A Proud Infidel

Post for September 13, 2007

2007-09-13T14:47:00.000-05:00

I have migrated over to Word Press .. please join me over there!

MarcMarc The Infidel's Blog

Harry Reid and Ed Kennedy need a History Lesson on Vietnam ... among other things

2007-08-22T12:48:00.000-05:00

The press was salivating yesterday after President Bush’s address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention. The President used the “V” word in a public speech, Vietnam. ……….Quick everyone run for cover!!

My only response is, it’s about time! The parallels between Vietnam and Iraq as far as a pull out is concerned are irrefutable. I am just surprised that it took the White House this long to get the sound bite our there. As a student, if you will of the political landscape of Vietnam, I can tell you that after the White House, overwhelmed with political pressure from Congress, decided to cut their losses and pull out of Vietnam, it cost our former ally dearly. Millions of Vietnamese in the South were brutally murdered. Those fortunate enough to receive a reprieve from the Communists spent years, some even decades in reeducation camps.

This was all done due to political ideology. Can you imagine what the aftermath would be like for those Iraqis who supported a more democratic environment in such a rigidly fundamentalist view? I can assure you, the insurgents will make Southeast Asia’s vengeance like a day at the park. The killing will be brutal and public for all the world to see.

We must keep in mind that the Internet will give the insurgents their very own outlet to share in the glory of Allah’s victory against the infidels.

I am reminded of a recent Fox News report in which Jane Fonda, after making a brief appearance at a anti-war rally, was confronted by one of Fox’s correspondents. When asked if she felt somewhat responsible for the death of some three million innocent Vietnamese after the fall of Saigon, her response was very telling. She said, nothing. Images of Lady McBeth washing the guilty blood off her hands instantly came to mind when I saw that clip.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D-NV), quickly dismissed Bush’s position.

“President Bush’s attempt to compare the war in Iraq to past military conflicts in East Asia ignores the fundamental difference between the two,” he said. “Our nation was misled by the Bush administration in an effort to gain support for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, leading to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our history.”

Huh? You Knucklehead! What got us into the War in Vietnam? Does the Gulf of Tonkin ring any bells? WMDs are a tad more daunting than someone taking a pot shot at one of our boats. And let's be realistic for a moment, shall we? If you announce on international TV that you suspect another nation of having WMDs and then spend 3 months getting the UN off their proverbial tails to send people in to check. What do you think is going to happen while you play nice with Kofi Annan? Those WMDs are going to sneak right out the back doing into Iran.

Sen. Edward Kenney (D-Mass) who, responded to the President’s speech by saying, “The President is drawing the wrong lesson from history” and that we,”lost the war in Vietnam because our troops were trapped in a distant country we did not understand, supporting a government that lacked sufficient legitimacy with its people."

First, to set the Senator straight, we didn’t lose the war in Vietnam. Our troops, just like those fighting in Iraq today, gave the very best they had but were figuratively fighting with one arm tied behind their back because politicians, only concerned with re-election, were Monday morning QBing. Few people are aware of the rules of engagement that were used in various parts of Vietnam. Most of which were mirroring images of what we see today. Politicians with no real comprehension of military tactics or capabilities are sticking their necks where they don’t belong. And, just for the sake of argument, those dimwits in Hollywood can be thrown into this mix as well.

I personally have seen documents that state that US Troops at various points during the war were told they could not shot until engaged by the enemy. That is to say, if a Marine were to see a VC creeping up on their location, he could not take that soldier out until he fired on the Marine’s position. Better yet, is the fact that when US troops were planning operations in areas where there was a civilian population, this is no kidding folks, LEAFLETS were dropped into the areas a few days before to warn the civilians that US Troops would soon be in the area. Hey, there is nothing like letting the enemy know what you are doing before you do it. Who the hell needs spies, we will just give you our play book.

So, Sen. Kennedy, let me leave you with a quote that I sincerely hope you have heard before;

"The mere absesnce of war is not peace" - John F. Kennedy

Update: Here is more to support my point of view

Illegal Immigration/Amnesty: We are missing the big picture

2007-05-24T21:33:00.000-05:00

They "love" America?

Why aren’t politicians and pundits asking the right questions on Immigration? The primary question that many should be asking themselves is, why are there so many illegals who never made an effort to become, at the very least, resident aliens? Why are there so many illegals who have been here for decades, many who were eligible for amnesty when it was available in the 1980’s and never took advantage of it?

We hear so many sob stories from the Dems that we can’t break up families and can't expect children who were born here in the US to be separated from their illegal parents. Well, the question we also should be asking is, who put these kids in this situation? It wasn’t the US.

I have a unique perspective on illegals as I married into a family with many illegals and I happen to know the answers to the above referenced questions. Today’s immigrants want the benefits but don’t want to make the commitment to America. Their loyalty to their motherland is painstakingly obvious in their protests as they wave Mexican flags and burn the Stars and Stripes; a tactic that organizers convinced ralliers to change as it gave a very negative spin on their cause.

They don’t want to spend the money to become legal because their financial situation would not improve but worsen. We hear many illegal sympathizers, many within church groups, claim that illegal pay taxes and have a right to live here, receive access to entitlement programs and etc. Well, the truth be told, illegal don’t pay taxes the way you and I do. They fill out their paperwork with stolen SS# and therefore can claim as many dependents as they want and do not have to provide proof of those dependents when they file taxes in April because they DON’T FILE TAXES. Point being, they claim a large number of dependents, have a smaller amount of tax taken out of their weekly paycheck which gives them more spending power and they never have to justify it.

Congress can pass all of the legislation they want, offer as many different names to the legislation, but the point being, few illegals will “buy into” the amnesty program because they have no incentive to do so. Employers are not held accountable for hiring illegals, banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions see money to be made and because there is no real system of checks and balances for anyone who takes advantage of the illegals, all of the hoopla is just that, hoopla.

The Mexican government is the real culprit in this issue simply because they do not enforce their border with the US. In fact, they encourage Mexicans to illegally enter the US. Why? Because many of the illegals that are here, are here temporarily. They come for three or four years, regularly sending money back to Mexico to their families, to build a future home and etc. All of these things fuel the Mexican economy and keep that country breathing, some estimate close to $40 billion. Read more about it here It goes so far as to, according to a NY Times report in 2006, provide Mexican government employees in highly trafficked illegal entry border towns who counsel those preparing to cross over on such things as where the Border Patrols are, where they can find water along the border paths and what to expect if they are picked up by the Border Patrol.

So, before we get all up in arms over the legislation that Congress presents to counter the illegal immigration problem, consider the fact that, no matter what legislation is passed, vetoed or otherwise, the mentality of the illegal is what needs to change. Until we get tough on illegals, those who employ them, house them and provide them with entitlement services, illegals will continue to live here in an illegal status because they have no incentive to do otherwise.

Therefore, Congress should throw immigration legislation out the window and focus on how illegal immigration makes the US vulnerable to terrorists. Our safety, the safety of legal US citizens and residents, should be paramount in this discussion. No one is telling illegals that they can’t return to their native country with their US born children, yet that seems to be an argument that many are making which, in reality is moot. If supporters don’t want to separate families then don’t, make the parents take their US born children home with them and apply for citizenship or residency in their home county. With a parent that is a legal resident of a given nation, their acceptance into their parents’ native country is practically guaranteed.

Think about it ……

Victory: Give it a Chance

2007-04-19T18:06:00.000-05:00

Dear Nancy Pelosi .....

The Sniper

The sun beat like a hammer, not a cloud was in the sky.

The mid-day air ran thick with dust; my throat was parched and dry.

With microphone clutched tight in hand and cameraman in tow,

I ducked beneath a fallen roof, surprised to hear "Stay low."

My eyes blinked several times before in shadow I could see,

The figure stretched across the rubble, several steps away from me.

He wore a cloak of burlap strips, all shades of gray and brown,

That hung in tatters till he seemed to melt into the ground.

He never turned his head or took his eye from off the scope,

But pointed through the broken wall and down the rocky slope.

"About eight hundred yards," he said, his whispered words concise,

Beneath the baggy jacket he is wearing a device.

A chill ran up my spine despite the swelter of the heat,

"You think he's going to set it off along the crowded street?

The sniper gave a weary sigh and said "I wouldn't doubt it,

Unless there's something this old gun and I can do about it."

A thunder clap, a tongue of flame, the still abruptly shattered:

While citizens that walked the street were just as quickly scattered.

Till only one remained, a body crumpled on the ground,

The threat to oh so many ended by a single round.

And yet the sniper had no cheer, no hint of any gloat,

Instead he took a logbook out and quietly he wrote.

"Hey I could put you on TV, that shot was quite a story!"

But he surprised me once again- "I got no wish for glory."

"Are you for real?" I asked in awe, "You don't want fame or credit?"

He looked at me with saddened eyes and said "You just don't get it.

"You see that shot-up length of wall, the one without a door?

Before a mortar hit it, it was a grocery store."

"But don't go thinking that to Bomb a store is all that cruel,

The rubble just across the street -it used to be a school.

The little kids played soccer in the field out by the road,"

His head hung low, they never ever thought a car would just explode.

"As bad as all this is though, it could be a whole lot worse,"

He swallowed hard; the words came from his mouth just like a curse.

"Today the fights on foreign land, on streets that aren't my own,"

"I'm here today 'cause if I fail, the next fights back at home."

"And I won't let my Safeway burn, my neighbors dead inside,

Don't want to get a call from school that says my daughter died;

I pray that not a one of them will know the things I see,

Nor have the work of terrorists etched in their memory."

"So you can keep your trophies and your fleeting bit of fame,

I don't care if I make the news, or if they speak my name."

He glanced toward the camera and his brow began to knot,

"If you're looking for a story, why not give this one a shot."

"Just tell the truth of what you see, without the slant or spin:

That most of us are OK and we're coming home again.

And why not tell our folks back home about the good we've done,

How when they see Americans, the kids come at a run."

You tell 'em what it means to folks here just to speak their mind,

Without the fear that that tyranny is just a step behind:

Describe the desert miles they walk in their first chance to vote,

Or ask a soldier if he's proud, I'm sure you'll get a quote."

He turned and slid the rifle in a drag bag thickly padded,

Then looked again with eyes of steel as quietly he added:

"And maybe just remind the few, if ill of us they speak,

That we are all that stands between the monsters and the weak.

by Michael Marks - a Marine - 2006

The Obvious: Democrats vs. Victory

2007-04-13T17:56:00.000-05:00

No Retreat, Baby, No Surrender!

First, let me say, it is good to be back. Although, I cannot promise that I will be posting daily, expect to see more from me. So, I just finished reading today's column by Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post.

To summarize, he detailed some of the most significant advances that the early stages of the Surge has to boast thus far. Sunni tribes who have turned their backs on Al-Qaeda being the most significant. He also touched upon the fact that, no matter what positive news comes out of Iraq, the Democrats and the MSM are hell bent on making a mockery of our political system by focusing on finding a political loop hole to end the war. Period.

I will pick up here with something that, many may have already realized, but for me, by reading the aforementioned piece, it became crystal clear to me that the Democrats are not American. What I mean by that is that they do not have a love or a patriotism that runs through the veins of true Americans. They have somehow advanced to such an elite stratum in their political careers that their personal aspirations have ironically succeeded what most likely brought them to political office in the first place, the desire to make America better.

They now have decided that pushing their agenda and stopping a Republican administration are their only two standards. They claim that they are attempting to protect the lives of our troops yet inexplicably have ignored the fact that dying for their country is why they volunteered in the first place. It is painstakingly clear that each and every brave man and woman who signed on the dotted line at their local recruiting station understood that the willingness to give their lives for their country was the prerequisite.

Then we have the likes of my home state's favorite ilk, Hillary Clinton ranting that (and I paraphrase) this administration would like the American people to believe that anyone who stands against this war is unpatriotic. Well, Hill, you are. Allow me to extend my linguistic background to the Hallowed Halls of the Russell Senate Office Building.

pa·tri·ot
n. One who loves, supports, and defends (and fights militarily for) one's country.

(This is a collaboration of various definition that were located at dictionary.com. It would also be of interest to note that the antonym of this word is "traitor". So, President Bush's claim that you are either with us or against us, surely applies.)

So, if a patriot is someone who fights for their country, then it would be correct to conclude that anyone who does not support the mission of our military is indeed unpatriotic. Does this mean that the Democrats are unpatriotic? There is another point to consider here and before coming to a conclusion in this brief debate. That point being, Victory vs. Defeat. If the Democrats can say that we have done absolutely everything in our power both politically and militarily and that we have exhausted ALL options in the fight against the insurgency in Iraq, then and only then would the patriotic choice be to bring our men and women home.

We are obviously not even close to that point. Therefore, any Democrat or Republican who votes against providing our Military Forces with everything we can muster to win this war is indeed a traitor.

And the punishment for treason is .....at the very least impeachment.

Pat Tillman: The Fame Game

2007-03-28T08:10:00.000-05:00

For give the absence, Folks! New job and lots of transitioning around the house ...

Yet, I did start a post that I am sure is going to reign down Hell on me but I am going to say what is in my heart, that is what the men and women in the Middle East are risking their lives for after all.

I really have some issues with the Pat Tillman story and how his family, it seems predominantly his father and brother, is handling the details surrounding his death. Read more here. My question to the Tillman Family is this, How do you want Pat remembered? Do you want him remembered as someone who gave his life in the line of duty? As a NFL player who gave up a high paying career to waste his life for an unjust cause? As a hero?

I just can't seem to find an answer as to what this family wants. No matter how many rants they post, how many officers' careers and families are destroyed, none of this is going to bring Pat Tillman back. It seems to me that they simply have a vendetta that will never be satisfied. They want to embarrass the military, the government and the administration at any and all costs. Yet to what end?

It is because of who Pat was before he put on the uniform, his fame, that earned him an 18 month probe conducted by the Department of Defense. Just like John McCain, who because of his father, was the poster child for the POWs during Vietnam, it would seem that Tillman's notoriety is providing his family with much more that the family of a single mom whose only son is still Missing In Action from Vietnam would ever receive. This woman's family couldn't even get the military to go out and look for her son after his capture and still today the decades of lies is so deep and so thick, the family may never get the only thing they truly want; some piece of their loved one to bury and say goodbye. Then, as time passes, a place to go to be with him, to visit him and to talk to him.

It is clear that the Tillman's have gotten much more than just about any other military family could dream of in like circumstances. It is the Fame Game. Might I be so bold as to suggest that the Tillman Family regroup and make an effort to use the public stage that Pat's life has offered them and find a way to make his life mean something; focus on The Pat Tillman Foundation, support gold star military families or dare I say, be thankful that they had a body returned to them to bury and say goodbye. Why not turn around and try to help the not so famous families of those being held in Columbia, the families of those British Sailors held in Iran or even POW/MIA Families of those still unaccounted for.

Those things would make Pat's life mean something and have an everlasting impact far beyond his NFL notoriety ...

