Facts & Logic

What’s Missing From The Budget Debate

2011-07-17T21:23:00.000-07:00

The article What’s Missing From The Budget Debate by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins at Forbes.com provides indispensable, intellectual ammunition that advocates of limited government need to win the federal budget debate and to win the future of America.

The arguments this article presents are unanswerable. The question is: will Americans have the guts to use this ammunition to help change America's disastrous course toward economic suicide?

The American Way of Life

2011-05-22T21:38:00.000-07:00

You do not owe to your neighbors their Social Security, their medical security, nor their employment security. You owe them only the security of knowing that you will respect their lives and freedom.

Beyond this, you may choose to help your neighbors out of good will, but that is your choice, not society's, nor the government's.

Favorite Quotes

2011-04-30T10:20:00.000-07:00

"Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it." - Lou Holtz

Obama's altruistic foreign policy

2011-04-30T10:10:00.000-07:00

Very astute of Caroline Glick to identify altruism as the essence of President Obama’s foreign policy. In fact, altruism is at the heart of nearly all of the Obama administration’s actions.

Given the evil means and ends (moral relativism, hypocrisy, socialism), which decent people recognize in Obama's policies, what does this say about altruism as a moral ideal?

I’ll give you a hint: Who is John Galt?

Syria is a dictatorship

2011-03-29T20:44:00.000-07:00

Just in case you did not know, Syria is a typical Arab dictatorship.
It is a one party state, with little freedom of expression, assembly
or press. It harbors Islamic terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah,
and enforces its dictates via secret police.

The New York Times concretizes this point in light of recent
popular protests that have rocked Middle East autocracies and
theocracies.

While President Obama has authorized U.S. military action against
a Libyan government that poses little threat to the U.S., he ignores
regimes, such as those in Syria and Iran, which are far more
dangerous to America's national interest.

8 Gadgets to Watch in 2011

2011-01-06T22:34:00.000-08:00

Whether or not these hot gadgets shown at CES 2011 actually become widely used in 2011, I think most of them are way cool, especially the Motorola Xoom tablet computer, Qi Wireless Power and NFC-Enabled Phones. You gotta love new technology!

Oy Vay, UCLA

2011-01-04T21:42:00.000-08:00

Egalitarianism, a True Soul Killer

2011-01-02T21:57:00.000-08:00

In his January 1st Op-Ed column, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof promotes a new book, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger by “distinguished British epidemiologists” Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

According to Kristof, “The heart of their argument is that humans are social animals and that in highly unequal societies those at the bottom suffer from a range of pathologies.”

If this argument were true, then all the social ills discussed in Mr. Kristof’s article would be easily solved: just make everyone equally poor by government redistribution of wealth. Since misery loves company, then we would all be happy souls in the equality of our poverty.

Of course, this is absurd. Crime, obesity, drug abuse, high teenage birthrates, and the other pathologies Mr. Kristoff mentions may certainly be due to ignorance, poverty, and most of all, poor moral character; but if there is anyone who attributes such problems to socio-economic inequality, they are simply making excuses - either for their own bad behavior or, as I suspect in Mr. Kristoff’s case, for their fear and hatred of the responsibilities entailed in America’s economic and political freedom.

One need not read any "scientific" study or book by “distinguished British epidemiologists” to know BS when it stinks as bad as the tired, old, debunked arguments for egalitarianism regurgitated by leftists under the guise of science.

Mark Williams Racist Blog Story Stinks to High Heaven

2010-07-18T16:27:00.000-07:00

First of all, what did Williams really write? Some excerpts from Williams’ blog post are quoted at CNN and the NY Daily News websites; however, these websites report that Williams removed the particular post after growing criticism. Also, CNN reports Williams saying the post was intended as a satire. In any case, it seems that the blog post is nowhere to found on the web so that people can judge for themselves if it comes across as a satire on racism or if it actually appears to condone racist views.

Secondly, the The National Tea Party Federation, which CNN reports, “represents the Tea Party political movement around the country”, which claims to represent 85 Tea Party groups and more than a million activists, and which “expelled” Williams’ Tea Party Express group, seems to be not so prominent after all. If you Google on “Tea Party”, its website does not appear at least the first four pages (first 40 hits) excluding the news stories within the past week. It was formed only 4 months ago: April 2010. It has no meeting or conference information on its website. It’s guestbook page has a grand total of 19 posts. In other words, it is hardly some grand national Tea Party association with the authority to kick people or organizations out of the Tea Party movement.

Third, Williams has stated his views on racists in the Tea Party movement several times, indicating that neither he nor his group, Tea Party Express, support racism. He has further pointed out that Tea Party participants and speakers have repeatedly denounced racist kooks who show up at Tea Party events looking for publicity. Also, Williams has pointed out that it is not necessary to continuously defend himself or his group against accusations that are obviously false. To do so would be to raise an issue that where none exists.

A Surprising Look Gaza

2010-06-22T20:51:00.000-07:00

Except for Hamas and anti-Semitism-spewing children, Gaza does not look like such a bad place. I thought from all the media propaganda that Gaza was a desolate, poverty-ridden slum. Yet this video from Pierre Rehov speaks otherwise.

We Con The World

2010-06-13T11:46:00.000-07:00

In support of Truth, Justice, Israel, Caroline Glick and the American Way:

And shame on YouTube for blocking this video.

As Caroline wrote, "YouTube's decision to pull Latma's hit song We Con the World after 3 million viewers shows that Israel's enemies are afraid of us. Since they cannot refute our points, they are trying to silence us."

COMPLETE CLEAN UP OF THE GULF SPILL

2010-06-13T11:19:00.000-07:00

The idea for cleaning up the Gulf oil spill shown in this video looks feasible to a non-expert like me. In fact, I had thought of something like this system myself (without the PetroLuxus).

If this system is truly feasible, I sincerely hope that someone in power has the courage and intelligence to get it implemented. Perhaps widespread distribution on the internet will help.

Obama's Anti-Israel Stategy & Israel's Lack of Strategy

2010-06-12T22:03:00.000-07:00

Caroline Glick perceptively analyzes Barack Obama's anti-Israel strategy since coming into office, and shows Benjamin Netanyahu's lack of strategy in handling Israel's foreign policy.

If only Glick were Israel's prime minister.

Helen Thomas Does Not Recognize Israel's Right to Exist

2010-06-05T22:05:00.000-07:00

The Grande Dame of the White House Press Corps, Helen Thomas of Hearst Newspapers, a supposedly mainstream journalist, thinks the Israelis should "go home" to Germany and Poland, where they were butchered by the Nazis. Anti-semitic bitch.

Hizbullah on the homefront

2010-05-20T23:03:00.000-07:00

Excellent reporting by Caroline Glick on the frightening success of Iran/Hizbullah in infiltrating the upper-echelons of Israeli-Arab society. More frightening still is the acquiescence of many Jewish Israelis to this unsettling situation. Israel must strike back as soon as possible if it is to survive. I only hope that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has the courage.

Climate Science Settled?

2010-03-07T17:31:00.000-08:00

Some evidence supports global warming theory. Some does not.
Many scientists believe that global warming is probable or certain. Many do not.

But what is definitely NOT settled is that governments should impose draconian, socialist controls on the most important sector of our economy: energy production, which makes possible every other part of our modern, technological civilization.

Unfortunately, many climate scientists jump from accepting global warming theory to calling for economically and socially destructive policy measures, such as dramatically curtailing fossil fuel consumption, dictating land use, and reducing agricultural development.

If the world is warming by a few degrees per century, which is possible, and if this is a by-product of human activity, the best way to deal with it is by allowing individuals and institutions the freedom to adjust and innovate via the free market. By allowing individuals to adapt to ever changing circumstances in the world, the free market has exponentially lifted mankind's standard of living in only a few hundred years beyond anything imaginable to pre-modern civilizations.

In contrast, the socialist command-and-control approach has lead to untold human death and suffering in the 20th Century. Such an approach would be the worst way to deal with global warming. It will be suicide to accept government control of the energy supply. Global warming alarmists would effectively shut down industrial civilization by pulling the plug on our energy supply. And make no mistake: this is exactly what they wish to achieve. They want it because they accept the anti-human philosophy of environmentalism, which holds that pristine nature, untouched by human hands, is a value in itself, regardless of its value to human beings. Yet every material value upon which human life depends must be extracted or produced from the natural resources found in the environment.

If environmentalists favored improving human life and civilization, they would favor the only feasible alternatives to fossil fuel combustion, such as nuclear and hydroelectric power. Yet, again and again, they reject such alternatives. This is because the view human beings as evil and human improvement of the natural world as an affront to their sacred Garden of Eden: the environment.

Health Care Reform: He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune

2010-03-06T16:54:00.000-08:00

Obama and the Democrats want us to believe that the only alternatives in paying for health care are the government or insurance companies, i.e., third parties. They don't want us to imagine that health care should be paid for by the individuals (you and me) who are the customers.

Since increasing government regulations over the past 50+ years have put insurance companies and HMO's in charge of paying for most people's health care, we have seen demand soaring and price increasing.

Worst of all, the political left has convinced most Americans that health care is a right. This idea is the root of the problem. Health care is not a right. Neither are food, clothing and shelter. Read the Constitution if you don't believe me. But since people have come to believe health care is a right, they have turned to government, the one institution in society whose only proper purpose is to protect our rights.

This is how the collectivists are taking away our liberties - by telling us we have the right to goods and services, such as health care, produced by our fellow citizens. And when we drive up the price by demanding our health care rights, Uncle Sam steps up to rescue us by offering to pay. And we forget that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

So, we had better be careful because Mr. Obama and his buddies are trying with all their might to pay for health care so that they can call the tune, while we dance to it like schmucks.

Does Having Health Insurance Decrease Mortality?

2010-02-26T23:35:00.000-08:00

Megan McArdle questions whether having health insurance actually correlates with improved mortality rates - a question everyone seems to think is obvious. But apparently, it's not quite so simple.

The Fairy Tale of Fatah Moderation.

2010-02-20T10:17:00.000-08:00

Caroline Glick shows why the U.S. and Israeli governments must recognize the intent of "moderate" Palestinian Fatah's commitment to destroy Israel.

