “thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah.”

From what I have seen, the authorities are not labeling these as terrorist incidents. However, all five incidents involved Muslims killing or trying to kill people here in the United States. In some of the cases, these people even invoked Allah. Does it matter that these people were Muslim or is it a freak coincidence? The authorities should be looking into the Muslim connection. What was being taught at the Mosque where these individuals were attending before they started their rampages? These incidents alone don’t mean that Islam is involved, but we would be foolish to dismiss the connection out of some sort of political correctness fear.

Congress helping our Enemies?

As the Democrats continue to push the definition of “treason”, al-Zawahiri released a video tape message proving what critics of the Democrat Party have been saying. Republicans, General Petraeus, and many others, have said that passing a resolution condemning the Presidents new way forward would do nothing to change our Presidents policy but would give hope to our enemies. I wrote a few weeks ago about the dangers of this discussion. Now we are starting to see the results of just the discussion.

Under questing by the Senate, General Petraeus said that a move to condemn the President would give hope and support to our enemies. Just the continue talk of this debate is giving Al-Queda more ammunition, and is hurting our allies. Quoting CNN: “Calling the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, allied with the United States, ‘traitors,’ al-Zawahiri warned that the United States ‘is about to depart and abandon them, just as it abandoned their like in Vietnam.”

Giving our enemies “aid and comfort” is treason. Democrats and Republicans in Congress need to realize that their words are being reported in the Middle East. Our enemies our praying to Allah for an end to the Iraqi War similar to the end of the Vietnam War. We didn’t loose in Vietnam, we beat ourselves. Iran, Syria, Al-Queda, Hezbollah and many others are eager to see an American Helicopter pulling off a crowded embassy in Baghdad. Our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan are wondering if that will be the last images they see as the armies of our enemies sweep in and take control.

The Democrats in Congress and the Republicans helping them are acting like children. Congress is rushing to condemn a plan that hasn’t fully been implemented yet. Some would argue we are already seeing some results of this plan. Muqtada Al-Sadr has reportedly fled the country. Today, US troops went house to house in Baghdad grapping insurgents and weapons as they went. The Statesman of both parties must come forward and end this debate before it provides more help to our enemies. We are in a war for the existence of America. Those who would vote for a “non-binding resolution” need to take a step back and realize the damage they have already caused.

Its time for the US to tell Iran how we feel.

The United States has found explosives, rocket propelled grenades, high-tech rifles, and personnel supplied to the Iraqi insurgents by Iran. Iran has had an active roll in killing American service men and women. A report from the European Union today says it believes the only thing preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is technical limits. The EU now believes that economic sanctions and diplomacy will not prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran has been at war with the United States since the early 1980’s. Hezbollah was founded by Iran. Iran continues to direct the “Party of God” today and provide it with support and funding.

Iran through Hezbollah has been responsible for some of the worst terrorist attacks against the United State. Before September 11, 2001, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group. Perhaps one of the worst Hezbollah attacks was at the Marine Barracks in Beirut in October of 1983. 241 American Military were killed in the attack. Our forces were part of a peace-keeping force during that attack.

What would Iran or Hezbollah do with a nuclear weapon? Is there anyone who doubts they would try to use it? If the EU believes diplomacy will no longer work, then there is very little chance of Iran negotiating with the “Great Satan”.

This leaves us with the question, “What should we do about Iran?” There are very few people out there who would argue for a land invasion of Iran. Realistically, I feel we must strengthen the boarders with Iran. It is also time to consider air strikes on Iranian locations. I have seen reports that a third carrier group is en route that theatre. This should give us plenty of Air power to keep Iran busy and out of Iraq.

Iran must be made to feel that their best interest lies in staying out of Iraq. Iranian officials may enjoy seeing the debate between different political groups within the United States. Iran needs to understand that if they want to provide weapons, training, and men to our enemies, then they will be treated as our enemies.

UPDATE:

After posting this I saw a story on Fox News saying that the Iraqi borders with Iran and with Syria are going to be closed for 72 hours. Curfews are going to be extended as well. I think this is a good step in the right direction, I truly believe this looks like a new strategy in Iraq.

Did the Holocaust cause Global Warming?

The “scientific debate” surrounding Global Warming has reared its ugly head again this week. The worst of the debate appeared in The Boston Globe yesterday. In an article entitled “No change in political climate”, Mrs. Ellen Goodman says people who question the science behind mankind’s role in global warming are the same as those who deny the Holocaust happened. Mrs. Goodman states, “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”

Mrs. Goodman would have us believe that those who question whether or not Global Warming is a product of our own practices are on a par with a brutal regime that killed around 5.1 million Jews. I cannot overstate the viscous brutality of the Nazi’s that tried to wipe out an entire race of people. I have a friend whose Grandfather survived the holocaust. Listening to his Grandfather speak of the family members he lost is something that cannot be put into words. Those who question the Holocaust do so for political reasons, typically with the agenda of wanting to continue the destruction of the Jewish people.

Mrs. Goodman irresponsibly compares the Nazi’s with individuals, politicians, and scientist who question the science behind manmade global warming. Scientist have questioned the work of their peers for as long as there have been scientist. It is part of the process. In the case of manmade global warming, there is science that refutes the global warming position.

Regardless of your position on the debate, this kind of rhetoric doesn’t help the process, and insults those who have been a victim of one of the worst human tragedies in our history.

Book Review : American Islam

American Islam by Paul M. Barrett is the story of Muslims in America before and after September 11, 2001. The book follows the lives of seven different individuals and how their lives are affected by Islam and the United States.

