Protect your Enemies and Attack your Friends?

With the new funding bill being discussed for Iraq, both Republicans and Democrats are claiming a win. Many Democrats and Republicans have called for benchmarks and timetables for Iraq. The theory seems to be that if we only threaten the Iraqi government, things might go the way we want.

The current threat is if the Iraqi government doesn’t meet certain benchmarks, it jeopardizes reconstruction assistance. While the President has the option to wave these restrictions, the intent of this bill shouldn’t be glossed over. If signed into law, the US would tell Iraq that the Iraqi government must meet certain benchmarks, or the US will stop funding reconstruction projects in Iraq. I think it is imperative that we continue to fight in Iraq without a surrender date. However, what are we really saying to our allies with these benchmarks?

Many Democrats are constantly demanding we negotiate with Iran and Syria regarding Iraq. The Democrats look at Iran, look at its continued involvement in Iraq and its continued UN violations and decide that Iran is a country they can trust. Just today, the IAEA released a report saying Iran continues to violate UN resolutions. The IAEA says it can not assure the world that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for exclusively peaceful purposes. If only we would negotiate with the leaders of Iran, they would help us in Iraq. How many of the Democratic presidential hopefuls have discussed having a conference in the Middle East to discuss Iraq with Syria and Iran? The Democrats would have us believe we can trust Iran.

However, when the Democrats turn their eyes on Iraq, they insist on benchmarks with teeth. If the Iraqi government can’t pass laws and meet benchmarks by a date set by politicians in DC, then we should stop funding reconstruction efforts in Iraq, or we should withdraw our troops and leave Iraq to the wolves. Let’s not forget that after 200+ years of experience with Democracy here in the US, we still miss the ball. Look at how long it takes our congress to pass laws. However the DNC would have the Iraqi government held to a higher standard.

It seems to me these roles should be reversed. If Iraq is our ally, we should be working with them to get their nation rebuilt. We should protect them from enemies who would assassinate her leaders and enslave her people while raping the nation of its natural resources. Surely the United States can be called on to protect its allies?

If the Democrats insist on passing benchmarks, then let’s look at an Iranian resolution. If the Iranian government can’t prove to the world that it is pursuing a purely peaceful nuclear program in the next 60 days, then we will cut off all economic ties and aid to Iran. I would not advocate using ground forces in Iran, but I read we have three carrier groups near Iran right now. If Iran continues to kill US soldiers in Iraq, then perhaps it is time to see how effectively our military can bomb one country while fighting a war in another one.

The Democrats have taken the saying of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer to a new and corrupted level. The Democrats seem to be saying, “Protect your enemies while attacking your friends.”

The Flag Folding Ceremony

Today my wife attended a luncheon that included a Flag Folding Ceremony. While my wife does keep up with politics, and is in many ways smarter than I, she rarely provides inspiration for my blog. Today was an exception. She was quite impressed with the Flag Folding Ceremony. While talking to me about it, she said, “Anyone who doesn’t believe religion played a large part in our countries foundation is simply wrong.”

I tend to agree with her. Many of our documents our country was founded on contain references to God and to a Judeo-Christian creed. I will concede that there were important figures in our history that were either openly atheist, or questioned God’s existence. I think the ability to do either in our society is one of the things that makes our nation great.

My wife encouraged me to go look for the Ceremony online. I did a quick Google search for “Flag Folding Ceremony” and found many links. The rest of my information is taken from the USA Patriotism website. I encourage everyone to read the link to the meaning of the 13 folds of our flag. It is a very solemn and religious ceremony. Every website I looked at today had a disclaimer that this ceremony (while performed by an assortment of military units at different times) was not official military policy. This ceremony respects and honors life, God, veterans, mothers, fathers, and others. If the military if going to have policies like “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” would it be such a terrible thing if we adopted this ceremony as an official ceremony?

The Ceremony honors and glorifies the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. My understanding is that Islam honors Abraham and Issac, Christianity and Judaism honor all three. The Ceremony reminds us of those who have gone before to protect our rights. I encourage everyone to take a few minutes and read through the ceremony. I would especially like to point out what the fifth fold represents (taken from USA Patriotism):

“The fifth fold is a tribute to our country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, ‘Our country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong.’”

If we as Democrats, Republicans, and all others can agree on this, maybe we can solve many of the issues facing our nation today. May God bless America.

Not so "Fairness Doctrine"

There has been a lot of discussion in the media lately regarding a resurgence of the “Fairness Doctrine”. I thought it might be interesting to look at the history behind the Fairness Doctrine. It was once policy by the FCC, why is it not still enforced? The historical information for this post is taken largely from an article on the doctrine by Val E. Limburg on www.museum.tv.

In the words of Limburg, the “Fairness Doctrine” was, “...an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair.” The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the FCC, and was not actual law. In 1949, the FCC believed that since there were a limited number of frequencies available, the broadcasters had a responsibility to report all sides of a particular issue. Editorials on assorted issues were permitted, so long as opposing views were also allowed. Journalists considered the doctrine a violation of First Amendment rights. They felt the FCC shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing “fairness”.

The doctrine also began to have the opposite effect of what was originally intended. Limburg points out, “ [i]n order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues.” Instead of many sides being presented, no sides were presented on controversial issues. This became known as the “Chilling Effect” and was the exact opposite of the intention of the FCC.