A Summary of ClimateGate and its Offspring

2010-02-18T21:38:00.000-08:00

Mark Landsbaum: What to say to a global warming alarmist from the OC Register.

Obama vs. Bush Budget Deficits

2010-02-18T21:33:00.000-08:00

According to Jeffrey Anderson at Investor's Business Daily:

"In all, if Congress approves his current budget, Obama's deficit spending will total $3.5 trillion for the first half of his first term. President Bush's deficit spending totaled $2.9 trillion. In other words, Obama's deficit spending for his first two years in office will exceed Bush's deficit spending for his entire eight-year presidency."

(The source for this information is, "Obama's own White House Office of Management and Budget.")

The great global warming collapse

2010-02-07T01:04:00.000-08:00

Read a good summary of Climategate at The Globe and Mail.

It seems that the so-called "scientific consensus" which environmentalists insist exists has indeed collapsed when someone like John Beddington, the chief scientific adviser to the British government, and a "staunch believer in man-made climate change," says, "...There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.”

Keeping Zionism's Promise

2010-01-31T23:19:00.000-08:00

Caroline Glick is by far the best, most trenchant commentator on Israeli national security affairs that I have read in recent years.

Here is another of her masterful analyses of the dangerous predicament faced by Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

How alone the defenders of that tiny nation must feel in a morally corrupt international community that seems hell-bent on sacrificing Israel to the Islamo-Fascists in Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

Improve, Don't Protect, the Environment

2010-01-24T11:31:00.000-08:00

Protecting the environment has been the cause célèbre of nearly everyone, especially leftist elites, for the past 40 years. Everywhere we look: celebrities, politicians, and the news media exhort us to protect nature from thoughtless, human intrusion and greed. And who would not want to preserve the Earth’s beautiful and awe-inspiring array of life-forms and inanimate wonders? From sea turtles to dolphins, from majestic old growth forests to the ocean's magnificent coral reefs teaming with life; natural wonders bless the Earth with their beauty.

Nevertheless, not all aspects of nature fill us with a benevolent sense of wonder; typhoons, tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornadoes are also part of nature. So are volcanoes, earthquakes, snowstorms, heat waves, droughts, floods, etc., etc. Such events destroy and devastate thousands of human lives every year. Likewise, innumerable infectious diseases, such as malaria, typhus, HIV, and hepatitis, all part of nature, have maimed and killed millions of human lives across the centuries.

Now, consider the simple truth these vastly differing phenomena tell us about the environment: sometimes it is good, and sometimes it is bad. Good or bad for what? For human life.

We frequently talk about nature or the environment (I use the terms interchangeably) as if it were some separate, distinct entity, for example: Mother Earth. Looking at it this way is useful for some purposes. When considering both the destructive and the beneficial examples above from this perspective, we can conclude that nature does not really care one way or another about human life and well being; it is oblivious to human welfare.

Now consider how human beings, as opposed to other species, survive and thrive in the context of their natural environment. The first thing to note is that every material value upon which human life depends must be extracted or produced from the natural resources found in the environment. Whether we consider the most fundamental human physical needs, such as food, clothing, and shelter, or the most developed human needs and conveniences, such as modern medicine, literature, orchestral music, motion pictures, automobiles, and airplanes. In each of these, we see that humans must rearrange the elements of their environment in order to create the physical values that allow them to enjoy life and prosper. Even fruit and vegetables must be planted, tended, and harvested.

More specifically, the industrial and scientific revolutions of the past 200 years have essentially consisted of applying reason to understand and manipulate the environment for human benefit. To an unprecedented degree, people in modern times have improved their survival and well-being by taking various elements found in their environment, e.g., wood, minerals, plants, animals, etc., and then isolating and manipulating them. The unprecedented increase in human population, living standards, and life expectancy over the past 200 years derive specifically from the exponential growth in our understanding and subsequent improvement of the environment.

Given these facts, it would seem that a philosophy of preserving nature untouched, in a pristine state, as advocated by many environmentalists, is a prescription for human destruction. It is certainly a mistake to prevent human development of natural resources in deference to the supposed needs of every other species on earth, as many environmental thinkers desire. I am not referring here only to the sentiments of the "deep ecology" types associated with radical environmentalist groups. Consider for example, the following statements from several "mainstream" environmentalists:

"The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration." -- Michael Fox, vice president of The Humane Society.

"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

"Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby" -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

"Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line--at about a billion years ago, maybe half that--we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth."

"It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." -- David M. Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, in a prominently featured Los Angeles Times book review of Bill McKibben's book, The End of Nature.

These sentiments, if enacted, would certainly result in mass human death. Indeed, some have argued that they already have resulted in the deaths of millions from malaria, which followed the banning of DDT. Yet, we often hear such ideas put forward as moral ideals. There seems to be a disconnect between our desire to have a good life based on modern technology and our desire to enjoy nature left untouched by human development. Why? One reason is probably because many people take most of modern life's comforts for granted, not realizing that these comforts had to be created by human minds and hands working to improve the environment.

Many people seem to think that the values that science and technology bring us already just exist in nature. It appears that they don't realize the degree of human thought and effort needed to produce such values. They don't realize that enjoying a hike in a forest, or a tour of the Grand Canyon, or a scuba diving excursion, is dependent upon bringing the right safety equipment (e.g., boots, canteens, scuba gear) with them so that they do not perish during their adventure. Focusing only on the beauty of the wilderness, people often forget that they would not have the leisure time for nature walks if they did not have a comfortable, climate-controlled home to return to after the journey was over. The outdoors would not seem so pleasing to nature-lovers if, after the day's hike, they could not take a nice warm bath, enjoy a good meal, and read a good book or watch a good movie before going to sleep in their clean, man-made beds. We can imagine that prehistoric man, starving and suffering from diseases, rarely if ever, had time to enjoy nature. More likely, he simply feared the world around him because he did not understand it.

Environmentalists take it for granted that manipulating the environment to suit human purposes is immoral. Moreover, they have been largely successful in pushing this idea into the mainstream. Environmentalists have managed to convince large numbers of citizens and politicians that human beings will likely cook the earth to a crisp through our release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. That global warming might be a good thing does not even enter their minds. They would run in horror from the suggestion that human beings should purposely moderate the climate through technologies such as cloud seeding. Instead, they would rather "let nature take her course" and perhaps kill off a few million people by hurricane, tornado, or tsunami. In fact, they frequently argue that reducing the human burden on the planet is a necessity if we are to prevent imminent environmental collapse.

After considering all this, you may not think that your local naturalist is as benevolent as you once did.

So, the next time you encounter "green"-minded busy-bodies encouraging you and your children to protect the environment, you may want to say in reply that it is fine to preserve some specific aspects of nature for their beauty or uniqueness; however, it is far more important for human life and prosperity to improve, not protect, the environment.

"Enormous Change" (for the Worse)

2010-01-24T10:23:00.000-08:00

CNN reports today that Valerie Jarrett, the White House senior adviser, told NBC's Meet the Press today that, President Obama has brought about "enormous change."

The first thing she cites is: "I think what we've seen is a dramatic difference in terms of how the United States is perceived around the world" - as if the United States' popularity with other countries, instead of how well President Obama has handled the economy or our national security, is the first standard by which we ought to judge him.

Then, she goes on to say that Obama has "pulled back the economy from the brink of disaster," and that "he's adding discipline in government to try to get control over our fiscal house," when the U.S. has had consistent double-digit unemployment since Mr. Obama came to office, and after he tried (but thankfully failed) to foist a budget-breaking socialized medicine scheme on the American people.

American government needs enormous change - starting with a new president and a new congress.

Getting Closer (My Salamander)

2009-12-15T23:12:00.000-08:00

It has been so, so many years since I heard this song from Paul McCartney & Wings. I had only heard it once or twice back in the late '70's / early '80's, yet it was so catchy that all these years I've remembered it. Something jogged my memory recently, and I looked up the song on YouTube. And there it was . . . And here it is . . . Enjoy!

Climate Consensus Not

2009-11-21T19:27:00.000-08:00

This Wall Street Journal article discusses how environmentalist climate "scientists" play dirty to undermine climate change skeptics. The lack of ethics on the part of these "scientists" is stunning.

Sean Penn and Dictators

2009-10-28T21:44:00.000-07:00

It seems Sean Penn is at it again - treating dictators, in this case Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, as a civilized person instead of a socialist thug.

Frankly, I prefer Spicoli to Sean Penn the leftist. At least Spicoli's fried brain hurt no one but himself.

Creeping Christianity in the U.S. Military

2008-07-19T17:26:00.000-07:00

A dangerous precedent in the U.S. military is being bravely challenged, and ARI is stepping up to support that challenge.

IAEA Accuses Iran of "Willful Lack of Cooperation" About its Nuclear Program

2008-05-26T21:32:00.001-07:00

Just in case you thought it was only President Bush, Dick Cheney and the "Military Industrial Complex" claiming that Iran is hell-bent on obtaining nukes, the New York Times (that bastion of right wing ideology) publishes this damning story about the Islamic republic's "peaceful nuclear program".

The key paragraphs:

"The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran’s suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remained “a matter of serious concern” and that Iran continued to owe the agency “substantial explanations.”

The nine-page report accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations that its nuclear program may be intended more for military use than for energy generation."

"Part of the agency’s case hinges on 18 documents listed in the report and presented to Iran that, according to Western intelligence agencies, indicate the Iranians have ventured into explosives, uranium processing and a missile warhead design — activities that could be associated with constructing nuclear weapons."

Interestingly, the Reuters headline on this story is "Iran says IAEA report shows nuclear work peaceful" The Reuters report significantly downplays the frustration of the IAEA at Iran's unwillingness to cooperate in making its nuclear program more transparent. This, despite noting at the very end of the report that, "The U.N. Security Council has imposed three rounds of sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend its sensitive nuclear work."

A Return to Facts & Logic

2008-05-26T21:30:00.001-07:00

After playing with other blogs over the past year or two, I reviewed my writings and decided that the best blog work I have done is here at Facts & Logic. So now, I am returning to this piece of cyberspace real estate that I think of as my blog home.

