Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Help Wanted: Human Shields. Immediate openings exist for Human Shields in Iraq to protect Iraqi's, Iraqi infrastructure (water, oil pipelines, hospitals), UN personnel, and UN facilities. The ideal candidate for these openings previously served as Human Shields in Iraq prior to the war to protect Iraqi's, Iraqi infrastructure (water, oil piplines, hospitals) from the Americans coming to liberate them. These Human Shields can be immediately deployed to all infrastructure facilities and co-deploy with UN and Coalition forces to protect them from attack by cowardly ideologues who will murder Iraqi's and UN forces at will in order to return the Iraqi population to slavery. These former Human Shields who were disappointed when Americans did not target the infrastructure or innocent Iraqi's will not be disappointed again! This time, murderous foreigners from many nations have rallied to the al Qaeda call to come to Iraq and destroy and murder at will. We are certain that the Human Shields, whose only agenda was the protection of Iraqi's and the infrastructure, will be eager to pick up their banner and continue their quest by placing themselves between Iraqi's and several thousand hatefilled, intolerant, murdering terrorists! Don't wait! Join now!
Saturday, August 16, 2003
HEADLINE: Federal Judge Takes Over California Electoral Process. It's time to throw out some more election laws as a Federal Judge in California has wrested control of the recall election from the Legislature. It's essentially the same scenario that unfolded in New Jersey when the Democrats replaced their losing candidate on the ballot in violation of state election law and in Florida in 2000 when they attempted to circumvent the recount provisions of those laws. It appears we now have a Federal Judge in California that won't let things like "law" or the "will of the people as expressed through their legislature" get in the way of a good election.
Bush and the Power Grid: I believe a quick look at President Bush's Engery Plan that he submitted to Congress in May 2001 will reveal that he specifically addressed the decaying power grid in his initiatives. Seems that the Democrats in Congress have bottle the Energy Bill up for well over 2 years now.
Sunday, August 10, 2003
Perspectives: Expectations. Now that "Arnold" has declared his candidacy for governor of California, people expect him to have a plan for economic recovery for the state. They expect Gov. Davis to "go negative", get nasty, be combative, and so forth.
People expect Pres. Bush to come up with plans for Iraq, for the deficit, for the continued economic recovery, to protect the country from terrorist attack. They expect the democrats to continue to probe Bush for weakness and attack him where he is vulnerable. They expect democrats to challenge Bush on honesty and ability.
People expect the Republican Congress to produce budgets and manage health care, social security, defense spending, and taxes. They expect democrats to continue to block Federal Judicial appointees in committee and on the Senate floor.
Seems like the public has pretty clear expectations for each party. One is- in the mind of the public- a party from which they expect plans and programs, the other a party from which they expect obstruction, mud slinging, and name calling, but apparently there is no expectation of ideas, plans, or programs.
Seems like the battle lines are pretty well defined.
People expect Pres. Bush to come up with plans for Iraq, for the deficit, for the continued economic recovery, to protect the country from terrorist attack. They expect the democrats to continue to probe Bush for weakness and attack him where he is vulnerable. They expect democrats to challenge Bush on honesty and ability.
People expect the Republican Congress to produce budgets and manage health care, social security, defense spending, and taxes. They expect democrats to continue to block Federal Judicial appointees in committee and on the Senate floor.
Seems like the public has pretty clear expectations for each party. One is- in the mind of the public- a party from which they expect plans and programs, the other a party from which they expect obstruction, mud slinging, and name calling, but apparently there is no expectation of ideas, plans, or programs.
Seems like the battle lines are pretty well defined.
Thursday, August 07, 2003
Standards of Success Not "Standard". Lots of talk about Iraq being a failure or a quagmire. Let's look at some standards and see if "The Media" is applying an equal standard to President Bush.