In 1985, the Fairness Report was issued by the FCC and argued against continuing to use the fairness doctrine. The FCC noted the chilling effect the policy was having and expressed its concern that the doctrine might be in direct violation of the First Amendment. In 1987, the courts ruled that the doctrine was not congressional law and the FCC could choose whether to enforce it or not. The FCC decided to dissolve the doctrine. Congress has tried to pass the fairness doctrine as law since that time, but each President has vetoed it. Congress has yet to muster the votes to override a veto.

Limburg closes out his article with the exact reason a fairness doctrine is not needed: “The public relies on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage on an issue.” With the number of cable, satellite TV, satellite radio, radio, and even internet sources, there is always someone covering an issue you are interested in. Think Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are too one sided? Tune in to CNN or NPR.

In case any reader may think I am simply repeating the conservative talking points, Newsweek recently ran an article detailing the problems with a new fairness doctrine. Regardless of your political belief system, liberal, conservative, or other, the fairness doctrine has no place in today’s society. The Fairness Doctrine represents an attempt to restrict freedom of speech and calling it anything else is simply not telling the truth.

Thompson vs. Moore

If you have ever wanted to see a politician respond directly to his attackers, and pull no punches, you have to see Sen. Fred Thompson's response to Michael Moore. I first saw this video at Drudge. Moore is working on a new "documentary" about the workers of 9/11. As part of his movie, he took some of the workers who are suffering health problems to Cuba for medical treatment. Moore is now under investigation by the Federal government for taking these workers to Cuba.


Senator Thompson sounded in with his criticism of Moore for traveling to Cuba and Moore responded with an open letter criticizing Thompson's stand on health care. I haven't read either of these opening salvo's in this battle. Senator Thompson seems to be a straight forward kind of guy. Moore has yet to make a real documentary.


I have not picked a Republican candidate that I want to win the "Super Primaries" in February 2008. However, I believe President Bush has been too soft with his critics. When the Presidency is attacked, a strong President has to be willing to come out swinging. If you believe the country needs a strong President, Fred Thompson deserves a look with this attack against Moore.

Meeting Dr. Bennett

William J. Bennett was recently in town doing a book signing. I have copy of his newest book, America: The Last Best Hope: Volume II: From a World at War to the Triumph of Freedom and took it along with The Children’s Book of Virtues for him to sign. I am a great admirer of Dr. Bennett’s, and it was a real thrill to meet him in person. He was very polite to all his fans that showed up for his book signing. He was willing to talk with everyone, have photos taken, and personalize any of the books however you wanted. I have seen other famous people do appearances where they charge for autographs. Not so with Dr. Bennett. Someone even had a printed picture that he was more than happy to sign.

I admire Dr. Bennett because he speaks with a great sense of right and wrong. If you listen to his morning show, the views he takes aren’t based on Republican or Democrat, but what is right and what is wrong. That is something that is sometimes lacking in today’s political commentary. I don’t always agree with his view points (which may say less of me and more of Dr. Bennett) but I always enjoy his show.

Dr. Bennett is a firm believer that America is a force for good in the world. I couldn’t agree with that viewpoint more. The title of his two history books America: The Last Best Hope boldly proclaims that. I would encourage anyone who hasn’t listened to Dr. Bennett’s Morning in America to give it a shot. I was greatly thrilled to meet a man I consider somewhat of a personal hero. Check back here for an upcoming review of America: The Last Best Hope.

The Conservative Book Club

I have a new advertiser on my blog. In case you haven't noticed, I now have a link for the Conservative Book Club. I am a member of this club and have enjoyed the books I have purchased from them.

I have bought a few political books, and some history books with my membership. The way the club works is you pick three books for $1 each. Then, over the next two years you buy four more from them. They send you a monthly newsletter, or you can make all your selections online. It is really easy.

The books I have purchased have been of the same quality or better as you would see in Barnes and Noble or any other bookstore. They have arrived in good condition. I hope you sign up if you are interested in politics or history. And please let me know what you think of the club.

A Call for an Islamic Reformation

A plot by six foreign borne Muslims to kill as many soldiers as they could at Ft. Dix was stopped today. The FBI attributed the victory to a video store clerk. The clerk was asked by one of the men to copy a video that showed many of the conspirators firing weapons and talking about jihad. The clerk contacted the FBI. Three of the Muslims were illegal immigrants and two had green cards. The plot had been in the works for some time, and the six had acquired a map of Ft. Dix and were purchasing weapons for their attack. Based on the detailed complaint filed by the FBI, there is no doubt these men thought they were acting in accordance with Islamic Jihad.

Most articles I have read end with the following paragraph:

"If these people did something, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law," said Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer who represented scores of detainees after the 2001 attacks. "But when the government says `Islamic militants,' it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous."

"Don't equate actions with religion," he said.

Not all Muslims wish harm to the United States and her citizens. I reviewed a book in February entitled American Islam which discusses how different Muslims in America see themselves and their faith. It also discuses how their lives have changed since 9/11. However, to ignore the violence that some Muslims in the world feel Islam dictates they use in the name of Allah is to ignore world events today. It does not help that many feel unable to safely discuss Islam without being labeled a racist or being painted as a target by certain Muslim groups. However, if Islam and the West are going to continue to co-exist, there must be a Reformation within Islam.

Is Islam a religion that endorses violence against Israel, Judaism, Americans, or even other sects of Islam, or is it a religion that has simply been misunderstood and manipulated? Muslims must come to terms with how they wish their religion to go forward. Will Islam continue to be used to kill untold numbers, silence dissent, kill and beat women under the term “honor killing”? Will Islam become the true religion of peace where Mohammad’s message can be taught and discussed without fear of violence? I can not answer these questions; this is a Reformation that must be lead by Muslims and come from Muslims.