Italy Swaps 5 Talibans for La Repubblica Reporter

2007-03-24T09:39:00.000-05:00

Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin for this NYT piece in which the Italian government made a deal with the devil i.e. the Taliban in exchange for one of their Leftinistra reporters.

After the exchange, the Times reports;

The concern was underscored on Tuesday just after the release of one of the prisoners, Ustad Yasir, who was identified as a Taliban spokesman. He said he would return immediately to war, and was “grabbing two rifles to begin jihad again to hunt down invaders and fight nonbelievers,” according to a statement attributed to him on the Internet.

This incident hits me personally on levels that are worth discussing here. First, as an Italian-American, it bothers me to no end that my quasi-countrymen could be so narrow minded as to consider this a victory and did not have the foresight to see this as a catalyst for kidnapping of many more reporters in the hopes that a similar deal will be struck. The Taliban and Al Qaeda now know that the Italians will negotiate with them, now making Italian reports a hot commodity in the Middle East.

Secondly, the Italians lack of historical epistemology leaves them with a horrible precedent that may haunt them as the international WOT continues. It is quite possible that this decision will not only put Italian reports at risk, but also the Italian people on a grander scale. The possibility of a terrorist attack in Italy will now be more like a probability. Recollections of the bombings in Madrid have not been wasted on the jihadists. Within days of 3/11 in Madrid, Spanish troops were redeployed.

Another avenue of discussion is the little known activity of the French being blood-letted by the Vietnamese for decades as POWs were quietly and gradually returned to their homeland as millions upon millions were paid to Communists in exchange for their countrymen captured in the 1950's.

We can now expect to see more reporters; nationality will be non-descriminant, being kidnapped or worse. Also expect to see reporters taking fewer risks to get closer to the story, meaning their reporting will be less accurate and more inclinded to being tainted by other sources before being put to print. That can never be a good thing for those of us who are pro-Victory.

The backdrop for all of this is the fact that, with the exception of England, our supposed European allies are just as weak as our shortsighted Congress members who voted for the anti-funding bill this week. Maybe we could get them kidnapped!

Nancy Pelosi: $24.5 billion in pork ...This is fiscal responsibility?

2007-03-21T12:11:00.000-05:00

Is it just me? or does this article make you feel like we are living in the Twilight Zone?

The House is scheduled to vote on Thursday on the $124 billion bill, which includes more than $95.5 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill also would demand that troops come home before fall 2008 and possibly earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks.

Now, recent articles from the past hour have the total amount of the bill at only $121 billion but regardless, we are looking at some $20 billion in pork added on to this bill. President Bush, if given the opportunity to veto this bill, should simply do so on principle. There is no reason for that much pork to be added to a bill of this magnitude. Some are voting on this bill because of the relief that it would provide for hurricane victims across the country instead of the leading reason, the future of our nation.

I know that may sound melodramatic but I think if we were to ask the 30,000 from The Gathering of Eagles what their opinion would be, then I think we would get a good barometer for whether or not this idea is an exaggeration.

The protesters are truly living in the Twilight Zone as they keep drinking the Koolaid thinking that "no war is good", "war is bad", "give peace a chance". That is all well and good in the abstract but really, I would suggest that one of them get in the face of one of the terrorists and ask them to just sit down and talk. The irrationality of the mindset of both the terrorists and the Code Pink folks is the scariest part of this whole issue. Yet, as I have said before, the Code Pinkers will be the first ones screaming for someone to protect them when these fundamentalist Muslims come knocking.

In honor of Mr. Griffin, my high school history teacher, one needs only to examine the epistemological starting point of this dictomy to realize that logic will not be recognized by either side. One is just as narrow minded as the other. The terrorists see the Code Pinkers as an asset, much like the anti-war ilk of Fonda and Kerry was for the VC during Vietnam. Yet the Code Pinkers look at this issue, dare I say, through rose colored glasses. They don't want to end just this war, they want to end all wars. The naivite of their thinking is in the fact that it is not full circle. They see the end of the war as a victory and cannot look beyond that. They do not, nor does it appear some in Congress, grasp where our nation will be after Iraq ...thankfully, there are others of us who do.

The Silent Majority is silent no more.

John McCain: The POW/MIA Factor on Election '08

2007-03-18T20:41:00.000-05:00

The Many Faces of John McCain

What do you really know about John Kerry and John McCain and their treatment of the POW/MIA issue?

Have you ever spoken to anyone that has been on the receiving end of one of McCain's rants? I have. Three as a matter of fact. One was actually caught on tape during the 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs.

Tell me why McCain can embrace his Vietnamese captors yet turn his back on the POW/MIA Families, many of whom were instrumental in seeing to it that he came home alive. McCain's first wife was one of them and he rewarded her loyalty with a divorce just a few years after he returned from capivity. Something that McCain has descretely kept close to the vest.

Do you know about documents that McCain and Kerry covered up during the Senate Select Committee that stated that the Vietnamese had ACKNOWLEDGED taking men into captivity that they never mentioned before? I have them and would be happy to share them with you. Here is a link to just get you started. 19 New POW cases

Maybe you should check out all of the discrepancies in McCain's story based on news reports and his very own biography before you assume that these people are, in McCain's word, "zealots", here. Ted Sampley was the man who investigated the remains that were in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington and because of his hard nosed investigating that man was identified and returned to his family. He was also a Green Beret, a tad more impressive than a Navy pilot with only some twenty hours or so of flight time. Yet McCain wants us to take his word over Sampley's when it comes to Vietnam and the POW/MIA issue.

Most don't know anything more about the POW/MIA issue than what has been spun, controled and then passed on to the MSM. If you want facts, talk to a family member of a missing man and find out their story. That is where you will get the truth. McCain and Kerry had much to gain by burying the POW/MIA issue. McCain, has regularly supported political move of his former captives; normalization of relations, re-establishing trade and membership in the WTO. He has even been photographed embracing one of the Vietamese men who pulled him from the water after his aircraft went down.

McCain with Mai Van On

This is just the tip of the POW/MIA iceburg for John McCain ..... check back from time to time for more on the not so public side of this presidential candidate.

Gathering of Eagles: One HELL of a job!!!

2007-03-18T09:19:00.000-05:00

Gathering of Eagles Supporters

This is for you, Snooper!

Hi Folks! There is so much I want to say today. I am so proud to be an American. I have spent the better part of the morning seraching for info on the Gathering of Eagles counter protest yesterday. Instead of repeating what has already been written by those who were there, I decided to give you an array of what I found and proudly share it with you all. The only thing left to say is that I wish I could have been there. I really do .....

Washington Post

My buddy Snooper's Place

Michelle Malkin's Amazing Report

Hot Air

Right On The Right (2 parts)

There are lots more out there and lots more yet to be posted I'm sure but the jist is this; GOE definitely out numbered the ANSWER folks. Some sources say 3:1 other go as far as 6:1.

This may well be a turning of the tide for The Victory Gang!

Duncan Hunter, General Pace and reading lessons for Justin Schafer

2007-03-15T11:09:00.000-05:00

Justin Schafer is already slinging the mud over at Daily Kosbased on his poor reading of Presidential Candidate Duncan Hunter's op-ed piece in USA Today. In reaction to General Pace's comments on gays in the military, Hunter contributed his support of the present status quo on the issue. Hunter's opinion can be summarized in the final sentence of his piece, "Present policy barring open homosexual conduct should be maintained."

Justin needs to work on his reading comprehension skills as Hunter is merely supporting the present "Don't ask, Don't tell Policy" saying that things need to stay as they are. Yet, Schafer felt the need for a nutroot rant;

So people can't live in "close quarters" with others whose behavior they find morally questionable? There is a lot of conservative behavior that I find morally questionable: attacking other countries without provocation; sending troops into battle without training, armor, or proper leave between combat rotations; cutting taxes for the rich while defunding education programs for the poor; allowing pharmaceutical companies to make record profits while healthcare costs for Americans skyrocket; the list goes on. I don't see anyone saying that those people should be banned from the military. Of course, many of the people who do those things managed to avoid serving anyway, so I guess it's a moot point.

That is all nice and sweet, Justin but..

1) No one made reference to having gays quartered separately from heterosexuals.

2) The word "behavior" isn't a political term (see here), it refers to the way an individual (meaning one) person acts or behaves. It has no relationship whatsoever to political policy, it refers to a visible behavior.

3) Then you shot yourself in the foot stating that the fact is moot yet General Pace states, "These moral principles also reflect the position of the predominantly conservative families who send their young men and women to serve in the U.S. military". Take a look at the list of Democratic Candidates for President, how many of them served in the military? Now look at the Republican Candidates ....Does the name Bill Clinton ring a bell?

4) Hunter didn't say they should be banned, you need to learn to read! He said things should stay as they are! Nothing more. Do we need to get you Hooked on Phonics?

5) Like it or not, General Pace and Duncan Hunter both serve or served in the Military, they know what open homosexuality would do to a unit. You don't, like it or not.

And lastly ... regarding your brother-in-law who is in the Air Force, you should be proud of his service yet I would be curious to know when was the last time he was in combat? On the ground with the enemy shooting at him knowing that his life was in the hands of those around him? The USAF is in the air (usually with only 2 in a plane at a time), not on the ground in numbers of 10, 25, 50 or more in direct contact with the enemy. Don't make the USAF, USMC and USA mutually inclusive, it only shows your ignorance about the military.

More on Texas and Merck's HPV Vaccine

2007-03-15T09:55:00.000-05:00

Merck and Texas

One of my first blog posts was about the issue of mandating the HPV vaccine for girls ages 12 and up in the state of Texas. Many have moral issues with the mandate others have political issues with Gov. Perry circumventing the political process and even more have issues with the necessity of the vaccine and the Govenor's connections to the pharmaceutical company, Merck, who developed it.

It appears that Texas Governor Perry may be in for more than her bargained for, here. The Texas House has already passed legislation to block Perry's move and a similiar act is working its way through the State Senate.

As I said back in February, I really have to wonder what Merck is offering that would make such a gamble with the lives of millions of women acceptable.

Duncan Hunter: Making an Impact at CPAC

2007-03-12T16:38:00.000-05:00

Making a Name

I was very happy to see Hot Air post an Interview with Candidate Duncan Hunter. The more I read and hear of this guy, the more optimistic I become about the possibility and hope for the future of this nation that I love so much. I don't mean that to sound clique but, even if it does, it truly is how I feel. This nation, with all its quirks, complaints and flaws is still, bar none, the best thing going on this planet.

Duncan Hunter is articulate with a calming voice; a presence that gives you the impression that this man is ready for the job. His ideals appears to be things that he has spent a life time developing and fine tuning to get him to this point. When I look at all the other candidates in both parties I see politicians, when I look at Duncan Hunter I see a true statesman.

My esteemed colleague from The Victory Caucus, Snooper, over at Take Our Country Back at TownHall is also beginning to see what I see in Duncan Hunter. For Snooper's take on it, visit him here.

Once you are done at Snooper's place, go to The Official Site of Duncan Hunter for US President in 2008 and learn more. Then come back and tell me what you think of Duncan Hunter. I will be anxious to hear your thoughts.

The Surge is Succeeding: Because they stand on a wall, and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight ...

2007-03-11T13:52:00.000-05:00

....Not on My Watch!

Yes, Folks, our faith in journalists may be on the rise. In today's WaPo, The Surge is Succeeding! More here and even Brian Williams, anchor at NBC Nightly News is reporting that there is positive change in Iraq.

a la "A Few Good Men"

"And what do we have for the losers, Johnny! Thaaaat's right, after showing complete disregard for the men on the ground, their families and the fate of our nation, the Democrats, lead by Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha, will get an long vacation at exotic Fort Bush Was Right, You Were Wrong. And .... for all the White Flag Republicans, start updating those resumes boys and girls because next term you will be teaching typewriter maintenance at the Rocco Clubo School for Traitors.

Thank you for playing "Should we or should we not follow the advice of the galactically stupid?"

(Damn! That felt good!)

UPDATE:
Not so happy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

It appears that not only is the SURGE working, the Dems claim to only have 71 of the 218 votes needed to block the funding for it and, as I have stated several times, the honeymoon is over for Nancy Pelosi and she is at the point in her speakership where she has to prove her metal. She has been ALL talk since taking office and this is her first opportunity to "put her money where her mouth is". Yet, that mouth has been rather quiet lately.Additionally, one might speculate that with the collective nature of Brian Williams' reports from Iraq and NBC/MSBC/MSN all gently pushing the agenda that a) Surge is working and B) That the House Majority may not have the majority needed to thumb their noses at the White House. All of this is going to make the next year and a half quite interesting. N'est pas?Read more here!

McCain and Kissenger: Strange Bedfellows?

2007-03-09T18:33:00.000-05:00

I just love this political cartoon. Kudos to the artists at Cagle Cartoons!

NewsMax just reported that former Secretary of State Henry Kissenger has thrown his support behind the McCain 2008 Campaign. For some this may not be anything to write home about but this article might well be the reason why Kissenger is suddenly being thrown into the limelight during his 2008 Campaign.

Now, in his latest shift to the right, McCain is openly embracing Kissinger. Hotline On Call reports that McCain has chosen Kissinger to be the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

Ok, understandably, McCain may well feel that he needs a boost in New York considering the grasp that Hillary has on NYC and her "home state". If you ask this New Yorker and just about any other, we will tell you that Hillary isn't a New Yorker. She may live here but she isn't one of us. Regardless, McCain may want a voice in Hillary's backyard as well as Rudy Guiliani's. An obscene amount campaign donations come from the New York City area and obviously, McCain wants a piece of that pie.

Yet, if you look at the second link above, you will see quotes from Kissenger such as;

Kissinger sensed wobbliness everywhere on Iraq, and he increasingly saw it through the prism of the Vietnam War. For Kissinger, the overriding lesson of Vietnam is to stick it out.

In his writing, speeches and private comments, Kissinger claimed that the United States had essentially won the war in 1972, only to lose it because of the weakened resolve of the public and Congress.

In a column in The Washington Post on Aug. 12, 2005, titled “Lessons for an Exit Strategy,” Kissinger wrote, “Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.”

McCain is making his friendship with Kissenger more public because of Henry's POV on Iraq and it's inevitable comparison with Vietnam, a war that Kissenger claims the US had won but didn't have the longevity to stay the course. Yet, due to the atmosphere at home, very similar to the air today over Iraq, we left before the job was done. This is the one campaign issue that McCain doesn't seem to be flip-flopping on (too much). So Henry gives him, as well as Bush, some credibility on Iraq.

McCain has made Kissenger his honorary co-chairman of his finance efforts in NY. Here is another place that lists many prominent New Yorkers who have agreed to join the McCain Train. One of them being former Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson. It seems that McCain is attempting to discretely campaign on his Vietnam experience, something that groups like the US Veteran Dispatch, the soon to be Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain, and just about every POW/MIA group you can think of, will do all they can to discredit.

