Friday, September 28, 2007

When Evil Prospers earns 5-star review and awarded a Silver Medal for excellence in fiction from the Military Writers Society of America.

John Washburn has crafted a truly amazing tale about what could happen if America gives up her role as world superpower. Set shortly after the conclusion of the Second Gulf War, the book finds an America led by a very liberal president, put in office by the backlash generated by her predecessor's Middle East conflict. When terrorists strike in Texas even worse than 9/11, the President takes diplomacy over military action and bows to the UN. The Texas Governor, along with some patriotic Texans, realize that America cannot bow down and must strike back. Tangles with the Cuban military and a standoff at the Mexican border are just two of the results.

The events are fictitious, of course, but Washburn's writing style makes them all too believable. He does an especially good job of expressing the emotional turmoil that his characters are feeling as they make very difficult choices. Further, I enjoyed the way he weaved his personal faith and values into his characters, adding even more depth and realism to them and their struggles.

This book is an outstanding read, and will be thoroughly enjoyed by anyone who likes military or political fiction, as well as those who enjoy Christian fiction. It has my highest recommendation, and has earned a five star rating from MWSA

I want to express my sincere appreciation to the staff at MWSA and Rob Ballister for agreeing to review the book of an unknown author from an unknown publisher. I am humbled by their kind words and the award they have given me. I am pleased they liked my book and hope the message gets out to more people. I have received a few emails from people brutally attacking me personally for the book; and the interesting thing is that these people all admit that they didn't even read it! How typical. Here's to open minds, the search for knowledge and truth, and withholding judgment until the facts are known.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Don't taze me, bro

It's been over a week since I woke up to the story of Andrew Meyer and the taser. It was early, and I was still a bit groggy and not fully awake. The choreography and dancing was horrible, and there was a lot of stumbling, screaming and crying. At first, I thought Britney Spears had performed again the night before, but I was wrong. This was much better than Britney. At that moment, I realized how thankful I was for mini-cams and camera phones. Without these nifty little inventions we may have never witnessed Andrew Meyer's experience.

It started during a John Kerry forum at the Univ of Florida. It was open mic, but apparently Mr Meyer didn't want to share the spotlight. He was told that his time was up, and that he needed to allow others to speak, but Meyer didn't want to cooperate. He then proceeded to launch into a vulgar, nonsensical tirade of criticism typical of the Left-wing crazies, of which Meyer seems to be among the craziest. When the campus police tried to remove him, he resisted...heavily. Eventually, six campus police officers were able to subdue him to the ground, yet his resistance - both verbal and physical - continued. And then, he got the taser. What followed was a lame chorus of "ouch" and "ow" that would make any adult film star look like a grammy winning actor. Of course, there were a few boos and hisses from the audience as they jeered the perceived excessive force. Later that day, several students stated that the campus police behaved inappropriately, that Meyer was a victim. And Meyer himself is now apparently seeking legal action against them. Are they forgetting that all of this was on tape?

I've watched the film many times, mainly because of Meyer's "Don't taze me, bro" protest, and partly because I feel a somewhat sick degree of joy from watching a deadbeat loser get zapped with a cattle-prod. And what I see in this film is a lamo-quasi-activist student taking advantage of John Kerry's appearance to garner himself some fame. Within hours of his zapping, there were websites going up devoted to him and his struggle with The Man. Meyer had this whole thing planned, no doubt, and it appears to have worked to his favor. He became the Rodney King of the slacking, skateboarding, Dungeons & Dragons playing, Xtreme sports watching, HALO conquering, dope-smoking couch jockeys of America; and "Dont taze me bro" has become their battle cry. I know, it's not exactly "We shall overcome", but these aren't exactly America's most outstanding citizens either. The Andrew Meyer's of the world give protestors a bad name, and their anti-establishment MO is pathetic and - judging by his girly ouchy whine - hardly enough to strike fear in those who call the shots. Rosa Parks would have called this guy a pussy.