A Pro US France?

The French have elected a new president. One who sounds more favorable to the US, one who is not a socialist, and one who has said the US will always have a friend in France. Could this be a new day in France?

The two French candidates ran on very different platforms. The winner ran on a pro-US, pro-job growth, and pro-immigration control platform. The looser ran promising to protect welfare benefits, and promised to create new government jobs for young people. The French people have spoken. They have voted (by 53 %) for a more conservative president. I think there are a few very important long term implications for the US with this election.

One lesson is obvious. A Pro US foreign leader is always good for us. France has an important vote in the UN. I disagree with our involvement in the United Nations. However, the more pro US votes in the UN, the better for the United States. In addition, the new French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, ran on a tougher immigration policy. He believes that many of the rioting that has taken place in France since 2005 is because of a weak immigration policy. He stated that France cannot become the refuge for, “…all the world’s miseries.” Could it be that a European government has started to recognize the war the West is in with Islamist?

The other important lesson that should be taken from this is that France has thrown out socialism. The Socialist party in France has lost its third straight presidential election. Democrats in our country need to pay close attention to this lesson. The Socialist party has been preaching an anti-US, anti-capitalist, government can do everything message. The people of France have tired of it. The Democratic Party in the US runs a very similar message. If France is willing to reject this message for three straight presidential elections, might US voters as well?

Some of the problems cited as defeating the socialist are problems that might face Democratic candidates for the 2008 election. Two of the examples cited on FT.com include: suggesting huge government programs with no way to fund them and backing off core party beliefs while the party power based attacked their candidate for it. Both of these tactics have started to appeal to potential Democratic Presidential candidats.

Many, including myself, would argue the 2006 election was more about the Republicans loosing the election than the Democrats winning the election. The Democrats have made themselves the American Socialist party. They have campaigned on the belief that America is the root of many of today’s problems. Party leadership has declared the war in Iraq lost, while playing political theatrics with those fighting the war. The Democrats need to study what happened in France or they may find the same happening here.

TIME's "Most Influential" 100

Time released their “Top 100 Most Influential People” list today. In the Time’s own words, this is their, “…list of the 100 men and women whose power, talent, or moral example is transforming the world.” Remember, the editors of Time magazine chose these rules. There are many characters and figures on the list. One prominent figure not on the list is the President of the United States.

The list is an interesting one. There are two members of the Communist Chinese government on the list as well as at least three dictators, Ayatullah Khamenei, and Osama bin Laden. Popular Democrats such as Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama are also listed as the most influential people in the world. Pope Benedict XVI, Queen Elizabeth II, Condoleezza Rice, Chief Justice John Roberts, and General David Petraeus also make the list. I shouldn’t forget Raul Castro as well.

I can’t fathom how the Time’s believe some of these people (like Raul Castro or Barack Obama) are more influential on the world wide stage than the most powerful man in the free world. Not even ex President Bill Clinton was able to get into the list and he is certainly more influential than some of the others on the list. He is arguably even more influential than his wife. I find it interesting to see so many terrorist and dictators on a list that includes “moral example” as one of the qualifiers for the top 100. The man responsible for much of the death and bloodshed in Dafur, Omar Hassan al-Bashir actually makes a very early appearance on the list.

Time magazine can’t possibly believe that Raul Castro has more influence on the international stage than President Bush. Whether you like his politics or not, Bush is the President of the United States. That title carries a tremendous amount of authority, power, and influence. Time magazine should have done a little more homework. Of the 21 political figures in their list (Rosie doesn’t count), 3 are in their jobs because Bush put them there (Rice, Roberts, and Petraeus). In discussing the 21 “Leaders and Revolutionaries”, President Bush is mentioned a total of 9 times in five different profiles. For someone to be discussed so much in the other “most influential”, how could he not be on the list?

The lone redeeming point to this story is the number of people who have posted complaints on the Time website for not including President Bush. Many of the complaints point out that as President, Bush should have been an easy pick for the list. Some argue he is more influential than the actors and sports figures on the list because of the power the President’s office wields. Is there really anyone willing to take up the banner and argue that Raul Castro is more influential than President Bush?

I think Time has finally revealed itself as the entertainment magazine it is. What was once considered a source of news should now be considered with the same credibility as the National Enquirer.

Global Warming Strikes Back

There was a link on Drudge’s site today to a story on Global Warming from the Times UK. The twist to this story is that now Global Warming is striking Mars. According to the Times, “Scientists from Nasa (sic) say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970’s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.”

The Times does go on to say that the mechanism appears to be different on Mars than on Earth. This would almost go without saying. If similar global climate change was occurring on other planets inside the solar system the Global Warming Consensus Industry would have a lot to explain. The last I checked, we have not colonized Mars, so any climate change on Mars would have nothing to do with man.

Some scientists have theorized other reasons for the Earth’s current climate than man’s activity. There have been no accurate models put forth by the “man-made global warming” side that work for any previous data to predict today’s climate. Any other scientific field would be forced to prove their model works. If the global warming models are accurate, we should be able to input data from the 1900’s, 1920’s, or even 1870’s and predict today’s climate patterns. However that is not the case. There are no models that even predict today’s climate with data from the 1970’s. Perhaps the climate scientists haven’t been looking in the right place for their theories.