Yet, it appears that Kissenger may well be taking a page from McCain's book of tricks as you can see here . A November 2006 Washington Post article cites Kissenger as saying that victory in Iraq was not possible. So I guess flip-floppers enjoy each others' company as well. Imagine my surprise!

Katie Couric: $15 million a year and not good enough

2007-03-09T11:48:00.000-05:00

Last month the ratings for the evening news were released and CBS's Katie Couric was not able to gain her network the number one spot which many at CBS thought would be a no-brainer. There were many reports in the days that followed stating that this was possibly due to the fact that she was a woman and evening news viewers were simply not ready for a female anchor woman. That seemed to be the only justification that many at the time could muster. I had planned on blogging about it but got caught up in other issues that seemed more pressing. I felt then and still feel now that the reason for Couric's decline has little to do with her gender and more to do with her lack of experience. (Read about it here)

Take a step back and think of the scenarios in which we have seen Couric over the years. She did very little hard journalism to be perfectly honest. She was regularly part of the NBC parade brigade, the Olympics and her obvious long time post at the Today Show and the like. But we are accustom to seeing her doing segments that involved soft topics with guest interviews that allowed Katie to flash her smile, laugh and be America's girl. We have followed her relationship with Kevin Costner and raving over her selection of evening gowns and outfits at various charity and Hollywood style events. She has not proven herself as a hard-nosed journalist to the American people. A five minute segment with a politician on the Today Show is not hard journalism, it's orchestrated fluff.

We have watched her play around in an innocent yet flirting manner with Matt Lauer and just about every male to grace the Today Show set. Now, she has toned down on the amount of skin she exposes at any public appearance she makes, suddenly wanting America to take her seriously yet I doubt it will ever happen.

It was announced yesterday that CBS has hired an image guru for Katie Couric, a well known executive producer Rick Kaplan whose resume includes former president of CNN and MSNBC and onetime executive producer of ABC's "World News Tonight" and "Nightline". Here is more on Kaplan and his past Clinton connections. Sailor in the Desert seems to think that Kaplan may be having Couric do some shill work for Clinton. Very Interesting! Kaplan will replace Rome Hartman who reportedly wanted a change of scenary regardless. Kaplan will have his work cut out for him as the above cited Washington Post article states;

..the shake-ups reflect the growing intensity of a ratings war in which millions of dollars in advertising revenue are at stake. ABC's "World News" with Charlie Gibson has seized the ratings lead from Brian Williams's NBC broadcast in three of the past four weeks. Gibson drew 9.56 million viewers last week, Williams 9.39 million, and Couric 7.51 million.

Kaplan will have approximately two million viewers the earn for CBS. Honestly, I do not think this is the right move for the network. No matter how much polish you give to Katie Couric, America will never be able to shake the school girl image we have of her.

If CBS is hell-bent on having a female anchor, I am sure there are better choices out there. Deborah Norville comes to mind as well as some of the more conservative anchors out there. Yet getting a conservative to jump ship into the waters at CBS might prove more difficult than gaining two million viewers for Couric.

Your thoughts?

Obama and Parking Tickets? Come On!!

2007-03-08T16:59:00.000-05:00

Parking for Barack Obama Only

I just found this over at Fox News. It appears that two weeks before officially announcing his candidacy for POTUS, Obama finally paid for 15 outstanding parking tickets from his time at Harvard Law ('88-'91), totaling $375 including late fees.

First off, I had a parking ticket from Nov.of 2005 that I paid but wasn't aware of the late fee of $20. I started getting hounding phone calls from a collection agency and called the City to find out that I still owed the late fee. Notice, I said from 2005 not 1990.

What does this say about Obama? Are we supposed to believe that he couldn't afford to pay for them all these years? He was unaware of the outstanding tickets yet took care of them just before announcing. Hmmm .. Did he think that because he was a Congressman that he didn't have to pay them? That may work at the Congressional Bank but not at Harvard it appears. And most importantly, why did he pay for them just two weeks before officially announcing? It would have been smarter to act like he didn't know than to pay them when he did. Did he really think that someone at the parking office wouldn't blow the whistle on this?

Upon reading this article all that came to mind was "How Clinton of him". Everything is an oversight until the political microscope comes out looking for some dirt before a significant election. What does this say about Obama's character? I mean honestly - 15 parking tickets? I am amazed that the fees were so little. My ticket (singular) was paid late and it was $20. We are talking about tickets that are over ten years old. Many universities do not release your diploma until you have paid ALL outstanding fees. How did he slip by on this one?

This reminds me of the story of the kid at school who stole three dollars worth of candy from the school store. His father came to school, tossed three dollars on the principal's desk and considered the case closed.

Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, dismissed the tickets as not relevant.

"He didn't owe that much and what he did owe, he paid," Psaki said on Wednesday. "Many people have parking tickets and late fees. All the parking tickets and late fees were paid in full."

I hate to break it to Jen but, if you can't be trusted with the little things ....

Pelosi's Honeymoon is over .... Thank God!

2007-03-07T18:15:00.000-05:00

E. J. Dionne, Jr. at the Washington Post has a great piece yesterday, "Testing Time for Democrats". It is truly worth the read. He strikes on something that I suggested a while back, the honeymoon is over for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She has been extremely quiet these past few weeks since the Senate put the kibosh on her attempt to give the White House a congressional raspberry and single handedly put an end to the war in Iraq. Well, I think that Nancy was on the receiving end of a sincere reality check and is learning that things in Washington work a little differently at the top and that in order to lead, she must be a true leader. Her odd alliance with Jack Murtha has been quite a bit of smoke and mirrors and he too is realizing that he has to think more realistically if he truly has the troops in mind with his proposed legislation. I think they are both beginning to see the light.

Their power is not omnipotent, it has to be earned.

March on the Pentagon: Will ANSWER have control over their people?

2007-03-07T10:12:00.000-05:00

We all hope that the anti-war protesters use their heads and appreciate their right to protest on March 17th. Yet, as it is with many of these events, others join in with different ideas, goals and objectives. I have always been an advocate for the expression, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. With that said, check out what the anti-war protesters from ANSWER are discussion on their message boards. I would encourage you to take a look at their "List of Endorsers" link at the top of the page. Quite a potpourri of groups, beliefs and motivations. With ANSWER being more concerned with visible numbers for the MSM to report, I have to wonder if they will have control over such a diversely motivated group.

I hate to say it, but I see things getting ugly quickly with this event. It is obvious from reading their message board that many will be attending to simply follow their anarchistic tendencies. Ending the war is not their motivator. Some appear to be welcoming the opportunity to simply "Rage Against the Machine".

Even with all of this, I feel sorry for them. Not just for their twisted beliefs but for what lies in waiting for them. There will be more participants from
Gathering of Eagles than the protesters are imagining and their motivation is singular, the protection of our war memorials and those who gave their lives in each of those conflicts. I wrote about this last week and even more examples of vandalism have been discovered, here.

I have the honor of knowing many Vietnam Veterans and I know their resolve. There will be some who will have a short fuse and there is no doubt that there will be protesters well armed with a verbal barrage of taunts for our Vets.

Just remember, the blame goes squarely on the Chief of the Capitol Police who ordered officers on the scene of a January, 2007 protest there to not interfere and not arrest anyone. Here is his statement after the fact. This act of cowardice gave the anti-war crowd the shot in the arm they were looking for and on March 17th, I want to see just how well the Capitol Police handle their own mess. I shudder at what this all will hold.

UPDATE: It seems that one of the splinter groups has a plan for the 19th of March as a follow up to the 17th. See here.

Jonah Goldberg: Reviving the Vietnam War

2007-03-06T11:17:00.000-05:00

It has only been recently, due to all of the comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam that I have been able to truly see just how Walter Cronkite and his minions honestly did effect the outcome of the War in Vietnam. I was well aware of the impact that John Kerry, Jane Fonda and Tom Hadden had on our POWs and the propaganda that the Communists used with such efficency against us to win the war on paper.

I just read a very eye-opening op-ed piece by Jonah Goldberg in USA Today (he is a good guy from over at National Review Online) and felt like he had been sitting here with me all of these years as I attempted to grapple with where Vietnam fit into our national history and what lessons we were supposed to glean from it.

Please read it, it will give you insight and clarity that has been missing for over 30 years. It will also give you a strong grasp on our present day situation and not just the importance of victory but the necessity of it.

Walter Reed: Possibly the beginning of something?

2007-03-06T09:59:00.000-05:00

For some, it may be difficult not to see the present awakening at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) as a political stepladder due to the obvious ramifications on both sides of the aisle. Yet, just for a moment, I would like to think that there isn’t an American alive who isn’t thankful that this issue, politics aside, is being addressed in what seems to be a correct and appropriate manner. There are some that may not be able to separate the politics of this from the simple fact that these heroes are going to get better care, better facilities and over all recuperation will dramatically improve for all of them.

I am sure there are patients at WR today whose lives will be forever changed for the better due to that handful of people who had been worn down by the system to a depth of despair that made it clear they had nothing left to lose. Many have questioned the Washington Post reporters who broke the story for having waited almost four months to bring this issue to the forefront. For whatever the reason, we truly must ask ourselves, who else was in a position have a similar impact? My thoughts are better late than never. Here,here and here you have some less slanted reporting eventhough still staying failthful to the MSMs "Bush is to blame" mantra.

Getting back to the politics of this, we already have our fans on the left pointing fingers, placing blame and in some cases, enjoying the rainstorm that is befalling Washington right now. Here is a perfect example. I had to laugh because Benen’s title, ””The Right Explains the Walter Reed Scandal” gives you the impression that he is going to give that side of the aisle’s perspective, yet all is does is give his sides typical blame game rhetoric. My question for the left is, how many of you have sat down and written a letter of support to a deployed soldier or Marine? Because after all you don’t support the war but you support the troops, right? How many have quietly and without fanfare gone to Walter Reed or Bethesda Naval Hospital to visit the wounded without cameras rolling?

This reminds me of the horrific story of the Ziegenfuss Family as US Army Major Chuck Z was recuperating at Walter Reed in 2006 from one of his 34 surgeries after being wounded by and IED in 2005. He and his wife were visited by Arizona Senator and 2008 presidential hopeful John McCain, this alone should keep McCain out of the White House, read here. This event may surprise some, but not me. Yet, this serves as a perfect example of those who still consider the wounded as a necessary evil for those much needed photo ops.

I sincerely hope that this is just the beginning of the exposure of many other military agencies that are charged with providing care and assistance to our heroes and their family members both past and present. Walter Reed will surely be the beginning of peeling pack the layers of chronic problems with the VA and it’s care not just for present day heroes but those from the Vietnam Era as well who continue to go through similar difficulties over their care and benefits from three decades ago.

I can only dream that this will be a springboard for not just those Vietnam Vets who still have the internal and external scars but for those family members of those brave men who are still MIA who have fought for decades to get answers to the questions that they know our government and those of our former enemies may well have. They too have been forgotten and hidden away in the hopes that they would be worn down by the system much like these wounded warriors of today.

Rosa, Rosa Rosa! What are you thinking?

2007-03-03T13:25:00.000-05:00

Rosa, Rosa, Rosa …

I wanted to touch base with you over a few major inconsistencies in your op-ed piece in today’s LA Times, “The lunatic right returns”. Initially, you claim that the statements made by the Swift Boat vets were “defamatory insinuations”. If these men served with Kerry and witnessed how he carried out his duties as an officer in the US Navy, how can you term their statements as insinuations if they were there and you weren’t? You must admit that Kerry receiving three purple hearts in approximately four months in combat is somewhat questionable. Could the fact that you were an advisor on the Kerry-Edwards Campaign in 2004 be the catalyst for your piece?

Regarding Col. Bud Day, he was not a Swift Boat Vet but a POW along with John McCain in Hanoi, in fact he never even served in the Navy, instead he proudly served our nation in the US Air Force. Another significant piece of information that you conveniently omitted was that Col. Day is also a Medal of Honor winner. You might want to read the citation, it tells of his amazing bravery and leadership while a POW in Vietnam. So how you can refer to Day as one of the Swift Boaters from Kerry’s last presidential bid is a bit confusing. Additionally, Mary Jane McManus is the wife of a former POW who also served in the Air Force, again not the Navy as Kerry did. If anyone knows first hand how the left influenced the lives of POWs, it would be Day and McManus. Carlton Sherwood was a Marine during Vietnam who later became a journalist and was the producer of an amazing documentary, Stolen Honor, that chronicles the story of about a dozen Vietnam POWs who tell of their harrowing experiences and how their captivity was directly and negatively effected by the anti-war movement. Are you going to deny the veracity of these men and what they experienced at the hands of their captors?

Are you denying that the left doesn’t have a campaign against the American Soldier just as it did during Vietnam? I have seen Stolen Honor, spoken personally with former POWs and these men are brave, honorable, and the most patriotic men you will ever have the pleasure of knowing. Are you also denying that Murtha is using the troops as a pawn in the left’s War on Bush? He himself has said, “Our troops have become the enemy. We need to change direction in Iraq.” Our Troops? Those who defend our nation and her beliefs are “the enemy”?

You claim that the situation in Iraq has gone from bad to worse and back again. Oddly enough, you are again taking the word of those simply reporting the war from those on the ground and in uniform who strongly believe in their mission and regularly report success and advancement in the lives of civilian as well as military Iraqis for those who are willing to listen.

You quoted that the casualties from Iraq have tripled since 2004. That quote is the definition of disingenuous as the war started in early 2003. In your way of calculation you are comparing the first year of the war with years 2 and 3. In 2003 there were 486 casualties, 2004 had 848, 2005 had 846 and 2006 had 821. You claim that Americans are dumb, well maybe in this case, this American saw through your rouse, not quite so dumb after all.

You state that, ‘What's depressing about the reemergence of the Swifties, though, is that it's symbolic of the increasing takeover of the "conservative" movement by unprincipled, right-wing extremists.” So, am I correct in assuming that you are referring to Col Bud Day, as an “unprincipled, right-wing extremist”? Well, in the very next paragraph of your piece you quote John McCain as saying that Swift Boaters are “dishonest and dishonorable” yet McCain himself has referred to Col. Bud Day here as, “one of the greatest men I have ever had the honor to know.” If I'm not mistaken, that quote came directly from McCain's autobiography. So again you have me confused, if McCain, who was held with Day calls him “the greatest man”, then how can he also be dishonest and dishonorable?

Your closing comments on Oliver North and Michelle Malkin truly show your lunatic tendency. North was a decorated Marine who fearlessly served his country and Malkin’s recognition, while obviously difficult for you to swallow, is well deserved as she and those that collaborate with her truly investigate and dig deep into the layers of a story to find the truth. She will call a spade a spade no matter what their political affiliation.

In closing Ms. Brooks, you might benefit in a bit of accuracy in your reporting as the entire premise of your op-ed piece is a misnomer.

