The Black Republican

This is why we cannot put the Democrat foxes in charge of the United States hen house!

The nonbinding, largely symbolic resolution passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, despite strong opposition from the White House. It infuriated NATO ally Turkey, which hinted it might halt logistic support to U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan if the bill passes.

Largely symbolic? TOTALLY symbolic, and would result in delays getting our troops the Beans, Bullets, and Blankets they need to continue winning this war. And if the Turks really decided to flex their political muscles and prevent all transit across their territory (which they, as a sovereign nation, have every right to do), then the flights taking our wounded soldiers to advanced medical treatment centers at US bases in Germany and England will need to take a less direct route, resulting in longer flights and possibly higher mortality rates.

So, in what kind of world do we live in where the Speaker of the US House of Representitives pushes symbolic legislation that would alienate one of our most vital war allies and could potentially end up costing hundreds of millions $ more to get our troops the food and equipment they need and maybe even the lives of some of our wounded? Unfortunately, in a world where symbolism is more important than substance and, to the Liberal Socialists currently in positions of power, a world where the ends justify the means. It is painfully clear that in this case (as in most with these Stalinists), the aquisition of more power is worth any price.

Think I'm wrong? Think I'm over the top calling these people Stalinists and Liberal Socialists? Well try this new pants-suit on for size...

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Hillary Clinton said last week, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Looks like a familiar uniform, doesn't it?

We cannot let these jackals have the keys to the kingdom, or like the foxes in the hen house, they will gorge themselves on those they are supposed to protect.

Amir Taheri, writing at OpinionJournal.com, advises us how things are going in Iran.

The regime is trying to mobilize its shrinking base by claiming that the Islamic Republic is under threat from internal and external foes. It was in that context that the four Iranian-American hostages held in Tehran were forced to make televised "confessions" last month about alleged plots to foment a "velvet revolution."

Over 40 people have been arrested on charges of espionage since April, 20 in the southern city of Shiraz. Khomeinist paranoia reached a new peak last week when the authorities announced, through the Islamic Republic News Agency, the capture of four squirrels in the Western city of Kermanshah and claimed that the furry creatures had been fitted with "espionage devices" by the Americans in Iraq and smuggled into the Islamic Republic.

Today was one for the books.

It began with a vote in the Senate that beat, throttled, and mutilated the hotly contested immigration bill before it finally died. Good riddance. I can't help but wonder if we've seen a life preserver thrown to the Republican Party.

You can continue to follow the spectacle on the thousand-or-so blogs covering the action, but make sure you hear about Sam Switchback and MSM Dimwittery from the WSJ, both via HotAir.

FULL DISCLOSURE: As someone who has clicked occasionally on the "Those Shirts" ads on HotAir, I am apparently involved in the plot.

That would have been a full day's news, but we're not finished.

SCOTUS decided to get into the action by offering its final ruling (yet another 5-4 with Kennedy siding with the Originalist/Textualist half of the court) [ SCOTUSBlog] on affirmative action in public schools. We'll need time to really digest this mammoth ruling; I've only managed to skim the Chief Justice's opinion for the court. But, as widely reported, the CJ has offered a statement in conclusion that I trust will become one of the great catchphrases of Supreme Court jurisprudence:

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

Next, Mike Pence's preventative measure banning the UnFairness Doctrine thundered out of the House, 309-115. Expect the Senate to pass it on a voice vote some Friday night in July.

To finish off a tumultuous day with a little comic relief tonight, the Dems had a debate, where they discussed the evils of resegregation being forced on America by the Supreme Court. The event was held at Howard University.

A long time ago, I signed up for some sort of email newsletter from The Jerusalem Post. I found it informative, and it let me see what was concerning our friends in Israel. On a very basic, emotional and subjective level, it also let me see their ads and read their stories to observe how much alike Israel and the United States are, even while being very different. I like and greatly admire the Israeli people, and believe their success is vital to our own economic, cultural, and national security interests.

Eventually, I found I didn't have time for the newsletter. Though I unsubscribed, I would occasionally get advertisements for subscriptions and requests for donations to their affiliated charities. I never tried to get off that mailing list, because I thought it was harmless, and still more fun and informative that most of the other spam I get.

Similarly, I like Rudy Giuliani. He seems like a nice guy in most cases, and I can imagine it might be fun to be able to sit down to dinner with him. I believe him to be a strong economic conservative, with good federalist tendencies, regardless of any compromises he might have had to make to get along in liberal New York. I think he has strong pro-defense and foreign policy instincts. I don't like his social liberalism at all, and I am offended by some of his seemingly anti-Catholic, cafeteria Catholicism. I will not vote for him in a primary. But between him and any Democrat in a general election, I would not hesitate to vote for him.

That all said....

The following just popped up in my email. I am quoting it in its entirety.

(click to enlarge)

Dear Friend,

As a longtime friend and staunch supporter of Israel during my entire public life, I want to share with you my deep concern for the Jewish state and ask for your support as I campaign to become the next President of the United States.

We are at a crucial moment in history. We are once again at a point where the free world's resolve in fighting evil is being tested.

In the 1990's, we had the blinders on with regard to Islamic terrorism. Coddling terrorists-even applauding for winning the Nobel Peace prize as was done with Yasser Arafat-is a policy we cannot return to.

