Senator Dodd, this past Sunday, criticized the Secretary of
Defense for saying Senate resolutions opposing the troop
building in Iraq were undermining the war effort. Dodd
has this to say:
"I voted
to confirm (Gates)," Dodd said. "But that's a very dangerous
thing to be suggesting that the United States Congress has no
business suggesting an alternative here, or recommending a
course of action different from the president of the United
States. For us not to do that would be the height of
irresponsibility if that was the feeling in Congress."
Senator, Secretary Gates didn't say the Senate didn't have the
right to pass this resolution, he simply said in a polite way
that it gave aid and comfort to our enemies and increased the
dangers to our troops on the ground. Like me, Gates
probably wants you and your fellow Democrats to make fools of
themselves, but the problems is that when you make fools of
yourselves you embarrass your country, just like John
Kerry did the other day. Not that you and your fellow
Democrats seem to care about that.
Here is Dodd's great solution to the Iraq problem:
odd, one of several Democrats seeking the party's 2008
nomination for president, said he believes that the problems in
Iraq will not be solved by the military.
"If you're looking for stability there, I think there's a
possibility that you can get that," Dodd said. "But you're
going to have to engage diplomatically, the Syrians, probably
the Iranians as well."
Satan would
like to know, "what in the hell is the left's obsession with
'talking' to non-democratic countries?" More than likely,
it has the benefit that it looks like you are doing something,
but you expend minimal effort.
Satan would like to point
out that negotiations are only successful when conducted
between two or more democratic nations. Apparently, Satan
needs to point out to Senator Dodd, the results of negotiations
with authoritarian regime like Syria and Iran from year
past:
-the Berlin
Airlift. The U.S. tried to negotiate with the Soviets
over the status of West Berlin, but it took the airlift and the
threat of military action to come to an understanding.
-the
Cuban missile crisis. Were Soviet missiles
removed from Cuba due to diplomacy? Of course not, it
took the blockade and threatened military action to make the
Soviets remove the missiles.
-the START
talks. The Soviets came to the table only after President
Reagan invested and deployed Trident II, Minute Men, and
Pershing II missiles.
Senator Dodd
fails to understand that Iran and Syria do not respect
weakness. If the Senate passes resolution after
resolution undermining the Iraq war effort, exactly what
leverage would the U.S. have in negotiations with these two
authoritarian regimes? And without military pressure
brought to bear on Iranian and Syrian interference in Iraq,
what else would persuade them to help the U.S. impose order in
Iraq? Their good intentions?
Update:
Tigerhawk has an interesting theory that all the left's
defeatism might be helping Bush deal with Iran.
Or New Resources
for The Virtuous Republic Readers
For the news junkies out there, the Virtuous Republic has added
two new features. To make The Virtuous Republic
more of a one stop place to visit, I've added two new
features.
First, I have set up a separate page dedicated to
listing Reuters daily headlines for three topics:
U.S. general news, international news, and U.S. politics.
You can access that link in the right-hand column under
"Daily News from Reuters." Here is the direct link
if you want to check it out. You can scan the headlines
and then click on the links which leads to the entire story.
Second, I've added streaming video from Reuters. You can
watch the top 15 daily stories here. Once again, you can
find the link in the right hand column, under "Daily News from
Reuters." The direct link is here.
Also, I'd like to point out two other resources available at
The Virtuous Republic. In the left hand column, headlines
from the Jerusalem Post and the United Press are
provided. Simply click on the headline that interests you
and you will taken to the full story.
Today, Venezuela's
Congress gave Hugo Chavez unlimited powers for 18
months. Here is the heart of Chavez's new powers:
The law also allows Chavez to dictate unspecified measures to
transform state institutions; reform banking, tax, insurance
and financial regulations; decide on security and defense
matters such as gun regulations and military organization; and
"adapt" legislation to ensure "the equal distribution of
wealth" as part of a new "social and economic model."
Chavez plans to reorganize regional territories and carry out
reforms aimed at bringing "power to the people" through
thousands of newly formed Communal Councils, in which
Venezuelans will have a say on spending an increasing flow of
state money on neighborhood projects from public housing to
road repaving.
This time, the law will give Chavez a free hand to bring under
state control some oil and natural gas projects that are still
run by private companies — the latest in a series of
nationalist energy policies in Venezuela, a top oil supplier to
the United States and home to South America's largest gas
reserves.
Chavez has said oil companies upgrading heavy oil in the
Orinoco River basin — British Petroleum PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp.,
Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Total SA and Statoil ASA —
must submit to state-controlled joint ventures, as companies
have already done elsewhere in the country.
The law gives Chavez the authority to intervene and "regulate"
the transition to joint ventures if companies do not adapt to
the new framework within an unspecified "peremptory period."
Chavez
basically got everything he needed from his Congress to
establish a Communist dictatorship. Besides the power to
nationalize industry, did you notice he was given the right to
"reorganize the military" and the ability to "reorganize
regional territories?" The importance of these two powers
for profound. Regarding the military, he now has the
ability to remove commanders who might challenge him and
of course appoint generals who support him and his
policies. The ability to reorganize Venezuela's states is
also vitally important to Chavez's grasp on power. He can
now remove local leaders who are members of the
opposition.
More than
likely, say in a few months, as Chavez consolidates power, he
will probably start to repress speech and press rights and
opposition parties will be outlawed. Combine Chavez's
rise to power with the election of leftists in Ecuador,
Bolivia, and Nicaragua, and the penchant of communist leaders
to export their revolution to their neighbors, the Middle East
might have to be put on the back burner while the U.S. takes
care of its interests closer to home.
The supporters of left-leaning Ecuadorian President Correa
forced
Ecuador's Congress to flee. The Congress, ruled by
the elected opposition party, is looking at constitutional
reform legislation submitted by the Correa government.
Unfortunately, Correa and his party has seemingly taken a cue
from Chavez's communist playbook, and has started to use "the
angry mob" to intimidate opposition parties.
Crowds of protesters demanding support for leftist President
Rafael Correa's constitutional reforms stormed Ecuador's
opposition-controlled Congress on Tuesday and forced lawmakers
to evacuate.
Police fired tear gas at the protesters, who wielded sticks and
bottles as they entered the 100-member Congress. They briefly
penetrated the building before being removed by police.
Television images showed police escorting lawmakers out as
demonstrators, some clad in the bright green shirts of Correa's
movement, rallied outside.
If you have
any doubt as the political leanings of Correa and his
followers,
watch this video and count the communist inspired
shirts.
Satan, in this
post, noted the disconnect between the "green" image
portrayed by John Edwards and the great big, huge, some might
call it a mansion, house he is having built.
Now, don't get Satan wrong, he doesn't begrudge the great
family wealth of the Edwards. He doesn't even mind that
they are building such a large house. What does bother
Satan is that the Edwards are promoting a green agenda, yet at
the same time building a extravagant house.
Mrs. Edwards, in her blog,
tries to make the case that her 10,000 sq. ft. main house and
16,000 sq.ft. recreational barn and the 2000 sq. ft. connecting
hall are energy efficient:
We built
a highly energy efficient house. In fact, our home is
Energy-Star rated. Energy Star is an EPA regulated designation
for homes that are at least 30 percent more efficient than the
national Model Energy Code.In
building we made sure we had effective insulation in floors,
walls, and attics. We chose efficient heating and cooling
equipment and high-performance windows.Our
builder paid close attention to making sure the construction
was tight to seal out drafts and moisture. The day the
independent inspector came to evaluate the house, we were on
pins and needles while he tested our home's energy
performance.As he
packed his equipment, he gave us the good news: we are an
Energy-Star home!
Satan would definitely like to make a point here. The
average American home is roughly 2,350
square feet. The main building at the Edwards estate is
10,000 square feet. Satan doesn't care how energy
efficient the home is, it is still going to use more energy
than does the average American home just because of its sheer
size.
Satan readily noted that Mrs. Edwards failed to mention the
size of her home in the post. Once again, we in Hell find
it ironic, that a Democrat, and a man of the people has a home
that is four times larger than the average American home and
whose connecting hallway to the recreational barn is a large as
that same average American home.
Really, do you think a man who owns a 28,000 sq. ft. home has
anything in common with you?
Or Chavez to
Create the Greatest, Freest Society Ever
In this
article, written by Ian James for the Associated Press, the
first paragraph sets the tone.
"Hugo
Chavez has just about everything a president could want:
popular support, a marginalized opposition, congress firmly on
his side and a booming economy as he starts his new six-year
term."
Since when does a 17% inflation
rate indicate a "booming" economy?
In the next couple of paragraphs, Mr. James can't seem to bring
himself to describe Chavez in anything but glowing terms.
Now, he's about to become even more powerful — the all-Chavista
National Assembly is poised to approve a "mother law" as early
as Wednesday enabling him to remake society by presidential
decree. In its latest draft, the law would allow Chavez to
dictate measures for 18 months in 11 broad areas, from the
"economic and social sphere" to the "transformation of state
institutions."
Any leader
who has unlimited power for 18 months is called a
dictator. But apparently, since Chavez is from the left
side of the political spectrum, that isn't important.
Chavez calls it a new era of "maximum revolution," setting the
tone for months of upheaval as he plans to nationalize
companies, impose new taxes on the rich and reorient schools to
teach socialist values. With near-religious fervor and plenty
of oil wealth, Chavez is mobilizing millions of Venezuelans,
intent on creating a more egalitarian society.
Notice how Mr.
Smith fails to mention that Chavez is not going to compensate
companies for their true value when they are nationalized?
Next, Mr. Smith nonchalantly writes that Chavez is going to
"reorient schools to teach socialist values." Doesn't that
remind you of communist indoctrination as practiced by the Soviets
and the Chinese? And finally, he makes Chavez out to be a
saint by saying the goal is to create a "more egalitarian
society." Mr. Smith fails to note more than likely, what will
happen is that the rich will be decimated, the poor will be
slightly better off, and the party faithful will benefit the
most.
Already, profound changes can be seen throughout Venezuela.
Those who felt left out of the old system are thrilled at the
prospect of having a voice in politics. Others are horrified,
predicting that doors will close on their personal freedoms
under one-man rule, although exactly what Chavez will do with
his power remains unclear.
"Although
exactly what Chavez will do with his power remains
unclear." Okay, so let me get this straight, he has
bullied the opposition, he has nationalized industry, he has
made alliances with Iran and Cuba, and has assumed dictatorial
powers, but his intentions remain unclear?
Even when he
begins to write that things may not be all right in this
"garden of Eden", he just can't come out and say it.
Outside the Spanish Embassy, dozens line up with documents in
hand. Many plan trips for tourism or study, but Henry Krakower
is thinking darker thoughts. He wants a passport for his
10-year-old son in case they need to leave for good.
"I don't really know what all the coming changes are, but I
don't think it's the best idea to give all the power to a
single person for him to decide on my behalf," says Krakower,
the son of a Polish concentration camp survivor who found a
haven in Venezuela after World War II.
Government officials insist there will be total freedom of
religion and speech and that private property will be safe, but
the Krakowers aren't so sure. Listening for clues to what lies
ahead, they worry about economic restrictions and ideology in
education. At their son's private Jewish school, some parents
are talking about how and when to leave the country.
"I think the president is going to do what he wants to do,
because he will have all the power to decide on all things,"
Krakower says. "I think we're headed toward totalitarianism."
Even though
he interviews Krakower and airs his skepticism, notice how he
writes, "Government officials insist that there will be
total freedom of religion and speech and that private property
will be safe...." Mr. Smith, how long before a man who is
modeling his country on the communist model, decides that
religion and speech threatens "his" revolution? Have you
ever know a communist nation to allow free speech or freedom of
religion?
If this is
what passes for "objective" journalism, we'll pass.
Why is it that leftists like Castro or Chavez are
romanticized? He wants to be a communist, modeled on Mao,
Lenin, and Stalin, yet from this article, it sounds almost as
if Mr. Smith believes that Chavez will redistribute wealth
equally and that the Venezuelan economy will continue to steady
grow, despite nationalization, high taxes, and increasing
government micromanaging.
Today, several thousand anti-war protesters showed
their disloyalty to America. Disloyalty you snort!
I can just hear it, "Why they are just exercising their free
speech rights." Well, so am I and I am stating that you
hate your country and want to see it embarrassed and humiliated
out of some narcissistic need to pay a penitence "to
all the little brown people" that America has oppressed over
the years.
Jane Fonda:
"Thank you so much for the courage to stand up to this
mean-spirited and vengeful administration."
Machiavelli: Dear
Ms. Fonda, exactly what level of courage does it take to gather
at the Mall in the freest nation on earth? Would that
courage be at the same level as that of the Chinese students
who protested at Tiananmen Square in 1989? Just
wondering.
The "vengeful" administration quote has me confused? Has
the FBI arrested you because you oppose the war? Has Bush
used the IRS to harass anti-war protesters? Did the
Capitol police turn the water cannons on you? Did Dick
Cheney take you quail hunting?
Now, I think I know why you said these things. In the
collective mind of the left, the U.S. is just like China,
the Soviet Union, or North Korea. In your conspiracy
clouded mind, you can just imagine George Bush sending in the
FBI to take you to a secret torture prison for "daring" to
oppose his almighty will. Never mind this really doesn't
happen, but because you think it is true, it is.