Mr. Barrett’s book is divided into eight chapters. Each of the individuals he follows gets their own chapter. They come from a diverse spectrum as one can tell from reading the Chapter Titles: The Publisher, The Scholar, The Iman, The Feminist, The Mystics, The Webmaster, and The Activist. His last chapter presents his conclusions from the book, and to some degree, outlines a way forward for Islam in America.

Each of the stories contained in American Islam are very well written. Some of the individuals I agreed with, some I didn’t. Regardless, I found myself caught up in the story of each of the Muslim’s in this book. The only exception is the chapter entitled The Webmaster. This chapter chronicles Sami Omar al-Hussayen who was tried under the Patriot Act. Mr. Barrett does a good job of presenting a balanced view of each of these people, again with the exception of al-Hussayen. This one chapter I found to be frustrating as it jumps around, and doesn’t seem to have any real flow to it. This doesn’t help the overall feel of the book because this is the longest chapter of the book and it is towards the end.

Of all the individuals, I found The Feminist the most interesting. This is the story of a Muslim woman in West Virginia who is fighting for equal rights for women within Islam. I was truly fascinated by her story and the trials she and her family have gone through in order to get where they are today. Ms. Asra Nomani has been able to make giant leaps at her local Mosque. It remains to be seen how the rest of the Muslim Society within America will respond to her desire for change.

I was very disappointed by the Conclusions section of Mr. Barrett’s book. According to Mr. Barrett, if Islam is to become more moderate in America, there are things that the American Government and Israel will need to do and sacrifice. Are there actions Muslims should take within Islam, like Ms Nomani? Are there organizations, actions, and sects that are trying to perverse and corrupt Islam that should be condemned? Are there Muslim groups within the US that should be condemned, and groups that should be protected? Mr. Barrett doesn’t talk about those issues.

In order for our Country to continue to survive, these questions need to be answered. Our government must protect all its citizens, regardless of faith. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others are all the target of those who would kill in the name of Islam. Mr. Barrett’s book gave me a greater understanding of the diversity of Islam within our country. But there are tough questions that many Muslims must answer. After reading American Islam, I was left with the impression that many Muslims and Mr. Barrett aren’t ready to address those questions.

Senate Needs to Put-Up or Shut-Up

This week the Senate continued to waste time discussing non-binding resolutions in a hope that the President would change his mind about Iraq. President Bush knows that he doesn’t have the backing of Congress and he is aware the war in Iraq is unpopular. However, many of the same Senators that want to pass a non-binding resolution were wishing “God’s Speed” to General Petraeus after confirming him unanimously a week ago. Now they don’t want the General to have the tools he told them he needed to win the war.

Months ago these Senators were telling the President, “Stay the course is not an option!” The President changed his cabinet, changed commanders in Iraq, is sending more troops to Iraq, and is providing economic and political answers for problems in the Middle East. That isn’t “stay the course”. However, because the President’s last name is Bush, the Senate wants him to abandon Iraq. They want our troops to leave. If our troops leave, the United States will be forced to face a military loss and will have to question its standing as the world’s lone superpower.

If the Senate truly believes the President is doing the wrong thing, the only constitutional power they have is budgetary. They can basically “de-fund” the troops. This would definitely bring a close to the Iraq war, though probably not an end most Americans would want. There would be catastrophic consequences, but if the Senate believes this is the way to go, then they should do the job they were elected to do.

If this is a political stunt, then the Senate is simply giving ammunition to our enemy. Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations have shown time and time again they pay close attention to our news and politics. They have also shown they know how to use the internet as a weapon. A resolution telling the President he doesn’t have the support of the country will play over and over and over in the Middle East. It will also appear on numerous jihad websites within minute of the Senate passing it.

The Senate needs to make an important decision: Are they willing to risk the future of the country in order to make a President look bad? If they are, then they can pursue the non-binding resolution and tell the troops they are on their own. If they aren’t, then they need to put this behind them and get on with doing the jobs they were elected to do.

Can You Vote Against a Muslim?

There has been a lot of conversation recently in different news sources (talk radio, newspapers, TV, etc) regarding Senator Obama’s possible Muslim upbringing. On one message board I read, one of the users was afraid of being called racist for pointing the story out. This led me to a question: Is it acceptable for a voter to vote against a candidate because they are Muslim?

Mitt Romney is probably going to run for the Republican nomination. He is a Mormon and I have heard people say they can not vote for him because he is a Mormon. I have heard many people say they can’t vote for certain candidates because they are Christian, or in some cases, simply believe in God. There is even a book now that argues that anyone of faith should not be allowed in politics. In my eyes, many in the media are more sensitive of offending Muslims than of offending Christians. Without naming any candidates, I want to look at a made up example.

“Candidate X” is running for the Presidential nomination in his party. This candidate has an assortment of platforms. Some of them are in line with his party, some of them are not. He is a Muslim. He also doesn’t hide the fact. In many of his public appearances he thanks Allah for guiding him to this point in time. For the sake of argument, let’s say that you agree with many of Candidate X’s positions. With all else being equal, would you vote for someone else simply because this candidate is Muslim? What if your neighbor encouraged you to vote against this Muslim Candidate?

At the end of the day, you can vote for or against someone for any reason (right or wrong) that you want. One of the beauties of our system is that your vote is between you and the voting machine. No one else knows what it is unless you want them to know. However, in your opinion is it acceptable for someone to vote against a candidate because they are Muslim?

Does the Senate really “Support the Troops”?