If you ask me, excessive force is hardly the issue. In fact, I don't think enough force was used. This guy was grandstanding and they should have at least used enough force to discourage that, or make him regret doing it in the first place. If it were me, I would have turned up the voltage a bit on that taser. I would have put enough electricity through this slacker to burn the bong-resin from his brain and erase a few years from his childhood memory. Put it this way, he wouldn't have said "ouch"; at least not until the following week when his neurologic synapses finally reconnected sometime in the middle of his History 101 class. If it were me, I would have had to tell the other officers to "clear" before I hit him with the taser. The lights probably would have dimmed a bit and there may have been some spontaneous bowel evacuation. For the rest of his life he would have felt sub-consciously compelled to lay prone on the ground every time he passed a cop on the sidewalk. But that's just me, and it's probably a good thing that I'm not a cop. And, unfortunately, I probably won't get to serve on any jury in this case. But if I did, I would recommend a medal for the boys in blue who zapped this loser.

As it is, Meyer may be a hero to Generation X-Box, but he is nothing more than a hardy laugh for the rest of us. I've even bought a "Dont taze me bro" t-shirt from Dennis Miller's website. I plan to wear it whenever I go to the gym in remembrance of Andrew and his plight. Thank God for mini-cams.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University today, and it went off exactly like I thought it would. In short, it was a circus. First, the Univ President proceeds to dress down Ahmadinejad, calling him anything from evil to cruel. Then, he challenged the man on some of his provocative history, including the things I mentioned in my last post. He then closed by predicting that the Iranian leader would not answer any of the questions posed, and would provide no explanations for his ridiculous behavior. He was right. Which leads me to ask, what was the point?

I could have predicted weeks ago that Ahmadinejad would duck and dive any pertinent question, would deflect criticism and would blame (either directly or with subtlety) the West, the US, Israel and the Jews for most of the world's and the middle east's problems. That's exactly what he did today, while on his best behavior in an attempt to establish a sense of brotherhood with Americans, especially the Leftist radicals who share his hatred of America.

So this came as no surprise. The Univ president probably feels good about his harsh criticism, and I'm certain there are many who feel Ahmadinejad was made to look like a fool. Well, they're wrong. Ahmadinejad already looked like a fool, only now a major US University has granted him status and credibility as a world leader. So who looks like the fool now? What purpose was served today other than Ahmadinejad's? He came to Columbia as a terrorist dictator, and left a terrorist dictator that had been granted status and credibility by an US institution of higher learning. There are many who think today was a good day, but I disagree.

In another story, the NY Times has confessed to making a mistake with the ad and the Left wing group has agreed to pay the difference in the "discount". The paper claims it was an honest mistake, that it's looking into why it happened, and expressed regret that this will perpetuate claims that the Times is biased toward the Left. Personally, the Times seems to be sorry they got caught, not sorry they favored a radical Left PAC.

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Columbia University will soon be hosting Iranian president Ahmadinejad for a guest forum. The leader of Iran will be in America for a supposed UN conference and has already requested, and been denied, a visit to Ground Zero in Manhatten. The thought of having a terrorist visit is just not appealing to some people, but Columbia University is not among them.

There has been plenty of outrage over this, and before I voice mine...I little reminder. Columbia was also the site of another controversial forum, this one held by the Minutemen. This is a group of volunteers who have expressed their displeasure over the government's lack of enforcement of immigration policy. As a form of protest, they watch the southern border closely, and report any suspicious activity to the authorities. Some have called them vigilantes, but if this were true then we'd have to label any neighborhood watch program the same. The Minutemen came to Columbia and were greeted with a great degree of resistance. They were shouted down by protestors, driven from the stage, and basically not allowed to speak. All of this happened without the college administration or campus security lifting a finger to protect the Minutemen. This is Columbia University, a campus dominated by radicals who obviously don't believe in free speech as a universal right for all, but only as something to be granted to those who share their beliefs. It is apparent that the students of Columbia view the Constitution as something that only applies to certain people, and if you don't share in their political viewpoints then you're not covered by that document.