12 year old
girl: At the rally, 12-year-old Moriah Arnold
stood on her toes to reach the microphone and tell the crowd:
"Now we know our leaders either lied to us or hid the truth.
Because of our actions, the rest of the world sees us as a
bully and a liar."
Machiavelli:
Well, that has me convinced, bring the troops back home.
First, 12 year olds don't have informed political opinions and
second, a good mom and dad would be embarrassed by letting
their child spew this nonsense. But, it does reinforce my
belief that this is what the left thinks of their
country. It is a "bully and a liar." The left
teaches their children to be disloyal, to be unthinking
advocates for national destruction, and to have a warped view
of the world.
Sean Penn: "If
they don't stand up and make a resolution as binding as the
death toll, we're not going to be behind those politicians."
Machiavelli: I'm
thrilled to hear this. The Democratic Party pandered to
the disloyal left and now they have to please them. Just
passing a non-binding measure of disloyalty is not going
to please their base. No, the Democrats are going to have
to be completely disloyal and un-American if they want to
keep their majority in Congress. This pleases me to no
end.
Also, do you notice how the left is so concerned about the
death toll? In four years, we've lost 3,000
soldiers. For those soldiers and families, they have paid
a dear price. But from a nation of 300 million people,
that falls short of any great collective sacrifice. The
country losses more people to murder every year, the country
losses more people to auto accidents every year, yet the left
acts like 3,000 people is bleeding this nation dry. The
problem with the left, they are unwilling to accept any
sacrifice for a country that they despise.
Jesse
Jackson: ``We need new priorities and new
directions,'' civil rights leader Jesse Jackson said, his
speech broken by loud cheers and applause. ``We do not need
more troops in Iraq, we need more dollars at home.''
Machiavelli: More
dollars at home for more police on the street? More money
to finance drilling for oil in Alaska and off the coasts of
Florida and California? More money to build more jails to
keep criminals away from law-abiding citizens? More money
for building roads? More money to build a fence to keep
illegal and criminal aliens out of our country? I didn't
think so.
How can we as a nation, not come to the conclusion that the
left doesn't hate this nation? They tell us everyday that
the U.S. is like China, the Soviet Union, or worse. When
you stop calling for our national defeat, I'll stop calling you
disloyal and unpatriotic. Michelle,
LGF, and GatewayPundit all have
different takes on today's mass gathering of the unpatriotic.
Why does the left think it is fashionable to be un-American
when abroad? Of course John Kerry, couldn't resist
bashing his country today at the economic forum in
Davos, Switzerland. You can hear it for yourself at
Hot Air.
John Kerry simply says out loud what the left really thinks:
“When we
walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly
slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don’t advance and
live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible
message of duplicity and hypocrisy,” Kerry said. “So we have a
crisis of confidence in the Middle East _ in the world, really.
I’ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of
international pariah for a number of reasons as it is
today.”
On Kyoto, I guess
Kerry didn't remember this little
nugget:
On July
25th, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although
it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was
finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote
the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[40] which stated the
sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a
signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets
and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations
or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United
States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore
symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph
Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon
in the Senate until there was participation by the developing
nations.[41] The Clinton Administration never submitted the
protocol to the Senate for ratification.
Even Bill Clinton thought Kyoto was bad for business. How
about them emissions?
On aids, the Bush
Administration was already doing something in 2003 and
has actually poured more aid money into Africa than
expected, in fact he has tripled it and he has mentioned
fighting aids in Africa twice as a
national priority. So apparently, when you are a
leftist and hate your own nation, lying is okay. To my
leftist readers that would be "misrepresenting the truth."
On calling the U.S. an
international pariah, this is simply the typical leftist
looking for approval from our enemies and critics.
I'd like to ask Mr. Kerry a couple of questions. So far
in Iraq, the U.S. has allowed the Iraqis to freely form their
own government based on their own homegrown constitution.
Do you consider this act of American terrorism as bad as North
Korea starving its people so that it can build nuclear bombs?
Do you consider our occupation of Iraq worse than the fact that
Saudi Arabia does not allow freedom of religion and treats
women a property?
Do you consider our Iraqi policy worse than Iran's treatment of
its ethnic minorities or of its support of
terrorism against Lebanon and Israel?
So Mr. Kerry, let me get this right, you consider America a
pariah nation because we set the Iraqis free and allowed them
to set up a government of their own choice, as flawed as it
might be?
One last quote from the un-American Senator from Massachusetts:
Kerry
criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans
to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.”
Okay Senator, fair enough, let's look at the world through the
lenses of other cultures:
French lense: Hate
Israel, supply friend and foe alike with arms, hate the Jews,
make business deals with all manner of authoritarian regimes,
even if it hurts the interests of the West and surrender and
retreat. Hate the American pigs.
Iranian lense: Hate the
Jews and the Americans. Talk about nuclear holocaust as a
tool of foreign policy. Also, hate the infidel.
Saudi
Arabian lense: Hate the Jews, cover the
women, hide the women, discriminate against the women, forbid
all other religions. Tell the American pigs we like them,
infidels!
If those are lenses through which you and your party look, that
explains the self-loathing and hatred of America. Too bad
you can't just once look at the world as an American, where
liberty, freedom, free markets, and individual freedom are the
benchmarks by which we act.
My question to the left and John Kerry is this, what is your
plan for Iraq and elsewhere? I mean you obviously oppose
democracy, free elections, and individual rights? You want to
approach the world from a different angle, right? So what
exactly do you propose? How should we engage the
world? Should we spread Islam? Should we oppress
women everywhere? Should we exterminate ethnic
minorities? Should we suppress freedom of speech and
religion? Because that is what you have to do, if you do
not approach the world from an American point of view.
John Edwards, Democrat, is running for President of the United
States of America. Now Satan, being somewhat of a sadist,
listened to Hillary's Conversation with America on
Wednesday and was perusing Edwards' "For President" website
today. Actually, I was just looking for ways to
torture the newest minions of Hell. Coincidentally, Satan
also came across this article today, which describes Edwards new house.
Now Satan's understanding of "who" the Democrats are, pretty
much assumes they are supposed to be for the little guy.
So how does a Democrat like Edwards, who is building a 28,000
square foot home, (the main house is a paltry 10,000
sq.ft., while the recreational barn is 16,000 sq.ft. and the
hall that connects the two is 2,000 sq.ft.) claim to have
ANYTHING in common with the "little" guy? The property is
valued at over six million dollars. Maybe he will hire some of
the common-folk to clean his mansion.
Not only does Satan feel that this shows that Edwards is out
of touch with middle America, the hypocrisy gets
worse. Now in his day, Satan has coached many great
people to say one thing, but do another, but the master is
taking notes on this one. If you go to Edwards home page,
you will find he is calling for a National Day of Energy
Action.
If you click on that picture you are sent this page, which gives
you "tips" on how to help fight global warming and save
energy. Here are John's energy saving tips:
1. Sign The Pledge
* Be Patriotic -- Pledge to do everything you can
to conserve energy and fight global warming starting right now
2. Reduce Your Energy Footprint at Home and at Work
* Replace your most frequently used light bulbs
with compact fluorescent and other energy efficient bulbs
* Weatherize your home by caulking and weather
stripping your doorways and windows
* Fix leaky faucets and toilets
* Unplug electronics when not in use, including
televisions, stereos and computers, which consume electricity
even when in "sleep" mode
* Only run your dishwasher and washing machine
with a full load
* Adjust your thermostat down a couple of degrees
* Install a low-flow shower head and take shorter
showers
* Keep your water heater thermostat no higher
than 120 degrees
If Satan
might be so bold, he'd like to add something to this
list. You can further save energy by NOT BUILDING a
28,000 square foot home. Does Satan see solar panels on
this house? Does Satan bet it has a several bathrooms and
a hot tub? Does Satan think Edwards is a hypocrite?
If he wants to stop global warming, then why did he cut
down a bunch of air scrubbing trees to build a 28,000 square
feet of house that will cost more to heat and cool a year than
what most of those who will vote for Edwards make in a
year.
Satan
thought this was Edwards greatest feat of speciousness, but we
happened to read a little further. Edwards asks his
followers to be patriotic by saving energy and fighting global
warming. He is willing to fight global warming, but
Satan is speechless at seeing this on his website:
John
Edwards, Democrat, wants you to be patriotic and fight global
warming, but he backs stopping the funding necessary for
victory in Iraq. So let Satan get this straight, global
warming is a threat to the Republic, but Islamic terrorists
aren't? Send Satan a telegram if he has that wrong.
All Satan has to say on global warming is that we have global
warming in Hell and it isn't caused by greenhouse gases.
Can I
question Edwards on his patriotism now? Satan thinks that
anyone who would undermine our war effort and declare that
global warming is our nation's enemy surely despises the United
States of America. Why do Democrats want the U.S. to lose
in Iraq? Why do Democrats, like Edwards want American
prestige and power to be damaged? Why do Democrats like
Edwards want to embolden our enemies? The answer is
obvious, because they believe they can be patriotic about such
things as global warming, but if it involves duty, honor, and
country, that is asking too much. Maybe Edwards read this
article and believes that
global warming causes terrorism?
Can Satan
call Edwards a hypocrite? Satan knows that anyone who
calls on his fellow Americans to change light bulbs, take cold
showers, and lower the thermostat, yet at the same time builds
a palatial estate that will use more power than 10 average
American homes is a demagogue. And if you think Satan is
reaching when he calls leftists like Edwards un-American, you
need to read this article at Wizbang.
Or Palestinians Produce
Violence, but Can't Sell It
Before the economic summit held in Davos, Switzerland,
Palestinian
President Abbas stated that 79% of Gazans lived in
poverty. The most surprising and unexpected revelation by
Abbas was that it was caused by those pesky Jews.
The Palestinians can blame Israel for their problems, but when
you have repeatedly rejected statehood over the years and
instead squander all your limited resources on violence, then
one might expect that your people live in poverty.
Let's look at Palestinian education. The main course,
from kindergarten through high school seems to be
violence. Violence is everything. Hatred for the
Jews is a way of life. The Palestinians worship hatred
and jihad against Israel is the meaning of life. The
national energy is expended against an enemy they can't
defeat. As a result, there are no roads being built,
there are no power plants erected, there are no businesses
being created. Even 60 years after the creation of
Israel, Palestinians still live in "refuge" camps.
What does the Palestinian authority export? Rockets and
suicide bombers. Apparently, though, the Palestinian
Department of Labor considers Israel retaliation as part of the
national GDP.
What does Palestine need to become a viable state? Let's
do away with the idea that democracy and Islam are compatible
in any form. Who did the Palestinians vote in?
Hamas. The Palestinian people voted for a group that was
guaranteed to anger and agitate Israel and make the West Bank
and Gaza even poorer. No, what the Palestinians need is a
benevolent, secular dictator.
The ideal Palestinian strongman would do the following:
-make peace with Israel and declare
Palestinian independence.
-outlaw all radical Islamic political
parties.
-suppress the fundamentalist Islamic
message being from being spread in the mosques.
-disarm all militia groups.
-create a strong national army and police
force.
-stabilize Palestine and attract foreign
investment and renewed trade with Israel.
Unless the Palestinians take these steps, they will never
achieve nationhood and their lands will remain in constant
turmoil and utter poverty.
Technorati Tags Palestinians
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Senator
Webb: I’m Senator Jim Webb, from
Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th
anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown – an event that
marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the
greatest and most prosperous nation on
earth.
Satan's response:
Senator, what exactly made our nation great?
Socialism? Giving up the fight when things get tough?
Senator
Webb: It would not be possible in
this short amount of time to actually rebut the President’s
message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in
the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious
about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and
addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality
of New Orleans.
Satan's
response: We would "rebut" the President's
message, if we had a plan. Education, Senator, is a state
and local matter, constitutionally speaking. In terms of
healthcare, you did listen to Bush's speech, right? What
is the President supposed to do about New Orleans? The
people reelected a worthless mayor, who couldn't even start up
the busses to evacuate his citizens in the first place.
What would you have the President do, federalize New
Orleans? Because that is the only way you could end the
incompetence and corruption that is sinking the city.
Remember, Satan knows vice...
Senator
Webb: When one looks at the health
of our economy, it’s almost as if we are living in two
different countries. Some say that things have never been
better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are
corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly
shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate
CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it’s
nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker
more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes
in one day.
Satan's response:
On this point, Satan agrees with Webb. America, to an
extent, has returned to what Richard Hofstadter referred to as
the "Gilded Age." The fired CEO of Home Depot was
recently given $210 million dollars to leave. It is funny
how companies can afford to spend $210 million on an
incompetent CEO, but they nickel and dime their regular
employees death. There certainly is an issue of morality
regarding corporate pay and responsibilities that Bush has not
addressed.
Senator
Webb: And under the leadership of
the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The
House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten
years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a
broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the
American people.
Satan's response:
Hell would like to point out something to Senator Webb.
You've just increased the cost of doing business for every
company. When the workers at the top end of the scale ask
for a raise, what do you think will happen now? So now
some high school kid has a fatter paycheck, but there is no
money for the long term employee....