Early this past week, the Senate Foerign Relations Committee voted 12-9 to send a message to President Bush. With 140,000 plus troops in Iraq and 21,000 more expected to be on the way, the Committee wants the full Senate to tell the President he is doing the wrong thing. This news comes the same week the Senate unanimously approved the Presidents pick to command all forces in Iraq, Lt. General David Petraeus.

During questioning by both Republicans and Democrats this week, General Petraeus predicted that a move by the Senate to send a non-binding resolution to the President would not help US forces and would help the enemy. The vote to send the measure to the full Senate was along party lines with one exception. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska also voted to give help to the enemy.

I have heard many Conservative commentators accuse the Democratic Party of being actively invested in the defeat of America. It is weeks like this that make me believe they are right. How can anyone “Support the Troops” but also vote to send a clear vote of no-confidence to them. A “non-binding” resolution telling the President he is doing the wrong thing would do just that. It will be a clear message that our Senate doesn’t support the President, doesn’t support the war, and doesn’t support our troops.

The Constitution gives President Bush the ability to conduct a war. The Congress does not get to vote on the Presidents strategy and tactics. The President has respectfully asked the Congress for their support for his change in policy. He is not required to do this. The only power Congress has in this is budgetary. None of the Senators or Representatives in Congress get a vote on his policy in Iraq. If the Congress truly believes President Bush is doing the wrong thing, then they need to stop asking for autographs at the State of the Union, and start trying to change the budget.

I have argued time and time again that our enemies in the Middle East are very aware of how our national politics are going. Admiral Fallon has argued that our enemies know how to use the internet as a weapon against our troops. It would appear that the Senate knows how to use weapons against our troops and the President. I cannot understand how the Congress can believe that our enemies won’t use this to their fullest advantage. What does the Congress expect our troops to think as they hear this news? Besides the message that our troops are failing and shouldn’t be there, the Congress is going to tell them, “We don’t think you need any help.” Is that really what Congress means when they claim to support the troops?

Book Review: Londonistan

Towards the end of October, I came across an op-ed piece by Melanie Phillips. Mrs. Phillips is a columnist for London’s Daily Mail. I was intrigued by her article, so I looked for anything else she had written. I came across Londonistan. Mrs. Phillips makes an argument in the book that Britain may already have lost its own “War on Terror”. I don’t get to read much from the other side of the ocean, so I thought this might be interesting.

Mrs. Phillips argues that while America and the UK focus on battlegrounds in the Middle East and elsewhere, the UK is losing the war at home, and is in danger of loosing it for good. She backs up her arguments with straight forward logic, and some very startling facts. She quotes British sources as saying, “…up to sixteen thousand British Muslims either are actively engaged in or support terrorist activity…with several hundred thought to be primed to attack the United Kingdom.” From here she traces how the UK has been loosing the war at home for years.

On July 7th, 2005, suicide bombers blew up three London trains and one bus. Even more startling, the bombers in this case were from middle class London. A tape from one of the bombers showed a terrorist like those in tapes from Al-Jazeera, but with a definite British accent. Britain had been loosing a war it wasn’t even aware it was fighting for some time. Mrs. Phillips traces how the UK placed the interest of United Nations and the interest of the world community ahead of the security of its own citizens. Because of that, terrorist turned London into their own recruiting ground.

As Mrs. Phillips points out, we are engaged in a war with a particular brand of Islam, and not in a war with Islam. However, the Muslim community must look inward and recognize that there are Muslims trying to kill Christians, Jews, and other Muslims in the name of their interpretation of Islam. At the same time, British judges and lawmakers must realize that in order for the UK to survive, British common law must come before UN resolutions. While reading this book, I couldn’t get over how eerily certain passages echoed in today’s political world.

I recommend this book to anyone who wishes to protect the West from those who would have us give up our freedoms. This book should be a required read for anyone who ever admired what the UK once was, or wishes to keep America from following a similar path.

I'm Back !

If you haven’t read the comments to my last post, you may be wondering why I haven’t posted in some time. I try to post every three days or so. My last post was 11 days ago.

On January 13th, I received an email from Blogger (the company that host this site) saying that my account resembled a spam site. There was a link in the email I could click to request a human review of the site. I did that. Then I waited.

By the 18th, I was getting a little annoyed. I found a section on the Blogger site that would allow me to request a review, so I did that as well. When nothing happened, I made another request on the 20th, and a final one on the 21st. Rose at Blogger Talk (which is in my list of links) suggested that I post on the Google Blogger Help board. I did this a few times.

Finally, today I received an email from Blogger saying that my site was found to be a legitimate site, and they unlocked it. I was overjoyed. I was beginning to fear a vast left wing conspiracy was trying to prevent me from posting.

Since I haven’t been on in a while, I will try to make up for my absence over the next couple of weeks. The President will be speaking tonight and I hope to post my thoughts on the State of the Union tomorrow. I also finished reading Londonistan by Melanie Phillips. I wrote a book review on Mrs. Phillips book and will post it in the coming days.

Thanks for checking in, and to those of you who continued to check my blog while I couldn’t post, a very heartfelt thanks.

Why We Need Superman

In the 2006 movie Superman Returns, Lois Lane is working on an article titled “Why we need Superman”. This article is as important in Metropolis as it is in our world. We need a leader who is above criticism, reproach, and who no one would accuse of having anything less than the most honorable of intentions. Unfortunately, Superman doesn’t live in our world.