Ewen MacAskill has got to be kidding

2006-08-13T22:00:00.000-07:00

Ewen MacAskill is diplomatic editor for the Guardian. In his August 2, 2006 blog entry entitled The Media Offensive, MacAskil implies that the Israeli government is being dishonest about the war compared to "the many western journalists in Lebanon cataloguing the horrors of the daily bombing." According to MacAskill,

"For journalists, it is easy to get a quick quote from an Israeli government spokesman. An article in the German-language Spiegel last week detailed a highly professional Israeli press and PR operation that sees accredited foreign journalists deluged every morning with lists of possible stories and emailed immediately after Hizbullah attacks with mobile phone numbers of victims, witnesses and grieving relatives. The proffered experts and interviewees speak a range of languages; transport to press conferences is laid on, and there is always coffee and sandwiches for those attending. Access couldn't be easier.

It is far more time-consuming getting even a quote from the Palestinians and even more difficult from the highly secretive Hizbullah, even though it has a press spokesman. Hizbullah may not care: its messages are aimed not at the west but the rest of the Arab world, which can easily be reached through its own television station.

It is not Hizbullah that the Israeli government has to counter, but the many western journalists in Lebanon cataloguing the horrors of the daily bombing. The Israeli PR machine may be slicker, but that does not mean it is winning."

This position is simply incredible.

On the one hand, you have the Israeli government spokesmen making a case that its war against Hezbollah in Lebanon is justified. Agree with them or not, that is what the Israeli government is doing, and it is what you would expect any other government to do in the same situation. They are not trying to pretend to be disinterested observers in the conflict.

In contrast, you have much of the western media pretending to be disinterested observers, reporting the facts, when in truth the opposite is true - they are acting as propagandists for Hezbollah. Specifically, according to a report at National Review Online by Tom Gross, a former Jerusalem correspondent for the London Sunday Telegraph,

"CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson admitted that his anti-Israel report from Beirut on July 18 about civilian casualties in Lebanon was stage-managed from start to finish by Hezbollah. He revealed that his story was heavily influenced by Hezbollah’s “press officer” and that Hezbollah have “very, very sophisticated and slick media operations.”

When pressed a few days later about his reporting on the CNN program "Reliable Sources," Robertson acknowledged that Hezbollah militants had instructed the CNN camera team where and what to film. Hezbollah “had control of the situation,” Robertson said. “They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn’t have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath.”

Robertson added that Hezbollah has “very, very good control over its areas in the south of Beirut. They deny journalists access into those areas. You don’t get in there without their permission. We didn’t have enough time to see if perhaps there was somebody there who was, you know, a taxi driver by day, and a Hezbollah fighter by night.”…

Another journalist let the cat out of the bag last week. Writing on his blog while reporting from southern Lebanon, Time contributor Christopher Allbritton casually mentioned in the middle of a posting: “To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hezbollah is launching Katyushas, but I’m loathe to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist’s passport, and they’ve already hassled a number of us and threatened one.”

Read the whole thing.

Palestinians 'pro-kidnapping'

2006-07-09T16:48:00.000-07:00

You just have to hand it to the Palestinians.....they are THE Culture of Terrorism and Death in the Middle East.

Having been raised from childhood on a daily diet of Jew hatred and 72-virgins-in-paradise death worship, what else would one expect of the Palestinians?

A News Story or an Editorial?

2006-06-26T22:13:00.000-07:00

...And this is what passes for objective journalism these days....Bush ignores laws he inks, vexing Congress - Yahoo! News

At least the AP could try using an objective headline, e.g., Critics Charge President Bush Ignores Certain Laws He Inks.

How Talking About Talks with Iran is Going to Get Us Killed

2006-06-22T12:46:00.000-07:00

Amir Taheri in the New York Post discusses the parallels between the English/German negotiations of the 1930's and the current negotations between the U.N. Security Council and the Iranian regime: IRAN: THE WORLD PUNTS By AMIR TAHERI - New York Post Online Edition: Postopinion.

It is clear that the Iranians are simply trying to buy time to build nuclear weapons so that they can become a regional and worldwide Islamist (i.e., Jihadist) super-power.

In the words of Michael Ledeen (to the Bush Administration), "Now, please."

Philosophy: Who Needs It?

2006-06-22T00:27:00.000-07:00

A person at the Yahoo! Answers asks, "Why must we have religion?" I think that my reply is worth posting here:

People don't need religion. However, they do need philosophy; they do need a fundamental view of existence and values in order to live their lives. Unlike other living creatures, human beings are not born with any values to guide their choices and actions. All the values they hold, they must aquire either by conscious decision or by unconscious acceptance.

To quote philosopher, Ayn Rand, "As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define you philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation--or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown." - Philosophy, Who Needs It? http://gos.sbc.edu/r/rand.html.

According to Rand, religion is an early form of philosophy which arose before humans could develop a scientific approach to the fundamental questions of life that philosophy must address. Today, religion is still the only form of philosophy most people know about. Furthermore, many people feel devotion to the religion they were taught as children since they associate that religion with the love they feel towards their parents. And while religion can have important values to teach and many worthwhile lessons to learn, it does not fulfill the human need for an objective comprehensive view of life, since it is based upon the pre-scientific and invalid approach of faith and the ancient destructive moral code of self-sacrifice. Moreover, modern academic philosophy has, over the past two hundred years, become a mostly useless psuedo-science that does not deal with the questions and problems human beings actually face in life.

I recommend Ms. Rand's philosophy called Objectivism as a rational alternative to religion, academic philosophy, cynical hopelessness, and unserious self-imposed blindness. There is a tremendous amount of information on the internet about her writings and philosophy that you can investigate. I recommend starting out at the Ayn Rand Institute: http://www.aynrand.org. And if you become interested, you can look into purchasing her novels and/or non-fiction works. Another accessible introduction to her ethics is called, Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It by Craig Biddle. This book is available at Amazon.com.

To give you a quick introduction to her philosophy, I will quote Ayn Rand again, "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Supreme Court All Wet on Wetlands Ruling

2006-06-19T15:00:00.000-07:00

Today’s Supreme Court ruling’s on wetlands (Rapanos v. United States, 04-1034, Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers, 04-1384) came close to overturning years of arbitrary and unjust property regulation by environmentalists via the Clean Water Act.

According to the Associated Press,

“Justices decided on a 5-4 vote, split along ideological lines, that regulators may have misinterpreted the federal Clean Water Act when they refused to allow two Michigan property owners to build a shopping mall and condos on wetlands they own.

“But on a separate 5-4 vote, they refused to block the government from restricting access on distant wetlands.”

“Instead of ruling in the property owners' favor, as they requested, justices said lower courts must reconsider whether ditches and drains near wetlands are waterways.”

This means that the Court, particularly Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (see below), had neither the courage nor understanding to overturn the clear abuses of the Clean Water Act themselves. Instead, they passed the buck to the lower courts to make decisions without any guidelines, which will result in indeterminant and contradictory rulings on the wetlands issue for years to come.

“The court's four most conservative members wanted a more sweeping ruling, clearing the way for development of land unless it was directly connected to waterways.

“The court's four most liberal members said that such a ruling would reject three decades of practice by the Army Corps of Engineers and threaten the environment."

So here, according to the AP account, the liberal members of the Court acted as legal conservatives, i.e., they ruled to conserve precedent when it conveniently fits their ideological biases. To put it a different way, four liberal justices are content to use precedent to uphold the despotic practices of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) - on the basis that ACE had been taking the same actions for 30 years – not because the ACE practices are consistant with the Clean Water Act (nor with rationality).

“In the middle was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

“Kennedy wrote his own opinion to explain why he was not joining the main opinion. "Important public interests are served by the Clean Water Act in general and by the protection of wetlands in particular," he said. Scalia's opinion, Kennedy said, "seems unduly dismissive of the interests asserted by the United States in these cases."

Kennedy’s above-quoted opinion captures exactly what is wrong with evironmentalist’s views on “wetlands”. Specifically, environmentalists regard nature or certain areas of nature (anything untouched, or - as they would say - “uncorrupted” by human productive activity) to be valuable to “public interests.” This, they argue, necessitates that the government infringe upon the rights of individual citizens by blocking them from rightful use of their own property.

The fallacy here is twofold: 1) there are no public interests above and apart from the interests and rights of individual citizens. For that matter, there is no amorphous entity called “the public” which mystically appears whenever you gather togther people in a group. The concept “the public” is just that – a concept – which designates a collection of individuals.
2) There are no values apart from individuals who do the valuing. Thus, the wetlands in contention in these cases have no value to individuals who want to develop condominiums or apartments on their property. Nor do these wetlands have value to the people that want to purchase or rent from these property owners. Neither do these wetlands have value to most rational people. What nowadays goes by the politically correct name of “wetlands” are in fact what people used to call swamps. These areas used to be regarded as a nuissance, which needed to be dried out and reclaimed, e.g., the cities of Washington, D.C. and Seattle. No one has any rational interest in preventing these particular property owners, or property owners in general, from developing their land. Only those with an irrational interest in preventing human beings from rearranging nature to fit their needs want to use the force of government (particularly, that institution hated so much by the Left – the U.S. Army) to infringe upon the basic most fundamental rights of American citizens to use and dispose of their own property in the pusuit of their own rational self-interests. Environmentalists consider individual rights as a nussaince infringing on their goal of "protecting" nature from mankind.

At least Justice Scalia understood part of the unjustice on the part of the environmentalists:

“Scalia had said the Corps of Engineers misinterpreted the term "waters of the United States."

"In applying the definition to `ephemeral streams,' `wet meadows,' storm sewers and culverts, ... man-made drainage ditches, and dry arroyos in the middle of the desert, the Corps has stretched the term `waters of the United States' beyond parody," he wrote.”

Unfortunately, it is not a parody to those individuals whose rights are trampled. Nor is it a parody to every other American whose freedom is jeapordized by the arbitrary power of government bureacracy.