Now enter Mr Ahmadinejad, who requested a visit to Ground Zero and was promptly denied, and rightfully so. I wouldn't want Mussolini or Hitler visiting Pearl Harbor, just like I don't want a known terrorist visiting Ground Zero. Yet, Columbia University decided to have him as a guest. The message they want to send? Tolerance. I'm sure the Minutemen are scratching their heads about that one.

And so Ahmadinejad will be welcomed at Columbia University. This is a man who participated in the illegal invasion at the US embassy in Tehran. This is a man who knowingly supports Al Qaeda in Iraq, and aids in the deaths of US soldiers. This is a man who supports Hezbollah and their terrorist activity with Israel. This is a man who denies women basic human rights. This is a man who openly defies the UN and pursues illegal nuclear weapons. This is a man who openly advocates for the unconditional destruction of Israel, and has threatened to carry out such destruction himself. This is a man who denies the Holocaust, calling it a hoax. This is a man who threatens to push the Middle East into a nuclear war, with millions of lives lost. He is a terrorist, a killer, a genuine lunatic. And Columbia University wants to hear what he has to say.

I predict he will be allowed to speak. I don't foresee the radicals interrupting him and shouting him down as they did the Minutemen, which brings up a question. What is he doing this for? Some would say diplomacy, but people like this aren't interested in diplomacy. Some would say he is fueling an overblown ego, explaining his audacious request to visit Ground Zero. But I disagree with this. It is my theory that this man is on a recruiting mission.

I've said before that Ahmadinejad may be crazy, but he isn't stupid. He knows who his allies are. He knows where he is most likely to find help in his cause, and as the UN and EU continue to build pressure on him, he may be getting desperate for help. So I ask...How much of a step would it be for people who deny others freedom of speech to resort to more violent measures of resistance? It is my belief that the students of Columbia are one step shy of strapping on dynamite-laden vests and taking a stroll to the closest gathering of right-wing minds. Oh, I'm sure I'll be attacked for this, but I don't think it's a stretch to assume that Ahmadinejad thinks he can mold some young radical minds for his own agenda, and it's also no stretch to assume that those minds are capable of being molded. Convincing them that America is the enemy won't exactly be a daunting task. Convincing them to resort to violent measures would only be one more step.

The students of Columbia have declared their allegiance, and it's not to the US Constitution. Ahmadinejad knows who his friends are, and he plans on addressing them soon. If I were DHS, I would be keeping a close eye on these students.

Friday, September 21, 2007

Sally Field...huh?

Okay, so I've allowed plenty of time for everyone to see the highlights. Sally Field wins an Emmy, walks up to the podium, speaks in tongues for a few seconds, and then finally forces out a coherent sentence saying something like "if mothers ruled the world there would be no war". Or something like that.

As I mentioned in my last post, I think the celebrity anti-war statements are soon to fade away, to be replaced by anti-Christian statements. And Sally Field moments like this are partly to blame. In short, she basically looked like a fool. And I'm sure I'm not the only one a little tired of the celebrity acceptance/kick-Bush-in-the-ribs speech. Enough already. We all know Hollywood is against the war. We get it. Now just thank your agent and move along. But first, I must take issue with Sally over a few things.

First, if you're going to protest something, how about protesting it with distinct syllables and maybe a few words. If not, then just thank your agent and move along. Second, how about just saving the anti-war crap for a Tim Robbins/Susan Sarandon cocktail party? People tune in to see the Emmys, not half-witted efforts to sound refined and elite.

Finally, what's this about women ruling the world? Are you kidding me? I've seen how women behave towards each other at dinner parties. Women hate other women. The first time some busty blonde eyeballed another's husband it would be world war four. Gitmo detainees would be replaced by Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders. 'Terrorist' would be redefined as that woman across the street who washes her car in a white T-shirt every Saturday. I love women, and I respect the fact that they're equal to men, but I don't buy this "women would not wage war" garbage.