Yet, these blinders are still worn by some people who wish to lead our country.

In neither of their debates did the Democrats mention Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and the threat they pose to our country. One candidate has even said that the global war on terror is nothing but a bumper sticker slogan. It makes the point that I've been making over and over again - that the Democrats, or at least some of them, are in denial.

I promise you that if elected President, I will make sure this country remains on offense against terrorism. But I need your help and support to get there. Will you consider giving $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 to my campaign?

Israel and the United States share common values. We cherish freedom, democracy, and human life. Our shared values have attracted common enemies. The terrorists Israel is fighting are the same terrorists America is fighting, and we must continue to fight them together.

Last week Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced that the world would soon witness the destruction of Israel. This 2008 presidential campaign will determine how we deal with statements like these and the madmen who make them.

I stand by Israel and I'll never embrace a terrorist like Arafat, a tyrant like Ahmadinejad, or a party like Hamas.

Will you join me and support my campaign for President so we can continue to work together? Your contribution of $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 will go a long way in helping us to ensure victory.

Please consider signing up for my email list as well. Doing so will keep you up to date on the latest news from my campaign.

A Giuliani administration won't accept business as usual. We will stay strong amidst the threats of tyrants and we will stay on offense against the terrorists.

Sincerely,

Rudy Giuliani

I am a United States citizen or an individual lawfully admitted with permanent residence status (e.g., a "green card holder")

Contributions from corporations, labor organizations, federal government contractors, and foreign nationals without permanent residency status ("green cards") are prohibited.

If there isn't, please tell me you really did pay them, because otherwise it's a contribution prohibited by the statement I just cited.

Most of all, tell me how you're going to deride the Democrats for any foreign donations from Communist countries or for direct income from foreign nations to a candidate's spouse when The Jerusalem Post is acting as your liaison to Israeli dual-citizens.

Lesbian loudmouth Rosie O'Donnell is the last person I wish to be talking about, and if you are also bored by her act, please accept my apologies for inflicting her upon your thoughts. Today it was announced that she would not be completing the final three weeks of her time on the View television show, she punked out after the sole conservative on the show held her accountable for her own words. Imagine that, an adult has to defend their own words, what have we come to (insert sarcasm here)?

On her blog Rosie's assertion that we have killed 655,000 innocent Iraqis and therefore we are the terrorists is being defended. Some other goof is making the defense, and it is laughable.

According to the contributor, Rosie wasn't calling our soldiers terrorists, just America. She says the troops are dupes who are only following orders; the real terrorists are those back here who are in command. Which we all understand to translate into, "it's Bush's fault".

Of course that is ridiculous. Even if there were orders from on high for our soldiers to kill civilians, which is so much crap in itself, any soldier who obeyed such an order would be equally guilty. Anyone who goes to the movies knows that. Didn't she see A Few Good Men? Don't these Hollywood types see each other's works? (Sure we could cite statute and code of conduct and real life situations to make the point, but that would be too real for the truthers, and since I could not recall a standup comic explaining the point, I went to next best source for the pseudo-intelligent, the movies).

In that movie two enlisted men are ordered to give a third soldier a "Code Red", which is an illegal beating used as inducement to conform. LCpl Dawson and PFC Downey follow the orders too well resulting in the death of PFC William T. Santiago. At the murder trial of Dawson and Downey their commanding officer breaks down on the stand and admits that he ordered the "Code Red". But, Col. Jessup's confession does not exonerate his soldiers, for by the military rules of conduct they were expected to disobey the illegal order. So, even when, in that situation, the boss was shown to have ordered the wrong thing, the perpetrators did not get a pass.

So, even if the BusHitler and Darth Cheney had ordered the execution of civilians, (yeah right, like that would happen), any soldier who followed that order would also by guilty. Meaning, that in spite of the denial on her blog, and Rosie's own suggestion, post-comment, on the View that she wasn't calling our troops terrorists; she was calling them terrorists. And she was wrong. And now she is being the coward, turning tail, cutting and running, and living in a state of denial.

In so many ways Rosie has become the perfect metaphor for the left in America; loud and wrong, angry and unpatriotic, dumb and dumber by the minute. Also, I believe Rosie and left know they are wrong, but are too vain and too invested in their hate America attitude to admit their errors. If they come clean they will lose the support of their fellow travelers, they would lose their support system of like-minded loons, and they are too fragile to face the ostracism that would follow. Cowards all.

Additional- Math problem:
If 655,000 Iraqis die in four years, how many died on average each day?
365 days in a year times four equals 1460. Subtract one day for the leap year which happens once every four years, and we have 1459 days. Divide 655,00 by 1459 and we get 448.94. So, by that metric, about 449 Iraqis have died each day since May 1, 2003? As bad as it has been over there, I do not remember one single day when that many people have died. And our anti-American press agents would have surely told us if 449 people were killed in a twenty four hour period. I say that 655,000 dead, is a myth.

When the 2008 Presidential election is finally over those colorful maps showing states which voted Republican in red and states which voted Democrat in blue needs an adjustment. Next time red for Republicans, and yellow for Democrats.

A story in Reuters today has some troubling news about the state of affairs in Russia.

The pursuit of science in President Vladimir Putin's Russia is driven by profit alone and there was less government interference even under Josef Stalin, a Russian Nobel Prize winner said in a interview.