Michael Ledeen on the Zarqawi Letter

2006-06-18T04:42:00.000-07:00

Michael Ledeen is featured again here at Facts and Logic. This time, he is confirming my suspicions that the document released by the Iraqi authorities - purportedly written by Zarqawi (may he suffer in hell) - is probably a fake produced by the Iranians to fool Americans into thinking that Iran has nothing to do with the insurgency and sectarian millitias in Iraq: Michael Ledeen on At War on National Review Online

Proof That Campaign-Finance Reform Endangers Freedom of Sppech

2006-06-18T04:35:00.000-07:00

During the long debate that eventually led to passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, opponents argued that the bill would lead to limits on free speech - particularly on the class of free speech that matters most: political speech. Proponents of McCain-Feingold pooh-poohed these arguments as red herrings put forward by special interests that wanted to keep their power in Washington.

Well, the following article from NRO shows that the proponents were wrong and the opponents of McCain-Feingold were right: The Editors on Campaign-Finance Reform on National Review Online.

Now, can we repeal McCain-Feingold before the situation gets worse?

Jihad Watch: Hamas Murders Children in Palestine, Blames Israel

2006-06-11T17:40:00.000-07:00

Jihad Watch: Hamas Murders Children in Palestine, Blames Israel

So what else is new?

Of course, the left wing MSM has failed to avoid a rush to judgement and are still crying that the Israelis are cold, heartless, SOB's, who don't care where their bombs fall. You'd think they would have learned the modus operandi of the Palestinian propaganda machine by this point. Alas, not.

Michael Ledeen on Iran & Terrorism

2006-06-11T00:31:00.000-07:00

I sometimes think I should call my blog "Michael Ledeen Watch" since I blog about this American Enterprise Institute scholar's work so often lately. Dr. Ledeen's writings are critical to understanding the bigger picture of the War on Terror; and his latest column at NRO, Iran Connects the Dots attests to this fact.

There are several illuminating nuggets of wisdom contained in this piece. Among them, the following stand out:

1. The terrorist leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed by coalition forces on Wenesday, was more important than most media reports have indicated:

"Zarqawi played on a global scale. Reports from Canada recount contacts between the ‘home-grown’ terrorists arrested by the Mounties and Zarqawi himself (See the ‘Mississauga News,’ June 7: ‘The arrest of 17 suspects...is said to be the latest stage in dismantling a terrorist network that’s linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi...’). Those arrests seem linked to those carried out in Atlanta, Georgia, by the FBI, and to other arrests in Sarajevo, England, and Denmark. It will be surprising if we don’t find Zarqawi’s claw prints in several of those venues, as the Canadians have said."

2. The coalition operation that resulted in Zarqawi's death was more significant than much of the media reported:

"We have probably just lived through the greatest global counterterrorist operation in history. In Iraq alone, some 16 or 17 terror cells were attacked at the same time as Zarqawi was killed. And the wave of arrests — just yesterday the Swiss reported they had broken up a cell planning to attack an El Al passenger plane — is like nothing I have seen before, bespeaking an encouraging degree of international cooperation. It goes hand in hand with the devastating campaign in Iraq against the terrorist leadership. Zarqawi is just the latest to fall; most of his top associates had been eliminated over the course of the past several months.

"The global operation seems to have been prompted by the discovery that the terror masters had ordered a worldwide assault, and so far the West has proven equal to the challenge."

3. Most importantly, Dr. Ledeen points out Zarqawi's connection to Iran, the terrorist regime that is the ideological, tactical, and financial center of Islamic terrorism in today's world:

"I first noticed him some years ago, reading the German and Italian press. Several terrorist cells in those countries had been rounded up, and court documents showed that in both countries the network had been created from Tehran, by Zarqawi."

And:

"Despite his intonations against the Shiites, and his manifest efforts to promote civil war in Iraq, Zarqawi was happy to work with the radical Shiite regime in Tehran, and they were happy to work with him. It is quite wrong to view him as a leader of one faction in a religious war; his promotion of religious conflict was simply a tactic designed to destabilize Iraq and drive out the Coalition. He and his Iranian backers/masters were desperate to promote all manner of internal Iraqi conflict: Kurds against Arabs, Turkamen against Kurds, anything that worked."

And:

"Shortly after the liberation of Afghanistan, I wrote that al Qaeda had been effectively destroyed, and that we should stop talking about al Qaeda as if it were the most important component in the terror network. I argued that we should conceive of terrorism as a kind of galaxy, with numerous components — ranging from Hamas and Islamic Jihad to the rump of al Qaeda and, most importantly, Hezbollah — who worked together, organized a division of labor, and were held in their orbits and epicycles by the Iranian intelligence apparatus, from the official ministry to the specialized units in the Revolutionary Guards."

In summarizing, Dr. Ledeen, writes:

"A week ago Director of National Intelligence Negroponte gave a very interesting interview to the BBC in which he reiterated what everybody knows: ‘(the Iranians) are the principal state sponsor of terrorism in the world.’

"So how come we're not going after them?"

Indeed.

The Reality: No Way Out of a Conflict with Iran

2006-06-07T23:24:00.000-07:00

Terrorism expert Dr. Michael Ledeen's column this week contrasts starkly with the mainstream media's view of the U.S. pre-negotiations with Iran's government. To the world diplomatic community, a conflict between the U.S. and Iran can be avoided if the U.S. stops aggressive posturing and instead offers enough "carrots" to convince the Iranians to suspend uranium enrichment. To Ledeen, a conflict is inevitable given the Iranian leadership's belief system:

"But these are fanatics, millenarian fanatics who believe that the world is headed for a final and decisive confrontation between the forces of Islam and the infidels and crusaders. They believe that the final days are at hand, and that they are the instruments of Divine power and glory. They have no doubt about their ultimate triumph, and everything they see in the West only reinforces their confidence, and leads them to redouble their murderous efforts."

Ledeen unequivocably compares the Bush Administration's new diplomatic tactics to those of Chamberlain when, in 1936, he appeased Hitler in exchange for a false promise of peace.

For the record, I agree with Ledeen 100%. And I would be willing to bet money that his prediction that we will have to fight a war with Iran will come to pass within the next 1-2 years. His characterization of both Iran's leadership and the Bush administration's capitulation to European's appeasement of the Iranian mullahs couldn't be more on target. The history of the Iran's theocrat's since they came to power in 1979 proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they are murderous religious fanatics bent on destroying Western civilization. Their publically espoused ideology and their financing and training of international terrorists is a matter of public record. You would think that people - especially the Bush administration - would have learned by now that you don't negotiate with terrorists.

Krauthammer's Folly - Negotiating with Iran

2006-05-30T14:16:00.000-07:00

In his Washington Post column today (via FrontPageMag.com), Charles Krauthammer snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by pulling a typical bone-headed pragmatic conservative move. First, he correctly identifies Iran's devious motivation in demanding bilateral negotiations with the United States, i.e., to delay the West until Iran can produce deliverable nuclear weapons, and the Left's predictably mindless agreement with this demand:

All of a sudden, revolutionary Iran has offered direct talks with the United States. All of a sudden, the usual suspects -- European commentators, American liberals, dissident CIA analysts, Madeleine Albright -- are urging the administration to take the bait.

It is not rare to see a regime such as Iran's -- despotic, internally weak, feeling the world closing in -- attempt so transparent a ploy to relieve pressure on itself. What is rare is to see the craven alacrity with which such a ploy is taken up by others.

Then, even after having stated the obvious conclusion, i.e., no negotiations with the Iranian mullahs, Krauthamer abruptly undercuts his own case at the very end and offers the Left, the Europeans and the Iranians an offer that they could not refuse:

We should resolutely say no.

Except on one condition. If the allies, rather than shift responsibility for this entire process back to Washington, will reassert their responsibility by pledging support for U.S. and/or coalition military action against Iran in the event that the bilateral talks fail, then we might achieve something.

You want us to talk? Fine. We will go there, but only if you arm us with the largest stick of all: your public support for military action if the talks fail. The mullahs already fear economic sanctions; they will fear European-backed U.S. military action infinitely more. Such negotiations might actually accomplish something.

As I posted today at FrontPageMag.com, the idea of negotating with the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism should never have come into consideration in the first place:

I agree with the first twelve out of fifteen paragraphs of Charles Krauthammer's article.

In that thirteenth paragraph, Krauthammer foolishly suggests that the U.S. negotiate with Iran if the Europeans give an iron clad promise to back U.S. millitary action against Iran should the negotiations fail.

First of all, Krauthammer already knows that the Iranian mullah's main priority is to delay the Western powers to give themselves enough time to generate deliverable nuclear weapons. Nothing would do more to generate delay than to get the U.S. tied up in a long negotiation process.

Second, Krauthammer should know that, if the U.S. were to ever claim negotiations failed, the Iranians and the Europeans can simply claim that the U.S. has not truly exhausted "all avenues of the negotiations process". The same thing sort of thing delayed the U.S. invasion of Iraq for almost a year and allowed Saddam Hussein to prepare his post-combat insurgency strategy and probably hide his WMD (with the help of the Russians).

We need to step back and look at the big picture:

1. Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism for eight of the past nine years according to the U.S. State Department's Pattern's of Global Terrorism report.

2. Iran President Ahmadinejad is a religious fanatic, who thinks he is going to bring about the emergence of the Muslim messiah by initiating a war with the Great Satan United States.

3. Iran has been funneling IED's into Iraq that have killed American soldiers.

4. Iran is trying with all its might, via its surrogate Moqtada al-Sadr, to get a theocracy installed in Iraq.

5. Iran has supported Syria in its funneling of foreign terrorists into Iraq to kill American troops.

6. Neither America nor any free nation should negotiate with terrorists or terrorist-
sponsoring nations. Hello!

The longer the overthrow of the terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime is delayed, the greater the chances that they will be able to produce a deliverable nuclear weapon and prepare their terrorist network for a counter-attack against the U.S. and its allies.

The U.S. should attack Iran now - not negotiate.

Further I would propose that the U.S. investigate whether it would be more feasible to attack the Iranian leadership and the bulk of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, rather than attacking Iran's nuclear sites as the mullahs fully expect by this point. I am not a millitary expert, but I imagine the U.S. millitary has the weapons technology to effectively take out these two groups to a large degree. In other words, cut off the head of the snake, and then go after the nuclear facilities with the help of the Iranian people who support us.