The fact is, Sally Field and I have something in common. We are both anti-war. In fact, I don't know a single person who is not anti-war. The difference between us is that although I hate war, I realize that war is sometimes necessary and is often what's needed in order to preserve peace. People like Sally think that war is never necessary, and there is always 'another way'. Unfortunately, that's not the reality. I wish I could live in that kind of world, a world of denial and naivety. We can dream, and have fantasies about women ruling the world, or children ruling the world or whatever. But the fact is, eventually that dream ends, and when it does there is always a Hitler, Mussolini, King George, Hussein or Ahmadinejad who doesn't share our dream and only wants to dominate the planet. The question is, what do we do with these people? Sally Field has no answer, and neither do any of these other anti-war knuckleheads who live in another reality. We all want peace, unfortunately peace comes with a steep price that has to be paid with the blood of Americans who value peace more than any other population on this planet.

So if these peace-loving celebs want to condemn someone, how about Kim Il, or Ahmadinehad, or Castro or any other lunatic who poses a threat to peace...not the Americans that fight to protect it.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Kathy Griffin: "Suck it Jesus"

This past week, celebrities have seemed to go a bit wacko (and yes, I realize that may not exactly be abnormal). It started with Kathy Griffin's Emmy acceptance speech when she poked fun at people who thank Jesus, said that Jesus had nothing to do with her award and that the award is her new god. She followed this by saying "Suck it Jesus".

Of course, the Catholic Church isn't happy about this. Griffin said that she thinks it is ridiculous how people presume that Jesus cares about who wins what award. She has a point. But, the Church still feels her comment was inappropriate and offensive. I disagree.

Jesus is my God. I worship God as a supreme being, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, with no beginning and no end. So I don't believe a being like that would be concerned or hurt when someone like Kathy Griffin says "suck it". Think about it. If a gnat told you to suck it, would you care? So I think Jesus is way above being offended by the likes of her. After all, He endured incomprehensible pain and torture at the hands of the Romans. I think He can take a D-list actress's idiotic comments. So let's not get all wound up about this.

But the Church does have one point. If Griffin had said "Suck it Muhammed", then the situation would be completely different. Her words would be plastered on every major US newspaper, on CNN and MSNBC and certainly on the BBC. There would be death threats issued from the Middle East. She would quickly become a Hollywood outcast, going from the D-list to no list. She probably would have been booed excessively. But, instead, she took a shot at Christians and Jesus. And if there is any form of bigotry acceptable in the eyes of Hollywood and the Left, it's anti-Christian speech. This, if anything, was a good career move for her. Now, she will become an instant super-celebrity among the Hollywood elites. Insulting Jesus means instant open-arms welcome into the Hollywood club. Her career has just taken a step forward. Don't be surprised if others follow suit. Soon the anti-war message du jour will be replaced by an anti-Jesus statement. It should be quite entertaining.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Another Heston "Planet of the Apes" moment

James Brolin appears last Tuesday on a New Jersey radio talk show to promote his upcoming movie. This appearance happens to be on the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 mass murder committed by Al Qaeda. One of the radio DJ's makes note of this during his conversation with Brolin who responds by saying: "Oh yeah, happy 9/11". After being politely chastised by the DJ for the obviously insensitive remark, he follows by saying "celebrate the day, right?'

For those who don't know, James Brolin is currently married to Barbara Streisand, and that alone suggests the man has poor judgment, and a far-left mentality. But for anyone, even a far-left loon, to say "happy 9/11" is beyond insane. I think this comment, even if it's a dumb foot-in-the-mouth gaffe, says a lot about how the Left lunatics view 9/11. For them, it seems to be a punchline and a reason all of us gullible righties use to justify war.

I don't need to remind Brolin of the thousands who died that day, not that he would really care. But I did feel the need to post his words on this blog. Brolin, for this alone, is clearly a man of idiotic mind. Can you imagine someone saying "happy Katrina day" or "happy Pearl Harbor day"? I don't think so.