The problem with the current discussion on global warming is that it has become more religion than science. We are asked to accept many leaps of faith without the science to back them up. Much like a collection of church elders, the consensus scientists have decided which theories fit their preconceived notions of global warming. The elders of the religion have even set up a system for the rich church goers to buy their forgiveness through carbon credits. While the actual science behind the carbon credits is as questionable as the religion, few of the faithful question its validity.

Until the media, the Democratic Party, and the European Union allow an actual scientific debate on the issue, man-made Global Warming will continue to look more like religion and less and less like science.

Politics.wikia

I have been asked to write an article for Poltics wikia. My article is up and entitled "Senate Majority Leader Joe Lieberman". I would ask everyone to go to the site as a favor and check out my article and to see what you think of the site. If anyone has any trouble finding the article or has an issue with the site, let me know. I am trying to decide if I wish to write more for Poltics wikia and I am going to use my readers thoughts to help with the decision.

Thanks ahead of time.

The Two Faces of Harry

On Thursday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed to the world the United States has lost the war in Iraq.

For an elected official to declare to the world that the United States has lost a military conflict it is actively engaged in is irresponsible and shameful. There are no words to describe the aide this gives our enemies and the pain it causes our soldiers. However, one of the people who disputed the “war is lost” statement by the Senate Majority Leader is the Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid.

This weekend, Senator Reid said, “…no one wants us to succeed more in Iraq than Democrats.” I will be the first to admit that I view myself as a conservative, and that I believe the Democrats look at the world through the wrong lens. However, I have trouble reconciling the two statements the Senator made in the span of a few days. Either the Senator has no idea what he thinks about the War in Iraq, he doesn’t care about Iraq and is only looking for political points, or the Senator has succumb to a mental disorder of some sort and needs immediate medical attention. Regardless of the true problem, one thing is certain: Senator Reid must resign his position as Senate Majority Leader, and should resign from the Senate.

I am not simply applying the same rule to the Democratic Senator as the Democrats would apply to any Republican in a similar position. There will be those who say, “You are only saying this because if the roles were reversed, the Democrats would want the Republican Senators head on a platter.” And perhaps my critics are correct about some small, subconscious part of my mind.

However, I say Senator Reid must resign because he has either decided a small political gain is worth more than a US victory in Iraq, or that the Senator needs to seek immediate medical attention. If it is the first reason, the people of Nevada deserve someone better than that representing them and the people of the United States deserve better than this kind of shameful conduct from a leader in the US Senate. If it is the second reason, my thoughts and prayers are with Harry Reid and his family during this difficult time.

Either way, Senator Reid no longer deserves the respect or trust of the people of the United States and must immediately resign.

Book Review: No Retreat, No Surrender

I recently picked up a copy of No Retreat, No Surrender: One American’s Fight by Tom DeLay with Stephen Mansfield. It is a short book and a fairly quick read. When I initially saw it at the book store, I picked it up because it has a Forward by Rush Limbaugh and a Preface by Sean Hannity. I thought to myself, “There is a cover that will really upset some people.”

I was unfamiliar with Rep. DeLay prior to reading the book. I knew a little about him from the media reports. Most of what I new about Congress during the time DeLay served centered on Newt Gingrich. The book is part biography, part explanation of the inner workings of Congress, and part Political Manifesto.

Tom DeLay was born in 1947 in Texas. The DeLay family moved around a lot while he was growing up. Mr. DeLay grew up in Texas and Venezuela. He went to college and met his future wife there. After college, Mr. DeLay worked with a few extermination businesses before running for State Congress.

The lessons he would learn in State Congress helped him be more effective in the US Congress. Mr. DeLay served in the US Congress from 1984 to 2006. When the Republicans took control in 1994, he was elected Whip. He was nicknamed “The Hammer” due to his ability to get people to vote for bills. However, this was usually done in a spirit of cooperation. Rep. DeLlay points out in his book that he had learned from Texas politics the way to get votes was to work with people. Know the other Representatives, and you can learn what their important issues are. Find away to address those issues in your bill, and you can get their vote.

Mr. DeLay spends a decent portion of the book explaining his own political beliefs beginning with his Political Manifesto. I found this the most interesting part of the book. He explains Political Manifesto to mean, “…the body of ideas that I believe are clear and evident, and to which I have committed my life.” I won’t list all of his ideas, but a few were very interesting. He believes that US Senators should be elected by State Legislatures. He believes the Departments of Education and Commerce should be removed. These jobs are better performed at the State level, and he doesn’t believe the US Government has any business making those decisions.

The overall message I took from this book is that Mr. DeLay believes politics should be about people with different ideas coming together to get a job done. He believes very passionately in our country and our government, and wants the best people running the government. He believes our Federal government has gotten too large, and because many Republicans have helped increase the size of government (including President Bush) they have lost the faith of some of their constituents.

I would encourage anyone interested in politics or political ideas to read this book. It is a short read, and very enjoyable. I would encourage every member of the Republican Party to read this book. Some of the lessons it contains might get the Republicans back in power and bring the voters back to their side.

Supreme Court Gets One Right

The Supreme Court ruled this week on a Federal law prohibiting partial birth abortions. The Supreme Court’s role in our government is to decide if a law written by the Congress, and signed into law by the President, violated the U. S. Constitution. It was not asked to decide if this was a bad or a good law, but was it a Constitutional law. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that the law was Constitutional.