The Folly of Israeli Disengagement

2006-05-29T23:21:00.000-07:00

While I do not agree with all he says in his Opinion Journal piece yesterday, the words of James Woosley, the former Director of Central Intelligence, ring wise and true concerning The Folly of Israeli Disengagement:

"Three major Israeli efforts at accommodation in the last 13 years have not worked. Oslo and the 1993 handshake in the Rose Garden between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat produced only Arafat's rejection in 2000 of Ehud Barak's extremely generous settlement offer and the beginning of the second intifada. The Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 has enhanced Hezbollah's prestige and control there; and the withdrawal from Gaza has unleashed madness. These three accommodations have been based on the premise that only Israeli concessions can displace Palestinian despair. But it seems increasingly clear that the Palestinian cause is fueled by hatred and contempt."

Woosley succinctly points out that the Israeli and American governments need to wake up to the reality that al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Iranian Revolutionary Guard units are not going to disengage from Israel once Israel disengages from the West Bank:

"The approach Israel is preparing to take in the West Bank was tried in Gaza and has failed utterly. The Israeli withdrawal of last year has produced the worst set of results imaginable: a heavy presence by al Qaeda, Hezbollah and even some Iranian Revolutionary Guard units; street fighting between Hamas and Fatah, and now Hamas assassination attempts against Fatah's intelligence chief and Jordan's ambassador; rocket and mortar attacks against nearby towns inside Israel; and a perceived vindication for Hamas, which took credit for the withdrawal. This latter almost certainly contributed substantially to Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections."

When will reality start setting in? We can only hope soon. So far, the lessons of history seem to have been lost on Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Bush.

Iran and Hezbollah: America's #1 Enemies

2006-05-24T22:43:00.000-07:00

It's time for President Bush to break down the intellectual barrier in his brain that separates anti-Israeli terrorists from anti-American terrorists. The N.Y. Post reports:

"The Hezbollah terror group - one of the most dangerous in the world - may be planning to activate sleeper cells in New York and other big cities to stage an attack as the nuclear showdown with Iran heats up".
According to the story:

"The nationwide effort to neutralize Hezbollah sleepers in the United States, being spearheaded by the FBI and Justice Department's counterterrorism divisions, was triggered in January in response to alarming reports that Iran's fanatical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, met with leaders of Hezbollah and other terror groups during a visit to Syria.

"Among those attending the meetings, according to reliable reports, was Hezbollah's chief operational planner, Imad Mugniyah - considered one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world - who is responsible for the bombings of the 1983 U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut and who, more recently, provided Iraqi guerrillas with sophisticated explosive devices."

Don't Be Very Worried

2006-05-24T22:01:00.000-07:00

Some worthwhile facts to know about environmental issues in general and the global warming debate in particular can be found at OpinionJournal - Outside the Box

Inconvenient Truths Indeed

2006-05-24T17:03:00.000-07:00

Some Inconvenient Truths to be aware of before seeing Al Gore's new shlockumentary. Hat tip: RealClearPolitics.com.

Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration

2006-05-24T15:35:00.000-07:00

Highlights of Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration by Harry Binswanger -- Capitalism Magazine:

"One has rights not by virtue of being an American, but by virtue of being human."

"A job is a role in the production of goods and services"

"Before the 1920s, there were no limits on immigration, yet our standard of living rocketed upward. Self-supporting immigrants were an economic benefit not an injury."

"Immigrants are the kind of people who refresh the American spirit. They are ambitious, courageous, and value freedom. They come here, often with no money and not even speaking the language, to seek a better life for themselves and their children."

How to Stop Iran (Without Firing a Shot)

2006-05-18T00:14:00.000-07:00

Current diplomacy isn't working. Here's Plan B
by Bret Stephens: OpinionJournal - From WSJ.com

Iranian President Declares War on U.S.?

2006-05-17T23:42:00.000-07:00

Was Iranian President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush last week a diplomatic overture or a declaration of war? Given Ahmadinejad's millenialist belief system and the Iranian leadership's de facto war with the United States since the 1979, it is not a stretch to conclude the latter is true.

Iran Mocks While Europe Talks

2006-05-17T22:49:00.000-07:00

When will the sophisticates of European (and American) diplomacy pull their heads out of the sand and realize they are wasting their time trying to negotiate with Tehran? Hopefully, before the mullahs have the Bomb and it is too late. The Iranian president takes Western diplomatic overtures about as seriously as he takes the rights of his own people, i.e., not at all.

Less Health Care Can Be Better for Elderly - Yahoo! News

2006-05-16T23:30:00.000-07:00

A good empirical argument for reducing the size of Medicare: Less Health Care Can Be Better for Elderly - Yahoo! News

Oil Industry Unapologetic for High Profits - Yahoo! News

2006-05-03T21:28:00.000-07:00

Oil Industry Unapologetic for High Profits .....as well they should be given the facts presented in this article:

For their part, the oil companies have been emphasizing that they make far less money on each dollar of sales than many other industries that aren't being excoriated for their capitalism.
Taken together, Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips made a profit of $8.19 on every $100 in sales. In contrast, Internet bellwethers Google Inc., Yahoo Inc. and eBay Inc. collectively turned a $19.20 profit on every $100 of their combined revenue.

Calm at the Center of the Storm - New York Times

2006-05-03T21:19:00.000-07:00

This excellent piece in the New York Times Op-Ed section today demonstrates how events in Iraq can go right by describing an area in Iraq where events ARE CURRENTLY GOING RIGHT, i.e., where terrorist groups and sectarian millitias are being handled effectively by the local Iraqi police.

Social Security, Medicare Trust Funds Are Running Out of Money

2006-05-01T13:03:00.000-07:00

What myopic social security supporters refuse to see: Social Security, Medicare Trust Funds Sink - Yahoo! News

Connections Between Palestinian Terrorists and Al-Queda

2006-04-30T14:40:00.000-07:00

Caroline Glick at the Jerusalem Post provides the facts & logic linking Palestinian terrorists with Al-Queda and Iran.

NBC: Chernobyl's uncertain health legacy - Chernobyl Disaster: 20 years later - MSNBC.com

2006-04-27T22:26:00.000-07:00

When enviros start arguing against the resurgence of nuclear energy, the following article provides good intellectual ammunition against them: NBC: Chernobyl's uncertain health legacy - Chernobyl Disaster: 20 years later - MSNBC.com.

The key paragraph: "...a recent UN report found that of the millions of people exposed to low levels of radioactive particles spread by wind and in food following the accident, the health effects have proved generally nominal. The exception was a dramatic rise in thyroid cancer among children at the time. Thyroid disorders are widely treatable…."

WSJ.com Opinion Journal

2006-04-27T22:20:00.000-07:00

United 93 The filmmakers got it right by David Beamer, father of Todd Beamer

Does Iran Already Have Nukes?

2006-04-19T00:07:00.000-07:00

The American Enterprise Institute's Dr. Michael Ledeen thinks so.

As does Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post.

I am curious what our millitary intelligence thinks.

Iran: World's #1 State Sponsor of Terrorism

2006-04-16T14:53:00.000-07:00

If most Americans agree with President Bush's statement following the September 11th attacks that, "We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them," then it is time for Americans to lobby the Administration to live up to those words by removing from power the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism: the current Iranian government. This radical Islamicist theocracy, with its religiously fanatical mullahs and its insane, apocalyptic, war-mongering, Israel-hating president Ahmadinejad, now appear dead-set on aquiring enriched uranium in order to produce a nuclear weapon.

What's worse (and beyond reasonable debate) is Iranian support for the world's most dangerous terrorists. The U.S. State Department, not exactly a hotbed of pro-Bush enthusiasts, has for eight of the past nine years, named the Iranian goverment as the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism in its annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report.

Moreover, the terrorists supported by Iran are no longer just those, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, whose daily interest is in attacking only Israel. As summarized by counter-terrorism consultant Dan Darling of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Policing Terrorism, a report in the German political magazine, Cicero states:

"The author of this article was able to look at a list of the holy killers who have found safe refuge in Iran. The list reads like the Who's Who of global jihad, with close to 25 high-ranking leadership cadres of Al-Qa'ida--planners, organizers, and ideologues of the jihad from Egypt, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, and Europe. Right at the top in the Al-Qa'ida hierarchy: three of Usama Bin Ladin's sons, Saad, Mohammad, and Othman.

"Al-Qa'ida spokesman Abu Ghaib enjoys Iranian protection, as does Abu Dagana al-Alemani (known as the German), who coordinates cooperation of the various jihadist networks throughout the world from Iran. They live in secure housing of the Revolutionary Guard in and around Tehran. "This is not prison or house arrest," is the conclusion of a high-ranking intelligence officer. "They are free to do as they please."

"Saif al-Adel, military chief and number three in Al-Qa'ida, also had a free hand. In early May 2003, Saudi intelligence recorded a telephone conversation with the organizer of the series of attacks in the Saudi capital Riyadh that claimed over 30 victims, including seven foreigners, in May 2003. Saif al-Adel gives orders for the attacks from Iran, where he operated under the wing of the Iranian intelligence service.

"For years, according to the findings of Middle Eastern and Western intelligence services, Iranian intelligence services have already worked together repeatedly with Sunni jihad organizations of Al-Qa'ida. "As an Islamist, I go to the Saudis to get money," the Jordanian GID man outlines the current practice of Islamist holy warriors. "When I need weapons, logistical support, or military terrorist training and equipment, I go to the Iranians."

Given the undeniable links of the Iranian regime to the world's worst terrorists, and its highly likely desire to produce nuclear weapons, the American people should be demanding that the Bush Administration do the right thing and initiate a regime change in Iran before it is too late.

A General Misunderstanding - New York Times

2006-04-16T14:50:00.000-07:00

I have respected and admired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld since I first came to "know" him via television during the early months of the first Bush Administration. My appreciation of his courage, his keen mind, and his tough outspokeness have been affirmed in this Op-Ed by retired Marine lieutenant general Michael DeLong, the No. 2 general at United States Central Command from the Sept. 11 attacks through the Iraq war: A General Misunderstanding - New York Times. This article also debunks the assertion of the Administration's critics that "it had a plan for winning the war, but not for winning the peace."

Speaking of winning the peace, this blog entry by a professional political statistician gives some hard numbers suggesting that we are, in fact, winning the peace.