*PS -Kudos to the editorial and research team at the LA Times by the way for obviously not validating who you wrote about as Day, McManus and Sherwood had nothing at all to do with the Swift Boat Vets of 2004.

Update: I have contacted the LA Times and asked for a correction/retraction as well as an admission on the part of Ms. Brooks that she served as an advisor to the Kerry-Edwards 2004 Campaign. I will keep you posted if I hear anything more from the LA Times.

Oh No! Howard Dean is Mad (again)!!

2007-03-03T09:26:00.000-05:00

The DNC's Howard Dean

I don't know what should be a bigger surprise, that Ann Coulter said something offensive or that Howard Dean is mad? here

After Coulter's tongue and cheek remark Dean is reported to have immediately issued a press release is which he said,

“While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues.”

This quote is out loud laughable. Does Dean issue statements to Pelosi, Murtha, Levin and their minions? Has Dean ever heard the expression calling the kettle black? Has he taken a look at the liberal blogosphere and read all the anti-Bush and anti-Christian fanfare that is out there? (Does the name Amanda Marcotte ring a bell?) Has he called on all Democrats to "agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds?" If he has, I can make a long list of those who didn't get the memo.

Was Ann wrong for using the word "faggot"? Absolutely! She was and why she felt that was necessary is beyond me. I have always hoped that people in the public eye learned a hard lesson from the Dixie Chicks in as far as the backlash for their comments about President Bush while on tour in the UK two years ago. The Chicks knew better than to make those claims to their US audience who is staunchly Republican and pro-military. This is the kind of mistake that many make thinking that comments like these are safe when you are with an audience of like minded individuals.

In the age of paparazzi we should always take heed to the fact that someone is always watching, always listening, always looking for the story that is going to get their by-line on the evening news. I have no doubt that there were Democratic moles at CPAC looking for some dirty laundry.

Regardless, Dean's press release isn't worth the paper is was printed on. Nice try, Howie!

The Desecreation of War Memorials has begun ....

2007-03-02T11:52:00.000-05:00

I know in my last post I said I would look into more on Duncan Hunter's run for the White House but something else has taken center stage. An e-mail from a Vietnam Vet came into my inbox a few minutes ago and the title of this post says it all.

An obviously little seen story, Melanie Morgan, Chairman of MoveAmericaForward.Org tells of gruesome vandalism to some local war memorials all over the nation, here. It appears that the antiwar folks, discontented about the "Gathering of Eagles" raining on their parade by protecting the national war memorials during the upcoming March 17th antiwar rally in DC, they have decided to go after the local war memorials. The WorldNetDaily article states;

In a late January anti-war rally, a contingent of protesters broke off and spray painted the U.S. Capitol building and steps with anti-war and anarchist messages and slogans.

Anti-war protesters spray painted anti-Bush slogans and smashed glass panels at the Medal of Honor Monument in Indianapolis, Ind.

In Boise, Idaho, the son of a Democratic state senator was accused of vandalizing flagpoles and desecrating flags at the State Capitol. The flags are memorials to soldiers who lost their lives in the war on terror.

In Pennsylvania, someone attacked the South Connellsville War Memorial, destroying the lighting grid at the monument.

Another war memorial was desecrated in Vermont. A Vietnam memorial was vandalized in Chicago. The list just goes on and on.

The rage and anger that I feel inside me is like little I have felt in my life. My first thought is of the son of the Idaho State Senator, did he believe that he would get away with this because of his father's position and I want to know what this State Senator has said and done in the wake of this behavior. Events like this make we want to reinstitute corporal punishment. Not only that, I want to know what kind of son the State Senator raised, like it or not, this falls squarely on his shoulders.

I really hate to say this but the simply fact that the major media outlets have NOT picked up on this story speaks volumes. One would think that these people, these reporters who truly live under the umbrella of the freedoms that those honored by our nation's war memorials gave their lives for, they among all of us would be the first to speak out against these types of deviant behaviors, yet they have remained silent.

Let's just hope that this isn't a precursor to the antiwar ANSWER people have planned for March 17th. One thing I do know, let them go after The Vietnam Wall and all bets are off.

Duncan Hunter - Moving into the Limelight

2007-03-02T09:09:00.000-05:00

Presidential Candidate,Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

NewsMax is reporting that Duncan Hunter is running a "close second" to Rudy Gulliani is a straw poll completed in South Carolina yesterday,more here. I have read up on Hunter, listened to his recent interview with Pundit Radio available here and I like the common non-sensical way he looks at things. He is strong on defense, strong on the border security yet wants illegal treated respectfully as he shows here by his recent firing of his South Carolina advisers for recent comments and actions that do not reflect Hunter's views and ideals. This is the exact kind of leadership action that the Edwards' Campaign should have shown when they allowed their debacle with the hiring of their bloggers become an issue over weeks rather than days.

Another positive for Hunter is that he is a student of Reagan and if anything is going to save us, it is that Reagan-like mentality that America is strong, proud and defiant in the face of any adversary. You can find is campaign website here.

It also appears that many of those at the Conserative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held this weekend in DC are anxious to hear more as his "close second" in the straw poll will most likely peak the interest of those at the Conference. Once can only hope. The fact that the press is already looking at his campaign ads in the hopes of finding campaign finance violations, read here, is a sign that they are at least taking notice of Hunter at this point.

I am going to spend some time today reading with the lefties have to say about him and will try to play devil's advocate in my next post. For now though, I am glad that Hunter is moving closer to center stage.

More disdain for John McCain

2007-03-01T17:36:00.000-05:00

Presidential Candidate John McCain

Great stories here:

Michelle Malkin
Mary Katharine Ham
Rob Bluey

McCain's roadshow continues. I really have to think that McCain is making up his campaign as he goes along. Announcing on Letterman? Come on! Many of the nation's most seasoned reporters have been regularly asking him about his potential candidacy yet he remained elusive. Then he gives the carrot to David Letterman. What was he trying to say with announcing in that fashion? We have always joked that politics in a cheap form of entertainment but this is truly taking things to a new level.

While on Letterman, as we all know by now, he appears to be attempting to distance himself on the troop surge that he claimed to support by now pulling an Obama and referring to the lives lost in Iraq as "wasted". At the McCain level of politics things are very meticulous and it is difficult to gauge what his motivation was for his performance on Letterman.

It all seemed to backfire on him as he was hoping to have his announcement be the main story in this news cycle but instead it was his use of the word "wasted" that seemed to be the hot topic today. Check out the above links, it appears that since Conservatives have taken strong note of McCain's absence at this weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference, he is attempting to pull something together at the Conference to appease the masses. Sadly, appeasement seems to be his only campaign strategy which will not get him into the White House. The American voter is much smarter today than they were in 2000. Sorry Senator ...

Let's talk ....Immigration

2007-02-28T08:23:00.000-05:00

Welcome to America

Everyone has an opinion on Immigration, from the Mexican here on a work visa, the second generation Mexican-American to the European immigrants who arrived here in the early part of the 20th century. Each with a passion for their beliefs and an epistemological starting point that may we be difficult to argue with. Yet, this issue is one that needs to be address in the here and now as our national security truly depends on it.

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but former 1970's entertainer turned California Congressmen, Sonny Bono left me with a pearl of wisdom many, many years ago long before his death 1998. During a congressional sub-committee on immigration had linger on far too long and touch on topics that Bono felt irrelevant, he said something to the effect that if it is called "illegal" immigration than why are we even talking about it. It truly is and should be that simple. Unfortunately, there are so many mitigating circumstances that have developed over the last three decades that today immigration can only be called a labyrinth at best.

Here are some few know immigration facts. There are millions upon millions of illegal aliens in this country who obtained Social Security ID cards that were stolen from various government agencies or simply fabricated by individuals who quickly saw the marketability of such a business and charge anywhere from $300 to $1,000 for a card. Keep in mind that this illegal cards could have any Social Security number on it, it could be yours, mine or your next door neighbors. Suddenly, you have identity theft to deal with.

Then there is the issue of taxes. The next time you hear an advocate for illegal immigrants tell you that they pay taxes, know that is a half truth. While in college I worked in the restaurant business for a few years and while I was studying Spanish, I befriended many of these illegal aliens. They are usually good people, don't get me wrong, but more on that later. They have taxes taken out of their weekly pay, yes, that is correct but they claim a high number of dependents so that very little is taken out and, here is the kicker, they do NOT file taxes annually with the IRS. Meaning that they are never made to prove who their dependents are or made to repay if they under paid and etc. Yet, these same individuals are entitled to every type of federal program that you and I are. There children are entitled to an education in our schools, health care and the list goes on and on.

Sadly, for every illegal that comes her with honest intentions to carve out a new life in a new country, there are others with less than impressive intentions. Many come here, live at low levels only to save a significant amount of money that that send directly back to their mother country; part to help their family and part to build a home for them to return to in a few years. So many are here temporarily to take advantage of our system to then return home once they have achieved their financial objective. It is no secret that many who may well be here legally, are allowed to claim their family members in another country as their dependents, thus, through a Social Security loophole, billions, yes you read that correctly, billions of US dollars are sent to Mexico each year.

Mexico - ah yes - the land of sand and beaches. Well, it will be no secret to you that Mexico is a staunch supporter of the Immigration movement in the US. The Mexican government employs individuals in border towns to educate those attempting to cross over into the US on how and where to safely cross, where to find water as they cross and what to do once they get there. Face it folks, the Mexican economy needs illegal immigration to keep its poorer population at bay. If it weren't for the opportunities north of the border, Mexico would have another revolution on her hands.

Many US companies, large and small, depend on the illegal workers to do jobs that some Americans may feel is below them for a wage that is much higher than the same work would produce in Mexico. Therefore, it is more profitable to, for example, come to the US and work in a factory making $7 a hour vs. working in Mexico making half that for the same work. In the restaurant I worked in the management knew full well how this process worked. If an illegal came in to request work, after filling out their application, they would be asked to come back in a few days and if their Social Security number wasn't rejected by a "system" then they were allowed to begin work. If it was a bad number they were simply asked to "try again" with a different number. I had more than a handful of situation where I was asked to translate for the manager so this is not a secondhand story, and this happened all over in just about every restaurant in an area with a high Hispanic population.

The issue doesn't stop there. One co-worker asked me about my opinion on the following; his sister lived in Tijuana and she and her husband were expecting their first child. The husband worked in the US but lived in Mexico, crossing the border legally each day to work. Yet, his wife had yet to be naturalized. She was considering coming across the border into TX to have her baby because it would be free. This is a very regular occurrence in many of the border states and it is the direct cause for the high cost of health care in these states and the multitude of problems that the health care field is forced to confront due to this fact. Then the new twist is, of this baby is born in the US, he is now a US citizen and he is entitled to stay in the nation of his birth and later, this will serve as a way for the mother to receive naturalization in the US much easier than before.

Are you beginning to see the complications here?

Now let's open the door to the politicians! Those who would like to blame President Bush for everything from the war in Iraq, global warming and the death of Elvis, now after 9/11 want Bush to solve this problem without taking away a potential voting base for the Democrats. California in particular is the blue state that has the most to loose and also gain if immigration laws are implemented. But here is the thing, illegal immigration, for reasons obvious to national security should be quell immediately but this is the big mistake that many Americans make, the collectively lump Immigration and Illegal Immigration into one category. If you read here You will see that we need immigration to help in certain fields, medicine in particular but again, there is a gray area in regards to who gets the now famed "greed card" and who doesn't. The above linked article tells of abuses within the greed card system that prevents those who actually are needed here to work in place of those who use the green card to stay in the country with legalized family members without having to go through the process of naturalization. (Note: There cards are green anymore but the name is still used. Today's cards are pretty high tech with hallograms and the like to deter falsification.

How to fix this problem? It obviously cannot be fixed during the last two years of the Bush Administration but there are some thing that could be implimented to begin to better protect our borders. Immigration and Naturalization can being to crackdown on this illegal immigrants who are here without the proper papers and who are here without a family to complicate their status. They will be easier to return to their homelands and most likely will be a large number of individuals thus sending a powerful message.

We will continue with Immigration more I am sure as the months leading up to the '08 Elections approach.

Let's just go there .... my disdain for John McCain

2007-02-25T17:42:00.000-05:00

I haven't written in a few days, simply because I didn't find anything of interest to write about. Then I was reminded that we all need to write everyday, no matter what. So being the perpetual student that I am, I went looking at the other great blogs, those that I admire and gained some insight, remembering that I can write an opinionated essay of sorts.

So here goes ....

Politically many consider John McCain a loose cannon, a hot head, unpredictable and so on. Within the small circle of the POW/MIA Community, he is on the same level as the treasonous John Kerry. Many consider him untouchable, he was a POW, held in the Hanoi Hilton for over 5 years and finally released in 1973 along with the other 591 released during Operation Homecoming. Many use the fact that he was offered an early release and didn't take it as some sort of shining example of his patriotism and his dedication to his fellow POWs. Well, there is another spin on this that few seem to want to consider; McCain would have been considered a traitor by his fellow POWs. There was a chain of command within the camps, the senior officer making policy and serving as the governing body if you will for the POWs. There was a unwavering policy, no one takes early release unless ordered to do so. There was one POW, Doug Hegdhal, who was ordered to accept early release because he has somehow memorized name, rank and branch of over 200 men being held. His release gave invaluable information to the military and the family members who were unaware of the fact that their loved ones were being held. Still to this day, he remembers the entire list. He, is a hero.

During his captivity, McCain gave multiple interviews with foreign correspondents in which he appeared well kept, jovial and enjoyed cigarettes,coffee and tea with the visiting reporter. Go ask the others being held if they ever enjoyed those luxuries. There are discrepancies in his book vs. the official documents of the USG as well as these news articles that the visiting journalist generated. You can find many of these documents here, as well as other interesting tidbits. You will see there that some of the SROs had no information about McCain ever being beaten or tortured.

Now, here is where things get interesting and this is the part that few publicly know. McCain, being a POW himself, has a hatred for POW/MIA Families that many would consider impossible to believe. He refers to them as zealots, conspiracy theorists and on and on. There is no need to go into details here because this info can be found all over the Net. So the question is, how could a former POW function as a barrier rather than an advocate for the family members who were not as fortunate as his own family? Why would he attempt to water down legislation that would help POW/MIA Families? There are many possible explanations for this behavior. He wanted to distance himself from his POW status and be considered a politician. He possibly was influenced by his captors, not necessarily brainwashed but the Vietnamese were master propagandists so the possibilities are endless as to what they could "have" on McCain. Lastly, he made a political decision that aligning himself with these family members would cripple his political career and for that reason has decided to join the majority in pushing the POW/MIA issue under the rug.