I think Brolin owes the victims of 9/11 an apology, and if it doesn't come then we are clearly living on a planet ruled by apes.

Saturday, September 15, 2007

I watched President Bush's speech last night and for those who didn't see it, the President took the moment to outline his plan over the next year for Iraq. Basically, he told the American people that he has accepted the recommendations of General Petraeus. By Christmas, there will be 6,000 troops returning home, and by next summer the US presence will be drawn down from 20 military divisions to 15. General Petraeus feels this drawdown can be done while still maintaining an adequate level of security in Bagdad and Anbar province. Bush listened, and agrees. Kudos to the President for following the advice of his military commanders and not giving in to some knee jerk response to gain any kind of political favor.

Which brings me to the Democrats. Senator Jack Reed gave the Dem response to the President's speech. He stated, once again, that it is time for a "new direction" in Iraq, which includes a complete US withdrawal. He did not mention the military gains of the past 6 months. He did not mention the success of General Petraeus, the military members, or the troops surge. In fact, he mentioned nothing positive about what we've done in Iraq since the troop surge. He basically parroted the party line that a new direction is needed.

Frankly, I've had enough of this new direction garbage. To Bush's credit, after the '06 election, he took note of the voters' wishes and chose a new direction. Rumsfeld was replaced. Casey was replaced. And under the recommendation of his military leaders, he agreed to a troop surge with the objective of securing Bagdad and Anbar province. This was a new direction. This was a new plan, and so far it is working even though the Democrats fail to admit that. It seems to me that anything short of a complete and total retreat from Iraq will be unacceptable to the Democrats, no matter how succesful we become in Iraq. The military is succeeding in their mission, and the Democrats demand a change of course. That says a lot about their intentions.

I tip my hat to the President. He is doing what a President should do in a time of war. He is listening to his Generals, to those who know the situation and know what it takes to succeed, and he's not giving in to the easy way out no matter how low his approval rating is. That takes character. Next March, General Petraeus will appear before Congress again. We'll see what the cut and run sect has to say then.

Another tip of the hat goes to the General. This man conducted himself with esteem and character, even when the likes of Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy blatantly assaulted his integrity and his honor. This man is the commander of our troops in Iraq and a four star General with an impeccable service record, and the Senate spoke to him like a lowly Private who failed to clean the latrine properly. The lasting effects of their behavior towards him will never be known. I wonder what the troops felt when they saw their commander, the man they look up to, being treated in such a manner. How incredibly demoralizing for them. Can you imagine General Eisenhower being hauled before Congress in such a manner? But the Democrats have a vested interest in America's failure in Iraq and they really don't give a damn about troop morale. At least, that's how it seems. Yet, the General behaved as an officer and a gentleman should.

And then we see Rudy Guiliani step up and take impressive action. This man is slowly being challenged by Fred Thompson mainly because he lacks appeal to the conservative base. His pro-abortion, pro gun control, pro gay rights positions have cost him with that group. But yesterday he took out an ad with the NY Times going after Hillary for calling Petraeus a liar, and failing to condemn Moveon. This will appeal to the conservative base, and if he keeps it up he will surely win the GOP nomination, which is bad news for Hillary. If there's anyone who can rip Hillary to shreds in a debate, it's Guiliani.

So I applaud Rudy. I applaud President Bush, and I most definitely applaud General Petraeus. The Democrats have made a huge mistake in this matter, and considering the amount of money Moveon contributes to the party, it would appear as though they are backed into a deep corner. In my mind, they're getting what they deserve.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

In a December 9th e-mail signed by “Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,” the Soros front group stated: “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.”

This goes a long way in explaining why the Democrats have not condemned Moveon for their accusation that General Petraeus is a traitor. Last night, the Dems held yet another debate via the internet. Not one candidate condemned Moveon's actions. Tonight, John Edwards has bought ad time on MSNBC (at a discount perhaps), and I'm virtually going to guarantee that he will attack Bush ruthlessly, but will not say a word about Moveon's accusation. The same goes for whomever gives the Dem response to Bush's speech tonight.