Senator
Webb: I was
proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in
Vietnam.
Satan's Response:
We thank you for your service, but a republic needs not only to
judge a man by his past actions, but by his current deeds.
Senator
Webb: The President took us into
this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national
security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff
of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central
Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of
operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others
with great integrity and long experience in national security
affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the
predictable – and predicted – disarray that has
followed.
Satan's Response:
Satan remembers both houses of Congress voting for this war and
if Satan felt like it, could generate a list of of generals
that supported going to war. Exactly, how is this nation
held hostage Senator? We have lost only 3,000 soldiers in
four years. By your logic, this is disarray? Is a
nation of three hundred million people supposed to be brought
to its knees by the daily death count repeated endlessly by the
media? Is our economy in recession because of this
war? Has the war in Iraq affected the lifestyles of 99%
of Americans in any way, shape, or form?
Senator
Webb: The war’s costs to our nation
have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation
around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces
of international terrorism.
Satan's response:
Yes, we've spent nearly $80 billion a month on this war, but
has our economy collapsed Senator? Are American's
burdened by ever rising taxes to pay for this war? And is
the deficit continuing to come down, despite the costs of this
war? So, excuse Satan if he is a little
confused.
Next, Satan always loves how the left is worried about what
other countries think about the United States. Ever
considered that France, the U.N., or Russia are morally corrupt
and were rather upset when their contracts with Hussein's Iraq
were terminated by our invasion? And quite frankly, who
in the hell cares what Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, or some
other corrupt third world nation thinks? Only the
left.....
Moving on, the Senator buys into the notion that invading Iraq
has diverted our ability to fight terrorism. Satan
strongly disagrees. Senator, you need to think
strategically. One, how many enemies have been deterred
by the show of American might? How many Arab nations that
were funding fundamentalists groups quietly started to crack
down, fearing the wrath of America? Well, Saudi Arabia
and Pakistan come to mind. Two, Iran was a lose cannon
before the war, already on their way to building a nuclear
weapon. Now we have front row seats, if we need to
confront Tehran. Last, Iraq has attracted jihadists from
around the world. They blow up things over there and they
die over there. That is much better than waiting for them
to blow things up over here....
Senator
Webb: The
majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is
being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a
new direction. Not one step back from the war against
international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that
ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate
shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that
takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a
formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to
leave Iraq.
Satan's response:
The majority of the nation didn't support the Revolutionary War
either. Good thing the Democrats weren't running the
Continental Congress. And what is the
Democrat obsession with diplomacy? Did diplomacy
defeat the South in the Civil War? Did diplomacy win
World War II? Did diplomacy stop North Korea from setting
off a nuke? Did diplomacy bring the Palestinians to
recognize the right of Israel to exist?
And if we "take our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities",
who will keep the country from spiraling into civil war?
So let Satan get this straight, let's say we get Turkey (who
hates the Kurds, the Saudi's (who will support the Sunni) and
Iran (who will support the Shiite) to mediate events in Iraq
and we withdraw our troops, what will we get? Great plan
Senator. Satan will hang a copy of this one on his wall
right next to the reconstruction plan for post WWI
Germany.
Senator
Webb: As I look
at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be
President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean
War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the
end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe
during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he
brought the Korean War to an end.
Satan's
response: Senator, the war officially has
never ended in Korea. We signed a truce, not a peace
treaty. We still have troops in South Korea. By
your logic, our troops should have left Korea by 1960 and we
should have left Europe by the end of 1949. The
child-like impatience that the left displays is a danger to
this Republic. War is a long term commitment.
In conclusion, Satan would like to ask the Senator, if he so
worried about world opinion, then what will our enemies think
of us when American troops abandon Iraq under your plan?
Let Satan answer that, they will see us as weak, easily
defeated, and every terrorist and terrorist state will be
emboldened to confront the United States of America. Yes,
that is the Democratic plan, bring the battle to our shores!
Other takes on the State of the Union Address can be read at
Hot Air, Right
Pundits, Ankle
Biting Pundits,
Stop the ACLU, and Right
Wing News. Satan seems to be in agreement with these
bloggers that the only plan that the Democrats have towards
Iraq is utter American defeat and disgrace.
An interesting
story out of Baltimore, where federal immigration agents
were approached by "day laborers" for work.
Now this really amuses Satan. Twenty-four men were
arrested by these federal authorities. All 24 men were
here illegally. Therefore they already are criminals and
should be treated as such. But, their criminality doesn't
stop there. Six of the arrested have criminal records in
the U.S., 8 have been caught before by federal agents and
failed to show up for deportation, and one man had been stopped
at the border four different times.
Satan would like to point out to the left, that if these people
are willing to break American law when they illegally cross
they border, they will more than likely commit other
crimes. If you want to argue that most illegal immigrants
are law abiding (which by definition they can't be), then get
back to Satan after reading this article.
So far, this is bad enough. We allow criminals free
access to our nation and they continue to commit crime once
they are here. But it gets worse. Those on the
left, sympathize with these criminals. This is the
reaction from some leftist group in Baltimore:
CASA officials invited
other immigrant advocates and faith leaders to protest the
arrests, which they say unfairly targeted Hispanics, and call
for reforms to the country's immigration system. "We're making
it more difficult for people to be good," said the Rev. Robert
Wojtek, pastor of neighboring St. Michael and St. Patrick Roman
Catholic parishes. "What sin against God have these people
done?"
What sin have they, Padre? Let Satan think for a
second. Hmmmm. First, they entered the United
States illegally. So their first act in entering the U.S.
is a violation of Federal law. Then, dear Padre, they
commit crimes while they are here. And if you ask Satan,
the greatest sin of all, is that they take jobs from poor
Americans, they depress wages for poor Americans, they make the
poorest neighborhoods even less safe (if this confuses those on
the left, once again, criminals tend to continue their
behavior), and they use public services without paying taxes in
return. Finally, Satan's jaw dropped with this quote
from Baltimore's mayor:
A spokeswoman for
Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon told the Associated Press that the
arrests highlighted the need for a designated day-laborer
center in the city.
No Mayor Sheila Dixon, it highlights the need to defend
America's border, it highlights the need to build a fence, and
it highlights the need to find these people and deport them
back to the third world cesspool from which they came.
Unfortunately, Satan is beginning to think that the
left despises America so much, they'd like us to become
just like a third world cesspool to soothe their self-hatred.
Michelle Malkin has an even more bitter take
on immigration issues.
Hillary, for the last few nights, has hosted a live question
and answer session on the internet. If you can muster the
courage, you can watch all three here. After
watching tonight's "Clintoncast", Satan thinks he will make the
newest guests in Hell watch these videos over and over for the
next thousand years.
Of course, we did submit a question, but I guess my email,
Satan@hell.com probably pushed it to the bottom of the
query. So here are the topics she addressed:
Healthcare: She
questioned Bush on whether his plan to tax employer supplied
health plans was the right way to go. Satan can't argue
with her on this point, as Hell, Inc. provides us with great
coverage. We can't imagine paying taxes on that.
Though Hillary did sort of step in it when she said the U.S.
didn't have the best health care in the world.
What she is for:
She is for beefing up Homeland Security. She is for
improving the V.A., for increasing funds for AIDS victims,
lowering college tuition, and helping single women live better
after retirement.
North Korea and
Iran: She blames Bush for not engaging in
negotiations with both countries to get them to stop their
nuclear programs. She praised husband Bill's deal from
1994 with the North Koreans. Satan is thinking that she
didn't get the memo that it was her husband's 1994 agreement
with North Korea that allowed them to further develop their
nuclear program. Hillary also noted that we negotiated
with the Soviet Union. If we remember correctly, Reagan,
after the disaster in Iceland, pretty much ended the Start
talks altogether. He was tired of talking.
Personal
questions: Then some loser from the net had to
ask, "what do you do to relax?" Satan about spit his gin
and tonic all over his new 23 inch lcd. How fraking
lame. But at least Satan got one chuckle out of it.
She said she likes to go to movies with Bill. What, do
they have a porn theater just down the road from her house?
Global Warming:
Of course you knew this was going to be asked. Of course,
it is Bush's fault.
Satan's overall impression, and it should scare you, is
that Hillary handled herself well. I've heard her shriek
before, but she was well spoken tonight and she didn't really
sound like a left wing lunatic. Additionally, she seems to have
a good command of her facts and she uses them well.
Satan's prediction is that you are looking at the Democratic
nominee in 2008. She is going to kill her
opposition. She is smart, she looks to be portraying
herself as a centrist, and she can speak well when she needs
to. Yes, Satan is really trying to scare you.
You can read more Hillary related things at
Wizbang.
Venezuela's legislature is set to formalize Chavez's
dictatorial powers today. Called an "enabling act",
it will give Chavez the right to rule by decree for 18
months. The Caracas
Chronicles has a more in-depth look at the law
itself. Even
SFGate admits that this change in the Venezuelan
constitution is the beginning of totalitarian rule by
Chavez.
Our view is that Chavez will of course use his new dictatorial
powers to complete his agenda. His first order of
business will be to nationalize various industries. He
has already ordered the takeover of the national telecom
company. In typical socialist fashion, he has already stated
that he will not pay the fair market price for it. An
added benefit of this takeover is that his government will now
control the airwaves.
In the not to distant future, expect Chavez to suppress what is
left of the political opposition. More than likely,
opposition parties will be banned and leading opponents and
business will be incarcerated.
Finally, for the United States, Chavez will try to export his
socialist vision to the rest of South and Central
America. With America's interest diverted elsewhere at
the present, the reemergence of communism in the Americas will
be a problem left to another president.
An interesting article in the L.A. Times has really made
the Lockean think. And we are embarrassed,
considering our philosophical tendencies, that we hadn't
seriously considered the harm caused to our Republic by
family dynasties.
James Burkee,
argues, from a historical perspective, that the
children of former presidents, who themselves assume the
office, never enjoy a popular mandate and as a result are
limited by extreme partisan politics. Let's look at
some of his most interesting points.
Speculating that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in
2008, Burkee points out a grave problem for any vibrant
republic:
But if she secures
the Democratic nomination, wins and serves two terms, by
2017 the United States will have been governed by either a
Bush or a Clinton for 28 years. That's three decades
governed not just by the same two families but much of the
same supporting staff. As Dick Cheney is a name
familiar to both Bush presidencies (as George H.W. Bush's
secretary of Defense and his son's vice president), so too
may a Hillary Clinton presidency resuscitate familiar names
such as Harold Ickes, Paul Begala and James
Carville.
Is this a valid point? The Lockean thinks
so. James Madison, in The Federalist 37,
noted that the American Constitution addressed the
need:
that those
intrusted (with the power of the people) it should be kept
in dependence on the people, by a short duration of
their appointments; and that even during this short period
the trust should be placed in not a few, but a number of
hands. Stability, on the contrary, requires that the
hands in which power is lodged should continue for a length
of time the
same....
Would James Madison be comfortable knowing that same men
have been governing the executive branch for over twenty
years? While we believe that he would not dismiss
their service out of hand, he might well have questions
regarding the "energy" of their ideas, the inevitable
corruption of power, and whether they served the interest
of the people, or the powerful interests they deal with on
a day to day basis.
Next Burkee notes that there is a predisposition among
Americans not to vote for the son, or as the case might be,
the wife of a former president. As a result, he
argues that John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, and
George W. Bush did not receive a majority of the popular
vote and thus were not able to strongly govern as the
result of a mandate as say, Ronald Reagan did.
Burkee's theory fits nicely with Jefferson's description of
aristocracy in America in a letter to John Adams in 1813:
....I agree
with you that there is a natural aristocracy among
men. The grounds of this are virtue and
talents.... There is also an artificial
aristocracy, found on wealth and birth, without either
virtue or talents.... The natural aristocracy I
consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the
instruction, the trusts, and government of society.
The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient
in government, and provision should be made to prevent its
ascendency....
Burkee brings to the front burner, what is very often
missing, a discussion of American politics based on our
liberal and republican political values. In this
case, what are the defects in creating a political
dynasty? Do we want the same faces in government for
decades at a time? We already have that in
our bureaucracies and the judiciary. Fresh ideas
require a changing of the guard on a regular basis.
The American people seem to have a Jeffersonian bias
against "the artificial aristocracy" as Burkee
suggests. Did they earn their position or did
they rise to power as a result of family wealth?
Does their "inherited" wealth make them less
virtuous? Lastly, the practical result of
this theoretical exercise, is that in electing the
known, the safe, the Kennedy, the Bush, and now a Clinton,
we sacrifice giving the new president a national mandate,
creating an atmosphere of sharp political divide. We
agree with Burkee, no more Bushes or Clintons in the White
House for the sake of the Republic.
and Free Traders are Selling
the U.S. Down the River
The successful Chinese test of an anti-satellite weapon is old
news in the blogosphere (You can read the background
information
here and
here). What seems to be missing from the discussion
is that much of the technology that China used to create a
delivery system and a guidance system was not indigenously
produced. Instead, China has used bribes to acquire and
has stolen the technology from the United States. Yes,
China is probably our next enemy, much as the old Soviet Union
was our rival for decades during the Cold War. The
greater threat to American security though, is our own short
sighed and selfish attitudes.