The procedure at the heart of the law is either called “partial birth abortion” or a “dilation and extraction procedure” depending on your point of view in the debate on abortion. Most estimates claim this particular procedure, regardless of the name, is performed on anywhere from 2,200 to 5,000 patients a year. This is out of an approximate 1 million abortions performed a year. The procedure involves partially removing the unborn child from the woman’s uterus (hence the “partial birth” descriptor) and then killing the baby. Depending on the account, the child’s skull is either cut or crushed.

Many abortion rights advocates argue that this is a bad decision because it doesn’t allow for cases where the mother’s life is in danger. This is not accurate. The law allows for the procedure if the mother’s life is in danger, but not her “health”. The subtle difference is that abortions are currently performed with the argument that the mother’s mental well being could be at stake. This is a very nebulous issue that is hard to validate. Allowing the procedure if the mother’s actual life is in danger is much more straight forward, easier to validate, and gives very clear guidance to doctors. Many places aren’t reporting that this is still allowed under the federal law.

Regardless of if you agree with this procedure or not, the Supreme Court made the correct decision. This is a question for the voters and their representatives to decide on, and not the Supreme Court. The Court has decided the law is Constitutional, and that should be the only role for the Court in this case. If you disagree with this law, contact your local representative and work to have the law changed.

Virginia Tech

Like most people, I have been following the events at Virginia Tech from Monday. There will be a time to discuss the political ramifications and the policy changes that should or should not be addressed. Now is not that time.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of those who have been touched by these tragic events.

Don Imus Mistreated...

I won’t rehash the entire Don Imus vs Al Sharpton drama from last week. I think most of it was a lot of up roar over almost nothing. I stopped listening to Don Imus many years ago mainly because he hasn’t been funny in a really long time. However, any listener of the Imus show knows that he insults everyone. I honestly don’t believe what he said was that bad. It isn’t as bad as some of the things liberals have called the President, and it isn’t as bad as some of the things Republicans have called Mrs. Clinton. Anyone who thinks “nappy headed ho’s” is bad should read some of the lyrics from a few prominent rappers.

However, let’s say for the sake of argument that what Don Imus said was truly tasteless, despicable, and deplorable in every way those words can be used. I still think the way CBS handled the situation was wrong. This conversation comes up anytime someone says something on the radio that hurts the feelings of someone else with thinner skin. Don Imus is free to say whatever he wants. If you don’t like what he says, don’t listen to his show. I believe the market place will correct this problem. If enough people decide they don’t like what he says, no one will listen to his show, and then he will be unemployed. As it is, CBS was intimidated by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They bowed to pressure from these two self appointed leaders of the black community and fired Don Imus. Imus will probably now follow in the footsteps of Howard Stern and appear on satellite radio.

Emboldened by their success, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson now are turning their sites on other airwaves. These two would like to look at standards for industries like music or talk radio. Anytime someone like Sharpton or Jackson talk about standards, they mean legislation. I don’t think there should be legislation regarding what can or can’t be said on the radio or television. There is Freedom of Speech. If something is bad enough, people will stop listening, and Capitalism will work its magic.

Back From Vacation

I’m back from vacation. My lovely wife, daughter, and I returned yesterday. We had been in Hawai’i and I think we are still all on Island time.

I will be back to updating the site on a more normal schedule. I appreciate everyone checking in with me while I was gone. I am already working on two posts for the site. I finished Tom Delay’s new book No Retreat, No Surrender on one of the many airplanes. I really enjoyed the book and hope to have a book review up for it in the next couple of days.

In addition to a new book review, I am working on a post about Rev. Al Sharpton. The reverend is calling for an end to free speech, so I thought now is the time to criticize him before it becomes illegal.

Enjoy the weekend, and I hope to have at least one new post by Monday.

It’s Good to be Ahmadinejad

If your name is Ahmadinejad, you have had a very good couple of weeks. First, Iran captured 15 British Sailors and Soldiers. While many in the West followed the plight of these 15, very few seriously condemned the action, and no one really expressed any resolve to do anything about it. Then on Monday, President Ahmadinejad announced to the world that Iran now has 3,000 centrifuges and can push its nuclear energy program even further. And again, with only minor exception, very few in the media or in positions of power seem to have taken much notice.

I would speculate that Iran was trying to see what the West and the rest of the world would do if they captured a few Western sailors. Iran found that the west would do nothing, and they gained an extra PR advantage in the Middle East with the assorted confessions and PR video released to the world. While the West had a few (and I emphasize few) strong words, there was never any threat that the Western response would go past a few words.

Fresh from that success, President Ahmadinejad gave the world, the UN, and anyone not studying Don Imus the collective finger. The Iranian President revealed to the world that Iran has no intension of suspending its uranium enrichment program. The UN had previously given Iran 60 days to stop its program or face tougher sanctions. Since Iran has ignored the last three similar warnings from the UN, no one should have been surprised when they ignored the UN yet again. However, President Ahmadinejad raised the stakes by claiming to have 3,000 centrifuges now operating. This number caught most experts off guard. While Russia and a few others have expressed disbelief at this number, the implications are very ominous if Iran is telling the truth. With 3,000 centrifuges, Iran could be anywhere from 1 to 3 years away from producing 1 to 2 nuclear weapons a year. Personally, I believe we should take our enemies at their word. If they say they have no intention of complying with the UN, and are in fact increasing their production, we should take them at their word. The West should assume at this point that Iran will not stop until it has a usable nuclear weapon. However, most in the media seem to be more distraught over “racially insensitive” comments by Imus.