The Millitary as Last Option Argument

2006-04-12T23:49:00.000-07:00

Hugh Hewitt has done a (belatedly) good job of covering the dangerous Hojjatieh ideology of Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad, and the threat of Iran's mullah's obtaining a nuclear weapon. However, I fear he overestimates President Bush's intellectual adeptness in dealing with this dire situation in a timely manner. So, I wrote Hugh a letter, which I reprint here.

Dear Hugh,

1. Thank you for focusing on the danger of Iran’s mullahs on your show and your blog these last few days. I consider myself a student of Dr. Michael Ledeen who, as nearly the only prominent American intellectual to have urged regime change in Iran for the past three years, has been a modern equivalent of Winston Churchill during the "Alone" years. I would argue that the honor of this comparison belongs to Dr. Ledeen as much, if not more, than to anyone else on the American political scene (given that Dr. Ledeen is a professional intellectual, not a politician).

2. I am deeply concerned that, with the current Iranian situation, President Bush is falling for the same "let diplomacy take its course through the U.N." delusion, foisted upon him by Tony Blair and Colin Powell in 2002. Only this time, the pressure is coming from the Democrats and a perceived reluctance of the American people (as portrayed by the MSM) to undertake another military action against a second Middle Eastern regime. They are saying that the U.S. doesn’t have the will or the way. I do think that President Bush has the "will". I just don’t think he has the "way", i.e., the intellectual arguments needed to justify action against Iran outside the context of the U.N..

3. The main argument put forth by the Left against taking quicker action to overthrow Iran’s mullah’s is based on the same maxim they misused to argue for delaying military action against Saddam during 2002: "Military force should only be used as a last resort." As misused by the Left, this maxim is taken out of proper context, and it is used to trick the intellectually unsophisticated into thinking that military action must be delayed until literally the very last minute before the enemy strikes us. This is, of course, suicide. Waiting until the mullahs have nuclear weapons is waiting until it is too late.

4. We (and by "we", I mean anyone who has any chance to influence the policy of the Bush Administration) should be counter-attacking against this faulty argument by pointing out that, while military might may be the least desirable option to use in general, it should not be the last option to use when confronted by enemies, who we know in advance are end-of-the-world Islamist madmen intent on obtaining nuclear weapons..

5. Time is not on our side. Considering that the progress of Iraq’s WMD program was vastly underestimated prior to the 1991 Gulf War, I feel justified in writing that we do not know with sufficient certainty when the mullahs will obtain the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. We can rest assured that they would not hesitate to try fooling us into thinking that they are further away than is actually the case. And with President Bush apparently dead set on letting "diplomacy take its course" through the U.N. (where Russia and China will ultimately veto any Security Council resolution with teeth), I think all of us have cause to be deeply concerned.

Russia Spies Operated in Iraq Through 2003 - Yahoo! News

2006-03-24T23:21:00.000-08:00

The plot thickens.....Russia Spies Operated in Iraq Through 2003 - Yahoo! News.

It is a good thing that the American public and the U.S. government are finally being forced to recognize that Russia is no friend of the United States.

Without the evidence of this story forcing Americans to recognize Vladimir Putin's antagonism towards the U.S., Americans and their goverment would let their fear of a return to the Cold War keep them from recognizing that Putin is an enemy of freedom, and that the Russian government, under his rule, has again become a dictatorship.

Pentagon: Russia Gave Saddam U.S. Intel - Yahoo! News

2006-03-24T11:47:00.000-08:00

It seems our friends, the Russians, led by Mr. Putin, are not such great "strategic partners" for advancing freedom in the world as we would like to believe: Pentagon: Russia Gave Saddam U.S. Intel - Yahoo! News

Democracy vs. Freedom

2006-02-20T22:12:00.000-08:00

The recent elections in the Palestinian territories, in which the terrorist group Hamas was voted into official political leadership, bring into focus a crucial intellectual issue undermining the Western world, especially in its fight with Islamic terrorist-supporting nations. Specifically, people throughout the world mistakenly think that "democracy" is the equivalent of political freedom.
However, this belief is a deadly misidentification of the true meaning of political liberty. "Democracy" is antithetical to liberty. Rather, as I will argue below, it is the recognition of individual rights that results in political freedom.

"Individual rights" are entitlements to freedom of action. Human beings are entitled to certain freedoms (i.e., rights) by virtue of their nature as sovereign thinking individuals. Examples of individual rights include: the rights to life, liberty, free speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom to earn and own property.

To put it simply, freedom means you can do what you want with your own life, so long as you do not interfere with the lives of others. Jefferson eloquently wrote of freedom in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Within these few carefully written sentences, Jefferson suggests the relationship between individual rights and democracy; he implies that upon a foundation of individual rights, a proper government may be elected by popular vote. Moreover, he explicitly states that the purpose of such a popularly elected government is to protect those rights. Thus, this is how democracy - or more correctly, elections - relate to freedom: individuals possess certain unalienable rights, and to secure those rights, individuals elect a government for protection of their rights.

However, having political elections without the foundation of individual rights, i.e., "democracy", is nothing more than mob rule, i.e., collectivist dictatorship. Instead of a single dictator infringing upon his subject's freedoms, as in a monarchy, democracy substitutes several million voting dictators to infringe upon their subject's freedoms. But increasing the number of people who decide to violate your rights does not make the violation any more legitimate. To quote the philosopher Ayn Rand, "Under a system of Collectivism, a million men (or anyone claiming to represent them) can pass a law to kill one man (or any minority), whenever they think they would benefit by his death. His right to live is not recognized. Under Individualism, it is illegal to kill the man and it is legal for him to defend himself. The law is on the side of a right. Under Collectivism, it is legal for the majority to kill a man and it is illegal for him to defend himself. The law is on the side of a number."

For example, it was in a democracy that Socrates was put to death for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens; it was in a democracy that the dictator, Adolf Hitler, was brought to power; it was in a democratic election that last week, the terrorist group, Hamas, was elected to rule the Palestinians and launch attacks against Israel.

In this context, it is important to note that within a truly free society, individuals cannot delegate to their government rights they do not possess themselves to begin with. In other words, if you, as an individual, cannot murder your neighbor and steal his money, then likewise, it does not matter how many of your neighbors you get together to vote to commit these same acts. To do so is to grant to the mob the right to take away the rights of anyone at any time simply by majority vote.

No, democracies are not free societies. Individual rights define and delimit what issues may properly be voted upon. Outside the context of individual rights, there is no limit to the power of the majority: anything goes. In a free society, we elect our government representatives, but we cannot rightfully elect leaders or vote to approve measures whose avowed purpose violates individual rights.

And yet, because we elect our leaders within constitutional republics, people in the Western world mistakenly call their countries "democracies", and sloppily mix together in their heads the concept of individual liberty with the act of voting as such, voting without regard to what is being voted upon. Thereby, as a result of intellectual laziness and imprecision, people allow their freedom to be slowly degraded without ever identifying exactly what that freedom actually consists of. Loss of freedom is the result of a fuzzy understanding of liberty.

The intellectual package deal of equating democracy with individual liberty is not simply a matter of semantics, it is not simply a word game. By referring to a constitutional republic as a democracy, people are allowing the enemies of freedom to justify the election of the most heinous of dictatorships (e.g., Hamas). In other words, by the simple act of calling America a democracy, people give the Palestinian mob's choice of Hamas to lead their government the aura of legitimacy since these terrorists were "democratically" elected. And the Hamas leadership knows as much; in a Feb 14, 2005 New York Times article, Hamas official Farhat Asaad is quoted as saying, "First, I thank the United States that they have given us this weapon of democracy. But there is no way to retreat now. It's not possible for the US and the world to turn its back on an elected democracy."

Such governments are neither legitimate nor sovereign. They are simply dictatorships in which everyone infringes on everyone's else's rights, and the group with the most power wins. In other words, they are societies where "might makes right", in contrast to an individualist society, where "right makes right".

View the Muhammad Cartoons

2006-02-12T22:43:00.000-08:00

See them here: MuhammadCartoons

Publish Those Cartoons

2006-02-12T01:23:00.000-08:00

As Charles Krauthammer demonstrates in his op-ed Curse of the Moderates, Western media must publish the Danish cartoons of Mohammad to protect freedom of the press, a value that trumps sensitivity to people's feelings for anyone who knows anything about freedom.

Muslims Offended by Danish Cartoons on Yahoo! News Photos

2006-02-10T13:16:00.000-08:00

The photo here: Muslims Offended by Danish Cartoons on Yahoo! News Photos sums up the insanity of those Muslims engaged in violent protests over the Danish cartoons of their prophet, Muhammad. Equating cartoons that offend with bombs that kill is about as totalitarian as you can get. They are quite insane.

Cold War II

2006-02-10T10:34:00.000-08:00

Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is conducting Cold War II against the U.S. and Israel: Israel fumes over Putin 'knife in back' - Yahoo! News. The Bush Administration so far refuses to recognize this fact.

Scientists Warn of Melting Ice in Arctic - Yahoo! News

2006-02-06T21:52:00.000-08:00

Scientists Warn of Melting Ice in Arctic - Yahoo! News

The Earth's climate has always changed during its approximate 5 billion years, sometimes suddenly, sometimes slowly. In most cases, these changes have led to mass extinctions of species.

Everything humans do affects the environment. Human beings survive by changing the environment. Every material value we have comes from changing the environment, from the most basic necessities: food, clothing, and shelter, to the most advanced technologies: medicine, space technology, and electronics.

The question for us is whether we will shoot our economy in the foot by limiting our oil supplies, or whether we will use our technology to adapt to and overcome global warming.

Environmentalists, many scientists included, seem to think that our technology is evil because it "harms" the environment. They think that nature, unchanged, and undisturbed by mankind, is a good in and of itself.

However, there is no intrinsic value to nature. Nature could care less about human life. Values only exist because human beings exist. Without someone who values, no values would exist. And because of this, human life is the very basis for values. Changing the environment for the benefit of mankind is the only way human beings can survive, and doing so is an act of loyalty to our values. It is a virtue, not a vice.