The Clinton approach to China, called "engagement", took the
view that Beijing was not a threat to American national
security. You can read some very insightful pieces on
this topic here,
here,
and here.
One telling quote is this: "Yet the president's policies and those
of the soft-liners who refused to recognize the nature of the
People's Republic of China had done more to increase the danger
from China than any of the skeptics in Congress who believed
more should be done to learn about the Communist regime's
military intentions." The bottom line is that the
Clinton policy towards China refused to see it as an enemy,
allowing the Chinese to steal American missile technology
without interference from American law enforcement agencies.
Another attitude that blinds us to the Chinese threat, is the
view that the mainstream left holds of the United States
itself. The left has adopted a post-nationalist world
view. To be patriotic, to hold America above other
nations, to think that American values and the American way of
life are superior is near blasphemous. To the left, there
are no enemies, as they naively believe that other nations
think and act like us. And, if there is trouble between
the United States and other countries, than the cause is more
than likely some American defect. As a result, during the
Clinton Administration, this ideological mindset prevented us
from acknowledging the Chinese threat and taking any action to
counter it. Succinctly put, why resolutely
defend something you don't love.
Finally, on the right, the "free trade" at any cost wing
refuses to admit that
unrestricted and one way trade with China is nearly
suicidal. Our yearly massive trade deficits with the
Chinese give them the capital to build an impressive military
machine, largely based on our stolen technology. After
all, stolen American secrets are no good if you don't have the
resources to reproduce it. At some point, the benefits of
free trade with China will have to be weighed against our
national interests. We need to ask several questions.
How much capital do we want to transfer to China?
Has free trade made China more democratic as was promised? What
are the implications of tyrannical political system that has
decided to adopt a free maket economic system to become a world
power? At what point does outsourcing our manufacturing
abilities to China damage our national security?
Overall, this Chinese space weapon should be a wake-up call to
America that we are in a new cold war. Unfortunately, we
are blinded to this threat by the left who can't ideologically
see the need to defend America and who can't understand that
other nations do not hold or share our belief in freedom.
Additionally, we have American business, supported by free
trade economic and political theories, which puts profit above
national security. Until American national
security is the first principle when dealing with China, the
Chinese will continue to steal our most valuable technology and
apply it to their growing armed forces.
Update: If this isn't an "I told you so...." China
plans to use its massive
foreign exchange reserves to....
Or Everything You
Need to Know About Ohio Politics
I'd like to thank Paul at the Newshound for
hosting "The Carnival of Ohio Politics." Additionally,
I'd like to thank the carnival for linking to my inaugural
post regarding Bob Taft leaving office. This weeks
carnival can be found
here.
Or Ohio Governor Strickland,
Democrat Grants Reprieves....
Ohio's new governor, Ted Strickland, has granted
reprieves for three upcoming executions. Governor
Strickland, declares that he is for the death penalty, but The
Columbus
Dispatch has some telling quotes from a man who "supports"
the death penalty:
Strickland, who took office
Jan. 8, said he needs additional time to thoroughly review each
case to determine whether clemency is warranted.“The brief time I
have been governor has not allowed me sufficient time to conduct
that type of review and there is not sufficient time before these
scheduledexecutions
to complete that type of review,” Strickland said in a
statement. Strickland, a former prison psychologist who
supports the death penalty, had signaled earlier this month
that he was considering delaying the executions after learning
it took former Gov. Bob Taft's staff weeks to review such
cases.
The Democrat also has
concerns about recent court rulings questioning whether executions
by lethal injection -- the method used in Ohio and most other
states -- are cruel and unusual punishment.The governor has said he
has not reached any conclusions about whether he would consider
delaying an execution on those grounds but would like more guidance
from the courts."I would hate for someone to be executed on a
Wednesday and then on the following Thursday for the court to say
that we had just employed an unconstitutional method of doing
that," Strickland said Jan.
5.
Let's look at
what Strickland claims and says:
1. He
supports the death penalty. Either you do or you don't.
Governor, if you actually do support the death penalty, then why
are you delaying it in these three cases? These are not
questionable cases. In each case, the defendant admitted to
the murder. So once again, if you support the death penalty,
these are not the cases that deserve, no that are worthy of more
than a cursory review. (Even though one case is under judicial
review, the likelyhood is that the court will not issue a further
stay past Tuesday).
In the Biros decision, which can be
read
here, we see that this isn't a case based on flimsy
evidence or jailhouse confessions from questionable
cellmates. This is a case about a brutal murderer:
In 1991, an Ohio state jury convicted Biros of the aggravated
murder (with two death penalty specifications), felonious
sexual penetration, aggravated robbery, and attempted rape of
Tami Engstrom. Engstrom left work early due to
illness on the night of February 7, 1991, and drove
from Hubbard, Ohio, to the Nickelodeon Lounge in Masury,
Ohio, to visit her uncle, Daniel Hivner. Engstrom consumed
several alcoholic drinks at the Nickelodeon. Petitioner,
Kenneth Biros, arrived at the Nickelodeon around 11:00
p.m., approximately one hour after Engstrom’s arrival.
Biros knew Hivner but had never met Engstrom. By
midnight Engstrom had passed out at the Nickelodeon.
At approximately 1:00 a.m., Hivner and Biros assisted
Engstrom in moving from the bar to the parking lot.
Once outside, Engstrom insisted on driving herself home, but
Hivner determined that she was too intoxicated to drive
and took her keys away from her. According to Hivner, it
was at this point that Biros offered to take Engstrom for
coffee in order to counteract the effects of the alcohol.
Biros and Engstrom left the Nickelodeon parking lot at
approximately 1:15 a.m. in Biros’s car.
Hivner waited at the bar past closing time for Biros to
return with Engstrom, but Biros never
returned.
The following day Andy Engstrom, Tami Engstrom’s husband, drove
to Biros’s home after learning that Engstrom was last seen
with Biros. Biros claimed that he tapped Engstrom on
the shoulder while they were in the car and she “freaked
out, got out of the car and started running through these
people’s yards on Davis Street” in Sharon, Pennsylvania.
Biros told similar stories to several other people on
February 8.
1
Several of the individuals Biros spoke to observed cuts
and scratches on Biros’s hands and a fresh wound over his
right eye. Biros explained that he injured his hands
when he locked himself out of his house and had to break a
window and cut his eye while chopping wood. Biros
assisted Engstrom’s relatives in searching for her in the area
where he claimed to have last seen
her.
Biros lived in Brookfield Township, Ohio, with his mother and
brother. On the morning of February 8, Biros’s
mother found a gold ring on the bathroom floor of their
home. Biros first told his mother that he knew
nothing about the ring when she questioned him, but later said
that it might belong to the woman who jumped out of his
car early that morning. Biros then took the ring
and told his mother he would return it to the
Nickelodeon. Rather than returning the ring to the
bar, Biros hid it in the ceiling of his house.
On February 9, police officers called Biros’s home and left a
message requesting that he come to the police station for
questioning. Upon hearing the message, Biros drove to the
police station to discuss Engstrom’s disappearance with
Brookfield Township, Ohio, and Sharon, Pennsylvania,
police officers. The officers informed Biros that he was
not under arrest and was free to leave at any time.
Biros repeated the same story that he had previously told
Engstrom’s family and friends. Specifically, Biros
told police that he left the Nickelodeon with Engstrom early in
the morning on February 8 to get coffee and food in
Sharon, Pennsylvania. Biros claimed that Engstrompassed
out in his car, but later woke up while Biros was withdrawing
money from an automated teller machine. According to
Biros, Engstrom insisted that he drive her back to the
Nickelodeon. Biros told police that as he was driving on
Davis Street in Sharon, Pennsylvania, Engstrom jumped from
the vehicle and ran away. When asked whether Engstrom
might have left her purse in his vehicle, Biros responded
that he had cleaned the vehicle and found no purse.
During the interview, Captain John Klaric began to question
Biros’s account of the events leading up to Engstrom’s
disappearance. Klaric suggested that perhaps Biros had
made a sexual advance toward Engstrom, which might have
caused her to flee from the vehicle. Biros
denied making any sexual advances. Klaric also
suggested that perhaps Biros had made a sexual advance and
Engstrom jumped from the vehicle and struck her head.
Biros also denied this hypothesis. After further
questioning, Klaric suggested that maybe an accident had
occurred during which Engstrom fell out of the car and
struck her head. It was at this point that Biros
responded “yes,” and admitted that he had done something
“very bad.” Klaric offered to speak to Biros alone and
Biros agreed. According to Klaric, after the other police
officers left the room, Biros told him, “It’s like you
said, we were in the car together. We were out along
the railroad tracks. I touched her on the hand.
Then I went further. I either touched or felt her
leg. She pushed my hand away. The car wasn’t
quite stopped. She opened the door and fell and
struck her head on the tracks.” Biros told Klaric
that Engstrom was dead and that the incident occurred
along the railroad tracks near King Graves Road in
Brookfield Township. At that point, police informed Biros
of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436 (1966).
Biros signed a written waiver of his Miranda rights and then
repeated his story to Detective Rocky Fonce of the
Brookfield Township Police Department. Biros told police
that Engstrom’s body was in Pennsylvania. When
police requested that Biros give them an exact location,
Biros asked to speak to an attorney. After
consulting with an attorney, Biros agreed to show police
the location of Engstrom’s body.
Ohio authorities discovered several of Engstrom’s severed body
parts in a desolate wooded area of Butler County,
Pennsylvania on February 10. Police found other portions
of Engstrom’s body in a desolate wooded area of Venango
County, Pennsylvania,approximately thirty miles north of
the Butler County site. Engstrom’s head and right breast
had been severed from her torso. Her right leg had
been amputated above the knee. The body was completely
naked except for what appeared to be remnants of black leg
stockings that had been purposely rolled down to
Engstrom’s feet or ankles. The torso had been cut
open and the abdominal cavity was partially eviscerated.
The anus, rectum, and all but a small portion of her
sexual organs had been removed and were never recovered by
the police.
Forensic technicians and law enforcement investigators searched
the area of the railroad tracks where Biros had indicated
that the incident with Engstrom occurred. The
investigators discovered a large area of bloodstained
gravel near the tracks, blood spatters on the side of one
of the steel tracks, and numerous other bloodstains in the
same general area. Bloodstains and swabbings of
blood collected at the scene were tested and found to be
consistent with
Engstrom’s
blood. Investigators also found what appeared to be part
of Engstrom’s intestines in a swampy area near the
railroadtracks. DNA testing confirmed that the intestines
recovered were part of Engstrom’s remains.
Approximately one month later, investigators found Engstrom’s
black leather coat partially buried near the tracks.
There were two cuts or slash marks on or near the collar of
the coat. Engstrom’s house keys and a tube of
lipstick were also found in a shallow hole near the
coat. One of Engstrom’s black leather shoes was also found
in the area near the
tracks.
A number of items were also recovered by police during a search
of Biros’s house including a bloodstained pocket knife,
another, much larger knife, a bloodstained coat later
identified as the coat Biros wore to the Nickelodeon, and
a pair of size eleven tennis shoes. The bloodstains
from
Nos.
03-3067/3107
Biros v.
Bagley
Page
4
Biros’s pocket knife and coat were tested and found to be
consistent with Engstrom’s blood. Additionally, a hair
found embedded in a seam near the tread of one of the tennis
shoes was tested and found to be consistent with known
samples of hair from the victim’s head. The police
also searched the car Biros drove to the Brookfield
Township Police Department. Forensic
technicians identified several bloodstains in the car,
some were consistent with Engstrom’s blood and
others
were consistent with Biros’s blood. A small piece of
tissue, believed to be from Engstrom’s liver, was found in
the trunk of the
car.
An autopsy of Engstrom’s body revealed that she suffered
ninety-one premortem injuries indicative of a “severe
beating” and “an attempt at sexual mutilation” and five stab
wounds which were inflicted immediately after Engstom’s
death. In addition to these wounds, Engstrom’s
head, right breast, and right lower extremity had been
severed from her body at some point following
her death. Her anus, rectum, urinary bladder, and
virtually all of her sexual organs had been removed and
were never found. Her gallbladder, the right lobe of her
liver, and portions of the bowels were also extracted from
her body. The coroner found no evidence that Engstrom had
been struck by an automobile as Biros claimed and
concluded that Engstrom had died of asphyxia due to
strangulation.
How long
does it take to review the facts in this case? He
murdered a woman, cut her up in a hundred different pieces and
her personal items and blood were tied to him. Did we
elect slow readers to run our state? There are no
questions about his guilt. He even confessed to this
murder.
In the Filiaggi's case, I don't
have actual facts as presented to the court, but from this
newspaper article, his former lawyer isn't arguing that his
client was innocent, but that is client was crazy:
Filiaggi, now 41, is scheduled to be executed Feb. 13. His
former attorney, Jim Burge, said he believed Filiaggi had filed
another appeal yesterday. Filiaggi has been on death row
for 11 years. He was convicted of shooting his ex-wife, Lisa
Filiaggi to death on Jan. 24, 1994, and attempting to kill her
stepfather, Delbert Yepko. Burge said he still believes
Filiaggi is not guilty by reason of insanity. His defense
centered around the idea that Filiaggi had a chemical imbalance
in his brain caused by a poor diet, which caused him to
react violently -- an argument known as the ''Twinkie
defense.''