1. Haiti- Clinton sends in troops to restore democracy and rebuild the nation. How long did it take before free and fair elections, let me rephrase that- successful free and fair elections were held? How long before they had a new, non-corrupt government in place? How long before an efficient police force was on duty and protecting the country? How long before the Haitian economy was stable and unemployment dropped to a level equal to "full employment" (in this country that's about 3%)? This was on an island nation that required very few troops- comparatively- and small scale operations. Yet we're supposed to believe, according to "the media" that in a nation the size of Iraq, that required force on force combat and an integrated air campaign, we should have achieved all of these things a mere 90 days after the cessation of major combat?
2. Afghan, Iraqi, and Sudanese bombing campaign- Clinton fires missiles at three countries presumptively to destroy al-Qaeda facilities and Iraqi WMD programs. Successful? How about a look at the flawed intel or the motives of then-President Clinton?
3. Bosnia- We introduce NATO forces implement a peace plan in December 1995. We're told one year and one year ONLY. How long have we been there? (answer 8 years and counting...) How long before they had free and fair elections? How long before they had a thriving economy? How long before there was a fielded police force to protect the populace? Again, we're up to 8 years and counting, yet somehow, Bush is expected to have achieved all this in less than 90 days! Bosnia?
4. Kosovo- 78-day air campaign in 1999. How long did it take for Kosovo to stabilize? How long before their first elections? How long did it take their economy to stabilize? How long have our troops been there? (answer 4 years and counting...) Again, Bush is maligned for not accomplishing these things in 90 days.
The media is definitely working off of a skewed standard, expecting Bush to have accomplished in 90 days what has not yet been accomplished by ANY of President Clinton and Al Gore's military operations.
1. Haiti- Clinton sends in troops to restore democracy and rebuild the nation. How long did it take before free and fair elections, let me rephrase that- successful free and fair elections were held? How long before they had a new, non-corrupt government in place? How long before an efficient police force was on duty and protecting the country? How long before the Haitian economy was stable and unemployment dropped to a level equal to "full employment" (in this country that's about 3%)? This was on an island nation that required very few troops- comparatively- and small scale operations. Yet we're supposed to believe, according to "the media" that in a nation the size of Iraq, that required force on force combat and an integrated air campaign, we should have achieved all of these things a mere 90 days after the cessation of major combat?
2. Afghan, Iraqi, and Sudanese bombing campaign- Clinton fires missiles at three countries presumptively to destroy al-Qaeda facilities and Iraqi WMD programs. Successful? How about a look at the flawed intel or the motives of then-President Clinton?
3. Bosnia- We introduce NATO forces implement a peace plan in December 1995. We're told one year and one year ONLY. How long have we been there? (answer 8 years and counting...) How long before they had free and fair elections? How long before they had a thriving economy? How long before there was a fielded police force to protect the populace? Again, we're up to 8 years and counting, yet somehow, Bush is expected to have achieved all this in less than 90 days! Bosnia?
4. Kosovo- 78-day air campaign in 1999. How long did it take for Kosovo to stabilize? How long before their first elections? How long did it take their economy to stabilize? How long have our troops been there? (answer 4 years and counting...) Again, Bush is maligned for not accomplishing these things in 90 days.
The media is definitely working off of a skewed standard, expecting Bush to have accomplished in 90 days what has not yet been accomplished by ANY of President Clinton and Al Gore's military operations.
Political Mythology; Wise Budget Policy Caused The Clinton Surplus. One of the most oft repeated myths in politics today is that Clinton/Gore were wise budgeters whose diligence and superb handling of the economy generated a huge budget surplus. Wrong. Here's how that particular slight of hand was accomplished:
1. In 1993, Clinton/Gore inflicted HUGE tax increases on the economy sucking out enourmous amounts of capital
2. Also in 1993 (maybe '94, but I think '93) Clinton/Gore refinanced the entire national debt with short term notes. This DID lower the debt service allowing up-front cash savings, but it risked bankrupting the country if interest rates went up (remember when New York went belly up?). This also explains Alan Greenspan's near paranoia over inflation.