Taking all of this into consideration, the next question that is raised is why he would insist on being not just on the 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs but being the Committee's Chairman (the Chairmanship was given to John Kerry of all people). During those session he took every opportunity to verbally dismantle anyone with a view opposite his own. There is actually video footage of his rant on Delores Apodaca-Alfond, the sister of a missing man, who serves as the president of the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families. His rant brought her to tears. For more on McCain and Kerry's conduct during the POW/MIA Senate Select Committee, please go here. The documentary "Missing Presumed Dead" will leave you in a fog for days after viewing it.

I just found a great piece by syndicated columnist Maureen Dowd, an op-ed piece here about McCain. I guess I'm not the only one seeing the same thing. Additionally, head on over to my favorite milblogger, Major Z, here and find out the details of McCain's visit to he and his wife while the Major was at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. It will amaze you.

You may be trying to connect all of this and may be wondering about the picture above. Well, in the well-known words of Paul Harvey, here is "the rest of the story". Somewhere in the above picture there is a Marine who is still MIA from Vietnam, his case has been systematically and negatively effected by the likes of John Kerry and John McCain. The Marine in the photo is part of my family and I want him home.

More "he said", "she said" with Nancy Pelosi

2007-02-22T11:32:00.000-05:00

Fox News is reporting:
Pelosi... said Cheney's comments wrongly questioned critics' patriotism and ignored Bush's call for openness on Iraq strategy.

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country,"

Ok Nancy, well, what did he say? here

The question: “Because Congressman Murtha and Nancy Pelosi made it clear that what they would like to do is they would like to stop the surge. Can they do it, do they have the power to stop the surge, Mr. Vice President?”

CHENEY: I think he's dead wrong. I think in fact if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the Al-Qaeda strategy. The Al-Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people. In fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.

So what have you said?

Here is an interesting list

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

“America will be far safer if we reduce the chances of a terrorist attack in one of our cities than if we diminish the civil liberties of our own people.”

“We must remain focused on the greatest threat to the security of the United States, the clear and present danger of terrorism. We know what we must do to protect America, but this Administration is failing to meet the challenge. Democrats have a better way to ensure our homeland security.”

The president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence; he embraced a radical doctrine of pre-emptive war unprecedented in our history; and he failed to build a true international coalition.

“I have absolutely no regret about my vote against this war. The same questions remain. The cost in human lives, the cost to our budget, probably 100 billion. We could have probably brought down that statue for a lot less.”

The new Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has told colleagues that her goal is to "end the war" source

Today in George Will's sindicated piece he has several very poignant ovservations.

-
Congressional Democrats aim to hamstring the president with restrictions on the use of the military. The restrictions ostensilby are concerned with preparedness but actually are designed to prevent deployments to Iraq.

-
Regarding Iraq, the Democratic-controlled Congress could do what Democrats say a Democratic president would do — withdraw U.S. forces. A president could simply order that; Congress could defund military operations in Iraq. Congressional Democrats are, however, afraid to do that because they lack the courage of their (professed) conviction that Iraq would be made tranquil by withdrawal of U.S. forces.

-
Indiscriminate criticism of President George W. Bush is an infectious disease. Some conservatives seem to have caught it, but congressional Democrats might be crippled by it.

-
They lack the will to exercise their clearly constitutional power to defund the war. And they lack the power to achieve that end by usurping the commander in chief's powers to conduct a war.

-
They can spend this year fecklessly and cynically enacting restrictions that do not restrict. Or they can legislate decisive failure of the Iraq operation — withdrawal — thereby acquiring conspicuous complicity in a defeat that might be inevitable anyway. A Hobson's choice? No, Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's.

So Nancy, I really have to ask why you are running to the principal when you are strategically attempting to end the war in Iraq, be it through your posturing or through the threat of legislation, which is also Al-Qaeda's goal. You claim to put the national security of our nation above individual liberties and at the same time prevent the possibility of a terrorist attack on US Soil.

How then is pulling out of Iraq, giving a victory to Al-Qaeda thus emboldening the enemy, limiting the possibility of a terrorist attack on US Soil?

This woman is really starting to scare me.

Nancy Pelosi: Power vs. Responsibility

2007-02-19T08:48:00.000-05:00

Hat Tip to Black Five, Point Five, Blue Star Chronicles and finally Charlie Daniels for an open letter to Nancy Pelosi that he has on his Soapbox and Message Board.

First a little about Charlie Daniels, he is one patriotic American, and I mean the true blue hero kind of American, the kind of American that Congress needs to emulate. His song, "In America" (lyrics here) should be blaring over any air wave that the troops can tune in to. The astonishing thing about this song is that is wasn't written since 9/11 or since the War on Terror started, it was written in 1980. "In America" ranks up there with Toby Keith's "The Angry American", that is just how powerful it is. Now, if you haven't gone back and read the lyrics, please do and I would truly appreciate it if you would find the tune on iTunes or the like and really listen to it. It Rocks!!

Now, on to the focus of this post. Daniels' letter to Reid and Pelosi plainly states what the Democrats should be thinking about; the fallout from leaving Iraq without the job being done. He lists quite a few realistic outcomes and asks if they have a plan to counter that effect. It is quite remarkable.

What I am seeing with Pelosi is that she is still on her Speaker Honeymoon. She is flexing her muscles, making sure that everyone knows she is in charge. Just take a look at many of her photos and in particular some moving footage, there is an obvious smirk on her face. She is loving the limelight. Sadly, she is, as Daniels pointed out, thinking short term and only honing in on way to inflict pain on the White House. In short, she is concentrating on power.

Looking back to recent weeks with the issue over her requested military transport, she was fixated on her status, appearance and place in history as the first female Speaker. A responsible person who protests to be concerned with the lack of armor and equipment for the troops would have conversely taken a smaller plane, or flown commercial flights and then ask that the saved funds be put into equipping the troops.

A responsible person would, instead of attempting to smear the Commander in Chief at every opportunity, quietly go to the White House and talk with the President to hammer out significant, real and valuable answers to the problems facing our country in private. Instead, she is behaving like a newly selected team captain of the cheer leading squad at the high school of your choice.

I shudder to think how she will react when the terrorists bring their attacks to US soil, when Iran takes over Iraq for Al-Qaeda, when the Kuwaiti oilfields are cut off, and on a deeper level, how we are perceived on the world stage considering we have not seen a military event to its end since 1945. Daniels makes some amazingly chilling points in this letter and I hope that Pelosi and her followers realize that power and responsibility are not mutually exclusive.

Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Vietnam

2007-02-18T13:08:00.000-05:00

The humble Senator from NY

There are far too many reasons to deny being a New Yorker these days. From a Victory Caucus stand point, the top two reasons aren't really reasons, but names; Schumer and Clinton. Watching them muddle through their self-made minefield on the Iraq War was entertaining for a while but now it is bordering on shameful. Both this weekend have gotten press, Hillary for stating that redeployment needs to start within 90 days or Congress will start legislating and Schumer stating that even with this defeat of the non-binding resolution in the Senate, the Democrats will be "relentless" proposing resolution after resolution "just like in the days of Vietnam."

Now, if you stop by here often, it is quite clear that I know Vietnam. The simple fact that Schumer would correlate Iraq with Vietnam shows just how little he knows and understands about this quasi fictitious war. Now, I know it was a real war, I use the word fictitious because few know the real Vietnam. Many take their understanding of Vietnam from Hollywood and the likes of Oliver Stone or even worse, the ramblings of John Forbes Kerry as he systematically used these heroes as a springboard to his political career. For more fun on Kerry, I would suggest visiting this site.

The NY Times provides a Reuters piece that conveniently leaves out the Vietnam reference. In fact, I have been hard pressed to find the initial source of this quote. If anyone has it, please forward it to me. The best I could find was this article by McClatchy Newspapers.

So, at this point, we can tentatively come to two conclusions 1) it was a misquote or 2) the MSM has collectively decided to exclude that portion of the quote in the hopes that it will become dormant. Knowing Schumer like I do, I tend to believe the latter rather than the former. He, in typical down-state NY fashion, likes to showboat, give the heated comment to get attention of the crowd and get some press.

Why even make the Vietnam comment? Was it necessary? Do we really need more Vietnam references in this war? And, in case Chuck missed it, Vietnam didn't end very well or maybe in his mind, it did. If that is the case, then I may have more to worry about than I thought.

Numbers II : What McCain "knows" about Tet '68

2007-02-16T12:08:00.000-05:00

Map of Vietnam ~ circa 1967

Numbers again come into play as Congress continues the debate over the President's troop surge plan. As you may recall, a few days ago I took a look at numbers comparing the number of homicides in major US cities vs. the number of casualties that we have thus far in Iraq. I then took those same numbers and compared them to our troop losses in Vietnam. A gruesome comparison, I know, but one that truly needed to be looked at as Congress relentlessly reminds us of the US casualty total in Iraq in their statements on H.Con. Res. 63.

It seems that John McCain (R-AZ), as an '08 presidential candidate, felt the need to step into the spotlight and get some press in the middle of the oncoming Surge storm. I will blatantly tell my readers, I do not like McCain, for reasons that ironically lead back to Vietnam. It has been reported earlier this week by the AP and expounded on here by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, that McCain feared a Tet '68-like offensive, the turning point in Vietnam, which wielded more propaganda than collateral damage. It appears that McCain was skilfully taking a page from his North Vietnamese captors' playbook by making such a comparison. The Vietnamese used propaganda at all levels during the war, Jane Fonda and her followers are just one sad example. The Iraq insurgency is obviously a student of this same Vietnamese propaganda machine.

Farah quotes AP's report of McCain's Tet analogy with this brief summary;

"Tet, a massive invasion in 1968 of South Vietnam by Communist North Vietnamese, inflicted enormous losses (my emphasis) on U.S. and South Vietnamese troops and is regarded as a point where public sentiment turned sharply against the war."

Farah criticizes this quote by giving a numbers analysis complete with stats that someone should fax to McCain's camp ASAP. Read on ...

Some 1,536 U.S. troopers were killed in the weeks-long campaign. South Vietnamese troops lost an additional 2,788 troops. But compare those numbers with enemy losses!

According to the best statistics now available, some 45,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were killed in what was planned as a last-ditch, roll-of-the-dice effort to persuade Americans they could never win the war. Another 6,991 enemy soldiers were captured in the offensive.

In other words, no matter how you slice it, Tet was an unmitigated battlefield disaster for the enemy in Vietnam. But it proved to be an unmitigated media disaster for the U.S. at home.

As a student of the Vietnam War, I can assure you unequivocally that Vietnam was "lost" in the same fashion and with the same propaganda expertise that we are seeing today in Iraq. The positive is ignored while the press magnifies the casualties. Those of us old enough to remember will never forget the night that Walter Cronkite told America that we were losing the war in Vietnam. In that same vein today we see journalists beating their editors' doors down with gloom and doom at every turn of the page.

We see members of Congress referencing this same flawed gloom and doom journalism when they question high ranking DoD staff during hearings over the past few weeks, simply perpetuating the myth. Case in point, Sen. Carl Levin's (D-MI) obsession and later exaggeration of the intelligence community's use of the word "inappropriate" in a 2002 Pentagon briefing on the Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection, "has whipped into a political lather" as Douglas Fieth so appropriately states in the Albany Times Union today.

I highly recommend the Farah piece as it is overflowing with telling hindsight from Vietnam. McCain isn't the only one in Congress who should see this. Many of the "White Flag Republicans" need it as well. Along with a reminder, "Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it."

How do we define "Support"?

2007-02-15T10:02:00.000-05:00

Reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "What is is" Word Game, it appears that Congress has decided to take a page from the Clinton playbook and now, in a much more defiant and detrimental move, are playing with the word "support".

In today's WaPo article by Jonathan Weisman,GOP Looks Beyond War Measure to Fight on Funding, outlines the course of action for the GOP in reaction to the debate that is unfolding on the floor of the House and Senate this week over the deployment of more troops to Iraq. Sadly, many Republicans are bowing to pressure from the left to join them in supporting that non-binding *cough* useless resolution for reasons that simply boggle the mind.

Weisman's piece gave his readership the following quote;

When Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) charged that the resolution offers no support for troops not yet deployed to the battlefield, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) showed just how sensitive Democrats are to the charge.
"No one ought to hide behind the troops. No one ought to come to this floor and say that this Congress, 435 of us, will not support whatever soldier or sailor or Marine is deployed to Iraq," Hoyer said angrily. "Whether it is today or tomorrow, they will have our support."

Now, please go back and read that again. Hide behind the troops? By thinking in the best interest of the troops and their morale is an act of hiding behind the troops? They will have our support? If we take away belief in their mission, the funding for their operations and the trust that the Iraqi people put in our hands when they stood beside us at the start of this war, someone please tell me, what is left? What class of support is left? Again, mind boggling. It is abundantly clear that Congress needs an English Lesson on the meaning of the word support. There are obviously various shades to the dictionary definition yet I would like to specifically focus on definition 5;

to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence; provide for: to support a family.

This specific definition actually uses the example "to support a family". These troops truly are the deepest extent of family. Few Americans can say that they have no one whom they care for, whom they consider "family" that has put on the uniform of the USA. Is this how we treat family? Taking away things necessary to existence? Not truly supporting them by not providing for them? Of course not!!

As I write this I am watching the House debate on this non-binding resolution and I suggest that you ALL get your hands on the statement of Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), he is simply kicking ass! He has it all out there and he is making a stand. God Bless him! He is not leaving anything in the clubhouse! Screw NY, I am moving to Michigan!

One last comment on this, as McCotter called "idiotic resolution", if we truly want an idea of what to do, I suggest we get some ballots sent to Iraq and ask the men and women on the ground, they are the ones who are truly making the sacrifice, they are one who are giving their lives, ask them what needs to be done. They obviously have a better grasp on the reality of Iraq than anyone in Congress ever will. Therefore once I hear what the troops say ~ then we will know what support truly is. Are you listening Congress?

Amen!

The "Numbers" Game

2007-02-13T10:19:00.000-05:00

Numb3rs

Uncle Jimbo over at BlackFive had an interesting idea of attempting to calculate the insurgent body count so we can get a better idea of how we are eliminating the insurgency, one bad guy at a time. I decided to spin off Uncle Jimbo's idea and take a look at numbers comparatively speaking from OIF, Vietnam and four major US Cities to attempt to put things in perspective as far as the left's obsession with "the rising toll of casualties in Iraq."

Just a quick thought on the body count that Uncle Jimbo requested. While researching for this post, something striking came to light. There are many organizations tracking casualties, both military and civilian who are actually counting civilian deaths and blaming them on the Coalition Forces indiscriminately. That is to say, if a suicide bomber walks through a crowded Baghdad market and kills 37 innocent civilians, that is, overall, blamed on the Coalition Forces in a twisted attempt to say that these individuals were some sort of collateral damage from Coalition operations. No one is tracking how many civilians are killed by the insurgency vs. Coalition operations, they are simply collectively attributed to the Coalition. This also is the case with those who are wounded as well.