Once
again, no one is arguing that Filiaggi
didn't brutally kill his ex-wife. So what is
Governor Strickland looking at? Can it take more than 10
minutes to dismiss the argument that the "Twinkie made me do
it." Now if he had argued the "Devil made me do it," I
might have more sympathy.
In the Newton case,which can be read in its entirety
here, the
facts of the case are not in doubt. And this case will
take Strickland's team two weeks to review?
On November
15, 2001, around 5:10 a.m., MANCI correctional officers
(“COs”) Gregory Ditmars, John Vesper, and Shane Douglas
responded to a disturbance in cell 115. Brewer was
lying still on the floor in a puddle of
blood with a piece of orange
cloth wrapped around his neck. Newton was laughing
and had blood smeared all over his face. MANCI nurse
Trena Butcher testified that when she examined Newton, he
told her that he had “painted himself with
the victim’s blood and had
also ingested the victim’s blood as part of the ritual
when you kill
someone.”
2. It
took Bob Taft two weeks to review a case, therefore we must
take the same amount time. Bob Taft was also manifestly
incompetent. I think you implied that in your
campaign. Why is it going to take self-proclaimed
smarter people as long as Taft to review death penalty
cases? Maybe in a nebulous case, two weeks might be in
order. But two weeks in these three cases? The
transcripts in the Biros case reads like this: See Biros
strangle, see Biros slaughter, see Biros scatter, see Biros
confess. Really, it isn't any more difficult than
this. Two weeks?
3.
Governor Strickland is worried about what the courts might say
about lethal injection. How long will the Governor, who
supports the death penalty, delay these three cases, based upon
what the Federal Courts might or might not do about the
constitutionality of lethal injection? And we in Hell,
quite frankly, would like to know, what exactly is a humane
form of killing anyone? This is the death penalty.
It isn't pretty, but if you believe in the death penalty, you
believe it serves a purpose. Slowly eliminating all the
various forms of implementing and delivering the punishment of
death means you really don't support the death penalty.
The view
from Hell on this raises some questions about Democratic
Governor Strickland's truthfulness about his "support" of the
death penalty. My read on this is that Governor
Strickland either never really supported the death penalty or
that he "theoretically" supports the death penalty, but has so
many qualifiers and reservations about it, he will find any
excuse to use the powers of his office to delay or even stop
scheduled executions. If so, that is extremely
dishonest.
Instead, if
Governor Strickland, Democrat, opposes or feels repulsed by the
death penalty, just say so. Lay out your argument and
tell Ohioans why you have changed your position. While we
in Hell always look forward to new members, we would have no
problem you opposing the death penalty on moral and reasoned
grounds. While we might debate you, and we might disagree
with you, we can respect an intellectually thought out
stand.
The bottom
line, is that we here in Hell, think that Governor Strickland
wants to say he is pro-death penalty, but at the same time,
pander to the leftist, anti-everything base that elected him.
Our prediction, then, is that Ted Strickland, Democrat, will
postpone and delay, and even commute most of the death
sentences put before him during his term, hoping that if he
runs interference long enough, a Federal Court might come along
and declare Ohio's lethal injection cruel and unusual and then
he is off the hook.
If he has to
spend two weeks determining if one man who cut a woman into a
hundred or so pieces and another who drank the blood of his
victim are guilty, he can probably spend months on other
cases. Hopefully, I'll be proven wrong and Hell will
freeze over.
Earlier this week in Cincinnati, a "mini-riot" took place at a
high school basket ball tournament. Hosted at Xavier
University's Cintas Center, the tournament was held on MLK Day,
and several teams from around the city participated. You
can read the story
here.
Watching it on television, I was struck by how most of the
crowd was dressed. The typical male had baggy pants
hanging below their ass, hooded sweatshirts, and of course the
straight-rimmed cocked to the side baseball hat on. Lest
you think I'm picking on inner city residents, yesterday
at lunch, I noticed a stream of applicants introducing
themselves to manager of the Friday's I was eating at.
All of the people seeking employment were white, yet everyone
was dressed exactly as I described above: baggy pants hanging
below their ass and of course the trademarked crooked
hat. I chuckled, remembering my first interview at the
local grocery store. I wore a white shirt, dress pants,
dress shoes, and a tie.
We have failed this generation. Parents allow their
children to imitate rappers. And by allowing them to
dress like rappers, they give them tacit approval to act like
rappers. For if you imitate the dress, you surely are
buying into the lifestyle. Do a Google search of
rappers. They are populated by criminals, drug dealers,
murderers, whose lyrics denigrate women and express outright
hostility to authority.
Is that what parents want? Apparently so, because at the
Cintas center, you didn't hear a word about the poor parenting,
but instead it was fault of someone else, as one person
said, "What it comes
down to is, they just need more security for an event like
this. They need to pay whatever it takes to have more
security."
No, what it comes down to is this. Parents need to tell
their children they can't dress like gang members.
Parents need to tell their children that they need to obey
authority. Parents need to tell their children that
education is important. Parents need to tell their
children that they will "shame" the family if they get
arrested. Parents need to tell their children that bad
behavior will not be tolerated. Instead, in this case,
they hired "Sammie" to entertain between games. I'm
probably showing my age, but at an all day tournament, we came
to watch the games. We were entertained by games.
Or This is What Tolerance
Must have Looked Like in 9th Century Christendom
Dr. Anisa Abd el Fattah sent a letter to the U.S.
Department of Justice on January 12, 2007. You can
download it here. You
really need to read this letter. To do so will give you
an insight into how members of mainstream Muslim groups really
think.
To give you a flavor of her mindset and her fundamental lack of
the concept of free speech in the United States, here are the
first few paragraphs:
This letter and its supporting
documentation is a complaint to the Department of Justice Civil
Rights Division, Criminal Division, and also the Executive Office
for United States Attorneys. This complaint alleges that
various organizations and individuals have provided misleading and
highly politicized information, and testimonies to US law
enforcement agencies, and also the US Congress that was, and is
aimed at creating a political, legal, social, and
financial environment that is hostile to Muslims and
Arab Americans, and that causes Muslim and Arab-Americans to
suffer discrimination, persecution, and the deprivation and denial
of Constitutional rights, and equal protection under the law.
Among these organizations and individuals are the
American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), better
known as the “Jewish lobby”, American Jewish Committee,
Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Congress B’Nai
B’rith, and also the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, along
with such individuals as Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Rita
Katz, Steven Schwartz, Evan Kohlman, and others who have
made public statements that have contributed to the creation of an
environment in the United States that is hostile to Arab
Americans and Muslims, leading to numerous acts of deprivation
and violation of civil liberties and also civil rights.
This complaint is based upon
statements made that may reach the level of hate speech
in some instances, and in other instances, such statements may
reach the level of perjury, carried out to mislead the US
Congress and US law enforcement into carrying out
overly
aggressive legislative and law
enforcement campaigns that result in legislation, raids and arrests
that deprive Muslims and Arab Americans of equal protection under
the law, and deprivation and denial of civil liberties and
rights guaranteed to all American equally in the US
Constitution, among these being the rights to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
This complaint especially alleges
the following:
1. Jewish organizations and
activists have created an “enemies” list that
includes Muslims, Arabs and white nationalists’ organizations
here in the US. This list is compromised of individuals and
groups that are deemed threats or enemies of the State of
Israel.
2. These organizations have used
their financial resources and also their formidable political
influence to purposefully poison public opinion against Muslims,
Arabs, and Islam in an attempt to demonize and vilify the same
for political purposes, and to
create an environment conducive
to the deprivation of and denial of Muslim and
Arab constitutional rights and repression of religious
freedoms in respect to Islam.
Allow me to summarize her letter
and mindset. We don't like Jews. These Jews
said some things about Muslims I didn't like. The Jews
hurt my feelings. Therefore, I want the United States
government to use its powers to suppress the speech of the Jews
because I consider what they say hateful.
Did I miss
anything?
Dear Dr. Anisa Abd el
Fattah, you suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the
U.S. Constitution's guarantee of free speech. This is not
Canada, nor Britain, nor Italy, or any nation of the Middle
East which place severe limits on the free exchange of ideas.
While these nations do limit speech rights, we do not
restrict speech because it is hateful, or because it offends.
The United States takes its right to free speech
very seriously.
To start with, the First
Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law...abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press...." Next,
in the Supreme Court case, New York Times v.
Sullivan, 1964, the
court found that speech, when it dealt with public figures and
their actions was nearly "absolute." Justice Brennan
quoted John Stuart Mill, who said, "even a false statement may be deemed to
make a valuable contribution to public debate." In
otherwords, speech as applied to political figures is
protected. Even false facts are protected speech.
In 1967, these free speech
rights were enlarged, not only to protect debate applied to
political figures, but also to "public" figures. For
instance, members of CAIR are fair game. In Curtis Publishing Co. v.
Butts, public figures
were now subject to the same new rules which made proving libel
or slander against a critic almost
impossible.
In short, Dr. Anisa
Abd el Fattah, you can't use government to repress the free
speech rights of groups or individuals. To do so, is
simply un-American.
Here are some interesting
background details about
Dr. Anisa Abs el Fattah that are freely and easily
available on the web:
Dr. Anisa
Abd el Fattah is the President of the National Association of
Muslim American Women, and is associated with the International
Association for Muslim Women and Children, a UN accredited NGO
with the UN Habitat conference, and the Division on the
Inalienable Rights of the Palestinians. She is the past
President of the United Association for Studies and Research, a
northern Va. research institute and think tank. She is the
Assistant Director of the Islamic Political Action Council of
America, and a member of the Board of Directors for (
CAIR), Council on American Islamic Relations. She
co-authored with Dr. Ahmed Yousef, "The Agent: Truth Behind the
Anti-Muslim Campaign in America", and "Islam and America: A New
Reading." She is also the Editor of the Middle East Affairs
Journal (MEAJ) house of organ of UASR. She is a regular
contributor to the American Muslim, published by the Muslim
American Society. Sister Anisa also authored, "Justice and
Normative Law: Common Ground Underlying Christian-Muslim
Cooperation," and "Revolution, The People, Basic Rights, and
Social Order; The Institutionalization of the Islamic
Revolution in Iran."
Of course, her anti-Semitism and
anti-American stance (though to be honest, her
anti-American stance sounds much like that of the American
left, liberal Democrats like Jimmy Carter, or 95% of American
college professors) can be found in numerous articles across
the net, including this
one which blames Jews and Christians for Palestinian
oppression, unheard of slaughter in Iraq and the defamation and
repression of Muslims in America itself. Once again, read
the whole polemic, but this will give you a flavor:
"What
can we do about those people, who claim to be US patriots who
knowingly sought to use Muslims, and especially Muslim
Americans as scapegoats and decoys while they secretly carried
out the very crimes, and harbored in their hearts the very
obvious hatred for the US, our way of life and our
Constitution, that they had so passionately blamed on
Muslims?"
The
Jack Abramoff scandal is more than a scandal; it is a cause for
international shame. It is also the story of how religious
zealots, terrorists and fanatics took over the United States
government, undermined our foreign interests, ruined our
credibility, and cost us our prestige as a trustworthy world
leader, while leading more than 2000 US soldiers and Marines to
their deaths along with thousands of innocent Muslims and
others, in pursuit of a fantasy that they call Zion. We all
assumed that their Zionist dreamland was Israel; we now know
that it also obviously included the United States. The immense
shame that our Congress should be experiencing as a result of
its failure to protect our country and our children from these
zealots is not yet apparent, since our so-called “elected
representatives” in Washington, the best Congress that money
could buy, is busy discarding the evidence of their role in
undermining world peace, while destroying the United States
internationally, and their possibly criminal culpability in the
untimely deaths of American soldiers and Marines, and more than
30 thousand innocent civilians in Iraq, and hundreds of
thousands more in Palestine and Lebanon, in the process. No
doubt at some point, the international courts will take up
these issues.
Looking
back, it seems now that 1994 was a special year in US history.
It is the year that Jack Abramoff is said to have begun his
Congressional shopping spree, looking for US Congress people
for sale. It is also the year that Benjamin Netanyahu, Richard
Perle, Douglas Feith and other Zionist notables crafted the now
infamous “Clean Break” strategy that led the United States into
Iraq under the false pretense that Saddam Hussein had weapons
of mass destruction, a lie that was crafted by Judith Miller, a
Zionist ideologue and possible Israeli intelligence operative
who posed as a New York Times journalist, and who also played a
still unknown role in the outing of Valerie Plame, the CIA
officer whose husband was one of the first people to challenge
the lie that Hussein had attempted to purchase chemicals needed
for a nuclear weapons program in Africa. Abramoff seems to have
arrived in Washington around the same time that the Oklahoma
City bombing took place, which led to the first major
legislative attack on Muslim Americans, and US civil liberties
through the Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act, which has now been
followed by two additional bombings, and two additional bodies
of anti-terrorism legislation including the so-called Patriot
Act. It was the year that PBS aired the now discredited
“shockumentary” Jihad in America, written and produced by
Judith Miller’s Zionist colleague Steven Emerson, a so-called
journalist, and the father of secret evidence in US courts,
that the Nation magazine reported had close ties to Israeli
military intelligence, and the Israeli Likud party. It was the
year of the first media and public “backlash” against Muslims
in the United States, which left in its wake a number of burned
mosques, deaths, and defamation. Muslims and Islam were these
Zionist terrorists’ targets, scapegoats and decoys in a Zionist
war against the world, which they have lost.