The New York Post is reporting that the New York Times sold Moveon the ad in question at a 50% discount. Why? There has yet to be an explanation from the Times. However, Rudy Guiliani has already requested an equal-sized ad in the Times at the same rate. The Times hasn't responded yet.

General Petraeus has accomplished some remarkable things in Iraq, from a military standpoint. He should be congratulated. He should be welcomed as a hero. Instead, Hillary calls him a liar, and a major Democrat party contributor calls him a traitor. How shameful. But nearly as shameful as the Democrat leaders' failure to quickly condemn what these people did. No doubt because Moveon "owns" that party. They bought it free and clear.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Abdullah Mullah shuddered as he thought back to the early 1990s. In his sprawling neighborhood, the center of Egypt's radical Islamist movement, his wife was beaten on the street for wearing jeans and he was visited by thugs "concerned" about his irregular mosque attendance.

Imbaba was a place the police feared and the militants ruled. Neighborhoods like this, teaming with devout Muslims, may have been considered fertile ground for Al Qaeda's goal of building a global movement. But six years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden's group appears to have attracted few loyal followers here. In fact, the militants who once reigned in Imbaba are all but invisible.
What has happened in Egypt represents an overlooked success story in much of the Arab world. While Muslim anger toward the US and its Arab allies has soared in the post-9/11 war on terrorism, and the Iraq war has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, there is little chance militant Islamists can seize power power in any of the region's established states.

But this has come at a price. The Egyptian story is one of how an effective, often brutal, security establishment has pushed militant Islamists to the fringes. Today, Egypt has as firm a grip on Imbaba as it does on the rest of the country. Political Islam, however, still has great appeal for millions of Egyptians, but most of them are attracted to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that repudiated violence decades ago. Indeed, there are exceptions to the clout that militant Islamists hold within large segments of Arab society. Hamas, the Palestinian group which now controls the Gaza Strip, is considered a terrorist outfit by the US, Israel, and the European Union. But its political platform is far from Al Qaeda's. It uses violence to extract land from Israel, not in the service of establishing an Islamic caliphate, a key Al Qaeda aim.
In Egypt, the hard line from the state in dealing with radical groups also comes with a growing Arab revulsion of Al Qaeda's indiscriminate violence and thuggish behavior.

"These groups have of course been around for a long time. But what people discovered with them is that they're incredibly rough and rigidly ideological," says Diaa Rashwan, an expert on political Islam at the Al Ahram Center for Strategic and International Studies in Cairo. "Their methods weren't about winning people over, being with them, but imposing upon them. No people in the world like that." Full story....

It's good to hear some positives coming from the Middle East. That's why I'll post it whenever I come across something like this.
It has been six years since the 9/11 massacre, and America's awakening to the war that has been waged against us for decades. Since then, we have struck back and have engaged the enemy on several fronts in an attempt to rid this planet of their hate-filled doctrine, in what many (including myself) consider to be world war III. Here is my assessment:

First, while we remember those who died, Osama Bin Laden issues another video. This one is dedicated to the last will & testament of one of the highjackers responsible for the mass murder on that day. He may as well have urinated on the graves of those killed. The fact that this sub-human piece of s#$% is still alive is a testament to some of our shortcomings in the fight, but like I've said he is hardly the war on terror. The fight will go on with or without him. We may kill him tomorrow, and will still have lots of work to do, so I don't want to focus too much on one man. There is a special place in hell for him, and I for one will rejoice the day satan jams a pitch-fork in his hind quarters. He will get his, one way or another. But our response to this video says much about the state of the war. Moveon dot org recently called General Petraeus a traitor, but they mentioned nothing about Bin Laden's video, or its carefully timed release. I wonder who this organization is more upset with?