George Bush unveiled his way forward this week. In addition to containing an increase of approximately 21,000 troops, and an aircraft group with Iran and Syria’s name written all over it, the plan also contained many points the Democrats claimed they wanted. President Bush took ownership of any mistakes that may have been made in Iraq. President Bush incorporated some of the points contained in the Iraq Study Group. The President set benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet. Many Democrats said that a purely military solution could not work. The Presidents plan contains military, diplomatic, economic, and political points. After hearing the Presidents plan, I thought the Democrats would be quite happy. However, I underestimated just how much the Democrats no longer understand reality.

The Democrats began criticizing the Presidents plan as soon as he stopped talking. The Democrats haven’t offered any real plans of their own. They also haven’t tried to explain how their “redeployment” option will keep us safe. The Democrats have said time and time again that the President is wrong because….well, he is George Bush. That is the only reason they have come up with.

If the Democrats truly believe that the President’s plan won’t work (after actually reviewing the plan) they have a duty to point out the problems with the plan. They then have a duty to submit a plan that will work. And they must show why they believe their plan will protect us, our children, and our children’s children.

The Democrats don’t realize we face an enemy more evil than Lex Luthor ever was. They think if we pack up and head home, the terrorist will leave us alone. Bin Laden won’t leave us alone, and the terrorist that are getting money from Iran won’t leave us alone either.

There is no Superman that can save us at the last minute. The Democrats must realize we are in a fight for our existence. If the Democrats are going to continue to be a legitimate political party, they have to realize what the world looks like. They have to start contributing to the solution and stop being part of the problem.

What the President Must Do

President Bush is set to announce a new policy on Iraq on Wednesday. The Democrats have been worried that Bush is going to announce a troop increase in Iraq. Reid has said he would support a troop increase if it would get our troops out of Iraq in 2008. Reid and Pelosi on Friday told the President he couldn’t increase troops at all in Iraq.

Only the President has the power to decide how many troops are or are not in Iraq. The Democrats have been threatening to withhold funding for additional troops if the President does anything they don’t like. I think this is an empty threat. Nobody wants to tell American families that their troops are fighting in Iraq, but we aren’t going to give them what they need to win. Should the Democrats carry through on this threat, you can probably forget a Democratic President in 2008.

More importantly, something does need to change in Iraq. I believe the President is doing what he thinks is best for the long term survival of the country. But he has been too hands off, and has not communicated with the public enough. The Presidents polling numbers increase every time he gives a speech on Iraq. If the President is going to unify America behind the war effort Iraq is going to take, he is going to need to communicate more to the American public.

I don’t believe he should be giving out tactical information. However, regular speeches on the progress in the war would help his effort. The Islamic Fanaticals want us dead. They are only willing to accept one of three outcomes: the death of America, their death, or an Islamic America. To win a fight against these terrorist is going to take along time, and will span more than one President. President Bush has got to communicate that more with Americans, and he is going to have to do it for the next two years if he wants to continue this fight.

The Ried / Pelosi Doctrine

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to President Bush today. There has been a lot of speculation lately that Bush is ready to increase troop levels to coincide with a change in policy in Iraq. Pelosi and Reid sent a letter to Bush today begging him not to do it. Instead, Reid and Pelosi want to see a “…phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months…” In case some might misconstrue the Reid / Pelosi doctrine, they sum it up in the letter, “In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq…”

Since a victory in Iraq does not figure into the Reid / Pelosi first 100 hours of power, they are not willing to put any commitment into Iraq, and are ready to see us abandon Iraq. President Bush has been taking time to review the Iraq Study Group report, and other assorted reports from his different departments. The AP reported today that Bush’s strategy, “…is expected to entail new political, military and economic steps to win the war.” The Reid / Pelosi doctrine does not talk about victory or winning in Iraq. Instead, this doctrine wants to find an “end to the war in Iraq” or “[a] way forward”, maybe a “sustainable political settlement”, or at best, to “bring the war to a close.” The reports indicate that Bush has much grander things in mind: winning.

According to the AP, Bush is replacing the top two military leaders in Iraq. General Abizaid is to be replaced with Admiral William Fallon while General George Casey is to be replaced by Lt. General David Petraeus. Both of these military leaders have been pursuing the war on terror. Admiral Fallon has been the top US commander in the Pacific. He has gone on the record arguing that we are in a different type of fight. Admiral Fallon argues that our enemies will never defeat us in a “force versus force” type of fight. Instead, our enemies are currently using suicide bombers, IED’s, and the internet to try and sap our will to fight. Lt. Gen Petraeus was in charge of rebuilding Mosul with the 101st Airborne and in charge of rebuilding the Iraqi Army and police forces. His actions in Mosul and with the Iraqi Army and police have received a lot of praise.

In addition to the military shakeup, the AP reports the Bush is changing the make up of the ambassadors to Iraq and the UN, and will be putting Vice Admiral Mike McConnell in charge of Intelligence. These may or may not be the right moves to make. However, Bush is trying to put our troops in a position to win the war in Iraq. The Reid / Pelosi doctrine would have them come home in defeat, and give a victory to our enemies.

Book Review: Team of Rivals

I recently finished reading Team of Rivals, The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin. This is a very interesting book, but it is definitely not for everyone. Team of Rivals is not a generic Civil War book; It is a focus on the Politics of President Lincoln and how he was viewed by those around him. I thought this might be an interesting book because I haven’t read many books on President Lincoln, and because I have heard a lot about the author.

Team of Rivals focuses on the politics of President Lincoln from his start in politics in the early 1850’s through the end of his life. During the Civil War, Mrs. Goodwin spends very little time discussing the battles and campaigns of the war, and much more time discussing Lincoln’s relationship with his staff. She tries to use how his contemporaries viewed him to paint a picture of the President and the First Lady that hasn’t been seen before. There are an incredible number of books on the Civil War available, and more are released every year, but this is the first I have seen that attempts to view President Lincoln in this light.