If you thought there was a chance that Fred Thompson might not eventually enter the presidential race, consider this piece of evidence hanging out at RedState, posted by da Man himself.

Some in the West seem part of Iran's propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?

And, I might add, he's speaking the language of the blogosphere with remarkable adeptness. Between his choice of venue and his snarky use of anti-MSM language, here's someone who (at the very least) is being given great advice about how to formulate a script in the new media. After eight years of domestic defensiveness and mangled prose, choosing another hard-nosed, politically-adept, conservative Hollywood actor (like Dutch, God rest his soul) might just be what the Republican party needs most in 2008.

I've said a lot in support of George Bush and Tony Blair, but this Cox & Forkum cartooon explains well why - like so many other people, I'm sure - they're losing my support, not because we're at war, but because we're not fighting.

Valerie Plame finally spoke in public, and while under oath she contradicts the CIA's version of how Plame's husband became involved in WMD discussion.

"Plame said she did not select her husband for a CIA fact-finding trip to Niger. Wilson later wrote in a newspaper column that his trip debunked the administration's prewar intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa.

"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.

That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial and told Congress that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip."

One has to wonder what authority is required to make a suggestion. Sounds like doublespeak to me. A family trait perhaps, as it is now known that while Mr. Wilson's op-ed column had purported that his finding in Niger had debunked the pre-war intelligence it had actually contradicted his oral reporting’s to the CIA which had reinforced the prevailing belief that Iraq had been seeking uranium. Wilson's assertion that Vice President Cheney had sent him to Niger has also been shown to be in error. One has to wonder if the truth is ever in these two, Wilson and Plame.

PLAME COVER BLOWN YEARS BEFORE

Wilson has also made a big deal out of his assertion that his wife's cover was blown as a way to punish him, and that such exposure of her CIA employment put her at risk. But, those too are lies, and ones which she must have known as lies. For her cover had been blown twice before Novak reported it, once during the Clinton administration. You can't blame Bush for that one, (though we certainly expect the nut job Bush haters to try.). This revelation, that she was a known spy, may explain one part of this story which always bothered me. Why send the diplomat husband to spy and yet leave the spy wife (and WMD expert) at home when she was decidedly more qualified for the mission? The obvious answer now is that she could no long spy, her cover was already blown!

And, there is no evidence to support his paranoid accusation that the White house was out to get him as retribution. That is just partisan paranoia on his part.

Her exposure as a spy within the intelligence community created far greater danger, to her and the nation, than did her exposure to the public. Keeping her spy status secret from the public is only valuable when it helps to keep it secret from the intelligence community. A spy is in danger from the other spies, not from the public. The other spies already knew about her.

INDICT PLAME ON PERJURY

I don't buy her lame explanation on how her husband was chosen for the mission. Her own bosses say that she was the one who got his name in the mix. So, she just perjured herself. Time for a special prosecutor? No, just have AG Gonzales fire back with an indictment charging her with lying to Congress. I know it is not a crime when a Congressman lies, but surely it is a chargeable offense when a sworn witness lies to Congress.
Her appearance and testimony at this late date is no mistake either. This was a staged event, her testimony a manufactured and no doubt practiced parcel of deceit. Fitzgerald would have her in irons if she was a Republican. Ask Libby. He is convicted and she is walking around free; as long as that is the case don't talk to me about equal justice.

I was shocked and deeply saddened when I read Drudge today. One of the more prominent headlines read: UN secretary general urges Iran to stop enriching uranium. Clicking the link leads to this Breitbart.com article.

All I could think was "When did these UN types get so bold and reactionary?"

I mean they go from "UN secretary general would like Iran to stop enriching uranium" to "UN secretary general asks Iran to stop enriching uranium" and then jump straight away to "UN secretary general urges Iran to stop enriching uranium".

Whatever happened to "UN secretary general suggests Iran stop enriching uranium".

This new Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, is just way too volatile and reckless.

It's all Bush's fault! (...and Global Warming!)

Congressional flight to Iraq (at taxpayers expense) - $$$$$

Military escort and security detail for a tour of the area (also at taxpayers expense) - $$$

A hearty breakfast at the US Embassy mess hall - (again, at taxpayers expense) - $

Finding out what the men and women too stupid to get out of going into the military really think about you - Priceless!!

Hat tip to James Taranto at Best of the Web Today

On the radio this morning (paraphrased):

Yesterday, he gave a speech at the UN calling President Bush "the devil". Today he's in Brooklyn promoting low-cost home heating oil for low-income residents.

More delightful news about North Korea's missile launch on July 4.

Japan's conservative mainstream daily Sankei said that Japanese and U.S. defense officials have concluded that the Taepodong-2 had targeted the U.S. state of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean, after analyzing data collected from their intelligence equipment....

(Unidentified Japanese and U.S. government) officials decided that the missile was pointed at Hawaii from its angle immediately after launch and the altitude it reached, after analyzing data collected by destroyers equipped with the Aegis radar combat system and RC-135S electronic reconnaissance aircraft, the newspaper said....

But Pentagon officials said Thursday that the brief flight of the Taepodong-2 missile made it difficult to collect useful technical data, including its intended target, its payload and whether it was a two-stage or three-stage missile.