3. Clinton/Gore spent their first six years in office looting the Pentagon budget
4. They road the .com bubble which artificially inflated the markets, but did produce income for the federal treasury
The problem is that around about '97 or so, they realized the money they were sucking out of the economy through taxes was going to start impacting the economy so they attempted some late-term tax cuts to slow the impact. But the .com bubble burst before any tax cuts could take effect. By March of 2000, the economy was in full decline and the so-called "surplus" was going to have to be spent.
The adults came into office in January 2001 and were faced with an economy in decline and then 9/11. Money had to be spent on the Defense Department, Homeland Defense, and stimulous initiatives to get the economy going again. The so-called "surplus" was a sham.
1. In 1993, Clinton/Gore inflicted HUGE tax increases on the economy sucking out enourmous amounts of capital
2. Also in 1993 (maybe '94, but I think '93) Clinton/Gore refinanced the entire national debt with short term notes. This DID lower the debt service allowing up-front cash savings, but it risked bankrupting the country if interest rates went up (remember when New York went belly up?). This also explains Alan Greenspan's near paranoia over inflation.
3. Clinton/Gore spent their first six years in office looting the Pentagon budget
4. They road the .com bubble which artificially inflated the markets, but did produce income for the federal treasury
The problem is that around about '97 or so, they realized the money they were sucking out of the economy through taxes was going to start impacting the economy so they attempted some late-term tax cuts to slow the impact. But the .com bubble burst before any tax cuts could take effect. By March of 2000, the economy was in full decline and the so-called "surplus" was going to have to be spent.
The adults came into office in January 2001 and were faced with an economy in decline and then 9/11. Money had to be spent on the Defense Department, Homeland Defense, and stimulous initiatives to get the economy going again. The so-called "surplus" was a sham.
Gore Speaks of Deception. This is rich, former VP Al Gore claims that the Bush Administration has deceived the country on the issue of the Iraqi War. This from the Clinton/Gore team that:
1. promised tax cuts and then raised taxes
2. Told us during their campaign in '92 that the economy was the worst in 50 years when all the indicators show that the down turn ended in late '91 and was actually on the upswing
3. Told us we'd be in Bosnia for one year and one year only! Yes, we're STILL there, 8 years later!
4. Told us the economy was the best ever during Campaign 2000 even though the economic down turn started in March of 2000 on their watch
5. Told us they put 100,000 cops on the street- the number was closer to 8,000 and most of those were temporary
6. Raised taxes on Social Security receipients in '93, but buried the increase in a larger tax increase so that it would not be touted in the media
7. Convinced us they had intel showing an aspirin factory in Sudan was a chemical weapons factory that need to be destroyed "pre-emptively"
Yep, this crew has lots of room to talk about deception; lots of room, but ZERO credibility....
1. promised tax cuts and then raised taxes
2. Told us during their campaign in '92 that the economy was the worst in 50 years when all the indicators show that the down turn ended in late '91 and was actually on the upswing
3. Told us we'd be in Bosnia for one year and one year only! Yes, we're STILL there, 8 years later!
4. Told us the economy was the best ever during Campaign 2000 even though the economic down turn started in March of 2000 on their watch
5. Told us they put 100,000 cops on the street- the number was closer to 8,000 and most of those were temporary
6. Raised taxes on Social Security receipients in '93, but buried the increase in a larger tax increase so that it would not be touted in the media
7. Convinced us they had intel showing an aspirin factory in Sudan was a chemical weapons factory that need to be destroyed "pre-emptively"
Yep, this crew has lots of room to talk about deception; lots of room, but ZERO credibility....
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Partisanship vs. Foreign Policy. Remember the old days when the political adage was "partisanship ends at the water's edge"? Guess it's not true when it's a Republican administration. Seems like times have changed and it's okay to shred the reputation of the country's leader in the middle of war. It appears perfectly okay now to intentionally try to break the bond between the Commander-in-Chief and the troops in the field. The logical result of that of course is a loss of confidence in our President by our troops while they're under fire. I suppose as long as it's for a political win back home, that makes it okay- in the minds of some....
Monday, August 04, 2003
SUBJECT: Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC). How many people knew that it was Governor Fritz Hollings that signed the legislation that mandated the flying of the Confederate Flag over the South Carolina capitol? Probably not many, judging by the deafing silence while it somehow became an issue to beat Republicans up with during the 2000 elections.