And speaking of the lunatic Left, these people - led by the Moveon crowd - have slandered a highly decorated military officer, and did so with absolutely no proof supporting their character assasination. It was disgusting behavior, but not nearly as disgusting as the Party's reaction. Not one Democrat candidate or party leader has condemned Moveon and the radical Left for their behavior towards Petraeus. NOT ONE! Could that be because Moveon represents a large chunk of the Dem voting base? Could that be because these leaders don't want to anger the radicals for that very reason? Knowing the right thing to do but failing to do that right thing out of fear of bad consequences is called cowardice. I think that's a fitting description here. These people want us to trust them in our fight against Islamofascism, yet they don't have the guts to stand up to their party's own radical nuts. Not even the folks on this very site who tend to lean Left have condemned Moveon's actions. How pathetic.

Despite the lack of fortitude from one of the two major parties, we have made progress in this fight. Yes, some mistakes were made, never has there been a mistake-free military campaign. But it appears as though we are on the right track, and Iraq is the front-line. Don't anyone out there kid themselves. Iraq is THE forefront in the war on terror. There isn't a single Islamic jihadist who would disagree with that. I think it even surpasses Israel in importance to them.

In Iraq, we are fighting a guerrila war. To win a guerrila war, you have to turn the people against the guerrilas. You do that by giving the people a reason to hate them. You give the people, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Give them security, and soon they see the guerrilas as a threat to that security. And you don't try to do this one nation at a time, you do it one segment of that nation at a time. Ask any military strategist how to win against a guerrila enemy, and they will tell you the same thing. THAT's what we are currently doing in Iraq. The people of Bagdad have been given freedom, and now they are being given security. Next, they will reject the guerrilas that threaten what they've been given. That will slowly spread to the rest of the country until the guerrilas have nowhere to go. Iraq becomes free and secure. Its neighbors soon follow, and then an entire region has rejected the fascists. That's how you defeat the doctrine of hate.

We are engaged against an ideology that teaches totalitarianism, and history has taught us that humans will reject totalitarianism if given the chance. But the people must be given the alternative. Give them that alternative, and those that threaten it will soon be defeated. We're on the right path in Iraq. It starts with Bagdad, and Petraeus seems to be succeeding, although many are calling him a traitor for it.

Can we win this war? Of course we can. But the question is, can we win when so many in this country are actively working against our troops and our efforts on the ground? I don't know. This seems to be unprecedented. I do know that success in Iraq is critical. It is the Gettysburg of our fight.

The Left must have a US defeat in Iraq. Anything else would be a political disaster for them. And if we are defeated in Iraq, then achieving success in the global war on terror will be impossible. We will be unable to rid this planet of the radicals who only wish to convert or kill. Iraq is key in this fight, without victory there, we cannot win elsewhere.

Remember that at the polls each November.

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can't be trusted. "The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq. "We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report." FULL STORY

I don't think it's necessary to remind my readers, but I will anyway. General David Petraeus is a four star general, career military man, with an impeccable service record and a long history of great success in his career. He is a man of integrity, and (for those who don't know) questioning the integrity of a service member is not taken lightly. That is exactly what these Democrat "leaders" are doing. General Petraeus has not even issued his report, and already these people are trying to paint him as a puppet for the President. Personally, I think it's disgusting behavior and I would like to see a formal apology from each of them. Petraeus has done nothing to bring into question his integrity. At the very least, I would expect our Congressional leaders to respect that. But, apparently, that's asking too much.

I've said before, US failure in Iraq is crucial for the Democrats. If we succeed, their hopes for '08 are sunk. It will take years for them to recover after all of their anti-war "we've lost" rhetoric. They know it, and so do all of us. Responsible congressional leaders would refrain from commenting on this until the report was issued, and then would be careful not to assault the integrity of a highly decorated Army General. But the Dems have far too much at stake here. They're pulling out all the stops, and I can only hope the American people see this for what it politics.