...are waiting for your phone call.

Perhaps the greatest impediment to resolving the matter of foreign nationals sneaking into our country has been the emotionalism which has entered into the debate. Nothing confuses like emotions. And, in this country emotions are exceptionaly prominent in political debate. We hear the emotional plea that the foreign invaders are economically oppressed people's in their homeland so they must come here for relief. We hear the emotional plea the we need the foreigners here to fill jobs Americans won't do. We hear the emotional plea that these people have rights under our Constitution, even though they were neither invited to come, nor did they announce their arrival. And, we hear the emotional plea that says anyone who opposes these people are racist, though no evidence of that sort is presented. Enough with the emotional. Enough with the confusion. For the emotional approach does not separate the problem into distinct elements, which can then be managed independently, it lumps the whole thing into one bucket, and then denies any response that is not universal.

It is somewhat understandable that this emotional approach is so successful in confusing the issue, afterall, when we discuss foreigners breaking into our country, or when we talk about increasing labor pool to meet demand, or when we talk about immigration reform; we are generally talking about the impact presented by the same people on each of these elements. That, however, doesn't make the situation into one problem, it simply reveals that we are presented with many problems as a result of one population. The way to transcend the confusion is to see the matter as individual challenges, each needing an independent solution. That each challenge is created by the same population is irrelevant.

So, it is important to see the individual problems as separate issues. And, to then offer independent solutions to each problem. So, here is how I break out the problems.

Border Enforcement

Economics

Immigration

Each time a solution is proposed, ask which element is being addressed. Be selfish, and be stubborn. If the discussion is border security, for example, do not let concerns about the cost of labor enter into the talk, that only mixes the figurative apples and oranges. If the talk is about immigration policies, then only consider aspects of how we wish to delineate our standards for visitor, permanent resident, and citizenship status, everything else, including the numbers of people accepted each year, is not part of the discussion.

I know that there is a habitual reflex to include peripheral subjects, for example, the desire for more workers into the immigration consideration, but, the volume of immigrants is a separate decision from the protection of standards for entry into this land. The same analogies can be made for each of the three elements; there exist peripheral subjects which are habitually meshed into the discussion of the actual element. And confusion ensues.

So, as you listen to our, so called, leaders pontificate on the foreign invasion, break down their analysis of the problem, and the solutions they present into the three elements and your perspective will grow. You might ask, which element are they addressing? What solution do they propose? Does the solution match the stated subject? Chances are, they won't match. Chances are, habit, and the emotional influence, will pollute their reasoning.

And, while, chances are, any solution to the problems posed to each element will have an effect on one or more of the other elements, don't be confused, each element can be resolved on its own merit without trampling on the resolution or standards of the other elements. We can secure our borders, and we can supply business with a labor pool, and we can respect immigration law; each can be accomplished without impedence of the other objectives. It is not necessary, or productive, to group the problems together. Remember, the only comprehensive solution to the invasion is found in the cumulative effect of independent solutions to each element. The only way to keep the solutions independent is to keep the problems separate.

Tonight the President will address the nation on the invasion, and it is being said that he will present a comprehensive plan, don't be fooled, a collection of solutions is not a singular comprehensive solution. Pay attention to how each issue is addressed, and discount the peripheral subjects while considering each element in an independent fashion.

Oh, and one last thing, immediately discount any emotional pleas, they only serve to confuse.

It was rough. I went to work. I made a bank deposit (thankfully the bank had not removed the language option, and had I needed it I could have chosen to conduct my business in Spanish). I ate lunch at a restaurant. I finished my work early and went home to take a nap. I made my own dinner and watched "24". And, somehow, even without help from the Mexican criminals, I went to sleep.

And, in spite of their rhetoric, make no mistake, they are criminals. Maybe they were good law abiding people while they were in their country, but in choosing to break our laws in coming here, they are now criminals. And if we actually enforced our laws they would be in trouble. But, alas, we don't care to enforce our laws, we just like to write them, enforcing them is too messy for the USA.

Language, or I should say, the shifting of word meanings is the big player in the invasion debate. Not laws, language is the big player. If the crooks say they are not criminals, then their supporters agree to use that language, and the foundation of the debate shifts. If the ciminal invaders say they have Rights, then their supports agree to use that falisy and the foundation of the debate shifts. When the criminal invaders are called immigrants, or citizens, or workers, then their supporters agree to use that language and the debate shifts. Language is transient, and apparently every word can be corrupted to mean things other than its actual meaning.

I once believed that this country was a nation of laws. I believed that under the law everyone was equal. I once believed that there is such a thing as justice in this land, even if not in any other country on Earth in the USA one could get justice. I once beleived that our government would enforce our laws, for our benefit, to increase order in our society, to create an equal playing field for all of our citizens, even to insulate us from the harm we can do to ourselves, and for our general protection from all threats internal and external. It is impossible to believe such things anymore, not with criminals openly demonstrating in our streets their demands for their supposed rights under our system of government. And, our government did not arrest a single one, as far as I can determine. So much for a nation of laws.