This is always a delicate position because of the idea of making the lives of our military men and women appear as simply numbers devoid of human life, tragedy and the mourning of family and friends. Make no mistake about it, I am not, nor would I ever reach such depths of disrespect for these heroes. I personally know the sense of loss that family members are left with as I too have people close to me who still have yet to be found and returned from Vietnam, the pain never truly subsides.

Albeit, there are others who do not value these lives as most of us do, for others, these lives are merely numbers that they use to justify their arguments, either on the Senate or House floors, in the press, on Sunday Morning talks shows, on demonstration platforms or even here in the blogosphere. So, in order to defend those who are still on the battlefield eager to finish the fight and bring true democracy to the people of Iraq, I have attempted to put together some data that truly does substantiate the claim that we have suffered very few casualties in OIF.

At the time of this post, the number of US Casualties is at 3,125 in close to 4 years. The DoD gives an average of 170,000 troops on the ground at any given time (pre "Surge"). Now, to get into the stats:

2003

NYC - 596 homicides
LA - 505 homicides
CHI - 600 homicides
PHI - 347 homicides

total: 2,048 homicides

OIF - 486 casualties

*Nam - 2,000 casualties

*1965 first year with 175,000 troops on the ground

Our fighting men and women, who are in a war zone, fighting the insurgency yet they have less than an quarter the number of casualties with the same general number of troops on the ground. They also have less than a quarter of the number of casualties compared to homicides reported in the four most populated cities in the USA; New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philiadelphia. (NYC, CHI and PHI stats here)

So, where is the outrage? Where are the bills before Congress making more stringent sentences for homicides? Where are the government programs to help curb violence in out major cities? If these numbers are unacceptable for our military why is it not unacceptable for our civilians to kill each other on the streets of our cities? Why aren't stats like these front page news everyday?

Ready for more?

2004

NYC - 570 homicides
LA - 489 homicides
CHI - 445 homicides
PHI - 330 homicides

total: 1834 homicides

OIF - 848 casualties

**Nam - 5,300 casualties

**1966 Second year of war with 390,000 troops on the ground

=======================================

2005

NYC - 540 homicides
LA - 489 homicides
CHI - 448 homicides
PHI - 377 homicides

total: 1,854 homicides

OIF - 846 casualties

**Nam - 9,500 casualties

**1967 Third year of war with 490,000 troops on the ground

=============================

2006

NYC - 582 homicides
LA - 489 homicides
CHI - 423 homicides
PHI - 406 homicides

total: 1,900 homicides

OIF - 821 casualties

**Nam - 14,600 casualties

**1968 Fourth year of war with 549,000 troops on the ground

===============================

It is worth restating, that if the left is going to use the casualty number against us, even as uncomfortable as it is for us to use these numbers for any reason, we must defend the argument.

In the close to four years of this War on Terror we have lost (not "wasted" - á la Obama) approximately 3125 American lives in Iraq. Yet on the streets of our major cities we have lost 7,636 lives. Keep in mind that these numbers come from just four US Cities.

So, again, we need to ask Congress to why they choose to focus on Iraq's numbers yet maintain blinders on with regard to the number of homicides. Is it because Iraq allows them a platform to throw knives at the Administration with the DoD as an added bonus? Could it be because threatening to control the troops' pursestrings is sexier than homicide? Could it be because the MSM finds it sexier as well? Dare I go on?

Point being, these OIF casualty numbers are a resounding HOOAH!! to US Troops on the ground, their training, their dedication to each other and most poignantly, their dedication to this nation. They want to finish the job and come home victors, which was something that Vietnam Vets were denied for the very same reasons that we see today. On the global scale, we need to be victorious to confirm our place as the true super power, maintain our foothold at the UN and most importantly, end the War on Terror with a deafening roar. After all, the world is watching.

Words

2007-02-09T23:04:00.000-05:00

The guy has the right idea

The WaPo has been taking their hits lately with shoddy reporting and mixed up headlines and etc. and I am being very kind. But last Friday's op-ed by Charles Krauthammer was right on. It was basically, and obviously much more eloquently, what I had said a few days ago about this entire issue of the non-binding resolution and he even caught the same confusions regarding a "civil war" that I saw with the NIE's report that everyone was making so much hoopla about. I really have to take note with the entire idea of the NIE and the data that they generate with the disclaimer that is is all based on incomplete work and that it is not based on any evidence, it is merely an estimate and not a prediction.

OK, so here is the big question, then what is it? If the data is flawed, incomplete and imperfect at best, then where is its usefulness and efficacy? We have an agency within the US Government that simply mirrors Congress, it generates useless things that generate imperfect debate that doesn't amount to much of anything except wasted tax dollars and more dead trees.

The crux of Krauthammer's piece is really the heart of this debate that Congress is preparing to affront;

When it came to doing something serious about the surge, the Senate ducked. It unanimously (81-0) approved sending Gen. David H. Petraeus to Baghdad to do the surge -- precisely what a majority of the senators said they did not want done.

Congress had their chance to speak out and make an argument, and they curled up in the fetal position. Now, with the '08 elections on the horizon everyone is jockeying for position much like a NASCAR Nextel Cup race when the yellow flag comes out and everyone deciding if they should go to the pits or not.

Now, the American people have pit passes with the Congress on track and the entire world in the stands waiting to see who pits, when and with what needs. Then, everyone will roar back onto the track and this will all start again. Post ions will ultimately change and as more Congressmen and woman, in particular those with presidential aspirations, present their own resolutions, I find it hard for any one resolution to take center stage and have the kind of impact that the left would like it to have nor the wiggle room that many on the right would like as well.

Meanwhile, our fighting men and women sit in a political limbo attempting to implement a strategy that may have its funding pulled right out from under them while they are selflessly putting their lives on the line for a Congress that sees them as nothing more than pawns in thier political chess game. Sad, so sad.

Plans to Commemorate 1967 March on the Pentagon

2007-02-09T08:57:00.000-05:00

A major hat tip to the Capitol Police! Your stupidity and lack of foresight has now fueled the flames of the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition. They have just announced on their Party for Socialism and Liberation website, complete with Che Guevara icon, that they have had their permits approved to demonstrate on March 17, 2007 and march on the Pentagon,here.

They are organizing, strategizing and getting ready to pump their fits in the air to Rage Against the Machine. They claim to have buses already coming in from 100 major sites across the country to converge on DC on St. Patrick's Day.

You may be curious as to how I would be aware of this so quickly. Since the demonstration is to form in the general vicinity of the WWII, Korean and Vietnam Memorials, POW/MIA Families have been asked to come to DC if possible to protect the Vietnam Memorial Wall from vandalism. I sit here with tears in my eyes and a promise. Let one of them, take one step near The Wall, and moreover, near the name of my family member on that wall and the expression, "Hell hath no fury ..." will take on a whole new meaning. Let one can of spray paint be lifted, I will defend The Wall at any cost. More here.

I place the blame squarely on the shoulder of Capitol Chief, Phillip Morse. If it weren't for his spineless order to not interfere with the protesters a few weeks ago, they would have easily been deterred from attempting this march.

The sheer irony is in their statement they say, "The First Amendment is not a gift that can be given or taken away by politicians or bureaucrats." My question to this group is who gave you that First Amendment right and who defends that First Amendment right still today? The American Soldier that's who. And instead of protesting, these people should be supporting these heroes as they defend all that is good about this great nation, yet they decide to continue on in their Kerry-esque behavior of providing aide and comfort to the enemy ....

***UPDATE*** 3:52 PM
Just found this letter on the Capitol Police website in which the Chief gives a very different summary of events during the most recent demonstration in DC. I would have found this story a bit more credible had he named this so called "splinter group". Additionally, if he were well aware of their tactics, why were they not better monitored and why were no arrests made.

A Call to Arms ~ Falls on Congressional Deaf Ears

2007-02-08T14:09:00.000-05:00

Oh, Muslim Youths ....

I really have to wonder what planet our Congress is living on. Has an alien race thrown an unknown force field over the Capitol District that is now sucking common sense out of their brains at a faster rate than what we normally are accustom? It would appear so. This Message has just come via the Middle East from the Middle East Media Research Institute credited to Al-Qaeda's proclaimed Head of the Islamic State of Iraq, Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi entitled, "Victory from Allah, Victory is Near."

Uncle Jimbo over at B5 has a great reaction to this recent statement from Al-Qaeda's top man in Iraq here. I have no intention of taking away UJ's thunder, yet I'd like to add to his focus on this significant portion of the statement;

"Oh Muslim youths, remember the cut up bodies of the children, the voices of their bereaved [parents] and the anguished cries of the elderly. Let the volcano of your wrath burst forth. Burn the ground beneath the feet of the Jews and their helpers, eradicate their army, destroy their equipment, down their planes, ambush them in their homes, in the wadis and on the roads. Hide in the darkness of night and turn their morning into hell... We are not afraid of your coalitions...We have drunk blood [in the past], and we find no [blood] sweeter than that of the Byzantines [i.e. Christians]... Roast their flesh with car bombs, cut off their supply lines with [explosive] charges and tear out their hearts with sniper fire. Know that offense is the best [form of] defense, and be careful not to lay down your weapons before the war is over... We are not fighting out of nationalism, but with the aim of making Allah's word supreme.

Did the Head of the Islamic State of Iraq not remember that the cut up bodies of children and the voices of the bereaved were silenced for decades under the dictatorship of one Saddam Hussein? The only reason there is a voice today is so that the killing of those who align themselves with the Coalition can be murdered by their own Islamic brothers and blamed on the Coalition. Al-Jeezera says business is booming!

I find this portion extremely unsettling, "Burn the ground beneath the feet of the Jews and their helpers, eradicate their army, destroy their equipment, down their planes, ambush them in their homes, in the wadis [a type of riverbed] and on the roads." I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty bad to me and it surely doesn't give the impression that they will just be happy with watching us pack our bags and head back to the good Ol'US of A. They have goals, they want to "burn", "eradicate","destroy", and "ambush" us and let's not forget "down" our planes. Not to mention the fact that we have the sweetest blood which they intend to drink. Simply chilling words and how our Congress cannot grasp that this is not a war that we can turn our backs on leads me to no other explanation than some supernatural phenomenon.

The Speaker should be reading statements like these rather than worrying about the seating arrangements on her shinny new 757. It is crystal clear that this is not about Iraq, but about dominating the planet in the name of Islam. Nancy? Are you listening? There will be no shinny plane of you don't hear, "We are not fighting out of nationalism, but with the aim of making Allah's word supreme."

Life in Upstate NY

2007-02-08T11:12:00.000-05:00

Notice the Yellow Ribbon ~ still hanging tough

The phone has been ringing off the wall this morning with many people asking about our welfare here as news of the hard-hitting lake effect snowstorm has made national news. First, thank you to all who have been concerned. Here in the Syracuse Area it isn't bad at all to be honest, as you can see by the picture above that I just took out of my front window. Just some snow and not much accumulation. It is darn cold though but I'm not complaining as many of my family and close friends are in those areas that are making the national news, some 20 to 30 miles north of here. My hometown, well actually the entire county, is in a state of emergency and no travel is allowed in or out of the city. I have been on the phone with my aunts and uncles who still live there and I am very concerned about them. They are in their early 70's and the snow is now at over 5 feet with more coming over night. Their street hasn't even been plowed yet and they need to get out to get perscriptions filled and etc. They are, for all extensive purposes, prisoners in their own home with anywhere from one to two feet more expected .....obviously a story in progress.

God at His Computer: Fun with Amanda Marcotte

2007-02-06T19:04:00.000-05:00

I have no self-control. I told myself that since I was relatively new to this blogging thing that I would let the experts have their fun with Amanda Marcotte and just watch from the sidelines. Even after various (see my views here) attempts to engage Amanda in the debate over the Gardasil vaccine controversy in Texas (my comments just never seemed to make it through her moderation process), I still decided to back off. Then, I checked our Pablo’s post at Protein Wisdom, was just LMAO and decided to throw caution to the wind.

Let’s play voyeur for a moment and imagine Amanda writing her first entries for the John Edwards '08 Campaign. Thanking God - oops - god for the back button vs. White Out because she would have gone through 2 bottles of the stuff by now having to erase all the four letter nouns, verbs, adjectives, as well as progressive and past participles.

Fast-Forward a day or two and Ms. Feminista is sitting in front of her computer getting text messages from a frantic Chris Clarke telling her to check her inbox, all those (fill in your favorite pejorative adjective) Conservatives are attacking her in the blogoshere. Amanda just brushes it off, “Hum, they are just jealous, that’s all!” she says to herself. Then continues on with the uber exciting entry on Edwards’ Heathcare plan. Curiosity takes over and she checks the inbox and starts reading what the warmongers have to say. She tells herself again, “green with envy is what those motherf***ers are.” “Oops! Did I say that word outloud? OMg, I hope no one heard me!”

That evening at home she decides to check the blogs to see if there is anything more out there. More expletives fly out of her mouth and once her tirade is over she slowly leans back on her couch and the realization that she has screwed herself royally begins to come into focus. She decides to do some CYA, grabs her laptop and heads over to Pandagon.Net and becomes her own revisionist. Alas in the throws of her clintonesque activity, in her flurry she forgets about the dreaded Google Cache. (Did she learn nothing from Linda Clarke and Monica Lewinsky???)

The days go by she acts like not a thing is going on as she passes every one at work, all smiles as the people huddled by the water cooler suddenly become awkwardly quiet as she walks by. “Just brush it off”, she tells herself. That night she falls apart on the phone with her boyfriend, tears and all, asking him how people can be so mean. She had arrived and was going to be at the forefront and was going to make a name for herself. These people are ruining her life, how could they?

Tuesday morning, sensing that her days are numbered she decides to keep a low profile in the hopes that it will all blow over yet, every time someone says, “Amanda, do you have a minute?” her heart falls into her stomach. OMg is this it?

Moral: Who ever said God didn’t have a sense of humor?

UPDATE:Thurs. 2/8
This topic is all over the blogoshere and I really like what Armed Liberal says over at www.WindsOfChange.net. Some rational thoughs without all of the drama. Must Read

The Pink Elephant

2007-02-06T12:14:00.000-05:00

I have been watching the political landscape this morning and this op-ed piece by E. J. Dionne, Jr in the WaPo caught my attention and I started to look around at some of the other major US papers, news websites and etc. and discovered something "astonishing". No one was addressing the big question, it was as if it were the proverbial pink elephant. There are pieces, such as the one cited above, that spend valuable space disecting the debate in the Senate today over the non-binding resolution which could well lead to an attempt to cut off funding for the war in Iraq. Dionne says,

"They are saying that the resolution is meaningless and that true opponents of the war should prove their sincerity by cutting off funding altogether. But they are doing all they can to keep the Senate from even voting on a bipartisan anti-surge resolution that would send a powerful message to Bush that most Americans have lost faith in his bungled war policy."