Reading Team of Rivals gave me a much stronger understanding of President Lincoln, Mary Todd Lincoln, and the politics of the time. I had always assumed that politics during the civil war were much more noble and clean than they are today. I found that politics before and during the civil war were as decisive if not more so than they are today. In this time of political upheaval, most Presidents would have filled their staff with like minded individuals or people they owed political favors too. Lincoln brought his political rivals for the Republican ticket into his cabinet. He wanted the best and the brightest to advise him, and he felt that some of his rivals were exactly what the country needed to get through those tough times.

I would strongly recommend this book for anyone who is a Lincoln, Civil War, or Political junkie. However, at 753 pages plus index and notes, it is not a good introduction to the Civil War. It is also not a very light read. Mrs. Goodwin drags a few of her points out. It also takes a real commitment to make it through the first 80 pages. However, there is a wealth of information in the book, and Team of Rivals really gives an intimate picture of President Lincoln and his politics during the Civil War.

Lieberman on Iraq

This is a short post to point out an important article from yesterday I came across. Senator Joseph Lieberman has an article in the Washington Post. I encourage everyone to read it here. The Senator has just returned from Iraq and he writes about his solution for Iraq. I have to agree with the Senator Lieberman. I am reading the Iraq Study Group report and Lieberman's article shows a better understanding of how important Iraq is than what I have seen in the ISG.

I have no problem saying a Democrat is right when they are. It doesn't happen often, but in this case a Democrat has is right about Iraq. I don't want to discuss the article too much. I would perfer everyone read the article themselves and leave a comment as to what they think.

Ford Tarnished by Woodward

Today’s Washington Post has an article from Bob Woodward with excerpts from two interviews he did with the late President Ford. The interviews were from 2004 and 2005 and contain quotes from President Ford that are critical of the Bush Administration and the current Presidents policies. Mr. Woodward said these interviews were done with and embargo that they could not be reported until after the President passed away. Since President Ford passed away on Tuesday, Mr. Woodward feels this is the perfect time to release the controversial statements.

Since we cannot ask President Gerald Ford about these quotes, or about the embargo itself, we must take them at face value and assume Mr. Woodward has put them in the appropriate context. According to the article, President Ford disagreed with going to war in Iraq, and felt the United States was wrong to try and spread democracy anywhere in the world. President Ford said he would have pushed other alternatives and sanctions harder and avoided the war. President Ford is quoted as saying, “I don’t think I would have ordered the Iraq war. I would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer.” He is quoted elsewhere as saying, “And I just don’t think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security.”

If President Ford truly felt this way, he did a disservice to himself by not revealing these statements during his lifetime. By waiting till after his death to allow these statements to be published, the quotes look like a cowardly act. As President, Ford had to make some tough decisions. By hiding these statements, his legacy has been tainted. I have written articles critical of President Carter for his statements as an ex-President. At least Carter was willing to face the criticism his comments might generate.

Mr. Woodward has diminished his own reputation due to the timing of his article. President Ford passed away on Tuesday evening. Less than 48 hours later, Mr. Woodward has tried to introduce fresh controversy in President Ford’s legacy for what appears a thinly veiled attempt to generate interest in a future book on President Ford by Mr. Woodward. Perhaps if Mr. Woodward truly felt these statements deserved print as quickly as possible, he should have talked the President into allowing him to publish them during his lifetime. If they could wait until after his death, surely they could have also waited until after his funeral.

Both President Ford and Mr. Woodward have acted with incredible poor taste at a minimum. President Ford’s comments can easily be viewed as petty and somewhat cowardly. Mr. Woodward’s article looks even worse because of the timing.

Saddam Hussein Must Die

Saddam Hussein was found guilty of mass murder by an Iraqi court. That verdict was upheld by an Iraqi appeals court. It is now time for justice to run its course. I am a supporter of the death penalty, and think it is very justified in this case.

Saddam Hussein is guilty of untold numbers of murders, rapes, and tortures. His rise to power started with the videotaped executions of 22 of his political rivals. He ruled by force, torture, fear, and brutality. Iraqi’s lived in fear for the 24 years of his reign. If ever there was someone who deserves to face the repercussions of their actions, it is him. He was not brought back to the US and tried; he did not face a war crimes tribunal led by the United Nations. He faced a judicial system made by a democratically elected Iraqi government. Iraqi’s heard his defense in court. Iraqi’s witnessed his trial. Some Iraqi’s died trying to ensure justice was brought to Saddam. And Iraqi’s found him guilty and have sentenced him to death. Those Iraqi’s now deserve to see their government enforce the ruling of their judicial system. It would be an insult to those who risked their lives and the lives of their families to ensure he had his day in court.

There are many in Iraq who still fight because they believe Saddam will one day return to power. There are also those who won’t join in the new Iraqi government until they know there is no way for Saddam to take control of the Iraqi government. If Saddam was simply confined to life imprisonment, there would always be the fear that he could become president again. In Iraq, there are those who believe Saddam has magical abilities. The only way to convince them that he can’t return to power is to execute Saddam. I believe that he should pay for the crimes he has committed. The Iraqi judicial system has ruled they believe he should be executed. The appeals court has ordered it to be televised. Saddam deserves the punishment that he should meet in the next 30 days. Iraq (and the world) will be a better and safer place without him.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time over the last few months to read my blog and thanks for the comments. I hope that everyone has a Merry Christmas and gets to spend some time with family and friends. Take a few minutes today and tomorrow and think of our soldiers who are away from their families.