Sunday, August 03, 2003
SUBJECT: The Second Amendment, my interpretation. I have always been intrigued and frustrated by the debate over The Right to Bear Arms. I agree that a straight reading of the amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" can be read to grant the responsibility to the government to maintain the military and the arms. However, The Constitution was written to LIMIT the federal government and protect the CITIZENS. With that in mind, I recommend a thorough reading of The Federalist Papers.
A reading of the writings of The Founder's views shows that they were deeply concerned about a standing army. Their preference was that there be NO standing army under the control of the federal authority because the nature of a federal power is to accumulate and exercise power. They viewed a standing army as a future threat to the freedom of this nation because a federal power would, at some future point, utilize that standing army to control or otherwise subjugate the populace.
The problem for The Founders was that they were unable to find away around a standing military force if they were to remain a free and viable independent nation. They eventually acknowledged and accepted there would be a need for the federal authority to raise and maintain a standing army or militia, therefore it is reasonable to read:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This was the safeguard The Founders built in as a defense against a federal tyranny. If it was unavoidably necessary for the federal authority to maintain a militia, then the people must be allowed to bear arms as well as that last line of defense against subjugation.
Obviously, this is the interpretation of one person- namely me. I merely throw this opinion into the debate for those so inclined to consider. I also believe it is time to revisit The Second Amendment via Constitutional Amendment to clarify the wording and answer the question in the minds of Americans once and for all. A debate within the context of an amendment should clarify definitively whether we, as a nation, desire control of firearms.
A reading of the writings of The Founder's views shows that they were deeply concerned about a standing army. Their preference was that there be NO standing army under the control of the federal authority because the nature of a federal power is to accumulate and exercise power. They viewed a standing army as a future threat to the freedom of this nation because a federal power would, at some future point, utilize that standing army to control or otherwise subjugate the populace.
The problem for The Founders was that they were unable to find away around a standing military force if they were to remain a free and viable independent nation. They eventually acknowledged and accepted there would be a need for the federal authority to raise and maintain a standing army or militia, therefore it is reasonable to read:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This was the safeguard The Founders built in as a defense against a federal tyranny. If it was unavoidably necessary for the federal authority to maintain a militia, then the people must be allowed to bear arms as well as that last line of defense against subjugation.
Obviously, this is the interpretation of one person- namely me. I merely throw this opinion into the debate for those so inclined to consider. I also believe it is time to revisit The Second Amendment via Constitutional Amendment to clarify the wording and answer the question in the minds of Americans once and for all. A debate within the context of an amendment should clarify definitively whether we, as a nation, desire control of firearms.
This blog will be the place I ramble on with my political opinions that most of you won't care a wit about. That's okay with me. I just want a place to vent and add my thoughts to the fray. It is specifically a partisan political blog dedicated solely to my point of view.
I am not seeking discussions or debates on the items I post here. I normally engage in such exchanges over a beer, face-to-face. The opinions are mine and mine alone. For that reason, I am writing under a nom de plume to ensure that my opinions do not attach to my friends, my employer, nor to any of the social and fraternal organizations to which I belong. I will not respond to e-mail or comments about my postings.
I plan to post items here on an absolutely random "schedule" as ideas strike me, or as I have the time. I hope that some of you will enjoy and agree with my postings while I also know that some will not and that's okay too. Now, let's knock this tree down and see if it makes a sound.
I am not seeking discussions or debates on the items I post here. I normally engage in such exchanges over a beer, face-to-face. The opinions are mine and mine alone. For that reason, I am writing under a nom de plume to ensure that my opinions do not attach to my friends, my employer, nor to any of the social and fraternal organizations to which I belong. I will not respond to e-mail or comments about my postings.
I plan to post items here on an absolutely random "schedule" as ideas strike me, or as I have the time. I hope that some of you will enjoy and agree with my postings while I also know that some will not and that's okay too. Now, let's knock this tree down and see if it makes a sound.