As
we await the results of the numerous FBI investigations of
those who took Abramoff money for favors, seeking to ascertain
how exactly that money was spent, we can perhaps begin to
connect the dots, hoping to see the big picture that will
probably never grace our television news shows or newspapers,
no matter what the results of those investigations might be.
Just as the AIPAC (American/Israeli Political Action Committee)
spy scandal went unreported, don’t expect to hear the real, and
very serious consequences of what Abramoff and his network have
done to our country, our Constitution and Muslims, here and
abroad. The price in loss of lives, US prestige, credibility,
and pride is uncountable. While the taxpayer money is
countable, we can never get it back. The good news is that God
has spared us the worst of it, if you can imagine that we were
in store for much worse, and much more, including perhaps
military attacks on Syria and Iran that would without doubt
lead us into another world war, and perhaps the Armageddon of
Jewish and Christian apocalyptic teachings, that they seem to
long for.
It
goes without saying that Abramoff’s money was spent for
Congressional favors, and media access. Such favors seem to
have included making Muslims the most hated people in the
United States, and Islam the most hated religion in the world.
Who can forget how the so-called Christian “right” went wrong,
when its leaders used the media in our country to launch an
unprecedented attack to defame Muslim citizens and our
religion, and to deny us our civil rights. Such attacks, if
they had been launched against Jews, African Americans, Native
Americans or women would have caused a country-wide uproar, yet
after Emerson’s fraudulent claim that all Muslims were involved
in an international plot to take over, or to destroy the US, it
was open target day on Islam and Muslims, and the Christian
right took every shot they could get, and the media saw to it
that they got plenty of them.
Wow, if this
is what passes for moderation, tolerance, and love of country
in mainstream Muslim organizations, the Republic has a problem
on its hand.
I call it the "He was such a nice guy" syndrome. Have you
ever noticed when reporters interview the neighbor next door to
a serial killer, they always say things like he was a "quiet"
guy, a good "neighbor" or "he went to church" every Sunday or
when the relatives of crack dealer, who was just killed by
police in a shootout, always blame the cops and say he "was
such a nice boy", despite the fact he had 15 priors, two
children out of wedlock, had no job, owed child support, and
had skipped out on his bail? Apparently, this isn't only
an American problem.
On Tuesday, Pakistan,
attacked an al-Qaeda outpost near the Afghan border.
Of course, the locals claim that the ten dead men were
"woodcutters." Just innocent men, cutting wood, minding
their own business, at least that is according to the "angered"
tribesmen. We in hell can take a joke, but come on.
Unless you cut wood with an RPG and a machine gun, these guys
were loggers as much as this
song is on Satan's iPod.
Of course, last week in Somali, we had more of the same.
Among all the
reports on the American air-strike on Somalian
al-Qaeda types that mentioned dead civilians, this has to be
Satan's favorite:
Last week's US air raids in
the Lower Juba region of southern Somalia near the Kenyan
border, caused heavy civilian casualties, according to local
reports. Some of the attacks apparently hit groups of nomadic
herdsmen on their way to watering holes. Reports of civilian
casualites run as high as 80 dead, with large numbers of
cattle, goats and other livestock wiped out as well. Thousands
of local residents are said to be fleeing towards the
border.
Eighty innocent nomads, plus their cattle and other animals
were killed? Now we in hell encourage stretching the
truth here and there, but we would like to give the al-Qaeda
media guy a hint that won't cost him his soul. Mainly,
you need to have a kernel of truth in your story to be
believable. Yes, the mainstream American media might
believe you, but nobody else, well maybe a Democrat or two, or
the town of Berkeley, or hell, let's
just say the entire American left might buy this story, but
your snowball melted down here on delivery.
Finally, remember when the U.S.
fired a couple of missiles from a Predator and took
out a some big fish Taliban and al-Qaeda members last
year? Of course you guessed it, only civilians, women,
and children were killed.
Now Satan's take on this is of course, is that, and this is the
only logical conclusion that a reasonable person can come
to--there are no bad guys. I came to this conclusion,
based on the following facts supplied to me by my friends
who overdosed in the sixties. One, America is always
wrong, so if the Pentagon announces that they have killed
terrorists, they are lying. Two, America is evil, and
therefore sets out to kill women, children, woodsmen, and
animals. Third, the AP and others say minimum wage,
outsourced reporting is reliable, so it must be.
So we have to believe the word of local stringers
like
Jamil Hussein. We all know that these local guys
don't have an agenda, heck, they are honest just like Dan
Rather. Therefore, as I said, Satan has come to the
conclusion that there are no bad guys. Plus, everyone
down here claims they are innocent....
The one thing that often irritates me about the left is that
they will not admit when they are wrong. I'd like to
think that conservatives are more intellectually honest
and therefore willing to admit to mistakes. Which brings
us to Rumsfeld and the U.S. handling of the occupation in both
Iraq and Afghanistan. He wasn't the man to run the occupations.
Don't get me wrong, I really like Donald Rumsfeld. He was
brilliant, he planned awesome offensives in both Afghanistan
and Iraq. The victory in Afghanistan
was particularly stunning, considering that both the
British
and Soviet empires left there with their tales between their
legs. Equally, most conservatives enjoyed watching Rumsfeld
making fools of journalist on a daily basis.
While he was an able Secretary of Defense in terms of war
planning, I have to agree with his critics that he botched the
peace. Several events bring me to this conclusion.
First, there is the ongoing civil war in Iraq. Second,
the Taliban are regrouping in Afghanistan. Third, in his
speech last week, Bush laid out a new strategy (if
there wasn't a problem, there wouldn't be a need for a new
path). Fourth, Secretary Gates
seems accurately aware of the growing problem
in Afghanistan. These are all hopeful signs.
Under the guidance of Secretary Rumsfeld, we seemed to be
stumbling around in our occupations of both Iraq and
Afghanistan. The Army or the Marines would take a town,
but then abandon it, allowing insurgents to filter back
in. Our political leaders refused to deal with the
militias in Iraq. And finally, the U.S. seemed to lack a
coherent, economic rebuilding plan. Sure, we created
democratic governments, but we didn't build a stable economic
system to support the fragile political one.
This seems to have changed. If you read the great
report generated by Michelle
Malkin, who just came back from Iraq, much of the new
direction indicated by Bush's speech and by Secretary of
Defense Gates, reflects the conditions on the ground as echoed
by our troops. To win the peace, the Bush administration
is finally ready to implement a total occupation strategy:
1. More troops are needed and to that end, twenty
thousand are being sent to Iraq and our forces in
Afghanistan are more than likely going to be bolstered
soon.
2. Interference
from Iran and Syria in Iraq's civil war is finally going to
be dealt with.
3. The
rebuilding of Iraq's economy must become a priority and we
now have a plan.
4. The realization that Afghanistan needs economic help,
here and here.
5. Increased pressure on Pakistan to deal
with Taliban who use its western border as a refuge. And
we've seen results in the last couple of days. And it
seems to have already
paid off.
6. Allowing the U.S. Army and Marines to pursue militias
in Iraq and hold the ground taken. The appointment of
General Petraeus as command of our forces in Iraq is a step
in that direction.
With fresh faces, new ideas, and a viable occupation strategy,
the U.S. might just turn these bad situations around.
Maybe, for the first time in a long time, the left was
right. Rumsfeld needed to go in order for things to get
better.
The Gun
Toting Liberal blog went ballistic over Michelle Malkin's
recent trip to Iraq. Before I get to my main point, the
author doesn't seem like a bad guy. He is veteran and at
the end of his tirade, he seems to calm down. He probably
would be a nice person to have a beer with and discuss
politics. But, he exemplifies the problem that plagues
most on the left, in that semantics and nuances mean more than
actions and reality.
Here is what got him so riled up:
Get
this:
“… Michelle and I spent four days patrolling the
environs around Forward Operating Base Justice in north and
west Baghdad last week. FOB Justice is near one functional
neighborhood, Khadimiyah, one mostly recovered neighborhood, Al
Salam, one dysfunctional neighborhood, Al Hurriyah, and an al
Qaeda-influenced area the name of which I never learned. …” -
Hot Air
No
doubt, the troops might have slapped a couple of pea pot
helmets on your thick heads and congratulated you for entering
the “war zone”, but to insinuate that you and “Michelle” had
the honor and the courage to take up arms against the agressors
on “patrol duty” is a JOKE. If you want to go on “patrol duty”
in a “war zone”, go through boot camp, earn your security
clearance, and learn to shoot an M-16, for crying out
loud.
My
God, I cannot BELIEVE this guy is attempting to place himself
and Michelle Malkin into the same boat as America’s Finest and
Bravest, just because he and she were shielded and treated as
“embeds” in the Sandbox. As brave as embeds MIGHT BE, our
troops are, and always WILL BE MUCH higher in the evolutionary
chain than the embeds. Not to mention they have all had to
prove themselves mentally, and physically, at MUCH HIGHER
STANDARDS than any “embedded blogger”. Apples and oranges…
apples and oranges…
I am
APPALLED at this insinuation that an inbedded BLOGGER could
consider themselves as being “on patrol” in a “war zone”. Only
well-trained MILITARY personnel patrol the REAL war zones. You
want to “patrol” in a “war zone”? Do your pushups, and pay your
dues. Taking a long, bumpy ride on a C-130 doesn’t make you a
“troop” on “patrol”, it makes you a LIABILITY who needs to be
coddled and protected from the “bad guys”.
Semantics. Yes,
the author of the report might have better said, "We went on
patrol with" or "we rode with" or "we followed", but if you
read the reports from Michelle
Malkin, there is no indication they had delusions of
grandeur. The troops were the heroes and they were just
reporting.
The bottom
line is that Michelle and Bryan went to Iraq. While the
troops face dangers on a daily basis, these two did
expose themselves to risks that few others dare to. How
many mainstream reporters leave the "green zone" these
days? Very few, and that is why we get reports from
locals, who often have feudal axes to grind. And, if I
may ask, if these had been "liberal" bloggers, would the Gun
Toting Liberal have taken offense? Probably not, because we
know the left supports the troops. Which brings us to another
question (and if I'm wrong here, let me know and I will correct
it), how many left leaning bloggers have gone on patrol with
our soldiers in Iraq?
Apple posts impressive
results for the Christmas selling season:
In the quarter ended Dec. 30,
the iPod maker earned $1 billion, or $1.14 a share, on $7.12
billion in sales. That was well above results in the same
period a year earlier, when Apple posted a profit of $565
million, or 65 cents a share, on sales of $5.75 billion.
Impressively, Apple sold nearly 969,000 laptops, up 65% from
last year. The shift to Intel processors seems to have
invigorated sales.
Editor's
note:I do
accept ads from Apple, Inc., on this blog.
In her online
blog, Couric bemoans the fact that she was the only woman
at a recent Bush briefing. Here is what she said:
The
White House invited all the network anchors, and some cable
anchors, along with the Sunday political show hosts to a
meeting with unnamed VERY senior administration officials.
(Obviously I know their names, but the agreement was that in
order to attend the meeting, we couldn’t reveal the people who
spoke to us.)
And
even though I’ve been in this business for more years than I’d
like to admit, and interviewed countless Presidents and world
leaders, it’s still thrilling—and even a little
awe-inspiring—to get “briefed” at the White House, no matter
who is sitting in the Oval Office.
And
yet, the meeting was a little disconcerting as well. As I was
looking at my colleagues around the room—Charlie Gibson, George
Stephanopoulos, Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Bob Schieffer,
Wolf Blitzer, and Brit Hume—I couldn’t help but notice, despite
how far we’ve come, that I was still the only woman there.
Well, there was some female support staff near the door. But of
the people at the table, the “principals” in the meeting, I was
the only one wearing a skirt. Everyone was gracious, though the
jocular atmosphere was palpable.
The
feminist movement that began in the 1970’s helped women make
tremendous strides—but there still haven’t been enough great
leaps for womankind. Fifty-one percent of America is female,
but women make up only about sixteen percent of Congress—which,
as the Washington Monthly recently pointed out, is better than
it’s ever been...but still not as good as parliaments in Rwanda
(forty-nine percent women) or Sweden (forty-seven percent
women). Only nine Fortune 500 companies have women as
CEO’s.
That
meeting was a reality check for me—and not just about Iraq. It
was a reminder that all of us still have an obligation to ask:
Don’t more women deserve a place at the table too?
First, the
question you should have asked, is "Why, in a free society,
haven't womenaspired to become members of
Congress, CEO's, or an anchor at a Presidential
briefing?"
Katie, I'd
like to think I deserve a million dollar salary, a trophy wife,
and a scratch golf game. I'm that good of a guy, but to
be brutally honest, I haven't earned them, and therefore make
the national median wage, am not married, and have a lousy golf
game. I really need to practice my drives....