I survived May Day, but now I am sending out a may day to save our country. Enforce our borders. Enforce our laws. Change the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution to read that only people born here of people legally within our borders are entitled to become citizens, we have to end the incentive for illegals to enter the USA with the intent to give birth and thereby win the citizenship lottery for their children. We need to construct an enforceable border on our south and then enforce it. Amnesty must not happen ever again. We tried it once and it only led to our current situation where we have some considering its use again. Where does amnesty end? If we don't gain control over who enters our country, and if we continue to let those who enter illegally to bully us and alter the meaning of our words, we will face the same situation again and again. We must not capitulate, again. Never again.

I survived May Day, but will the USA survive it?

5/3 Update: One man knows the right thing to do, an Arizona Sheriff forms volunteer posses to capture illegals. The attached poll was 97% good idea/ 3% bad idea when I voted.

Drudge

It was nearly two years ago when I presented SoCaP Part I. And I thought the issue had been settled, until, first I heard Rush limbaugh mention it today, and now I see Ace is referencing it as news. But, there is nothing about it on Rush's website, the search engines reveal no new stories, and the story which Ace links is old. So, what is the deal? Has this matter resurfaced? I don't know.

But, I do know that my feelings haven't changed, I still say use 'em if you got 'em.

Btw- In researching this matter I discovered that Aaron, of the late blog "Aaron's Rantblog" is back; now found at Aaron's cc:. And he is as militantly anti-Islamofacist as ever. Check out his line of merchandise. Are you brave enough to wear a "I Draw Mohammad Cartoons" ball cap, or a "Muck Fuslims" t-shirt? Me either, though I could be convinced to wear the hat under certain conditions. (Cue the Brad Paisley song, "Alcohol").

Welcome back to the blogoshphere Aaron. To isfullofcrap for letting us know that you have returned.

I said once before, long before the current foreign assemblies in our streets, that I thought our reaction to the invasion from Mexico should be a counter invasion into Mexico. And, I suggested, that we should take over the country and make it a prosperous place. It seems that someone else is of like mind, and according to James Lewis we only need convince Mexico to allow foreign ownership of land in order to permit the counter invasion to occur naturally.

The American Thinker

"Note to Presidents Fox and Bush: amidst all the Mexican demands for accommodation of law-breakers, how about removing the obnoxious restrictions on gringos buying land near Mexico’s coast? It is kind of hard to take seriously all the rhetoric on friendship and partnership amidst such blatant discrimination.

There isn’t much wrong with Mexico that capitalism and cleaner politics can’t fix. What Mexico needs is freer markets, less corruption, and the rule of law. What’s good for Iraq is also good for Latin America. Two great people movements, going in opposite directions, will lead to a better life for Mexicanos here, and there as well."

Amid the current debate there has been much made of the reputed contributions made to the USA by the invaders, truth is though, Mexico would benefit far more from an invasion of Americans onto their soil than we will benefit from the influx of cheap labor and backwards cultural norms offered by the invading Mexicans.

On today's Fox News Sunday Senator Carl Levin took a logical stumble as he attempted to walk the party line on the Iraq War troop levels.

After Levin criticized the administration for not putting enough men into the Iraqi theater, the show's host, Chris Wallace, reminded Levin that the Democratic line now is that the troops need to come home. And then asked which is it, there are too few there, or we need to bring them home?

Levin responded that there were too few troops before, and too many now.

So, how did we get to a situation where he now estimates we have too many troops if we had too few? To accept Levin's conclusions one must then assume that we have achieved a military position over there where we now have too many because the force we had there has over-achieved and succeeded in its mission. I am certain the Secretary of Defense will appreciate the compliment, but, doubtless would point out that we never had too few in the first place.

I am equally certain that if challenged on his stumble, Levin would seek to re-balance with a reply that a too small force achieves more, and thus a draw-down to zero will cause us to achieve total victory. Nonsense. We have made progress with the force level the adminstration has provided. President Bush takes the advice of the Defense Department on this matter (troop level), and thus far has been well served. We are seeing progress in Iraq, even if the President's domestic enemies refuse to concede the point. I trust that we will draw down our force level in reaction to the increased stability in Iraq, but only after stability is achieved not as a method to achieve stability.

Read this!

It seems that in 1993, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) was one of the movers and shakers in Washington DC urging then President Clinton to pull out of Somalia. You remember Somalia right? The "Blackhawk Down" incident! So he and his cronies get Clinton to pull us out of Somalia, and then in 1998, Osama bin Laden sites Somalia in his declaration of war against the United States, declares that it is proof as to why al Qaeda will defeat us, and uses that as motivation to this day as to why his fighters should not give up hope even though they are suffering massive losses. And now, the same John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) is urging that we pursue the same course in Iraq that we did in Somalia.

Huh?

If Osama bin Laden used the US pullout of Somalia as a source of motivation and propaganda in 1998, wouldn't logic dictate that he or some other jihadist wannabe would use a pullout of Iraq in the same way? And if that is logical to assume, isn't it also logical to conclude that Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) is actually helping Osama and his ilk achieve their goal at most, and as a tool for motivation and propaganda at least?

Sorry, I forgot: Democrats don't like logic - gets in the way of their world view!

Thank you Australia!

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has announced 10-million dollars will go towards the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

Mr Howard says the donation will be made to the American Red Cross.

"Given the extraordinary generosity of the United States, when other countries are in need, and given the very close relations between Australia and the United States, and given also the scale of this disaster, we believe it is a very valuable gesture."