Bush Caves on Nuclear Power for Iran

2006-02-01T14:03:00.000-08:00

In the following story, Bush Says Don't Expect Oil Price Breaks - Yahoo! News: President Bush says, "'We cannot afford to have Iran with a nuclear weapon' but 'We want them to have nuclear power but under the conditions that we describe.'

So, Russia's Vladimir Putin is pressuring Bush not to attack Iran because the Russians are selling nuclear reactor components and expertise to the Iranians. The Iranians clearly intend to obtain nuclear weapons (clearly, because with all that oil, they don't need nuclear power) and Bush is giving into Putin's pressure in a pragmatic move in which uranium would be processed in Russia and then given to Iran. Unfortunately, we cannot trust Putin - he is no friend of liberty. He would likely have no misgivings about another country obtaining nuclear weapons to counter the power of the U.S., Israel, and the UK. Furthermore, even if Putin has no desire to see a nuclear armed Iran, who can trust Russian arms inspectors? With a wink and a nod, they could easily pass the Iranians the highly processed uranium needed for a nuclear bomb.

Bush, why are you being so short-sighted?

Democracy vs. Liberty in Palestine

2006-01-31T21:05:00.000-08:00

Democracy is not the same thing as liberty. Freedom comes only from the recognition of individual's rights to life, liberty, and property. If the majority in a democracy can vote to strip you of these rights, you are not free. If the majority in a society can vote to install a dictatorship, the society is not free - not only after the dictatorship is installed, but before the vote as well. If your rights are open to be voted upon, you are not free.

Applying this to a current event, if the Palestinians have voted to install Hamas as their leaders, the Palestinians are not free. Only when the Palestinians respect the rights of individuals in their own society and the rights of individuals outside their society, will the Palestinians be free.

Dictatorships are not legitimate sovereign governments.

There They Go Again....

2006-01-27T15:18:00.000-08:00

This article Forum Spotlights Problems of Poor Women - Yahoo! News has got to take the award for Bullshit Socialist Propaganda of the Year Award.

Many in Congress Hawkish on Iran - Yahoo! News

2006-01-25T13:39:00.000-08:00

It seems to be an article of faith, among so many politicians quoted in this article, that millitary action should be the option of last resort Many in Congress Hawkish on Iran - Yahoo! News. Yet, when we consider dangers at stake in this game, we must ask if it is so wise to wait until the religious fanantic Iranian mullahs may obtain a nuclear bomb before we act.

Iran's Quest for Atomic Weapons

2006-01-18T21:14:00.000-08:00

The website of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a private organization founded by CNN's Ted Turner and former Democrat senator Sam Nunn, is an excellent starting point for researching Iran's quest to develop atomic weapons.

RealClearPolitics - Commentary - The Iran Charade, Part II by Charles Krauthammer

2006-01-17T21:52:00.000-08:00

RealClearPolitics - Commentary - The Iran Charade, Part II by Charles Krauthammer

Krauthammer criticizes the Europeans. But it is upon the Bush Administration he should focus his assault. The Administration sanctioned the Europeans self-delusional "negotiations" with a theocracy. Now, the world's leading sponsor of Islamic terrorism is probably months away from a nuclear bomb.

The Iranian Threat and How to Deal With It

2006-01-17T21:34:00.000-08:00

Frank Gaffney at The Center for Security Policy gets it right about Iran in this article.

One Moment in Time: Our Age of Revolution

2006-01-15T13:17:00.000-08:00

Trenchant historical analysis of the war against Islamo-fascism, as always, by Dr. Michael Ledeen at JewishWorldReview.com.

Iran: World's #1 State Sponsor of Terrorism

2006-01-13T23:33:00.000-08:00

For the record, according to the State Department's most recent Patterns of Global Terrorism report (2004) Iran remains the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism. And now, they are working frantically to produce an atomic bomb.

Time is running out.

Socialism Rears its Ugly Head in Maryland

2006-01-13T13:44:00.000-08:00

It appears that the worldwide collapse of socialism has not only been ignored in South America, but also right here at home, specifically in the state of Maryland.

Especially stupid is the statement by State Sen. Gloria Lawlah: "Don't dump your employees that you refuse to insure into our Medicaid system"(!) As if Walmart, by offering Marlyanders some degree of healthcare coverage in addition to a means of income, is somehow forcing the citizen's of Maryland to pay for healthcare that they wouldn't have to pay for if there were no Walmarts in the state to begin with.

The sad thing is that Wal-Mart concedes the socialist premise that everyone has a "right to health care". According to company spokeswoman Sarah Clark, "This does nothing to accomplish this goal of providing everyone access to affordable health care insurance."

Instead, Walmart should be denouncing the idea that the state has the right to force companies to pay for benefits that are not voluntarily agreed to by the employer and the employee. In other words, Walmart should be upholding freedom of contract, and denouncing the collectivist notion that it is okay to sacrifice the rights of some individuals for the benefits of others.

For a thorough debunking of the idea of a "right to health care", see Leonard Peikoff's "Healthcare is not a Right".

Saddam's terror training camps

2006-01-11T21:13:00.000-08:00

If anyone ever tells you that Saddam Hussein had no links to Islamic terrorists, and therefore, the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq, refer them to this article: Saddam's terror training camps.

The Banana Man Has Gone Bananas

2006-01-09T21:36:00.000-08:00

Harry Belafonte: What an idiot. If he likes it so much in Chavez's Venezuela; he can go live there. Of course, he won't. He will stay here in "racist" America, where the evil President Bush oppresses his people, and where black singers can earn millions of dollars, drive Beemers, live in mansions, and not get all their money confiscated by socialist dictators. Poor oppressed Harry...

International News Article | Reuters.com

2006-01-06T23:29:00.000-08:00

Maybe Microsoft and Yahoo! can evade this story to console their guilty conciounces.

BREITBART.COM - Microsoft Shuts Down Chinese Blog

2006-01-06T23:25:00.000-08:00

It seems that Microsoft and Yahoo! don't care to take any stand to protect the basic freedoms that make their own existences possible. It is really mind-numbing to witness the degree of evasion involved here. I hope that some prominent leftists, who are adept at finding examples of short-sighted "greed" of businessmen, will take note of this real example of the phenomenon

America, Mr. Bush Are you "Serious or Suicidal?" by Thomas Sowell

2006-01-02T23:03:00.000-08:00

America, WAKE UP!
Mr. Bush, WAKE UP!

Nuclear-armed mullahs with end-of-the-world delusions about the Second Coming of Allah (or whatever it is)will have no inhibitions about sending a nuke to Israel, Europe, or America.

HELLO!!!

Winds of Change.NET: Tidbits from Turkey on Iran

2005-12-22T00:42:00.000-08:00

Is the Bush Administration FINALLY taking some steps to deal with the Iranian threat? Only time will tell...though we don't have much of that.

Environazis Can't Handle The Facts

2005-12-21T21:46:00.000-08:00

I quote from the report, "While the region looks bleak during its long winters, and oil can be seen seeping from some of its rock formations,..."

Hence, its not that the environazis want to prevent black inky oil from spoiling their clean white snow (really a frozen wasteland), since oil is already leaking out of the rock formations. Rather, they just hate the idea of Man (specifically the United States) from manipulating the environment to improve human life.

Religion Versus Reality - The New Nazi Regime in Iran

2005-12-11T00:07:00.000-08:00

Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany come to mind when reading this article in Newsweek about the new Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his beliefs and actions.

Report: Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities

2005-12-10T23:32:00.000-08:00

Let's hope the Israelis will act....because it appears that UN nuclear weapon's inspector chief, ElBaradei, is intent on deluding himself into the notion that the Islamo-facist Iranian mullah's will change their course towards developing nukes, despite the Iranian's explicit rejection of every pathetic attempt by the UK, France, and Germany to negotiate them into not starting uranium enrichment. Also, let's hope the Israelis act since the Bush administration still has no coherent policy on preventing Iran from either obtaining nukes or from interfering with the fragile situation in Iraq.

Something's desparately wrong with the world

2005-12-10T23:06:00.000-08:00

I was going to write that something's desperately wrong with the world when only one man is protesting in favor of free trade and capitalism at the WTO meeting this coming week in Hong Kong, while 10,000 will be rioting against it. However, on second thought, Australian accountant Simon Patkin is correct in one of his protest signs, which reads, "rationality not rioting". That is to say, the best way, the most rational way, to change minds is through peaceful intellectual activism, e.g., blogging or other forms of written or verbal persuasion, as opposed to the mindlessly violent street protests of the anti-globalization nihilist movement - that rag-tag conglomeration of nitwits, who refuse to face the facts of socialism's destructive history. Their violence is proof of their impotence.

One the other hand, the main defender's of capitalism in today's world, the conservatives, have a philosophy that is inadequate to uphold and defend free markets. The proof is: so many of the world's countries - including the relatively free ones - continue to implement massive socialist policies. And, while many "mainstream" conservatives say they are against socialism, they are frequently afraid to publically object to its most prominent manifestations, e.g., social security, public education, and publicly-financed welfare and medical care. Also, no doubt that in some cases, conservatives are not truly confident about the superiority of capitalism over socialism. The proof of this is that conservatives can frequently be seen championing socialist policies, e.g., witness Mr. Bush's Medicare reform bill, which was the largest increase in public socialist expenditures since Lyndon Johnson's disastrous Great Society programs of the 1960's.

Stop Worrying About Iraq. Start Worrying About Iran

2005-12-03T14:39:00.000-08:00

In his December 1, 2005 column in the Jerusalem Post, Saul Singer, identifies the essential threat to, and the Achilles Heal of, the Bush Administration's war on terror strategy: a nuclear armed Iran.

The key paragraphs:

"But the Bush administration is proving correct those who said, essentially, that the US is incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. The White House and Condoleezza Rice are currently siding with those who want to keep Iran on a back burner, and are willing to pay an increasingly high price to do so.

Easy for me to say, say my friends in Washington, who think anyone advocating "opening another front" - when Bush can barely stay the course in Iraq - must be smoking something. But the question is which is more unacceptable: doing two things at once, or letting Iran get the Bomb?"