Katie, no
one deserves anything, except limited government and the rights
to life, liberty, and property. Everything else is
earned. Of course, in your leftist inspired world,
everyone is owed something. And when you don't get what
you deserve, it isn't your fault of course. Instead,
someone is keeping you down. In this case, I guess it is
the "man". Oh wait, that can't be the case since 51% of
women now live outside of
marriage.
Rafael
Correa was sworn in as Ecuador's new president today.
Correa refers to himself as a "Christian" leftist and has a
Ph.D. from the University of Illinois in economics. That
more than likely means he is a Marxist, considering the
leanings of most American universities.
If you still have questions about Mr. Correa's leanings,
he has already stated he will end the U.S. military's use of
an air base in Ecuador (used to intercept drug runners)
and he has rejected entering a free trade pact with the U.S.
and other South and Central American nations. For a man
with a doctorate in economics, rejecting a free trade pact with
the U.S. shows a fundamental lack of understanding of economics
and reality. Every country that has signed a free trade
agreement with America has gained jobs, often at the expense of
U.S. workers. If he needs proof, all he has to do is ask
any Democrat.
Lastly, the icing on the cake of his Marxist pedigree, is
his pledge to rewrite Ecuador'sconstitution. He has learned
from his friends in
Bolivia and
Venezuela. Of course, there is no better way to steam
roll the opposition and consolidate power, than to change the
fundamental laws that govern one's nation. Need to stay
in power indefinitely, change the constitution. Annoyed
by free speech, change the constitution. Want to
nationalize industry or the banks, change the constitution.
Tired of people challenging your politics, outlaw rival
parties by changing the constitution. All authoritarians
and communists in general, see the rule of law as a
nuisance.
While his anti-American speeches may energize his constituents,
it doesn't create jobs. His solution of course, just as
his counterparts in Venezuela and Bolivia are doing, will
be to transfer wealth from the rich and corporations to the
poor. Of course this is a short term solution, as
problems tend to arise when the rich and corporations are
pumped dry. Then where does his money come from?
Update: The Skipper, over at the
Barking Moonbat, has a nice picture of the "gang of four"
and some information on their socialist free trade pact.
Another take on the
Venezuelan-Iranian alliance is mapped out by Douglas Farah over
at the Counterterrorism Blog.He
posits:
"It is unlikely Ahmadinejad is touring
Latin America solely for the reasons listed above, however.
There is little, in real economic terms, to be gained from
Iran-Latin America trade. The political support Iran gathers in
Latin America is useful but again, in real terms, not much more
than marginal."
and
"Iran’s influence and
presence in Latin America has grown as Hezbollah’s presence has
increased along with noticeable Iranian-funded Shi’ite
efforts to win converts, build mosques and spread their
ideology through literature and the internet."
A previous story
on the infiltration of Hezbollah, the Iranian backed Shiite
terrorist organization, into South American, is
here. One sentence from this post is rather
chilling:
"The
website, "Hezbollah in Venezuela" said the purpose of the attack
was to call attention to the existence of a group by the same name,
and to convert Latin America to Islam through Jihad."
Is the President
so occupied by Iraq, that our enemies will attack us from
behind? And, if there are jihadists in South America, doesn't
this call out for securing our southern border from
infiltration?
Or the Philosophical
Cause of the Rise of Communism in South America
While economists and the left argue that poverty is the root
cause of political unrest in Central and South America, I want
to offer a different perspective. The problem that the
left in our country and and abroad suffers from is that they
learned the wrong lesson from history. Modern Democrats
and the Hugo Chavezs of this world believe that the answer to
poverty is that "some people have too much wealth."
Thusly, that wealth must be separated from these people
and distributed to the poor.
The left still believes that Marx was right. They ignore
the economic failure of the Soviet Union or the need for China
to adopt open markets to rise out of poverty. They ignore
the path of reform that occurred during America's
Progressive Era, that saved capitalism from its own excesses.
Instead of pushing for the reform of the markets and
personal behavior in places like Ecuador, Venezuela, and
Bolivia, they rush to abandon the free market and replace it
with a planned economy.
The end result is that authoritarian leaders like Chavez
play the poor against the traditional elites. As they set
these two against each other, they consolidate power and
establish their tyranny. Machiavelli,
in The
Discourses, describes the rise of tyranny in the
Roman Republic:
But the people of Rome,
instead of establishing checks to prevent the Decemvirs
from employing their authority for evil, removed all
control, and made the Ten the only magistracy in Rome:
abrogating all the others, because of the excessive eagerness
of the Senate to get rid of the Tribunes, and that of the
people to destroy the consulate. This blinded them so
that both contributed to provoke the disorders that
resulted from the Decemvirate. "For," as King Ferdinand
said, "men often act like certain small birds of prey, who,
prompted by their nature, pursue their victims so eagerly, that
they do not see the larger bird above them, ready to pounce
down upon and kill them."
As the new left sets once class against the other,
both will one day find that they have lost to a greater threat.
The henchmen, Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti and Awad Hamed
al-Bander hanged yesterday morning for their crimes. Both
were found guilty of killing 148 Shiites in 1982. Though
from this
biography, Barzan killed many more people in gruesome ways
as the head of Hussein's secret police.
As you probably know, Barzan was decapitated when he
reached the end of the gallows ropes. Of course that
brought outrage from the "
Arab" street, as exemplified by:
The president of
Morocco's Human Rights Center described the hangings as a
barbaric and vengeful act carried out under external pressure,
probably from Iran and the United States.
Not to be outdone, the
U.N. Human Rights chief seems to care a great deal about
these mass murders. His quote, is this gem:
The imposition of the death
penalty after a trial and appeal proceedings that do not
respect the principles of due process amounts to a violation of
the right to life....
Seems to me that he received more consideration of his right to
life than those he feed to the infamous meat grinder.
Of course, Europe had to match the "world" outrage.
Unable to grasp the concept that mass murdering thugs might
actually be executed as punishment, the
Vatican issued a statement that pretty much echoed what the
rest of the continent thinks:
After the execution of
Saddam, which in addition was turned into a spectacle in a way
that was clearly damaging to personal dignity, there were many
calls to move in the direction of dialogue and
reconciliation.... But at the moment it does not look like
such a change of tack has occurred.
They are
concerned about the personal dignity of mass murders?
Apparently so. These are the same people who remained
silent as Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of his
own people. These are the same people who did nothing about the
slaughter in their own sphere of influence in Bosnia and
Kosovo, and it required the Americans to intervene. These
are the same people who would abandon Iraq and allow it to
spiral into civil war. And lastly, these are the same
people who can't even be bothered about the growing use
of beheadings by Islamic militants as a military and
political weapon of fear. Take a look at this list of
beheadings and
ask yourself if the E.U. or the U.N. condemned the jihadists
behind them? Did these groups protest when Islamist
beheaded three girls in
Indonesia? Did they protest when they
beheaded Nick Berg? Did these same people
protest when American
soldiers were beheaded in Iraq?
Of course
the answer is no. The Arabs are upset because Shiites are
executing Sunnis. I can understand that. Usually it
is the other way around, and who likes change? But what
has happened to Europe? Somehow, their morality has been
warped that they can't accept the punishment of mass murders,
but at the same time, they lack the ability to muster the
courage to condemn the tool of choice of the advancing jihad.
I mean, the head falls off of a murder and Europe is
upset. Amazing. But when the Spanish were
bombed
by al-Qaeda, they cowered in fear, replacing their strong
Prime Minister with a weakling who immediately withdrew Spain's
troops from Iraq. Well, that showed the jihadists, didn't
it. Then the British subways
were attacked by homegrown Islamic terrorists. Yet Prime
Minister Tony Blair
prattles on about peaceful Islam.
A society
which has lost its ability to tell right from wrong is in
decline. The society which cries out at the death of
dictator and his henchmen, but remains silent when innocents
are butchered needs a rebirth. A society that can't get
mad and won't defend itself when it is attacked by its enemies
will end up like the Byzantine
Empire.
Update:
Gateway Pundit has a nice roundup with similar
sentiments. Also see the Anti-Idiotarian
Rottweiler. Now there is a guy who knows how to
celebrate the death of a sadist.
Editor's note: Some of the linked
stories contain urls to videos of these beheadings.
Caution is advised.
A reader in the comments to
this
post, made a very interesting and startling first
hand observation about the Chavez and Ahmadinejad
alliance. It seems Western missionaries have been
expelled from and Iranian "tractor" factories built, in an area
that holds large deposits of uranium. You can read it
first hand at
The Jungle Hut. It is scary to think that Iran has
access to and is mining Venezuelan uranium.
The government releases another set of economic statistics that
the Democrats can't take credit for. First
it lightly rains on the Democrats first days in
office, as they look silly opposing Bush's new Iraq strategy
(sending Murtha, Boxer, and Kennedy out as your spokesmen tends
to do that), then it pours as the deficit numbers look good,
generated by increased revenue, and now it is hailing as the
trade deficit narrows.
The New York Times
reports that the trade deficit fell to $58.2 billion
in November of 2006, the lowest it has been since 2005.
You can read all the details at the
Census Bureau.
Despite the fact that last year will still set the record, more
than likely, for the largest trade deficit in history, there
are some good economic indicators to be found. First, we
bought less from China. Next, the weaker dollar meant
that foreign goods were more expensive in general and America
exports cost less. As a result, exports grew roughly by
$125 billion dollars. Additionally, American officials
have been putting pressure on China to properly value their
currency. As this happens, their goods become more
expensive and less appealing. Overall, this is good news
for America and her workers.
Spiegel Online has a great article, worth reading, about
the situation of Christians in the Middle East. I find it
ironic that the West takes in great numbers of Muslims and
offers them equality and freedom, but that in the Middle East:
Violence, terrorism and the
Islamists' growing influence pose a threat to Christianity in
the Middle East. In some countries, members of an unpopular
Christian minority are already fighting for their survival --
or fleeing for their lives.
Islam is neither tolerant or a religion of peace, just ask the
Armenians.
Does Ahmadinejad really want Chavez's
Venezuela as an ally? My guess is that this is an
alliance of convenience and not of ideology as
Islamic fundamentalism has little use for communism.
Conversely, they do share a common enemy, George Bush.
Their hatred for him almost reaches that of our own home
grown left. Almost.
These two authoritarian thugs according to this article,
are going to harass the United States in a couple of different
ways. First is seems Iran is going to pour money into
central and South America to foment unrest. You will
notice that Ahmadinejad's next stops are Ecuador and
Nicaragua, both countries which have elected left leaning
presidents, both hostile to American interests. I imagine
some of those funds will be used to destabilize surrounding
countries such as Colombia or Peru. This of course will
be an annoyance to the United States as it would rather
concentrate on events in the Middle East. Maybe Iran's
Ahmadinejad even thinks he can distract the U.S. enough in its
"backyard" to allow him time to finish his nuclear weapon
program.
The second notable event that came out of this meeting was
a joint announcement from these two OPEC members on oil
production cuts. Both dictators need money, one to
fund his nuclear ambitions and the exportation of Islamic
fundamentalism, and the other to prop up his dictatorship and
export communism throughout South and Central America.
Of course, an increase in the price of oil always has the added
benefit of economically hurting the United States.
Britain's Muslim Problem or
What Do You Do WithPeople Who Will Not
Assimilate?
Britain's Channel 4 went undercover and taped the sermon's of
several Muslim clerics. Both George Bush and Tony Blair
are probably going to be surprised that Islam isn't a religion
of peace. Unlike our media, it seems that this report is
well done, being conducted for nearly 12 months. This
wasn't an off the cuff, "gotcha" investigation that our media
excels at in spades. Instead, these clerics and their
followers repeated the same rejection of western society, over
and over.
At the Sparkbrook mosque, run
by UK Islamic Mission (UKIM), an organisation that maintains 45
mosques in Britain and which Tony Blair has said 'is extremely
valued by the government for its multi-faith and multicultural
activities', a preacher is captured on film praising the
Taliban. In response to the news that a British Muslim solider
was killed fighting the Taliban, the speaker declares: 'The
hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his
shoulders.'
Another cleric, according to the
Daily Mail, had this to say about his fellow British
citizens:
Non-Muslims in Britain,
declared Mr Latif, are dirty, unclean people who never wash
their hands and become ill because of their own sexual
promiscuity. He went on to denounce British democracy as
'demon-ocracy' and praised the shariah laws of Islam under
which thieves have their hands cut off and adulterous women are
stoned to death in public.
How does a civilized nation deal with a religion and an
ideology that is not compatible with western, liberal
democracy?
Even Cincinnati has its far left. On Thursday, as part of
a national day of protest against the Iraq War and George Bush,
or is it really just Bush, about 50 protesters attended the
MoveOn sponsored event. The Cincinnati Enquirer has
pictures and the
story.
The problem I have with the leftists who support the MoveOn agenda, especially when it
comes to defense of the homeland, is that it is simply
reactive. They hate America and hate everything it does,
unless of course when it is attacked or humbled in some way.
There is simply no military action they would support that
defends America. For America is worse than the Soviet
Union, America is worse than Communist China, America is worse
than Saudi Arabia, and America is worse than the 9/11
hijackers. If you think I overstate the case, here is
what
John Murtha, Democrat, thinks about the United
States. This man heads the subcommittee on defense
spending. This man shapes policy in Washington. This man is the
face of the Democrats and the left. This man says out
loud what every leftist really thinks. Click on the video
to
hear him deride his own nation.