Again, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from Political Friends.

Kick the United Nations out of the United States

The more I follow politics, the more I think the United Nations doesn’t work anymore. If the United Nations doesn’t work, should the United States continue to be a part of the process?

I think I can get agreement from the majority of people out there when I say that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are the three biggest hot spots in the world today. If the UN is to work, they must react quickly and decisively in these three areas. Currently, the US and Britain seem to be the major governments trying to stabilize Iraq. Iran and Syria seem to be the major nations trying to destabilize Iraq. If the UN is going to be the forum for the world to resolve its issues, I would expect the UN to be actively engaged in seeking solutions with the US, the UK, and Iraq, and actively trying to prevent Iran and Syria from influencing Iraq. I don’t see that happening.

The United Nations seems to be very reluctant to do anything in Iran. France, Germany, and Britain are working to impose sanctions against Iran for its nuclear development efforts. Russia and China are working hard to prevent sanctions against a nation they consider to be a valuable trading partner. The United States wants tough sanctions, but is trying to give the European nations a chance to work things out. At face value, this sounds like diplomacy at work. The truth of the matter is that this is a continued failure of diplomacy. The UN Security Council set an August 31st deadline for Iran to stop work on enriching uranium, or face dire consequences. Since August 31st, the Security Council has been unable to reach any decision on what those consequences should be. In the mean time, Iran has been working to expand its nuclear program and continues to thumb its nose at the world community. This week’s elections show that the people of Iran don’t support Ahmadinejad’s policies, but the UN can’t develop a similar message to send to Iran.

Under the UN’s watchful eyes, North Korea has now become a nuclear power. While North Korea has returned to the negotiating table, it has done so with a list of demands for the rest of the world. North Korea currently sees these negotiations not as a chance to become a member of the world community, but as a forum to negotiate bribes for the Kim Jung-Il, and to discuss world wide arms reductions. As North Korea has admitted it broke previous treaties, I don’t hold my breath that anything good could come from this latest round of talks.

There are other reasons the United Nations no longer is a legitimate forum for the US. In the view of the UN, all countries are equal, and all should have an equal voice in how the world works. This is a logical conclusion if you believe that there are no nations that are better than other nations. This basic belief is flawed. The United States is quite simply the greatest nation on the Earth. Any forum that equates the views of the US with every petty dictator throughout the world instantly handicaps the US. We have every responsibility to help those individuals and those nations less fortunate than us. However, we don’t have to do it with a gun to our heads as the UN would have us. We can administer our own foreign aid, and peruse our own diplomatic resolutions.

What more can we give North Korea?

North Korea proudly proclaimed itself a Nuclear Power today. The six party talks resumed today, and as I predicted last month, North Korea showed up with a laundry list of demands. In stead of sounding like a nation interested in becoming a part of the world community, North Korea sounded like a landlord demanding rent.

First, North Korea demanded the US stop all financial sanctions against the “Fearless Leader” and North Korea. This is to include the frozen banks that the US began due to North Korea’s high counterfeiting of the US $100 bill. Secondly, someone other than North Korea is to come build them a nuclear reactor. Next, the rest of the world is to provide power for North Korea until the nuclear reactor is built. After that, North Korea and Kim Jung-Il will consider abandoning their nuclear weapon program. And by the way, since they were able to “successfully” test a nuclear weapon, they want equal treatment as any other nation in the world.

When a child misbehaves, he doesn’t come to the principles office with a list of demands that must be met before he will begin to behave again. If a criminal were to show up at the police station with a list of demands before he would abide by the law, we would all laugh at him. However, because the UN and the rest of the world allow tyrant regimes to do as they wish, more and more dictators come to the UN with demands before they will act like a responsible, equal share holder in the world community.

This is the basic flaw with the modern Democratic Party and the UN. Both treat all individuals (except George Bush) and all nations (except the US) as equal. No matter how you treat others, or how bad your ideas may be, you can’t be called wrong. If you feel it is ok to deny the right of another race of individuals to exist, you’re not condemned and cut off from the rest of the world. You are allowed to present your ideas as if they have merit. If you funnel money, troops, and training into a war zone to kill American and International forces, the Iraq Study Group says the US and the world should negotiate with you and give you an equal share in the fate of your neighbors.

Until the UN or the world at large is willing to hold nations like Iran and North Korea responsible for their actions, these rouge leaders will continue to threaten other nations, kill and starve their own people, and grow fat off the weak knees of the world at large. Maybe we should just ask President Carter what to do.

TIME Falls in Love with Ahmadinejad

I came across an article today on the Drudge Report that really shocked me. Time Magazine is running a second interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. That didn’t shock me. What shocked me was the opening sentence. Scott MacLeod writes, “In an exclusive interview, the Iranian President – and Person of the Year candidate – discusses his conference questioning the Holocaust, his letter to the American people and the state of his nuclear plans”. I was almost speechless. “Person of the Year candidate”? I couldn’t believe it.

President Ahmadinejad has been pursing nuclear weapons, he has said that Israel needs to be wiped off the map, and last week held a conference arguing that the Holocaust didn’t happen. Regardless of whether Time magazine makes him their Person of the Year or not, even listing him as a candidate soils the reputation of the other nominees and gives weight to everything Ahmadinejad has been saying.

Do the editors and writers of Time believe there was a Holocaust? Do they believe Isreal should be, “wiped off the map?” Would they like the nation of Iran, Hezbollah or Hamas to have nuclear weapons? I have been critical of the Iraq Study Group, but even they say that Iran has been aiding in the flow of arms and training into Iraq. I strive very hard on this site to avoid simply calling people or groups names, but what are the people at Time thinking?