You are a great nation filled with wonderfully generous and gracious people. I, as an American, am proud and honored to call you a friend and ally. We will keep your friendship dear to our hearts and ask that you send one more gift... as many prayers as possible for those affected by this tragedy.

I have to say I agree with Neil Cavuto, the silence is deafening in regard to other countries response to our national disaster of hurricane Katrina. We seem to get a ration of shit any time the world perceives that we are not giving or doing enough for other countries in times of need, but where is the world when we have troubles? Not that we cannot handle this ourselves - we can and will - but at least an offer of assistance, from any country, would be welcomed and appreciated! I equate it to going to a funeral for a friend, or an acquaintance: there's nothing you can really do for the family of the departed to ease their grief or pain, but the least you can do is show up and offer support. The family will probably never call on you to actually do anything, but I guarantee they appreciate that you at least showed up. I guess we'll see who our real international friends are, and who are just posers.

As a bit of positive reinforcement, I suggest that we suspend all foreign aid money for those countries that don't at least "show up" and offer assistance, send that money to the areas hardest hit by this disaster, and then send a note to the Ambassador, Prime Minister, or President of those countries thanking them for their donation to the relief effort. And as a bit of added reinforcement, we can tell them that the aid money will not resume until their country treats the United States and her citizens more like friends who are lending them money and less like a welfare office that owes them a check.

Update: Well it seems some of our friends have shown up...

Countries such as Great Britain and Germany have also offered assistance.

"Our thoughts are with the people in the states affected by Katrina and our condolences to the relatives of those who have lost their lives," a spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair told FOX News. "We have not received any requests for assistance but we stand ready to help if asked."

Hat tip to Sue for a heads up on both articles.

Charles Krauthammer clears up one of foreign policy's big mysteries (for me, what is a neocon?) when he places America's ideological schools into four main categories.

The post-cold-war era has seen a remarkable ideological experiment: over the last fifteen years, each of the three major American schools of foreign policy—realism, liberal internationalism, and neoconservatism—has taken its turn at running things. (A fourth school, isolationism, has a long pedigree, but has yet to recover from Pearl Harbor and probably never will; it remains a minor source of dissidence with no chance of becoming a governing ideology.) There is much to be learned from this unusual and unplanned experiment.

The era began with the senior George Bush and a classically realist approach. This was Kissingerism without Kissinger—although Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, and Lawrence Eagleburger filled in admirably. The very phrase the administration coined to describe its vision—the New World Order—captured the core idea: an orderly world with orderly rulers living in stable equilibrium.

...For the balance of the 1990’s, for reasons having nothing to do with foreign policy, realism was abruptly replaced by the classic liberal internationalism of the Clinton administration.

It is hard to be charitable in assessing the record. Liberal internationalism’s one major achievement in those years—saving the Muslims in the Balkans and creating conditions for their possible peaceful integration into Europe—was achieved, ironically, in defiance of its own major principle. It lacked what liberal internationalists incessantly claim is the sine qua non of legitimacy: the approval of the UN Security Council....Leon Trotsky is said to have remarked of the New York intellectual Dwight Macdonald, “Everyone has a right to be stupid, but Comrade Macdonald abuses the privilege.” During its seven-and-a-half year Oslo folly, the Clinton administration abused the privilege consistently.

In place of realism or liberal internationalism, the last four-and-a-half years have seen an un-ashamed assertion and deployment of American power, a resort to unilateralism when necessary, and a willingness to preempt threats before they emerge. Most importantly, the second Bush administration has explicitly declared the spread of freedom to be the central principle of American foreign policy. Bush’s second inaugural address last January was the most dramatic and expansive expression of this principle. A few weeks later, at the National Defense University, the President offered its most succinct formulation: “The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom.”

The remarkable fact that the Bush Doctrine is, essentially, a synonym for neoconservative foreign policy marks neoconservatism’s own transition from a position of dissidence, which it occupied during the first Bush administration and the Clinton years, to governance. Neoconservative foreign policy, one might say, has reached maturity.

Now, even this thick-headed goof can understand that.

I recommend the entire article. But I wish to make one point about his critique of Bush 41's "Realism" approach. Krauthammer says:

It was the failure of imagination in Bush’s other area of triumph—Iraq—that had truly stark, even tragic, consequences.

Leaving Saddam in place, and declining to support the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings that followed the first Gulf war, begat more than a decade of Iraqi suffering, rancor among our war allies, diplomatic isolation for the U.S., and a crumbling regime of UN sanctions. All this led ultimately and inevitably to a second war that could have been fought far more easily—and with the enthusiastic support of Iraq’s Shiites...

We did not march to Baghdad at the end of that conflict because? Surely, you remember, the United Nations mandate did not permit it. Thus, I would argue that the failure attributed to Geo. H. W. Bush is the result of not "Realism"s approach, but, rather, the creeping influence of "Liberal Internationalism". It was the aquiescence to the liberal influence which caused Bush 41 to not finish the job in 1991.

You've got to admire anyone who can work a Monty Python reference into an article about serious geopolitical issues. But while Mr. Baker compares us to the Romans, I can't help but think that the machinations of the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Syria are begining to look more and more like... the Spanish Inquisition!

(I know you didn't expect that! That's because NOBODY expects...)