The West must focus on the important thing and decide what to do with Iran. There are really only two possible outcomes, the West accepts a nuclear Iran, or the West prevents Iran (and by extension Hezbollah, Hamas, and maybe Syria) from getting a nuclear weapon. No matter what the rhetoric, to date both the West and the UN seem willing to grudgingly accept a nuclear Iran. While we have said this is unacceptable, we really haven’t done anything to prevent it from happening.

The second case is the much more difficult one, but the one we really should be following. It would be a terrible thing for the entire world if Iran was able to get a nuclear weapon. Iran has said it would use a nuke in Israel. Iran is accused of helping our enemies in Iraq. Iran has definitely been a huge backer of Hezbollah. I would argue that Iran has been at war with the US since the Islamic revolution and capture of American hostages in the 1970’s. Because of that, Iran represents a terrible threat to the West, to Israel, and to the US.

It is time for the West to wake up and realize that maybe we should take our enemies at thier word. Hitler promised to eliminate the Jews and no one took him at his word. Are we ready to repeat the same mistake?

The Real Problem in Iraq?

I am enjoying my time away with my family. However, sometimes, I need my political fix. During one such time, I found this article from The Art of Peace. David discusses a few points I have talked about in previous post. At the end, he says that he hopes I respond to this because a few of my original post are now deep in the archive. As fate would have it, his post is now in his archive as well. I thought that vacation time would be the perfect time to respond to his post.

I have stated a few times on my blog that the Democrats are bordering on treason with some of their rhetoric. I honestly feel that in their desire to defeat a President who can’t be re-elected, they would rather loose the war in Iraq than give any credit to President Bush. I cite the recent votes for Surrender by Democrats in both the House and Senate as evidence of their desire to beat Bush. David makes the argument on his site that if the country would be better off leaving Iraq, maybe it isn’t really treason but something closer to insight.

David points out that we will probably need to be in Iraq for many generations to come if we are going to truly do the job we have laid out that needs to be done. I agree with David. I believe under the right circumstances, we may be able to remove a large portion of our force from Iraq within the next two to three years. However, we will probably need some force in Iraq and the Middle East to help Iraq for the next ten to twenty years.

David says if Americans aren’t ready for that type of occupation, “…it is because George W. Bush continually told people things would be easier and quicker than they could reasonably have been expected to be.” I disagree with David. President Bush has stated time and time again that the War on Terror is going to be long and difficult. In some speeches he has said that this will be a war that the next President will have to fight as well. I believe the reason people want us out of Iraq and may not be prepared for what we have to do in Iraq is only partly the Democrats fault. The real problem is that we as Americans want results now. We aren’t patient, and we believe that any war should be wrapped up in a few months.

This attitude is more dangerous than anything the Democrats have done. We as Americans must either change our attitude or accept the fact that we are no longer a Superpower. A Superpower is only a superpower if it can project its power throughout the world. If we truly are a “Paper Tiger” as bin Laden has said, if we don’t have the attention span to go the distance for a democratic alley, then we have bigger problems as a nation than who our President is our which party is in power.

To Torture or Not To Torture?

This post is based on a comment Familyman made on the last post. When you discuss what means are acceptable or not acceptable when interrogating prisoners, you quickly get into a very complicated discussion. I felt this topic needed more room than a few comments tacked onto another post.


The question I wish to pose to my readers is simply this, “Is torture ever an acceptable means to gather information from a prisoner of war?” Any time torture is discussed a few ground rules have to be in place. Most interrogators I have heard or read interviews from believe that torture typically isn’t very useful. The information gained from torturing an individual is suspect. Many interrogators believe that an individual being tortured will manufacture information simply to make the pain stop.


At the same time, some would question whether or not the alleged practices that have been leaked from Gitmo or Abu Ghraib are considered torture. In order to cut past this, let’s let torture refer to anything that an interrogator might consider above and beyond typical military interrogation techniques. This is intentionally vague. I wish to start this discussion focusing on whether or not torture is ever acceptable, no matter what methods are employed. To that end, I am going to start with the classic “Ticking Time Bomb” Senario:


An individual you have in custody has just placed a nuclear dirty bomb in downtown Manhattan. You know with 100% certainty that the bomb is in place and is set to go off in one hour. You also know with 100% certainty that the individual you have placed the bomb and knows how to stop the bomb from detonating. If you are able to get the information from this individual in a reasonable amount of time, you can stop the bomb. There facts are hard rules of the scenario. The question becomes, do you authorize any form of torture on this prisoner? Why? Why not?

Public Service Announcement

I believe it is a voter’s duty to keep up with how their representatives in Washington vote. Regardless of your political beliefs, it is up to you to monitor what your Senator or Representative votes on and how they vote. If they vote for something you don’t agree with, let them know. I contact my representatives often to let them know how I feel on issues.


Sometimes it can be pretty difficult to find out exactly how a particular individual voted in Washington. The Senator or Representatives office may not be forth coming with exactly how they voted. It turns out there is a free service everyone can sign up for and get emails on how your elected official votes. The emails tell you how each of your Senators and Representative voted during the previous week, and what bills are coming up. It is only one email a week, and so far it hasn’t added me to any spam list.


Go to www.congress.org and look for the link to “Vote Monitor” on the left hand side. Supply your zip code and email address and you will be signed up. No one has an excuse for not keeping an eye on their politicians.


On a personal note, I am on vacation with my family. I am trying to monitor comments a few times a day, but I will probably post a little less often for the next week or so. I will be back up to the normal posting schedule in about two weeks. Thanks for your understanding. I hope this doesn’t temper anyone’s ideas or comments.

Is Iran's Position Defendable?

Last week Iranian forces captured 15 British sailors operating in Iraqi waters. The British sailors had just finished inspecting an Indian vessel. Iran immediately claimed the British had entered Iranian wateres. Britain released GPS co-ordinates showing their sailors had been in Iraqi waters. The Indian Captain has been contacted and also confirmed the British were in Iraqi waters. The Iraqi government has said the same thing. Even the Iranian government provided GPS co-ordinates inside of Iraqi waters. Once Britain pointed this out, the Iranian government changed the co-ordinates to within its own waters 24 hours after the first co-ordinates had been released.


Tony Blair has called on the world community to demand the Iranian government return the UK sailors and their equipment. Mr. Blair points out the sailors were enforcing a UN embargo. He has rightly attacked and criticized the Iranian government as it continues to violate Geneva conventions. It is against the Geneva conventions to film and broadcast captured soldiers for publicity. The “confessions” and letters Iran has released are an outrage.


Today I am traveling on vacation with my family and I picked up a copy of the Wall Street Journal. Being the news junkie I am, I needed my fix, and it is hard to get updates from CNN and Fox News while flying from airport to airport. However, I was outraged when I opened the paper to find an article entitled, “History Frames Iran Standoff” with the subtitle Resentment Runs Deep Over Past British Hand in Oil Trade, Governing. While the article doesn’t come out and blame Britain for the capture of her sailors, it does hint that maybe the British Government, and by proxy, the United States share at least some responsibility in the abduction of these sailors.


This is a very slippery slope. This is the same mentality that gives rise to the belief that the United States deserved 9/11. The theory says that somehow the attacks on the Trade Center and the Pentagon were actually the fault of Americans because of our history in the Middle East. The attacks of 9/11 were the fault of 19 Muslims and their supporters. The capturing of these British sailors, and what happens to them, is the responsibility of the Iranian government.


This is the same government that continues to pursue a nuclear program when the world and the UN have told it not to. I have written before that Iran shows no real desire to be part of the world community. While an invasion in Iran might not be the answer, immediate sanctions and isolation are the short term answers for both of these problems. Iran must be taught that there is a way nations act when they wish to be part of the world community, and this isn’t it.

Senate Votes to Surrender 50- 48

The Senate voted yesterday to surrender the war if we still have troops in Iraq in March 2008. It was phrased as a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days with 100% of troops out of Iraq by March, 2008. If our forces leave the field without any consideration for how the war is going at the time, I can only interpret this as an Unconditional Surrender. I simply can’t see any way another nation would look at this and not view it as a failure in Iraq and a surrender by the United States.


Many of the Democrats have said they want this surrender date in the bill to send a message to the President. The Congress (both House and Senate) have spent a lot of time sending and phrasing messages to the President. These messages are viewed by a much wider audience than just the President. What do our troops thing about this? What about our enemies? What about our Allies?


The message the Democrats are sending to our troops is, “Regardless of what is happening in Iraq, we are going to remove you from the field.” The Democrats don’t care if we are winning in Iraq, and they don’t care if we can win in Iraq. They simply insist that we can’t fight any longer. They have decided that any war can only last “x” number of days, and we can only continue to engage if we take less than “x” number of casualties. It doesn’t matter what is happening, what the military leaders think, or what casualties our enemies are taking.


Our enemies must view this as a victory. The politicians behind the forces they are facing have said that if our enemies are still in Iraq in March of 2008, they can have Iraq. The Democrats have said we can fight until then, but after that, we just don’t have it in us. The last thing any general wants is to give his enemy hope. However, the Democrats are sending Al-Queda and Iran vast quantities of hope.


Finally, what does this message say to our Allies? Many Democrats criticize the Iraqi government for not quelling Sunni-Shia violence. Now we have told the democratically elected government of Iraq that they have until March to get things in order and then we are going to leave them to fight their enemies, and the enemies of Democracy. Iraq has had the first transparent and free elections in the Middle East in a long, long time. The Democrats have said, “We don’t really care what you do between now and March, but we are leaving in March.” They have decided Democracy in the Middle East simply isn’t worth protecting.


If Al-Queda released a press statement saying they were going to withdraw from Iraq if America was still fighting in March, how would we view that? Would we see it as a sign of things going in our favor? Would that message be enough to give the Democrats the will to push on with the surge? Would we see it as a sign that Bin Laden was simply trying to send a message to his cell leaders, and we shouldn’t read anything into it? What message are the Democrats really sending? No one believes the Democrats agree with the President on anything right now. As I view the House and the Senate debate surrender, I wonder which the Democrats think is worse: George Bush succeeding in Iraq, or a loss by America’s military?

A Democrat in Favor of the 2nd Amendment

I thought with the weight of some of the topics discussed on here lately, and with the ongoing quest for the “magical 20^th comment”, perhaps it was time for something a little more entertaining. I must warn my liberal friends and readers ahead of time, this information comes from Fox News.

An Aid to Senator Jim Webb (D-Virgina) was arrested today for taking a gun into a Senate building in Washington, DC. The aide, Phillip Thompson, was described as a long time aide and friend of the Senators. He was arrested trying to bring a loaded gun with two extra magazines (both loaded) into the Russell Senate Office Building. Thompson was stopped when the weapons were discovered at an x-ray machine. Webb's office said the Senator had given Thompson the gun earlier in the day as he left for the airport. Thompson then simply forgot he had it before he attempted to enter the Senate building.