Let’s take this scenario to its possible conclusion. Fast forward to the end of the year when Time announces that President Ahmadinejad is their Person of the Year, complete with flattering glossy photo on the cover. Forget what may or may not be said here in the United States. What will be said in the Middle East? In Iraq? In Iran? Ahmadinejad will hold that issue up for everyone in the Middle East to see and say, “See, even the American people believe Israel should be destroyed. Even the American people believe Iran should have nuclear weapons.” If you don’t think that will happen you are fooling yourself.

The terrorist and leaders in the Middle East pay very close attention to the American media. Even if Time is so short sighted as to not realize this, those in the Middle East will point to this designation of “Potential Man of the Year” and squeeze every bit of PR out of it they can. To list him as a candidate is irresponsible and aides our enemies. I believe in Freedom of Speech, and Time can nominate whomever they wish to. However, I think it tells the American public a lot about who Time is rooting for in the War on Terror.

Barack Hussein Obama

With all the hype around Senator Obama this week, I thought I would post a short bio and a note on some of his positions. At then end, I will tell you why I can’t vote for him.

Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii in August of 1961. His father was from Kenya and his mother from Kansas. His parents got divorced when he was two years old. His mom remarried and the family moved to Indonesia when Obama was six years old. At age ten, he moved back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. The future Senator graduated from Columbia University in 1983. He worked for a few years and then returned to school, this time at Harvard Law School where he earned a degree and graduated in 1991. He moved back to Chicago and worked for a civil rights firm and taught at the University Of Chicago Law School. He was married in 1992 and has two daughters.

Obama won his first election to the State Legislature in 1996. In 2000, he made an attempt at the US House, but was defeated in the Illinois primary. He was then elected to the US Senate in 2004, and was sworn in on January 5, 2005.

It is a little difficult to point out exactly where he is on many of the issues. He simply hasn’t had enough time in the Senate to let his voting record tell a story. He is very passionate about a few issues on his website (AIDS being one of them). In the press release for December 6, 2006, Senator Obama says, “I agree with the [Iraq] Study Group’s call for a significant redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. As I said a few weeks ago, there are not good options left in Iraq, but I believe a redeployment is the best way to finally reach a political agreement between the warring factions.” This statement worries me. I believe there are ways to win in Iraq, and I believe a redeployment will only help our enemies.

At a reception on Sunday, he was asked if the country was ready for a black president. He responded by saying, “Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m African American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics.” Senator Obama believes only Republicans could be racist. Incase the Senator has forgotten, David Duke ran unsuccessfully as a Democrat from 1975 to 1990. When he decided to try and run as a Republican in 1991, he received a letter from the GOP expressing their disdain for his activities. And don’t forget KKK leader and Senior Democrat from West Virginia Robert Byrd.

I won’t be voting for Senator Obama if he should happen to get the Presidential Nomination. It has nothing to do with his skin color. It has a lot to do with his views on Iraq, and the fact that I don’t appreciate the comment from Sunday. If I could pick anyone to vote for in 2008, it would be Condoleezza Rice.

Jimmy Carter's New Book

Former President Jimmy Carter has a new book out titled Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. So far, Mr. Carters’ book has generated a lot of controversy including the resignation of a former aide and chargers of improperly publishing some one else’s work.

I saw a copy of this book at a local Barnes and Nobles and read the book jacket. I got a good laugh out of it. Mr. Carter claims to lay out a plan for, “…Israel and Palestine living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries.” According to the book jacket, Mr. Carter believes Israel has a lot to do, and Palestine has almost nothing to do. I couldn’t believe that anyone wanting a real solution to the Israel / Palestine conflict would expect one party or the other make all the sacrifices, and not expect compromise from both sides.

The first controversy I read about in the news was when Kenneth Stein, Director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel, resigned after reading Mr. Carter’s book. He had been associated with Carter for some time and resigned as the Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center. Both Mr. Stein and President Carter agree that he has not been involved in the day to day affairs of the Carter Center for some time. Mr. Stein states that ,”President Carters book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses, its is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.” Mr. Stein did not want his name in anyway associated with the book.

Shortly after this, Mr. Dennis Ross, former Middle East envoy, came out in public and stated that at least some of the maps used in President Carters book were improperly published. Mr. Ross states that he is the original author of the maps. He states that he was not contacted and did not give permission for President Carter to use the maps.

Based on Mr. Ross and Mr. Stein, it would appear that President Carters new book uses very questionable material and questionable publishing to make its arguments. My original problem with the book still stands. Any course in the Israel / Palestine conflict must include Hamas being removed. At the same time I was reading Mr. Carters comments this week, I saw an article were members portions of the Palestine government will not participate in a unity government if they are asked to recognize Israel’s right to exist. That seems to me to mean that Palestine does have something it will have to work out if it wishes to coexist with Israel.

The Iraq Study Group

I have begun reading the report from the Iraq Study Group and am already disappointed. The "Baker" Report should contain possible strategies to win in Iraq. I couldn’t find a section on winning Iraq, or a section on victory in the entire report. I have heard reports today that the study group only took one trip to Iraq, and then only two of the members ever ventured out of the Green Zone. If this is true, how can we believe this is an accurate assessment of the state of Iraq? Why should the President or Congress put any faith in what is in essence a damage control report? The President and Congress should be examining ways to win in Iraq and not ways to look better to the world. War is hard. Sherman said that war is all hell. It is suppose to be ugly and brutal. But we as Americans must put that aside and look for real ways to win.