After my estrangement from my wife had begun, for a time we were still in contact while she had the children and I was trying to set up a home in another state. It was when she informed me that had converted and been baptised in the Mormon religion that I told her I could not tolerate her keeping the children any longer. After a few more weeks I brought them to live with me. (The whole story is a little more detailed, but perhaps not appropriate here.) Before I could pick them up, she had already brought them to several Sunday school classes at her new church. Since she eventually dropped Mormonism to become a Muslim, I often wonder if she would have tried to raise our children in that faith as well.

Today's editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times makes me shudder to think what the results of that would have been.

What is happening in some American mosques, including a few in the Chicago area, is deeply disturbing. In certain Islamic schools, textbooks spit vitriol against Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims: "Be disassociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion." In mosque publications, America is the "Abode of the Infidel." The idea of human and civil rights is heresy. Working women are immoral.

These views are extreme, they promote violence and they are being espoused right under our noses. We knew this was happening in France, Germany and England but we didn't know the extent of the problem here. It is not happening in all mosques or Islamic schools, by any means, but in those select ones funded by the Saudi government to disseminate the fanatic Wahhabi-style Islam that has its demagogic roots in Saudi Arabia.

The Center for Religious Freedom just issued a discomfiting report looking at the spread of hate propaganda in America by Saudi Arabia. The center collected 200 books and other publications from mosques across the country and spent the past two years analyzing them.

"The Saudi textbooks and documents spread throughout American mosques preach a Nazi-like hatred for Jews, treat the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion as historical fact, and avow that the Muslim's duty is to eliminate the state of Israel," writes Nina Shea, the Center's director. In addition, they "instill contempt for America because the United States is ruled by legislated civil law rather than by totalitarian Wahhabi-style Islamic law." Woe to Christians who should be actively hated because they stir up images of crusaders and colonists and because they are "enemies to Allah, his Prophet and believers." Woe to Muslims who advance tolerance and human rights -- they, too, are infidels. Woe to homosexuals or heterosexuals who have sex outside marriage -- it is considered "lawful" to kill them.

Stovepipe hattip: Cox & Forkum

To those critics who contend this slim black woman can't possibly wield the authority of speaking for the United States of America as her chief diplomat, especially while our reputation among world governments is in such disarray, Condi Rice has a response:

There is no doubt that Iraq is a country that has deep divisions and it is a country where Saddam Hussein exploited those divisions, for instance, with the policy of Arabization in Kirkuk.

And so they have a long and hard road ahead to effect national reconciliation.

But I've been, frankly, quite heartened by the fact that the Shia, whenever there's an attack against them by Zarqawi and his people or by the insurgents, don't take to the barricades. What they say is, this is going to be a unified Iraq, and we're not going to fall to sectarian violence.

So I think we need to give them a chance here. You know, the political process, as you well know and you all know better than I, is one of coming to terms with divisions, coming to terms with institutions that mitigate against people's sense of alienation. It takes time. It takes effort. Sometimes the compromises are a bit imperfect at first. But over time, it gets better.

You know, we've had our own history with this. I often say, and I don't mean it jokingly, that so far I have not seen the Iraqis, or for that matter, the Afghans, make a compromise as bad as the one in 1789 that declared my ancestors to be three-fifths of a man.

So we need to be patient with people as they make these moves to democracy, understand that it will be in small steps, that they will have ups and downs, that the whole process will have ups and downs.

But as long as they're on a strategic road that is getting them to a government that can actually represent the aspirations of the Iraqi people as a whole, I think they've got a chance.

It started out innocently enough. Thomas Sowell, regarded by more than a few as The Smartest Man in America, wanted to set the record straight when it came to the (pardon the pun, but it's his) wave of criticism we've received regarding tsunami relief.

The catastrophic tsunami wave that has devastated so much of southern Asia has even killed more than a hundred people on the east coast of Africa, more than 4,000 miles away. Two questions: First, what country has done the most to help the victims of this natural disaster? Second, what country has been criticized most for not doing enough?

The answer to both questions is the United States of America.

No consistent principle is involved in these criticisms, just attitudes. These include not only the attitudes of those foreigners envious or resentful of American success and power, but also the attitudes of those among the American intelligentsia who automatically echo foreign criticisms of the United States.

Incidentally, in all of Mr. Kristof's waxing indignant about the ravages of malaria, there is not one word about the banning of DDT, which has led immediately to a resurgence of malaria that has taken lives by the millions, as a result of propaganda campaigns against DDT by environmental busybodies.

Apparently it is not the principle of saving lives lost to malaria that is crucial, but the opportunity to score points against the United States. Green extremists get a pass. So do bungling and corrupt foreigners, including the United Nations.

That's the only way to describe this pair of columns in The New York Times and The Nation. The audacity of liberals sends them to new heights of absurdity the further they get from the mainstream. Every time I say they've gone about as far off the deep end as possible, the find a new depth somewhere. It's just incredible.

Fans of the dynamic duo take note that Cox & Forkum are running a Tsunami-Relief Art Auction at their site. Without your click-generated blog-money, I haven't any hope of participating in the bidding, but I encourage everyone to make a donation great or small to C&F's preferred charity DRI, my preference of Catholic Relief Services, or the American Red Cross or elsewhere to help out those devastated by a kind of natural disaster most people weren't even aware existed two weeks ago. With the threat of disease and malnutrition affecting everyone who wasn't killed outright, the death toll is almost unimaginable, so please help.