For more pictures on the national day of the ranting rabid
left, check out
Little Green Footballs and Zombietime.
And finally, this article
pretty much sums everything up.
Here are the facts
about the deficit. From October to December of 2006, the
Federal deficit was at a four year low of $80 billion
dollars. Revenues were up over 8% while spending
increased only 7/10ths of a percent.
A couple of thoughts come to mind. If the Republicans had
held spending increases to this level, instead of spending like
drunken liberals, they might still be in power. And,
lower taxes and a booming economy actually do lead to revenue
increases. Just in case readers of the liberal persuasion
don't believe this story is real, you can read it from a source
that should be credible to you, the
People's Daily.
President Daniel Ortega, newly sworn in as president of
Nicaragua, wasted little time in showing his true colors.
On his first day in office, he signed a
trade agreement with fellow communist led nations of Cuba,
Bolivia, and Venezuela.
In nearby Venezuela, Hugo Chavez was sworn in to a second
term as president on Wednesday. In typical marxist
fashion, he gave a nearly 3 hour
speech (Bill Clinton gave long speeches also, wonder
if there is a connection...), with the highlight being a call
for: "Fatherland, socialism,
or death." In his speech, he announced that his
government would nationalize the telecommunications and
electricity industries (though Satan isn't really sure if this
is a movement towards hardcore communism or an emulation
of the French). In either case, most good dictators
eventually gain control of the press.
Of course, not to be outdone, Evo Morales, the Bolivian
president, has set the example for his new trade
partners. This past May he nationalized the
natural gas industry, within the last couple of weeks he
nationalized the country's water utility, and now he just
announced he would take control of the mining industry.
Furthermore, fellow leftist and friend Hugo Chavez, sent
troops to Bolivia to help Morales deal with several
provinces who wish to gain independence.
Several stories have surfaced demonstrating that
Morales is following the communist handbook by sending in
"goon" squads to quiet or kill the opposition.
A good place to keep up with the rising red tide south of the
border is at Publius Pundit.
Now Satan's take on this is twofold. We here in hell are
very familiar with communists. They've been some of our
best customers. Chavez, Morales, and I have no doubt
Ortega will all implement some sort of communist agenda.
We will of course see more nationalizations, more curtailments
of individual rights, the exportation of revolution to
surrounding nations, militarization, and a claim that this is
all done in the name of the poor and repressed of their
respective countries.
This doesn't really fool us here in hell. While these
future guests will wear the mantle of marxism, the only people
who will benefit from these authoritarian regimes will be
themselves and their close associates. They will
create a cult of personality and everything they do will be
done to maintain their hold on power.
Satan's other point is that this has all happened while America
has been distracted elsewhere. The Reagan legacy was the
defeat of communism. The Bush legacy will be marred by
the fact the he took his attention off of Central and South
America to fight jihadists in Iraq. While Bush fights one
enemy far away, he has allowed three new ones to rise up in
America's backyard.
The Captain's
Quarters has the latest rundown of the politics behind
Bush's speech and makes some good points. At this time,
though, most of the politics surrounding this event doesn't
interest me. Even Ted Kennedy's usual un-American
rants (un-American is a term we should use more often)
are par for the leftist, anti-American, despise your culture,
course. More important long term questions concern
me.
First, what will 20,000 troops get us? Imagine 20,000
people. That fills up only one half of the seats at a
Cincinnati Reds game. That is only one third of the
stands at a Cincinnati Bengal's game. Twenty thousand
soldiers, in a country the size of Iraq, which is the size of
California, is not going to matter. Of the 20,000, how
many are actually combat soldiers who will kill the
enemy? How many are support troops, clerks, cooks, supply
officers, and so on? Unless these 20,000 troops are
highly trained, boots on the ground, rifles at the ready, this
is a meaningless gesture by President Bush.
Second, should we have invaded at all? Before 1991, I was
perfectly happy to have Saddam Hussein as a quasi-client
state. Pre-1991, Hussein kept the Shiites in line, and by
the way of his war with Iran, the Islamic jihadist terrorist
state was kept weak and preoccupied. Iran, Iraq, and
their people might have been miserable, but American interests
were served. (And before you call me heartless, is this
anything different than what will happen if we follow the plans
of the current Democratic leadership?) Unfortunately, his
invasion of Kuwait and threat to Saudi Arabia's oil fields,
forced the United States to oppose him. Why do you think
President George H. W. Bush refused topple Saddam at the end of
the first Gulf War? The alternatives were not
appealing. We could occupy the country, deal with
Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Baathism (fascism by another
name), reconstruction, and Islam, or we could let a
hopefully repentant Saddam keep a lid on these things and
still hold back Iran at the same time. Unfortunately,
George W. Bush learned a different historical lesson from the
first Gulf War than I did.
Is democracy compatible with Islam and mid-eastern
societies? If creating a democracy in Iraq was the Bush
reconstruction plan, did they ask the right questions.
First, if Iraq was to be kept whole, are multicultural states
feasible? If we look at the world in recent times, the
evidence might point to a negative answer. Yugoslavia
split into its constituent parts. Anyone remember Bosnia,
Serbia, and Kosovo? Look what happened to the post Soviet
Union. Where there was one super power, there are now
numerous independent nations. Even the relatively
prosperous Czechoslovakia couldn't remain whole. Of
course, you can even point to the Basque problem in Spain or
the continuing saga of Scottish independence that never
seems to die as additional examples of the rush to create
independent nation states. The Bush people simply
underestimated or didn't understand the Sunni, Shiite, Kurd
dislike for each other and as a civilized nation, the U.S.
wasn't ready to take the bloody steps needed to control the
population in the first place.
A broader question though, is whether Islam is compatible with
western democracy. Unlike Christianity, Islam is a
religion and ideology that by its nature proscribes almost
every detail of personal and political life. There is no
equivalent to Jesus' allowance
of secular authority. Additionally, Christianity and its
teachings are the "inspired" words of God, whereas Islam and
its holy book, the Koran, are the literal words of God,
delivered by his final prophet. Islam has a difficult
time with change due to the fact the words of God are written
in concrete. There can be little room
interpretation. The concepts of secularism,
religious freedom, tolerance, individual rights, and freedom of
speech are often at odds with the Koran, which stipulates the
role of non-believers, the status of females, and many other
everyday
interactions. Even Turkey, which is held up as
the poster child for how Islam can be democratic, severely
limits religiousfreedom of its
minorities. Whether one looks at the rights of women,
honor killings, female circumcision, religious freedom from
Saudi Arabia to Turkey, and the role of sharia law, any
democracy that takes hold in Iraq, will not look like
ours. If you don't have religious freedom, if you don't
have capitalism, if you don't have freedom of speech, if women
are treated no better than slaves, it isn't really
democracy. And what part of that do we really want?
What is the answer? No, the "let's embarrass
America, because it is an evil country and we hate it" solution
that the un-American (like I said, it needs to be said
more often) left wants is disastrous. Leaving Iraq
now would let a civil war break out, where hundreds of
thousands of people would be murdered and killed. Funny
how the oh so caring left can propose such a solution.
No, Bush needs to establish a stable and strong Iraqi
government. Since it is almost impossible to create a
democracy in an Islamic nation, we shouldn't bother. The
U.S. must forge a powerful central government, a robust
national army, and allow it to govern effectively. Since
there isn't going to be democracy in Iraq by definition, we
need a realistic policy that imposes order on Iraq and produces
a government that serves the American interest of containing
Iran and suppressing Islamic fundamentalism. Some might
call that an authoritarian regime, I'd call it in American
interests.
Update: Hot Air has pretty much the
same take on the roll of the troops.
President Bush mentioned democracy and Iraq in the same
breath six times by my count. Compared to his usual
speeches on Iraq, that is a noticeable decline. While he seems
to finally realize that democracy isn't the cure-all for Iraq
and that a more realistic policy that serves American interests
is needed, that sense of realism is still muddied by the almost
misguided Wilsonian concept that democracy can be spread around
the world. In the short term though, President Bush at
least realizes that the most important American interests are a
stable Iraq, a non-radical Iraq, and an Iraq that can counter
our enemies in Iran and Syria. He at
least acknowledges that a "democratic Iraq will not be
perfect."
Bush takes off the kid gloves and defines our
enemies. In Iraq, Shiite militias, Sunni insurgents, and
Al-Qaeda terrorists are the bad guys. Finally, a tangible
enemy we can go after. Outside of Iraq, Iran and Syria
were warned that, "we will
seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced
weaponry and training to our enemies." In plain
terms, that means strikes inside Iran and Syria are coming
soon. Buried down in the speech, a warning for our
so-called Arab allies: "Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American
defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists-and
a strategic threat to their survival." Finally,
the President also acknowledged that there were "too many restrictions" placed on
our combat troops and that no group that adds to the violence
will be off limits to military action. Bush stated that,
"Prime Minister
Maliki...pledged that political or sectarian
interference..." will not be tolerated in dealing with
private militias. A certain cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr,
and the Mahdi militia, a cause of much of the sectarian
violence, will now either have to come to the table or be
pushed aside.
While Bush has definitely adopted a more realistic Iraq
policy, naming our enemies, allowing the military to do its
job, forcing the Iraqi government to clamp down on Shiite
militias, and instituting an economic rebuilding plan, I still
fear our greater foreign policy is captained by the misguided
notion of nation building on the democratic model in areas of
the world that are not suited to this great gift.
My perception was validated when Bush, at the end of his
speech, said, "We also need
to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to
deploy overseas-where they can help build democratic
institutions...." I'd much rather have a foreign
policy that guards American interests and leaves adopting
democracy to those who want it.
The Democratic response, given by Dick Durbin was the usual
leftist response to any situation that requires hard work,
sacrifice, and determination. Run and admit defeat is
about as realistic as spreading democracy to Muslim
nations. Durbin's remarks can be read at CNN.
At least Durbin returned to reality for awhile when
he admitted that Congress could do little overcome the war
powers of a President. I'm surprised Cindy Sheehan didn't
grab the microphone out of his hand at that
point....
Even with a Democrat assuming the office of governor on January
8th, not many Republicans were upset to see Bob Taft,
Republican, leave. Taft, who was tainted by
graft and incompetence, helped lead Ohio Republicans to
defeat from the Federal to the local level this past
November.
From a moral perspective, Taft was a failure. From a
conservative point of view, he even committed greater
sins. Taft gravitated to the center, preferring big
government and higher taxes. His veto of a bill
restricting red
light cameras is just one example of his inability to
please his conservative base.
Governor Ted Strickland, Democrat, on his first day,
banned gifts to state employees with a value of greater
than $20. While this is a promising start, only time will
tell if Ohio has an honest, competent governor.
Additionally, Strickland also vetoed a bill that Bob Taft had
refused to sign. Under Ohio law, any bill not signed by a
governor, becomes law in ten days. Strickland vetoed SB
117 on January 8th, 2007. The bill was sent to the desk
of Bob Taft on
December 27th. What is interesting here is the
constitutional issue. Under the OhioConstitution,
the governor has 10 days to react (Sundays are expressly
excluded), either signing the bill, vetoing it, or
allowing it to become law without his signature.
If the count began when it reached the governor's desk on
December 27, Strickland is off to a bad start, with his counsel
unable to add and dispensing poor legal advice to boot, which
of course doesn't portend well for the future. On the
other hand, if the countdown didn't start until December 28,
then the inability of Bob Taft to take a stand, has made
Governor Strickland look like a
political genius, constitutionally outfoxing the
decimated Republicans one more time. Seems as if the
Republican controlled Supreme Court will decide this one.
I wonder what kind of mood they are in?
Steve Jobs, last week's goat,
is this week's great leader as he wows 'em in San
Francisco
Steve Jobs, who for the last couple weeks, looked like he might
be thrown overboard because of
post-dated stock options, pulled his feet from the fire (in
a blaze of showmanship that the devil can be proud of), raising
Apple stock some 7 points today, with his announcementsat
Macworld.
First, Apple Computer is no more. It will be simply known
as Apple, Inc., from today, reflecting Apple's growth into
non-computer products. Additionally, the iPods were were
updated with larger hard drives, better batteries, and lower
prices. Leveraging its iTunes music and movie store,
Apple introduced the Apple TV, which will allow you to play the
songs and movies from your iPod on your television.
Finally, the iPhone was unveiled. It is part phone,
part computer, and part iPod. Satan was rather impressed
and imagines you will see multitudes more people seemingly
talking to themselves in the grocery store, driving like
idiots, holding loud conversations at the table next to you, or
watching a pornographic movie in the seat next to you on your
next flight, all thanks to the new iPhone! We like
it when disparate bad behaviors can be combined together.
Plus, we know Steve Jobs has a streak of evil in him, because
the iPhone is tied to Cingular for two years!
Satan was gravely disappointed with this year's keynote,
though. iPods, iPhones, and an Apple TV, but no computer
upgrades. Apple is a computer company. Oh wait, it
is just plain Apple. There was no mention of OS 10.5,
iLife '07, or any hardware upgrades to the Mac Pro Tower, the
iMac, or the Mac Mini. Oh well, Vista will give them
hell....
If you click on that picture you are sent this 