Iraq is still winnable. We must decide what we want to obtain from our involvement in Iraq, what conditions we are willing to define for victory, and how much we are willing to do to get it. That is what the debate between Republicans and Democrats really needs to be. I don’t believe that any Republican, Democrat, or American really wants to loose in Iraq. So how do we define Victory, and how do we get there?

If we look at Iraq as a front in the larger global war on Islamic Fundamentalism, then we can define victory. One possible definition: Victory is when Iraq is a fully self – reliant democratic government. We can get there by breaking the will of our enemies and the enemies of the Iraqi people. Anyone who has done any looking into the war knows Syria and Iran are both funneling fighters and materials into Iraq. Iran and Syria should be made to hurt enough that they stop supplying our enemies with aid. If Iran and Syria are willing to bleed American soldiers, we should do the same to them. We could target their terrorist as they come across the border, or we could take the war to their nations.

This is only a possible solution. We could limit the area of operation to within the borders of Iraq and step up military operations. We could decide we are willing to handle more civilian causalities in order to protect our troops and hit the terrorist harder. These are all possible strategies to win Iraq. The point is not whether or not they are the right strategies, but that they are strategies that could work in Iraq.

A real Iraq Study Group would have been able to find a few strategies for Victory. This Study Group appears to be looking for anything but Victory.

Freedom of Speech?

I have had a running debate on a few other sites about the nature of our guaranteed Freedom of Speech. I thought I would post a few thoughts here and see if there is anyone out there who disagrees.

All of our rights are guaranteed up to a point. We have our freedoms so long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others. I have the right to criticize anyone in the government I see fit too. However, I don’t have the right to walk into a crowded movie theater and scream “Fire” at the top of my lungs unless there really is a fire. If someone says something about me, or prints something about me that they can’t prove, I have the ability to sue them in court. I wanted to point this out first to show that our freedoms are limited.

The press is an important watchdog in today’s world, and always has been. However, I feel they get away with a lot under the “Freedom of Speech” clause. If the N Y Times or any other media outlet decides to print classified documents, there should be consequences. If I decided to stand on a street corner and hand classified documents out, plenty of people would rightly be upset. Why should a group of people whom aren’t elected, have the ability to decide what is in my best interest?

There are those who say we need the press to protect us from abuse in government, and I agree. However, if the press finds something that they feel the American public needs to know, they should hand it to one of the other branches government if they can’t legally print it. If someone found something incriminating about President Bush, there is a long line of Senators standing at the ready to do something with that information.

We as Americans are found of saying, “No one is above the law.” The President, Congress, and the Supreme Court are all held accountable just as your average John Doe. So why should a newspaper be any different? I write a blog, does that make me above the law? Many don’t like to talk about it, but our freedoms do have limits. Most of these limits were set forth in the Constitution, and have always been there. I feel those limits should be enforced equally.

I am interested to see what others think. Feel free to drop me a comment.

Terrorist Quiz

Your 'Do You Want the Terrorists to Win' Score: 11%

Congratulations, Patriot! Wave your flag proudly, stand tall, and bask in the glory of George Bush's America. The terrorists will never win so long as there is a sufficient number of people like you out there. Never question, never doubt. You are on the right side. America's side. God's side. Rush Limbaugh has told you so. Rah rah, go Bush!!

Do You Want the Terrorists to Win?
Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

Imams Look More and More Guilty

The six imams kicked off a US Airways flight last week are still claiming to be the victims of racial profiling. However, the police report from the original incident is now out in the public and viewable(http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/12/the_faking_imams_pajamas_media.php). Many of the details that have been circulating on the blogosphere have made it into the reporting. While the media reports aren’t covering this as much as I would like, they have taken a step in the right direction by pointing out the incriminating facts in the police report.

The imams were doing more than just praying loudly. They were acting consistent with the 9/11 hijackers. Many of the passengers and crew were concerned with the actions of the imams. The Muslim American Society, which has been pushing the racial profiling angle, reported last week that one of the imams was blind. One of the passengers from the flight noted that there was in fact an imam acting blind in order to convince passengers to swap seats with him. If you pay careful attention to the police report, at no point to the officers note that one of the imams was blind or needed any sort of special attention. This appears to be another hole in the press release created by the Muslim American Society.

One of the imams told a passenger on the plane that his job was a cover and that his real job was “… advocating / representing Muslims here in the US.” This was at the same time that he complained to the passenger about non-shariah law nations, and expressed what this same passenger called “extreme fundamentalist Muslim views.” Last week I pointed out the connections one of the imams had to a Hamas fund raising charity operating here in the US. This information taken with the vocal support for Hamas and Hezbollah from the Muslim American Society makes me very suspicious that these imams were not victims at all. The more information that comes out, the more I believe this was an actual terrorist operation. However, I don’t believe they had any intension of taking over the plane. I think from the beginning they were hoping to get taken off the plane and wanted to use this as a PR operation. These imams and the MAS want to use this to force the airlines to ignore suspicious activities, or get labeled as Islamaphobic. We know the terrorist groups want to use our media against us and this is a case were they are trying to use the media to force us into a less secure footing here in the US.

If it is found that theses six imams were intentionally doing this to try and get in the media spotlight, they should be charged with aiding terrorist, and tried. I think US Airways should be commended for doing the right thing. I can only hope and pray that crews from other airlines act the same way if they see suspicious people on their planes.

New article up at Big Bazoo

The people at Bigbazoo posted a guest blog of mine. I wrote an article on some of the failures of Speaker-elect Pelosi. Go check it out here, and leave a comment to let them know what you think.