But they 'support the troops' right? Of course they do, that is until the troops actually start showing progress, then they become Bush's puppets. These people don't want to hear that we may be succeeding in Iraq, and they certainly don't want the American people to hear it. Hillary Clinton is already measuring for White House drapes. A drastic turnaround in Iraq would be a huge wrench in those plans.

Of course, the Dems can't openly advocate for US failure in Iraq. No, that would be an even bigger disaster. So they find themselves in a tough spot. US success in Iraq would be a catastrophe for them, yet they can't openly undermine our war effort. So what do they do? Simple. They undermine the war in a more subtle manner, an example of this would be attacking the credibility of a fine US military leader who deserves nothing but the utmost respect. This appears to be the Dem strategy, so if any good news comes out of Iraq they will surely be quick to hang their negative spin on it. Which is fine...that's politics. But assualting the integrity of General Petraeus? It seems that nothing is beneath today's Democrat party.
"I've been in elected office longer than John Edwards or Hillary Clinton," said Obama. "I've passed more bills I'm sure than either of them --certainly in the state legislative level."

This was Barak Obama's response to a recent question dealing, of course, with his perceived lack of experience. Obama has been a victim of today's "gotcha" political climate. He's made a few simple blunders and those blunders have made their rounds in newspapers, television and the blogosphere. I personally think it's not fair, but that's how politics is nowadays. Obama isn't the only one victimized by this. There will be more.

But, if I were advising Mr Obama I'd tell him to take a different approach. Instead of defending his "lack of experience", I'd recommend he relish in it. After all, Obama is running as a common man type of candidate. In my book, not having experience in politics is a plus. I'm sure I am not alone. Politicians have made a mess of things over the past several decades. So if I were a candidate and someone accused me of not having experience as a politician, I'd wear that one with pride. The last thing we need is "experienced" politicians, and listening to them argue over who has passed more legislation or worked longer in politics is boring and quite off-putting. How about we let common citizens run things for a change? The candidate who embraces that concept will see his campaign take off.

Make no mistake, I am not endorsing Obama. There is very little the two of us agree on and I think he is way off in this war on terror thing (not to mention his plan for health care, totally disastrous). But I do like the notion of Obama perhaps not having experience as a politician. I count that as an asset. So, Senator, I recommend you own it. Let the other guys thump their chests about being experienced politicians. You may be surprised at the response you get.

Monday, September 03, 2007

Thanks to Chuck for the feed. President Bush recently unveiled his plan to help homeowners in this time of increased foreclosures and mortgage defaults. Bush wants to see the FHA play a role in helping people refinance their homes at lower rates to keep them from defaulting. Of course, the FHA is a government program, funded by taxpayer dollars. The people in question originally financed their homes with adjustable rate mortgages, that when matured converted to a much higher interest rate...such is the risk of the ARM. You get a lower rate, but it's a dice roll. Now, President Bush feels it's the government's job to bail out those who rolled the dice.

Bush’s proposals unveiled Friday are designed to help combat those defaults. They would make it easier for borrowers now holding adjustable rate mortgages that are resetting to higher monthly payments to refinance those loans using the resources of the Federal Housing Administration. The FHA is a Depression-era agency created to help low and moderate-income Americans afford homes....Bush’s proposals follow a number of measures already introduced in Congress to deal with the mortgage lending crisis. Many Democrats said while they welcomed Bush’s ideas, they felt they did not go far enough and should be modified to help more people....Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he believed Bush’s announcement Friday represented a major ideological shift for the administration, which has generally favored free-market solutions to problems rather than increased government involvement. “The president has gotten out of his ideological straitjacket and seen that in times of crisis, one of the jobs of government is to help,” Schumer told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.....FULL STORY

Chuck Schumer's definition of help is rather loose. Remember, the people in question basically made bad financial decisions. Everyone knows the risk of an ARM mortgage. But Schumer and, apparently, President Bush feels it is now the government's job to grant these people a reprieve, at taxpayer cost. No longer are we responsible for our own financial decisions. No longer do we have to take into account financial risk. Big brother government will bail us out.

And this is life in a "free market".