Great, some dude at the United Nations calls America stingy, then allows that we have been very generous afterall. (At this writing reports have us promising an ititial $35 million, with more to come.

Here we are, fighting a war on terror, and this guy wants to help Bin Laden portray us as the great Satan. Blame America first is the true face of the UN. We really, really, should kick the lot of them out of the country. They should not be heartened that we had a Presidential candidate endorse the idea of letting the UN run the country. Hey, buddy, John Kerry and his No-Balls Global Test lost! We don't trust the UN. And if you need some dough for relief, (as if you would really use it for that purpose), ask Kofi's kid for a few bucks. Or, take it out of the Oil For Food scandal take. Call Chirac for a slice of his cut. We can spend our own money, and decide what taxes to pay, thank you very much!

We can also recognize that those who blame America first, help OBL.

The area of the globe known as Palestine has been inhabited by a wide range of peoples over the course of recorded history. That one group of people has decreed themselves to Palestinians, to the exclusion of all others, is ridiculous. That these, self-styled, Palestinians have devolved into violent narcissists is not to be tolerated. Though I absolutely do not expect them to change anytime soon.

Especially when they continue to elect this sort of leadership, as they are poised to do again in January.

Abbas will not be any better to deal with than was Arafat, as is witnessed by his own words:

"Israel must pull out of all Palestinian lands occupied in 1967. We must end the occupation," Abbas told hundreds of supporters. "We cannot compromise on Jerusalem."

"We are choosing the path of peace and negotiation," Abbas added. "If there is no peace here, there will be no peace in the Middle East or the rest of the world."

Mr. Abbas, you, and your brethren, are the problem. Not until you folks recognize the equal rights all Palestinians, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, et al, to coexist in that ancient land will there be peace in the Middle East.

I'm often terrible at predicting things like this, but Tony Blankley may have coined a new nickname for the President's newly-emerging foriegn policy staff.

With the nominations of Condoleezza Rice at State, Porter Goss at CIA, Donald Rumsfeld (or an equally tough replacement) at Defense and Stephen Hadley at NSC, the president has created an all-Patton foreign and defense team. Moreover, he has a team that understands that among the necessary targets of their firepower must be, not only our foreign enemies, but also the slouching, sly, insubordinate bureaucrats under their chain of command.

Dana Priest and Walter Pincus have a different view of the goins-on at the CIA from David Brooks. The new director of the CIA, Porter Goss, is both a fellow Republican and my former congressman, so I'm not exactly unbiased in this fight. Still, it seems to me Brooks has the more accurate perspective on the argument.

Man are these guys fast... and, as always, right on target! I think "Global Test" is the big sound bite of this debate!

A few weeks ago, the Democrats were screaming that we had to keep politics out of the CIA. As they say in the movies, great idea in theory.

Keep in mind that none of these CIA officials were ever elected to anything, and that they are employed to provide accurate information to officials who present their policy choices for voter judgment. Yet what the CIA insurgents are essentially doing here, with their leaks and insubordination, is engaging in a policy debate. Given the timing of the latest leaks so close to an election, they are now clearly trying to defeat President Bush and elect John Kerry. Yet somehow the White House stands accused of "politicizing" intelligence?

For anyone but a conspiracy nutcase, Goss seems to be just what we need right now at the CIA. (Unless you're part of the Bush Cabal, like me - then we never had this conversation, understand?)

Diggs is on fire about a group of career weasels... I mean "diplomats" who are endorsing the non-endorsement of a certain non-weasel. It all sounds so very nuanced to me.

I keep reading where this group wants Bush defeated, but they are not endorsing Kerry. So...who are they endorsing? Nader? It is exactly this type of statement from these types of people that has gotten us thirty years of feckless diplomacy.

John O'Sullivan suggests we continue the full-court press.

France, Germany, and Russia united against the United States because they think that America has too much power and that this power is used to advance what the French call "Anglo-Saxon liberalism"--broadly speaking, the free market in economics, unfettered free speech, vigorous popular democratic debate in politics, and a rooted respect for social and political equality.

What the "Gang of Three" favor for their countries is extensive economic and social regulation by government institutions that, though formally democratic, place almost all power in the hands of remote bureaucratic elites. But they know that American freedom is infectious and that it undermines their own more rigid systems--if only because the United States is beating their countries by almost every economic and social test extant. And they fear that Iraq means an extension of this destabilizing freedom to the Middle East.

Mark Steyn should be given the Silver Star for his columns. At least, I expect him to after this glowing description of Donald Rumsfeld's real usefulness in the Bush Administration.

That's Rumsfeld's function -- to take the polite fictions and drag them back to the real world. During the Afghan campaign, CNN's Larry King asked him, "Is it very important that the coalition hold?" The correct answer -- the Powell-Blair-Gore-Annan answer -- is, of course, "Yes." But Rummy decided to give the truthful answer: "No." He went on to explain why: "The worst thing you can do is allow a coalition to determine what your mission is." Such a man cannot be happy at the sight of the Guinean tail wagging the French rectum of the British hind quarters of the American dog.