"Bush rightly recognizes that the first way to lose Iraq is to cut and run, and he is therefore sensibly focused on stabilizing domestic support during this tricky period of impatience. Yet how can Iraq, not to mention the wider war of which that struggle is a part, succeed if in the meantime Iran provides the entire terror network with nuclear immunity?"

Read the whole article. It is important that you do.

Rep. John Murtha Wrongly Assesses Army as 'Broken'.

2005-12-03T14:20:00.000-08:00

It seems that Rep. Murtha is intent on convincing himself and others that the U.S. millitary cannot win the war in Iraq. Alas, the facts speak otherwise.

Russia seeks to calm US over arms sales to Iran - Yahoo! News

2005-12-03T13:57:00.000-08:00

Russia has now raised the stakes against the U.S. in our unspoken confrontation with the radical Islamicist mullahs of Iran.

There is no regime more dangerous to the West, no government more evil in its support of radical terrorists, than the current government of Iran.

When will President Bush wake up to this fact? And when will he realize that Vladimir Putin is no friend of freedom, no friend of human rights - but rather a second-hand leftover from the KGB and a dictator no better than the latter day rulers of the U.S.S.R.?

The War on Terror: Victory is Within Our Grasp

2005-11-29T23:45:00.000-08:00

Contrary to the impression you get from reading most U.S. newspapers or mainstream television news programs, victory in the war on terror is within our grasp. How can this be, you ask? Almost daily, we see the carnage unleashed by Sunni insurgent car bombings in Iraq, the so-called improvised explosive devices (IED’s), which target American and Iraqi military, policemen, civilians and politicians. There is no doubt that the overwhelmingly negative news coverage in Iraq has taken a great toll on the patience and fortitude of the American public. Nevertheless, an examination of the larger picture of the war on terror, such as that given by Max Boot in his November 23rd, 2005 article in the Los Angeles Times, Iraq a lost cause? Ask the real experts, helps to clarify and bring context to the dissociated concretes we are fed daily, in mind-numbing fashion, by the mainstream media.

In his article, Boot points to the optimism of those with first-hand experience of the situation in Iraq, specifically, American troops and Iraqi civilians. For example, "in a survey last month from the U.S.-based International Republican Institute, 47% of Iraqis polled said their country was headed in the right direction, as opposed to 37% who said they thought that it was going in the wrong direction. And 56% thought things would be better in six months. Only 16% thought they would be worse." Also, "The Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations just released a survey of American elites that found that 64% of military officers are confident that we will succeed in establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. The comparable figures for journalists and academics are 33% and 27%, respectively."

More interestingly, from an economic perspective, Boot notes that a study by the liberal Brookings Institution found that per capita income among Iraqis "has doubled since 2003, and is now 30% higher than it was before the war." Moreover, the economy is projected to grow at 16.8% in 2006. Also, "According to Brookings' Iraq index, there are five times more cars on the streets than in Saddam Hussein's day, five times more telephone subscribers and 32 times more Internet users."

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, has been the growth of Iraq’s independent media. Boot writes, "The growth of the independent media — a prerequisite of liberal democracy — is even more inspiring. Before 2003 there was not a single independent media outlet in Iraq. Today, Brookings reports, there are 44 commercial TV stations, 72 radio stations and more than 100 newspapers."

On the military front, real progress has been made in winning the war against the Sunni insurgency. American and Iraqi forces been successful in wiping out the insurgent presence in numerous towns along the porous Syrian border, the major source of terrorist supplies and funding. Coalition troops are also finally holding those towns against insurgents re-infiltrating previously won territories. The Iraqi people are more and more disgusted with the indiscriminate terrorist attacks. The insurgents are now hated by the very people in the Sunni population who previously supported them just a few months ago.

American military and civilians have successfully worked with their Iraqi counterparts to rebuild decaying and sabotaged infrastructure, to open hundreds of schools, hospitals, and other essential structures, to continuously improve police security, and successfully hold two nationwide elections. American persistence, together with our enemy’s murderous irrationality, has gone light-years towards the establishment of a moderate Iraqi mainstream middle-class.

Nevertheless, important obstacles remain. The most important and urgent is the Shiite insurgency being initiated, promoted, and sustained by the radical Shiite government in Iran. Addressing this dangerous regime is something the Bush administration has failed at miserably. I wrote that victory is within our grasp. However, a lack of courage on behalf of the Bush administration on this issue will be sufficient to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This is an issue that the mainstream media has largely ignored. Unfortunately, the time for a change of direction in our policy in dealing with Iran is growing short. Once the December 15th election puts a Shiite majority at the head of Iraqi government, the danger of Iranian inspired repression against Sunnis, instigated by radical Shiite elements in the new government, will replace and quickly dwarf any remaining danger of Sunni inspired terrorism. Because of this urgently pending situation, now is the time for all Americans, conservative and liberal, to speak up and pressure the Bush administration to change its currently misguided policy towards Iran. We need to stop the growing infiltration of the Iraqi military and police by Iranian security and political agencies. We need to isolate the radical Shiite leader, Muqtada al Sadr and his followers, who just a few years ago were wanted dead or alive by Coalition forces. We need to support a mainstream middle-class Shiite population, who will oppose any efforts by Iran to take over the new Iraqi government. The chances of our success in this effort are high if we take action soon. Iraqi Shiites have no love for the radical Shiite mullahs, who are running Iranian society into the ground. Also, as discussed in James Woosley’s 2004 speech, The War for Democracy, reprinted in frontpagemag.com, the Shiites have a tradition of separating government and Mosque. There are likely many moderate Shiite clerics, possibly including Grand Ayatollah Sistani, with whom we can make some common cause in isolating the Shiite extremists in Iraq. Again, as with the Sunni population, the United States must work with moderate Shiites and promote the politics of freedom, i.e., free speech, free press and freedom of religion, and reject the use of political violence and radical Islamist fundamentalism.

At the same time we are accomplishing this, the U.S. needs to isolate the radical Iranian Shiite government and prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. This is more easily accomplished once a stable Iraqi democracy is in place. However, we can begin by rejecting the current U.N. capitulation to Iran and Russia's flawed plan to allow Iran to process Uranium on Russian soil. The potential for corruption in this plan is far too great. Iran, an oil rich theocracy, does not need, and cannot be allowed to have, access to nuclear technology. They do not need it, and given their history of radical theocracy since 1979, there is no reason to believe that they want it for peaceful purposes. Perhaps, after a democracy is established in Iran, then they would have every right to have access to nuclear energy if they so choose. But before this happens, the Iranian theocracy must be eliminated, as it is the number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism in the world today.

Successfully confronting and overthrowing the Iranian dictatorship would be easier than it might seem. This is so because, first of all, so much of the demographically young Iranian population hates the mullah-controlled government. Second, once a U.S. military strike against Iran has begun, collaborating with the Iranian underground would help bring the Iranian government to its knees relatively quickly (within 6 months at most). Timing would be key. We would first need to bring the spotlight on and step up pressure on the Iranian infiltration of Iraq to quickly build the pressure for an invasion.

Next, turning to Syria, the collapse of Assad's regime is all but assured if we keep the pressure on the U.N. to prosecute the figures in that regime responsible for the assassination of the former president of Lebanon. Calling attention to Syria's terrible human rights record would be a huge help. At this point, the collapse of the Syrian dictatorship is very likely to occur through diplomatic pressure alone. The U.S. only needs to persistently apply it.

Having brought democracy to Iraq, Iran, and Syria would be an enormous step in winning the wider war on terrorism. However, this war would still not be won. The radical islamicists in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would still need to be dealt with. In the former two countries, governments currently sympathetic to the United States will be a great help. However, the U.S. will need to step up pressure on these governments, at the appropriate moments, to give up their totalitarian policies. This is very crucial. We cannot abet dictators as allies. We cannot continue to act on the policy of "He’s a bastard, but he’s our bastard." This is where the war of ideas is crucial. The United States must have the moral courage to promote and defend the universality of human rights and specifically, as human rights are embodied in its founding documents: the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As pointed out by Jake Wakeland in his article, The Empire of the Pursuit of Happiness, the attraction of these ideas are powerful, and will ultimately overcome the alternative philosophies of death and irrationalism propagated by the Islamists.

Significant Facts on the Current Situation In Iraq

2005-11-23T23:57:00.000-08:00

Iraq's a lost cause? Ask the real experts by Max Boot in the Los Angeles Times.

The Horrors of North Korea

2005-11-23T23:21:00.000-08:00

James Na, of gunsandbutter.blogspot.com, comments in the Seattle Times on "Kyeong-Sook Cha and Soon-Hee Ma, two defectors from North Korea, [who]testified for the House Committee on International Relations, and provided firsthand accounts of widespread tragedy occurring in the Sino-North Korean border areas."

The stories of abuse the two defectors suffered at the hands of North Korean and Chinese police are heartbreaking.

Unfortunately, Na notes, the congressional hearing in which they spoke took place on October 27th, when the "media in Washington, D.C., were in a feeding frenzy over the Harriet Miers withdrawal and the "Scooter" Libby indictments." As a result, "Cha's and Ma's tragic stories were ignored."

Moreover, even though the Congress passed the North Korea Human Rights Act in 2004, providing assistance for North Korean defectors, "the State Department has been "seriously out of step with the spirit and letter" of the act, and "not a single North Korean refugee has been assisted"

All that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

To do something, support the Defense Forum Foundation and North Korea Freedom Coalition.

Roasting European Chestnuts

2005-11-23T23:06:00.000-08:00

BAAAMMMMM!!!!!

Walter Williams nails a slam dunk!!! Again!!!

Love It!!! LOVE IT!!!

Man found guilty in Bush Qaeda plot - Yahoo! News

2005-11-22T13:11:00.000-08:00

How many on the American left feel outrage that a terrorist group planned to assasinate our country's president? How many wish that the terrorist group had succeeded?

RealClearPolitics - Commentary - Tortured Reasoning by Thomas Sowell

2005-11-22T00:27:00.000-08:00

As usual, Thomas Sowell nails it correctly on another highly contentious issue: torturing terrorists.

TaxProf Blog: Gas Taxes Exceed Oil Companies' Profits

2005-11-22T00:11:00.000-08:00

A little perspective on the recently hyped profits of the oil companies. Just goes to show you how out of context factoids can be used to distort truth.