OK, I have some MAJOR problems with this quote simply because;

1) this is a NON-BINDING resolution. It literally is meaningless. The only group to truly benefit from this resolution is ... oops! Maybe the enemy? I love my country more than most I can assure you all of that but I am to the point of nauseaum with our politicians shooting us in the foot over and over and over. Like the analogy of the hamster running like mad on his exercise wheel, we keep going in circles doing the same things over and over expecting different results.

2) all of this talk about cutting off funding for the war is just posturing. This is the one point where I agree with Dionne, no one wants to be the first to officially have it on their Congressional Record that they voted to cut funding. Just not a good political move. Alas, what does that say about those screaming defiance from the pulpit over ending this war? All smoke and no fire.

3) no one is thinking about the impact of all of this beyond the Beltway. This is what those soldiers in the NBC NEWS piece were talking about last week which lead to the William Arkin lunacy (ref. MM). Imgine being thousands of miles away from home watching the news, or worse the live debate on C-SPAN, hearing all of this arguing and political tongue-lashing. Meanwhile, you are thanking God that with the help of one of those patriotic "Angels" over at Soldiers' Angels, you and your men finally got some kick ass tactical gun mount lights for your weapons. No more door to doors with two lights for your entire platoon. So you are feeling pretty good, then you hear your very own Senator blowing smoke on the Senate Floor and you are wondering, WTF?

Point being, in none of the major news outlets could I find anyone asking about the Pink Elephant. What would early withdrawl from Iraq truly mean, politically, economically and most importantly globally?

My thoughts on the "Pink Elephant" question in tomorrow's post.

Why Support the Troops?

2007-02-05T22:33:00.000-05:00

If I am anything, I am painstakingly honest, you all will soon learn that about me. With that said, I spent quite sometime this afternoon putting together an ever so eloquent post about why we should, unconditionally, support the troops. I went into detail about their decision to serve knowing full well that they may well lose their lives and that somewhere along the line they came to the sobering conclusion that they value their nation and all it stands for more than their individual life. I went on to say that this declaration alone should endear each and every one of these brave men and women to us. Alas, that is not the case and I listed some of the more infamous is this group; the likes of Jane Fonda, John Kerry, Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda again.

I continued on with one of the most amazing accounts of the familiar bond that serving together provides and how I was fortunate enough to witness the reuniting of some incredible Marines recently who had not seen each other in over three decades, yet their closeness and commitment to each other still remains unwavering.

I even went so far as to consider punishment for those who would dare degrade, insult or even spit on our beloved men and women in uniform. I concluded that nothing short of banishment from our borders was the just "reward" for such treason. Living in another country knowing full well that others were living the best life imaginable wrapped in the liberties that these brave heroes provide. And furthermore, the banished shall never ever set foot on the soil of the nation that they chose to desecrate.

The initial post was a thing of beauty in all honesty and I was exceedingly proud if it. Then, the unthinkable happened, my computer inexplicably turned off. I lost it all! I attempted to get my creative juices going again but it just wasn't to be. I even wove the unforgettable declaration from Lt. Cmdr. Galloway in "A Few Good Men" when asked why she was so vehemently willing to defend her clients. "Because they stand on a wall; and they say nothing is going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch."

I will end this abbreviated post with the same poignant message that I had originally, a message from one of these same men who proudly answers the call.

What is in the heart of an American fighting man? Listen

WaPo's Karen De Young and Her Left Jab at Surge

2007-02-04T13:29:00.000-05:00

In today's Sunday Edition of the Washington Post, Karen De Young takes another "left jab" at the Administration's enhancement to the Iraq policy, known affectionately or otherwise as "Surge".

"The success of the Bush administration's new Iraq strategy depends on a series of rapid and dramatic political and economic reforms that even the plan's authors have little confidence will work."

Is De Young seriously trying to convince the WaPo's readership that Bush's Senior Staff and some of the best military minds at the Pentagon got together under growing pressure from the Left and put together a lukewarm plan at best? Knowing all that was at stake, they just threw a plan at the wall and used what stuck? Knowing full well that political hats are being thrown into the proverbial ring all around the Beltway for '08 with Iraq as the focal point; that there would be no "do-overs" and that this plan would be critical for this administration's legacy and the success of Iraq, De Young stood by this story? With the overwhelming ramifications of this plan, delusional is the only word that comes to mind.

Now, a little more on the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that De Young references here from the Council on Foreign Relations. Before getting into the details of the NIE, it is important to note that the NIE defines itself as an entity that does not predict but estimates the possible course of future events. Huh? Even in the introduction of the report released Friday the NIE summarizes their ratonale as imperfect at best;

These assessments, which are based on incomplete or at times fragmentary information are not a fact, proof, or knowledge. Some analytical judgments are based directly on collected information; others rest on previous judgments, which serve as building blocks. In either type of judgment, we do not have “evidence” that shows something to be a fact or that definitively links two items or issues.

The NIE link above also goes on to describe it's process which usually takes two to three months for them to evaluate and report back on an item that they are asked to "estimate". It would appear that they fast-tracked their review of the President's plan just a bit.

As if the waters couldn't get muddier, on Friday, when the classified report was released by the NIE, De Young and Walter Pincus had an WaPo A1 page piece in which they stated;

At a Pentagon news conference, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, noting that he had not read the report, said he agreed with Hadley that "the words 'civil war' oversimplify a very complex situation."

Yet, here is what the unclassifed version of the report has to say in direct contradiction to the De Young-Pincus piece. This is what it said in the context of the "civil war" claim;

The Intelligence Community judges that the term “civil war” does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term “civil war” accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.

Now if you re-read the Sunday piece carefully, the above quote is somewhat contradictory or at the very least, an exaggeration compared to Friday's summary of the same classified report. It was not specified if the declassified report or classified report was used in the filing of either report. DeYoung and Pincus' source in Friday's piece is described as simply "a source familiar with the document". I don't know about you but I would have given much more credence to "a source close to the President" or "a source within the Pentagon" or something to that effect. "A source familiar with the document", could be the intern who drove the 90 page document from the Pentagon to the White House. So much for "classified" it appears.

Back to De Young's Sunday piece, she briefly critiques the President's public denial of the use of a "containment option" (pushing US troops back to the Iraqi borders to avoid sectarian violence). Although the Friday piece refers to Arizona Senator John McCain's sleep-rendering soliloquy about the failed policy in Iraq during Gen. George Casey's confirmation hearing as Army Chief of Staff, I guess De Young missed Casey's most significant statement in which he confirmed that 14 of the 18 provinces in Iraq have reported little or no violence over the past two months. Casey went on to say that there are already six provinces, three in the north and three in the south that are completely under control of Iraqi Forces and three more that will be doing so over the next few weeks. What is our measure for success again? I don't think I got the memo.

The irony of her closing for this piece actually caused a smile to creep over my face (sarcastic smile, but a smiles nonetheless).

But some officials worry that the expanded U.S. presence will repeat the mistakes of the past -- when the United States oversaw virtually every part of the Iraqi government -- and undermine the goal of turning the country over to the Iraqis themselves.

"It's the same old problem as in 2003," cautioned one official. "The same impatience that if they can't do it we'll step in and do it. There is a bit of that creeping into this dialogue."

"Impatience"? If there are signs of impatience within Iraq it is from pressure from the Left and the anti-war people who simply want us out of Iraq at any cost so they can turn around and tell the Bush Administration they failed.

HPV, STD and Texas Governor Rick Perry

2007-02-03T10:09:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press reported late yesterday that Texas Gov. Rick Perry has circumvented Conservative lawmakers and parents by issuing an executive order making it mandatory that school age females receive the vaccination Gardasil against the human papillomavirus (HPV) beginning in 2008.(article)

On the surface this may all seem well and good, we have all seen the ads touting that HPV is a virus that could lead to cervical cancer. Yet, there was no mention of the fact that HPV was a sexually transmitted disease (STD). A hat tap to the marketing team at Merck Pharmaceutical for leaving out that little tidbit of info. But the big question is, why did Gov. Perry step up to make this landmark order? He has direct connections to both Merck and others who are pushing the issue, AP says,

"Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company’s three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry’s former chief of staff. His current chief of staff’s mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government."

Pretty blatant for Perry to have such visible ties to the major players in this issue and still make the order in the name of what is best for the children. Oops, not the children, "the girls". When confronted on the issue Perry claims that this is no different than requiring a polio vaccination. Huh?

Q and A Time! If the vaccine is only required for females then it isn't just like polio. If the transmission of HPV is through sex activity then it isn't just like polio. If a female abstains from sex then she is "immune" to HPV, that isn't just like polio.

It would appear that the aforementioned women's groups have been caught up in quite a web of misinformation and I really have difficulty accepting the fact that this is considered a women's issue. Obviously many female conservative parents are going to be concerned that this is a "get out of jail free card" from the State to have sex. There will be the confusion as to whether or not this is also a form of birth control, no matter how much sex ed is throw at today's school. As well as the fact that not women, but girls as young as 9 will be required to receive this vaccination. But it appears to this writer that the role of men in the spread of HPV is somehow completely void in this discussion. What about their promiscuity? Where is there vaccine? Are they not a carrier of this virus?

As a parent, these would be my questions to the Gov. Perry:

1) Governor, why make this vaccine available for girls as young as 9?

2) Governor, why require it at all and not just make it an option with parental consent?

3)Governor, why is TX the first state to be embroiled in this debate? Is this about TX or your connections to those lobbying for the Pharmaceutical company?

4) Governor, what are the statistic for HPV and cervical cancer in TX? Are they more prevalent in TX? If so, why?

5) Governor, it would appear by your "just like polio" comment that you aren't well informed on the transmission of this virus. Would you care to expound?

6) Governor, obviously this vaccine has FDA approval, but are there any long-term independent studies that have been done that show any positive or negative effects on the females that received the vaccine? If not, don't you think you are taking a huge liability risk by making it mandatory vs. optional? Do you feel that the Great State of Texas is financially prepared for the litany of law suits that could abound if some long term effects do surface in say 10 or 20 years?

I really have to wonder what Merck is offering that would make such a gamble with the lives of millions of women acceptable.

**** UPDATE 2/4/07 from Fox News - More Trouble for Perry ****
Click here for more

What Redeployment and Protests Really Mean: A Lesson from Vietnam

2007-02-02T10:56:00.000-05:00

Since Hanoi Jane is back in the limelight after her latest anti-war rally in DC, it’s worth looking back with a little 20/20 vision on Vietnam and what our pulling out did not just to Vietnam but to our nation as well.

There is a wealth of info out there on Vietnam that truly is amazing. Here are a few interesting ROE (Rules of Engagement) factoids for you.

1 – No matter the circumstances, do not shoot unless you are shot at first.
Translation: If you are out in the boonies with your platoon and see VC approaching across a rice patty. Keep those weapons down, Boys.
Yes, folks this was actually an ROE in parts of I Corps during the early phases of the war. Why? Because the enemy was not easily identified and civilian casualties were bad PR. Sound familiar?

2 – When an operation was going to be executed in a rural area that most likely had civilians in the vicinity, leaflets were dropped a day or two before to “warn” the locals that we would be coming. Hey! Nothing like letting the enemy know where to find you. No joke folks, I have actually seen copies of the leaflets. (Reminds me of that hilarious scene in “Heartbreak Ridge” when Gunny Highway blows a gasket because Major Powers has the ambush site pre-arranged for a training exercise)

I can tell you right now that these two ROEs did not come from the Pentagon but from those politicians in Washington who, for all extensive purposes left our fighting men with one hand politically tied behind their backs from the mid 60’s until the final pull out on 1975. Sound familiar?

The next step is to consider what the anti-war rallies did to the men in the field, those being held in POW camps and to the propaganda machine of the enemy. We are obviously seeing in recent days the beginning of what Vietnam Vets must have felt upon hearing Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and others spouting what many believe equates to treason when we hear last Friday’s NBC Nightly News report from Iraq. In this report Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun was interviewed and stated, ”one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way.” Here the Staff Sergeant is expressing frustration, which will most likely escalate to other, stronger emotions as the MSM has their way with the minds of the American people. The point that many reporters just refuse to accept is that the men in the field are more knowledgeable about what is going on in Iraq than they are and they don’t like it. What a reporter may see in the act of witnessing a tactical operation in the field will not have the same translation as the men who planned and organized the mission and who have the military training to know why they do what they do. A reporter, no matter how good, will not have the trained military eye to truly understand what is transpiring before their eyes. There is no “War for Dummies” book out there. The MSM just can’t handle this simple fact that a 19 year-old kid from Missouri has a better grasp of a given situation than a seasoned journalist who has spent the last ten years honing his/her craft. They aren’t about to let some snot-nosed kid show them up.

This next section is not well know outside of certain circles, and for those who don’t know a lot about the POW situation in Vietnam, please, pay close attention. When the anti-war machine started gaining momentum in the US, the North Vietnamese were quick to take advantage of this unsolicited propaganda and use it against the thousand or so US POWs that were held both in the North and South. Many misrepresent the Vietnamese as a ragtag loosely structured fighting force. We must not forget that the Vietnamese had been fighting off aggressors for decades before we arrived, the most recent aggressor before the US arrived in the early 60’s were the French and it is no secret that the French were paying off the Vietnamese behind closed doors long after their war ended in exchange for prisoners the Vietnamese held back after the French officially pulled out their troops. In short, these guys weren’t stupid, they knew exactly what to do and how and people like Fonda were just feeding the beast. Sound familiar?

Many uninformed Americans consider the insurgency to be a group of ragtag loosely structured fighting units. Today’s insurgency is fueled by more than our Vietnamese enemy was 40 years ago. In Nam it was the political threat of Communism yet the insurgency, because of the intermingling of their politics and their religion, have more at stake than their form of government. For those held in the now infamous Hanoi Hilton, tape recordings of Jane Fonda and others were piped right into their cells via a PA system. During torture sessions they were reminded that their fellow Americans considered them criminals by quoting these treasonous statement. Additionally, what I consider the most damning of statements, they attempted to drive home the fact that no one at home cared about them and claimed “we can keep you forever”. Even today, these former POWs question the short sightedness of these anti-war protestors and even many within our government. I highly recommend the DVD Stolen Honor which focuses on a series of present day interviews with former POWs from Vietnam who detail exactly what the anti-war movement meant to them when they were behind bars. Just imagine for a moment, knowing the kinds of excruciating torture that you were being subjected to both physical and mental only to have Fonda, Hayden and others come visit you in prison and reaffirm how thankful you must be for the kind treatment of your captors.

Now here is where Vietnam and Iraq diverge, once our troops were pulled out of Vietnam, we simply packed our bags and went home, left with the perception of having lost the first military conflict of our nation’s history. As false and untrue as that idea of defeat was, and as horrible as the reception our troops received upon their return home, at least it was definitely over for the US. The Vietnamese took their spoils of war and went home.