I am pleased to see a Democrat who is openly in favor of 2^nd Amendment rights. This is just a strange, strange story.

House Democrats Try to Bribe Their Members

The House passed a bill yesterday giving the President the emergency funds he needed for the war in Iraq. The bill, HR 1591, is entitled The US Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Health, and Iraq Accountability Act 2007. The bill comes with more strings than the most complicated puppet.

Some conservative Democrats have been against placing arbitrary time tables on the war. In order to get them to vote with the rest of the Democratic Party, this bill was loaded with many, many pork barrel spending projects. I leave it to the reader to distinguish between a “pork barrel project” and an open bribe for a vote. Some of the pork in this bill shows up as follows (remember, this bill is for troop readiness, veteran’s health, and Iraq accountability):

• $25 Million for Spinach

• $20 Million for US Farmland damaged by freezing temperatures.

• $283 Million to continue funding the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.

• $24 Million for the 2007 crop of peanuts

• $5 Million to offset losses from last years health advisory regarding imported fish

• $60.4 Million to go to the operations, research, & facilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service
  

• $100 Million for Citrus Crop relief from Hurricane Katrina and Rita

In all, there were around $20 Billion in pork projects added to the bill in order to buy conservative Democrat’s votes. These conservative Democrats have been against setting a timetable for Iraq. Now, they have put there reservations aside in order to bring pork projects back to their districts.

There will be supporters of the Democratic Party that will paint this as a step in the right direction. They will say that the Democrats are correct and that we have already lost in Iraq, or we are in the middle of a civil war we can’t hope to win. There is an excellent article today in the Weekly Standard looking at the arguments the Democrats have laid out for why we should get out of Iraq. The main arguments the Democrats have put forth just don’t hold water.

If the American people as a whole thought we should get out of Iraq, Congress would be able to simply cut funding to the war. Instead, they are forced to add $20 Billion in pork to get conservative Democrats to agree to timetables around the war. The President accused the Democrats of “Political theatrics”. When the Congress puts $20 Billion into a bill that the President has vowed to veto, and probably won’t survive intact in the Senate, I am afraid the President is correct. House Democrats have decided to stage a tragedy, and they are using money the troops need as a simple prop in their play.

The President picks a fight with Dems ?

For most of President Bush’s term, I have been a supporter of his foreign policy. I have agreed with his decision to go into both Afghanistan and Iraq. On the domestic side, I have found some issues I supported him in, and others I thought he was wrong in. One issue I have been sorely disappointed with is his lack of an apparent fighting spirit against the Democrats.

Too many times over the Bush Presidency I wanted the President to be very vocal about problems I felt the Democrats were the root cause of. Too many times I thought Democrats said things that the President could easily refute that he wouldn’t talk about. I think one thing that contributed to the loss in November was the fact that the President didn’t go on the offensive enough when he had a Republican majority.

Drudge has a large headline on his site currently proclaiming, “Bush Vows to Block Subpoenas; Warns Dems No ‘Show Trials’”. The link is to a story on Breitbart from the AP. I want to quote the first paragraph from the story:

“WASHINGTON (AP) - A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.”

I hope the President is really willing to see this one all the way through. It looks like there is now no way to avoid prolonged exposure to this story. I think many of the issues that Brandon, Familyman, and Matthew brought out in previous comments will be answered one way or the other in the coming weeks.

Scandal? What Scandal?

All reports seem to indicate that things are improving in Iraq. The on the ground reports and many of the media seem to think there are initial victories. A poll released in the Times UK on the 18^th says that most Iraqis now believe that life is better in Iraq under Prime Minister al-Maliki than under Saddam. While a lasting victory is probably still a long ways away, these early signs show every reason to hope for success.

However, the Democrats have placed their party on the side of failure in Iraq. If we win the war, they will be the party that has fought tooth and nail against any sort of victory in Iraq. They will be on the record fighting every suggestion the President has made in the war. They demanded the President change course in Iraq. President Bush outlined a new way forward. It wasn’t withdrawal, so the Democratic Party wasn’t happy with it.

As things improve in Iraq, the Democrats will become more and more desperate for political cover. They know that any victory in Iraq doesn’t look good for their party. They will do anything in their power to divert voter attention away from victories in Iraq, even if it means manufacturing scandals.

The latest attempt to fool the voters has come with the “US Attorney Scandal”. The Democrats claim to be mystified that the President would fire any US Attorney. As Newsweek and many other news sources have reported, every US Attorney serves at the pleasure of the President. Politicians have traditionally cleaned house when they come to office. In the President’s case, he didn’t do that with the US Attorneys. However, it looks like he decided it might be worth considering at some point after he was in office.

What the Democrats don’t want the average citizen to know is that President Bush can fire any US Attorney at any time for any reason. President Clinton fired every US Attorney out there when he was President. All 93 were given a pink slip and sent packing. In this case, the Democrats were angry that President Bush fired less than ten US Attorneys.

President Clinton’s had the ability to fire any US Attorney he saw fit to, and as President, President Bush has the same ability. Our new President may fire some, all, or none of the US Attorneys when he or she comes into office in January of 2009. The President gets to decide who works for him or her. The President may decide to fire the Attorney’s for poor job performance or just to get some political allies in office. Regardless, it’s the Presidents decision to make. Anything else is simply an attempt to trick the public.

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.