This is NOT the case with Iraq. Yes, if we pull out before the job is done as we did in Vietnam, there will be civilian atrocities that may well mirror Nam and many Vets of this latest conflict will have to deal with the difficult reality of the anhialation of their former counterparts who whom they fought the good fight. But Iraq will not end there. Many Americans have turned into perpetual ostriches refusing to accept the fact that the insurgency is about much more than who is in control in Iraq. The enemy will not stand up dust themselves off, pat each other on the back and go back home. They have been programmed to believe that their purpose in life is to destroy our way of life, our belief system and to either convert us to Islam or kill us for our defiance. They have openly stated this over and over.

This hasn’t been called the War on Terror for nothing, Folks. They will bring the war to a city near you in short order. And don’t think for a minute that pulling out of Iraq will not fuel their thirst even more giving them the perception, just as in Nam, that they were able to defeat the most powerful military force on the planet not by over powering them but by simply knowing the enemy and that we are a nation of instantaneous gratification. We are a spoiled people, always used to getting what we want at the drop of a hat. I think back to what my grandparents were asked to sacrifice during WWII in the name of the war effort, what has been asked of the American people today? “Support the Troops, all the way”, so little to ask compared to past generations yet the real question is, “What is the alternative?”

I don’t know about you but I like being able to pray to whom I want, when I want and that my daughters can be whoever they want to be.

How about you?

Trouble in Caucusville

2007-02-01T19:04:00.000-05:00

Sorry for posting so late today, there was a lot to talk about and read about on lots of news outlets and blogs. I spent most of the day reading up on the fallout from the Washington Post's William Arkin blog claiming that the US military should be supporting America more vs. asking America to support them. It was as if I were reading the words, comprehending their meaning but I was reading a foreign language. I thought about blogging about that but decided that I would let my boys on the milblogs have their say on that, Lord knows they earned it. Uncle Jimbo at BlackFive.

Then, there is some "fun" brewing over at Michelle Malkin. It seems that NY Times reporter and a Getty Images photographer over in the Sandbox committed career suicide by reporting and airing on the NYT website footage of a dying US Soldier, Sgt. Hector Leija of Texas. Now, reporting on the death of the Texas hero wasn't the faux pas, the fact that they aired it well before the family was notified and give the usual 24 hour reprieve is what has them in big doo with the DoD.

This afternoon, I finally found something to 1) dig my linguistics teeth into and 2) that hasn't already been addressed by some of the other major bloggers so far. There have been accusations on the part of Rep. Loretta Sanchez,D (CA-47) that the Hispanic Caucus Chairman Joe Baca, also of California called her "The P Word". For those of you unfamiliar with Spanish, it translates to "The W Word" in English.

Now, being someone who has studied Spanish, lived in a Spanish speaking country and with Spanish speaking people for quite some time, it is quite possible, that if Baca called her the Spanish translation of this word, the contextual definitions are almost limitless. Without going into too much detail or stepping on the toes of George Carlin, "the P Word" in Spanish is almost as multifunctional as "the F word" in our beloved English Language. The context of the usage is more defining than simply the word itself. The issue remains, did he mean "the W word" or "The B word" or several other possibilities. Regardless, she resigned from the Caucus and denial is the word of the day from the Baca Camp.

This flap lead me to look into origin of the caucuses, both Hispanic and Black and what I found was rather intriguing.

Black Caucus
Hispanic Caucus

The Hispanic Caucus' Mission Statement is as follows:

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus aims to address national and international issues and the impact these policies have on the Hispanic community. The function of the Caucus is to serve as a forum for the Hispanic Members of Congress to coalesce around a collective legislative agenda. In addition to covering legislative action, the CHC also monitors Executive and Judicial issues.

CHC legislative priorities cover all areas that have a direct impact on the Hispanic community. In order to best address these diverse issues, members work in smaller task forces that draw on their expertise and develop priority legislation within each area.

The Black Caucus' Mission Statement is as follows:

The Caucus describes its goals as "positively influencing the course of events pertinent to African-Americans and others of similar experience and situation," and "achieving greater equity for persons of African descent in the design and content of domestic and international programs and services."

The CBC encapsulates these goals in the following priorities: Closing the achievement and opportunity gaps in education, assuring quality health care for every American, focusing on employment and economic security, ensuring justice for all, retirement security for all Americans, and increasing equity in foreign policy

In a previous post I have stated that I take issue with those who base their vote solely on someone's gender, race, color or even sexual orientation. Now, tread carefully, I said only,not that it isn't or shouldn't be a factor but it shouldn't be the only factor. People who only vote red or only blue, they too are questionable voters. We all must be educated voters and at the very least, learn a little bit about each candidate before pulling the lever.

The question has arisen, do we still need caucuses? Do they really serve a constructive purpose in the 21st Century? Do they make a positive difference? Do they have any impact at all? Going a step further, what's next? A Muslim Caucus? A Catholic Caucus? Why isn't there an Italian Caucus? An Irish Caucus?

Now here is the surprise for me, both the Black and Hispanic Caucuses historically are almost exclusively Democrats. According to the link above, in the Black Caucus there have only been three Republican members since its inception in 1969. My question is this, since minority groups tend to be Democrats, this is no big surprise but the point that needs to made is, aren't we just giving the Democrats another avenue to organize and influence?

Would we accept a Southern Caucus whose states are traditionally Republican? Hmmmmm ....

Here is more on this from Michelle Malkin
here

Blonde Ambition

2007-01-31T09:59:00.000-05:00

Good Morning, Folks! I'd like you to run, don’t walk, on over to Fox News and check out their video "Hillary Sit-in". The story has me hopping mad. The follow-up interview with Rae Abileah of Code Pink, one of the arrested protestors is rather entertaining as she sits there looking like Ugly Betty with her pink pin and pink scarf spouting her desire to “support the first woman candidate for President” if she only were a “strong peace candidate”. Huh? I have to take major issue with a group that votes purely on the gender of a candidate, or any other asthetic charcteristic for that matter. I take issue with those who are hoping to vote for Obama because of his skin color, those who want to vote for McCain because he was a "war hero" and etc. These chacteristics have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to govern the most powerful and influential nation on the planet. Folks, I can assure you, that is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

First, let’s look at what has me hot under the collar. The video shows US Capitol Police arresting 6 to 8 protestors who were sitting-in in front of Hillary’s Russell Senate Office Building suite chanting, “Senator Clinton we’re blocking your door until you stop funding war.” Now before you read any further, make sure you go over to Fox News and watch the footage, these ladies are all dressed in pink, with pink boas, the whole nine yards. You really need the visual imagery to grasp the scene.

Yes, isn’t that fabulous? The US Capitol Police finally arrested someone this week? Impressive, isn’t it? They can arrest a few women in the hallowed halls of the Senate Offices but can’t arrest Saturday’s anti-war protestors as they deface and vandalize The Capitol Building. Do you think these officers had to call in to the Chief to ask of they could arrest these ladies? After all the cameras were rolling! On a side note, I wonder if the Chief has found time in his schedule to meet with Colorado Sen. Allard, the only US Congressman to request an tete-a-tete with the Chief over the rationale for allowing the law to be broken and ordering the officers on site to back down and not arrest any of the protestors.

Secondly, you have to love Sean Hannity. When he had his turn with the Code Pink representative he got her so tongue tied that by the end of the segment he had her outwardly admitting what we all knew already, Hillary has waffled on the war and made decisions based on her presidential ambitions rather than her principles, values or her constituents. According to Abileah, Senator Clinton has said that if she had known then what she knows now about the war, she never would have supported it. Yet, she has recently gone to Iraq (On whose dime? “I Love NY!”), taking the guided tour, and comes home to say that things aren’t going well, we need a change, but not what the President suggests. But she was for sending more troops back when it was the “in thing”. For now though, she says she isn’t going to vote for defunding (I know this isn’t a word but that is the lingo they are using) the war. For now anyway ....

It should be interesting to see how McCain fares with this topic, as it will surely become a central presidential campaign issue in the months ahead.

Why "A Proud Infidel"?

2007-01-30T19:29:00.000-05:00

Interesting thing happened on my way to writing this entry. I first went searching for a definition of infidel and found that, although it is an English word, we rarely use the word "infidel" in American English, only as the root of the noun "infidelity". In American English we use other words like "non-believer", "gentile",or possibly even "heathen". But the word "infidel" isn't commonly heard or used in American English.

According to www.dictionary.com, "infidel" can be defined as:infidel

Ok, so now that I have shown off my linguistic prowess, let's get to the heart of it all. The only time we hear the word "infidel" in America is when it is used in the context of a Muslim making reference to a Christian. It is, for all extensive purposes, to put it delicately, a derogatory term. Now, believe it or not, I can understand, but not accept, why someone may hold another's faith against him. I honestly can. But, for all extensive purposes, it would appear that Islam is, simply a religion against Christianity. They get "extra credit" for killing us and some major kudos in their version of Heaven for dying in the act of killing one of us. Now, I don't know about you, but I am starting to get a complex.

For more on this, I recommend, Muslim Paradise

With that said, the above makes me sick to my stomach that all of this, all of the attacks, 9/11, the War on Terror, is all based on the fact that they don't like what we believe or our way of life. Plain and simple, you can add all the layers to this that you want but that is the heart of it all.

Here is the interesting part of my brief research on this topic. As I went about trying to discover how many times the word "infidel" appears in the Koran, I went from on-line search of the Koran to another, literally I went to at least six of them and do you know what results I had? None! That's right every single on-line search of the Koran, gave me either an error message or a "no results" found response. If anyone can find an online search of the Koran that gives you a numerical response to the number of times the word "infidel" appears in the Koran, please pass it along.

Otherwise, I have to wonder why online Koran searches would not want to let us know how many times the word "infidel" is mentioned in their Book. Now, the word "unbeliever",according to one site, appears 120 times. As a way of comparison, in the New International Version of the Bible it appears a whopping seven times. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Growing up, when Mom would try to convince me of something and we would have multiple exchanges on the issue, she would inevitably throw her arms up in the air and say, "You are just like your father!"; to which I would reply, "I consider that a compliment". So, taking that thought to the next level;

I may be an "infidel" but, I am a damn proud one!

Some one Stands up ... Finally

2007-01-30T12:21:00.000-05:00

Colorado Senator Wants Some Answers from US Capitol Police Chief (link)

Please take a look at an article from Colorado's Daily Sentinal in which their Sen. Wayne Allard (R) step forward demanding a meeting with the US Capitol Police Chief, Phillip Morse, to get some answers as to why Saturday's protestors were allowed to deface government buildings. It has been reported in other news outlets that this was done at the urging of the Chief in which officers begrudginlgy followed his order in which he stated that no protestors were to be arrested or stopped.

This guy may be worth listening to. He goes on to say that remarks made by recently approved Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus asking for an end to "symbolic votes" against Bush's troops surge plan, should be heeded.

I don't know much about this guy, but I am liking him already!

************ UPDATE~ 31 Janurary, 2007 2:15 PM ***********

Just got this in from a reader, this is a C and P of an e-mail from a Vietnamese national now living in the US in support of Senator Allard's call for answers. This was sent to three of the Senator's staffers. Pay close attention to his words as he knows better than any of us. (Note: I am excluding this man's name until I have permission to use it)

Thank you for fighting for law and order in the US Capitol. Please express my appreciation to Senator Allard for standing up for America.

These anti-war protesters are the main reason why we lost Vietnam in 1975. Millions of lives were drowned or raped on the open sea. Millions more died in reeducation camps. Untold numbers of broken families as young Vietnamese girls are currently being sold as sex slaves in China, Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore, and other countries, etc.

We came to USA in search of freedom and liberty. Not to see these "Losers" (anti-war protesters).

Enough said.

Day One - Who I am

2007-01-30T10:09:00.000-05:00

Well, Folks, it's official. I am starting my blog. I have spent the past few years reading, listening and forming my opinions. But first, it is probably appropriate to tell you a little about my background.

I guess I was raised in the American Dream. My father was a child on a small Mediterranean island off the coast of Sicily when the Allied Forces invaded during WW II. Growing up I heard stories about his childhood, it seemed like an almost fictitious, fantasy world which I was finally fortunate enough to visit with him when I was in my early 20s. Meeting relatives I never knew and seeing where my roots were had an everlasting affect on me. Dad came to the US in 1958 and began a life here that would make any man proud. The thing that stood out among all of his stories and memories was the image of my grandfather. He was well known on the island as a very stubborn, hardheaded man. I have been told, and it was confirmed upon my visit there, that my grandfather was thrown in the town jail on no less than four occasions for making pro-American statements in public , something that Don Benito, I am sure, did not approve of. If it weren't for my grandmother's cousin who was a circuit court judge, Grandpa would most like have been executed.

Instead, once the war ended, my grandfather saw to it that each and every one of his children made their way (legally I might add) to the US. Then he, along with my grandmother, came to America and Grandpa's dream was fulfilled; his family was in America and he would die here. In June of 1966 he did just that, buried just a few short miles from my childhood home and a place where I would go as a child and still today as an adult, to talk with both him and my grandmother ~ One of the greatest men I never knew.

Thankfully, my maternal grandfather was a significant part of my life and I was blessed with him for some 26 years. He too was of Italian decent, first generation as a matter of fact and just as patriotic as my paternal grandfather. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, Grandpa, like many Americans, left his wife and five children and joined the US Navy. He was a kind, warm, gentle man and would take any opportunity to laugh. He was extremely proud of two things, his family and his service in the Navy. The walls of the family bakery were filled with family photos and photos from Grandpa's time in the Navy. One of my favorite stories is the one told by my mom and her siblings. In late 1945 after victory was declared, they all crowded around one of those floor model old-fashion radios listening as the naval ships gradually returned to dock in Norfolk. For days they sat there wondering if the boat was still afloat as news was not as instantaneous as it is today and the concept of military security actually existed back then. Still today, some 62 years later, not one of his children can tell the story without crying as they tell of the yelling and screaming and tears of joy that flowed the moment they heard that the USS Estes had been identified on the horizon and was steaming its way into port.

Just a few years ago, through the marvel of the Internet, I found a man who served with Grandpa and remembered him well. Aside from the wonderfully kind memories he had of my grandfather, he told us that he was on deck with my grandfather as they watched the Marines raise the flag on Mt. Suribachi. Something that I never knew. But I am sure that Grandpa stood their proudly and with tears in his eyes as that flag was raised, proud to be an American.

So, with that brief introduction, you can imagine which way the wind is blowing on this blog. Here is just a quick list of random thoughts that you can expect to see expounded on here.

The War on Terror

Immigration

Hillary Clinton

John McCain

John Kerry

The lack of real Americans in Congress

The issues with the Press trying to mold opinion instead of reporting the news

The sacrifice and pride of our fighting men and women in harm's way

Why we should fear Nancy Pelosi

... and lots of other wicked stuff that will come out of Washington over the weeks and months ahead

So, sit back, get some Joe or your beverage of choice and blog with the Proud Infidel! My next entry will attempt to explain why I have named my blog as such.

Until then, remember ....
"Only two people have ever willingly given their lives for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier".