Italy Caves In

Italy Trades Two Lives for Today in Exchange for Undisclosed Amount in the Future

Ransom: The purchase of that which neither belongs to the seller, nor can belong to the buyer. The most unprofitable of investments. -- Ambrose Bierce


Italian intelligence officials were closely involved in the release of the two female aid workers held hostage in Iraq, it emerged yesterday.

It is suspected that they were freed in exchange for a $1 million ransom, a belief that has cast a cloud over national celebrations of the release.

According to La Repubblica newspaper, the deal also included an agreement that 30 sick Iraqi children would be sent to Italy. Last night the Italian Red Cross said six children and three adults had arrived for hospital treatment.

A million dollars in order to get two people out of there, and for the right to treat 30 children.

It is the dollars and the children that make me the most nervous because the money can be used to buy so much more weaponry, or even worse: technical expertise. Not just WMD expertise, but just the ability to hire out people to make fake passports, falsify other documents, and bribe officials. There are people who make a living supplying this type of 'product', and now they have loads of cash to do it.

It may be true that Italy can somehow track these funds, but it is a risk none the less in addition to the public (terorrist public especially) thinking that the money is free and clear. In the end if a special forces mission takes them out, it will not matter because the method used to catch them will not be explained. Even if it is explained, right now terrorists are very excited about the chance to kidnap women (Italian at least) and then ransom them.

The children part is the most disturbing because it makes a terrorist look like a hero because they can appear to be not just blowing up roadside bombs, but they can do some image repair by saying they care about the children. Remember: Everything is always about the children. Politicians use this angle to paint an opponent into a corner; they add provisions to bills that might not get support that include something to help children and then, if the opposition still doesn't like the proposal, they say that the opposition does not care for children.

Politics for votes in a democracy is one thing, playing politics in a nation like Iraq by permitting terrorists to improve their image is idiocy. This information will spread: 'The group who took those hostages didn't just ask for money, they wanted to help our children... What has the US done for your children?'

If the average Iraqi feels that the process is moving too slow and can now begin to count on terrorists to barter westerners for help at home for children, the elderly, and the infirm, our road will be even harder because the average Iraqi can turn to a fellow Arab instead of an infidel.

Think these terrorists do not have this in mind? Think again: Miss Torretta told magistrates that their captors sent them on their way with 10 copies of the Koran translated into English, and copious supplies of sweets.

So, they are pretty good at PR, and that can not be by accident. It gets better for the terrorists even still: The information they obtained showed that our work had been transparent and in the interests of the Iraqi people. In the end they actually asked our forgiveness.
"They treated us with great respect, and were even attentive to our needs," said Miss Torretta, who headed the office in Baghdad of the Bridge to Baghdad charity, which worked in health and education. The women were seized at gunpoint from the office on Sept 7.

They tended to their needs?!?!?!?!?!? How about letting them travel freely? If this continues with kidnappers looking like friendly guys who are in a situation no one really likes and is only doing what they do in order to help children the road is a dark one.

Perhaps it is time we all played the videos of what these people really do.

Kerry Needs a Leash for his Dog

Here's an example of how liberals can't take a joke without flying off the edge and frothing at the mouth.

DULUTH, Minn. - Something about Sen. John Kerry darker appearance has caught Lynne Cheney's eye.

During a campaign stop with her husband, a group of volunteers moved into the crowd with microphones for the question-and-answer period. Vice President Dick Cheney told supporters to look for the people with dark orange shirts.
When Cheney paused as if searching for the words to describe the shade of orange, Lynne Cheney said, "How about John Kerry's suntan?"
The remark drew a big laugh from the crowd and the vice president.
Responding to her comments, Kerry campaign spokesman Bill Burton said, "Is Mrs. Cheney jealous considering how hard it is to get sun in the undisclosed location with her husband Dick? Or is she distracted over how red-in-the-face George Bush should be considering his failed presidency?"

Earlier I pointed out an example of this with a piece on Jay Leno, where he even said, "The interesting thing is, I have found that the Republicans respond much more to jokes about themselves than the Democrats do. Democrats take it very, very seriously. You know, when Al Gore was here in 2000, we said we want to do this bit, and then it was, 'Can we run it past our people?' 'Can we make these changes?' Then the day of the show, 'We're going to pass.' Bush shows up. We had a bit where we're playing Jeopardy, and he's going to look kind of stupid. But then, in the end, the joke's on me. 'Yeah, fine, whatever you want.' It couldn't have been easier."

The same thing applies here Bill Burton. Take a breath, it wasn't even that funny of a joke and it seems to be tossed to her softball-style as well.

Sounds to me, if I may read into this a bit, that Mr. Burton's boss - the esteemed Junior Senator from Massachusetts - must be getting a bit hot under the collar as is sensitive about the remarks. Is this an example of a dysfunctional campaign where you all go home and kick the dog?

So there ya have it, yet another example of the elitist world of John Kerry where he has dogs attack jokes as if those jokes were barbed. The same elitist world that seems to think Kerry must tan before the debates or he may appear to look like a guy from a New England state (oh... wait...).

Good work campaign crew for the Democrats!

Oakland's Whining Illegals

The Oakland Tribune reports that authorities are now not going to use sobriety checkpoints because it seems they are nabbing too many... Illegal aliens. And that's just not fair.

"The checkpoints, which allow officers to demand licenses and proof of insurance, are an effective way to get drunken drivers off Oakland's streets, city leaders agree. But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law.
"These checkpoints make people's lives miserable, not make them safer," said Jesus Rodriguez of Oakland Community Organizations, which filed most of the complaints about the checkpoints. "I've watched while the police have towed away cars (full) of groceries, leaving children crying on the sidewalk.""

Ok, so let me see if I have this straight:

You come into this nation illegally -- willfully breaking the law to get here -- and then drive around and feel cheated when you're caught? I'm supposed to feel sorry for your smuggled child despite the fact that you obviously don't care enough to instill values like honor and respect for the law and authority into your child? I don't think I will since there are loads of people who are here legally trying to make sure they do all they are supposed to in order to get citizenship. Things like getting and holding a job, obeying the laws, and at least partially integrating themselves into society.

So now when Oakland police bust you for being here illegally, driving illegally, and doing everything you do illegally since you are not supposed to be here, you complain to the very establishment who's laws you only feel like obeying when you want to? If I do not have insurance I can expect all sorts of headaches if I were to be stopped and I am a perfectly legal citizen. You want something (else) special? It would see so:

"The new checkpoint guidelines, which are not final, may call for police to notify Latino community organizations of the time and location of coming checkpoints. The checkpoints will be held after the evening rush-hour commute and rotated throughout the city, officials said.
"It's simple common sense," De La Fuente said. "You don't want to stop people going to or from work. If there are kids in the car, give someone an opportunity to call someone to pick up their kids rather than create chaos.""

So now get this, both drunks and illegals can find out ahead of time where the checkpoint is in order to avoid it. This is not simple, nor common sense, this is someone who obviously has more of a connection with helping illegals than following the laws of the land in which he lives.

The police checkpoints do not create the chaos, the people who are breaking the laws create the chaos. This is another example of liberals blaming something or someone other than the problem.

"While officers have some discretion, the cars of unlicensed drivers are usually towed. To get their cars back, owners must pay $125, plus any storage fees. That is a significant burden to many illegal immigrants, Rodriguez said."

Cry me a river. They certainly should not be here if they don't have $125 plus other fees. We have enough poor people without work who are citizens that we certainly do not need to add people here illegally to leech of the system.

Luckily there is someone who is looking out for the citizens, "I don't care if they are illegal immigrants," Reid said. "They should not be driving on our streets without a license, without insurance. I expect the Oakland Police Department to do its job and get them off the street."

Perhaps it is true that our current laws and our current situation make it hard - if not impossible - to enforce, but what needs to be addressed is how to fix the system, not ignore the laws and even claim that other laws should not apply since they are illegally here. Common sense, is it?

Support for Israel - Part II

It was when I started to see what has happened since Israel has become a state that I gained some background on why things are the way they are.

The United Nations has many condemnations against Israel, and we always head how Kofi and the rest of the UN 'condemns' violence from 'all sides' when addressing the problems with Israel / Palestine. This is another attempt to make all violent the same - whether it is a targeted strike against a Hamas leader, or if it is a bombing of a bus in Jerusalem it makes no difference to those people who sit around offices in New York, Geneva, and elsewhere.

The media also is part of the problem because, as the saying goes, "If it bleeds, it leads."

The Israeli military follows rules and always attempts to minimize collateral damage when engaging the enemy. The problem is when the enemy decides to pick civilian areas as the battleground areas. Palestinian 'militants' attack Israeli forces in a way that makes firing back a potential civilian blood bath.

These people do not care about life, rules, or decency and it shows in their methods and policies. How can I back such people? While I have nothing but sadness for those children growing up in the mess, it is those people who raise them that cause the perpetuation and as such there is no way for me support them, or their actions.

When a society cares so little about teaching their children good values and what is right and instead teaches them to hate people (Jews) and to go play around tanks there is a level of neglect impossible to fully explain and this is what happens thus I can never support it.

Why I Support Israel - Part I

No nation is perfect, and although I support Israel, I support the United States far more than any other nation, Israel included...

During my younger days I initially fell for the 'scoreboard' attitude that so many others do when it comes to the Israeli / Palestinian problem. "Oh my, the body count is 2:1 or worse!" and the Palestinians are fighting tanks with rocks. This can not be happening.

Then I woke up and realized it wasn't. Don't get me wrong, of course people are dying, and yes more Palestinians are dying than Israelis, and Palestinians are taking on tanks. But none of that was in context. As I've tried to point earlier, people can rattle off facts quite easily, but how did those facts become facts? What are the events surrounding everything that happens and what is the foundation of this whole mess over there? So I set out to find not just facts, but some wisdom. Here's what I found:

Many things had been done to the Jews around the world even before Nazi Germany came to pass. Russia had pogroms, and Europe in general was a hostile place for many Jews.

Britain, in an effort to get Jews out of Europe as much as to 'give them a home' came up with the Balfour Declaration in 1917 which said, "His Majesty's Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

By 1939 the caring British along with most of Europe (and the US) put severe movement / immigration restrictions on Jews leaving them cut off from any real chance to leave Europe. The British White Paper declares so, even in the area set forth for Jews. "Ambiguity" is the reason why, or so they say.

So we have World War II, and we have the aftermath and we have the reaction around the world as to what happened to the Jews of Europe. The United Nations declare that the area controlled by the British (after WWII) should be made into two homes - one a Jewish State, and the other an Arab State for the Palestinians.

This goes before a vote of the UN member nations, the list of those nations who voted against the creation of both is telling: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen.

Arab mobs storm Jerusalem and Muslim 'irregulars' (the term Terrorist has yet to be coined) attacked civilians around the area called Israel as soon as the vote passes. As soon as Israel declares itself a nation (14 May 1948) Arab neighbors invade both the area for Israel and the area for the Arab State causing the refugee problem we see to this day. Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, and Egypt all invade (note the nations who voted no for the creation of the two states).

During this time parts of Jerusalem fall to Transjordan, but Israel manages to push Egypt out of her territory and even all the way off the Sinai. Egypt retains control of the Gaza Strip. After a treaty is signed, Israel GIVES BACK the Sinai to Egypt due to pressure from the UK and the US.

The West Bank unites with Jordan, yet where are the Palestinian outcries for Gaza and the West Bank? Seems they only care about having those when it is held by Jews, but not when it is conquered and controlled by invading Arabs.

In 1964 the PLO is established in Egypt with Arafat as leader, a year later Syria declares that there is only one solution for the Palestinian situation - no Israel. In 1967 Israel is attacked by Arab nations again, the UN condemns such attacks, Egypt kicks out UN peacekeeping forces in the Sinai, and moves forces near to Israel. The Six Day War leads to Israel taking over lands that made hard-to-defender borders easier and this time doesn't give the lands back (except Sinai). This was a 'pre-emptive' strike by Israel, but it was also the last major combat seen.

PLO terrorists get a bit out of control and begin to attack Jordan as well since it has a large Christian population (Black September). PLO ends up in Lebanon. Terrorists of various cells begin hijacking planes, making demands. Later in the '70s we have terrorists killing Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich and much more.

Every time the Arab nations failed to conquer Israel, they would complain and whine to the United Nations that Israel took their land. These same nations who have no regard for the UN when they invade magically want the UN to listen when things do not go their way. Sadly, the UN listens and condemns Israel many times.

Meanwhile, the refugee situation only gets worse as the UN has made literal CAREERS out of keeping people in camps since 1948. There are people in those camps over 50 years old who do not have any citizenship because their Arab brethren refuse to grant it to them. The Arab brethren would rather they stay fenced in rather than join the populations.

Why? Their suffering makes for better PR than the Arab nations integrating them would be -- there would be no starving children to show to the world as 'proof' of Israel's nastiness.

The reality is the Arab nations never wanted a Jewish State, Arab Nations have tried military attacks to rid the world of a Jewish State, and when that didn't work they turned to funding terrorism to get the job done. This has not worked either, and has at times backfired on them, too. If the Arab nations wanted it to succeed all they would have to do is pool some oil money and you would have a very well to do society ready to buy the best, invest well, and have a good economy. Arab nations instead fund bombs and guns to destroy Israel in hopes of having it all for themselves. They care not for the Palestinians, they care not about the UN (unless it serves them), and they will stop at nothing to destroy Israel.

One reason I support Israel is because they have proven to be more than honorable when you look upon the events of the last 50 years and you see exactly what could have happened at any point if the Arabs had won against her; Israel would be no more and there would be a second genocide against the remaining Jews.

Americans usually don't understand what it means to be surrounded by nations who want you dead, nor do we understand what it is like to have terrorists walking around your places, casing locations, and getting ready to blow up a busload of people simply because they are Jewish. Because Americans do not have a grasp on this, they do not understand how things got this way and why. It is not that I no longer care about the Palestinians because, in all truthfulness, they are being used by the Arabs - their Muslim Brethren - as tools to continue the war against Israel.

Israel does exist as a state, and although it was 'given' to Jews in what seemed to be charity (though the reality was to get those pesky Jews out of Europe - NOT to do them a favor), they have given enough blood to make it their own and as such they should keep it. As long as the Palestinians side with Terror and permit themselves to be run by the likes of Arafat then nothing good shall come to them.

The first reason I support Israel is because Israel has done what is right far more than her neighbors - even at the potential cost of her own security.

Are We Ignoring War on Terror?

John Kerry seems to think that the War in Iraq is a distraction, and that a nation the size of the United States, with the capacities we have can not possibly hit al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and do anything in Iraq as well. This poor assessment of the United States is yet another reason - all its own - not to vote for Kerry since he is so mistaken.

The Australian (named after a nation who is going it alone with us) is reporting that Amjad Farooqi was killed in a battle with security forces in Pakistan, "His elimination is a crushing blow to the al-Qa'ida network in Pakistan because he was the man who had been providing al-Qa'ida terrorists the manpower for carrying out attacks in the country."

Farooqi was also wanted over the 2002 murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was beheaded on video after being lured to Pakistan on the false promise of an interview with senior al-Qa'ida figures."

What many people everywhere do not understand is that bringing down a group like al-Qaida is similar to bringing down the mob. This is because, like the mob, terrorism is a rather abstract entity with no set boundaries, populations, and even motivations. Terrorism has many families like the mob does, and many of these families might not always get along, but like when the FBI comes knocking door, when anti-terrorist security forces come knocking, these groups have a common enemy.

It so happens that one of the largest terrorist families with the greatest reach and very large bank accounts is al-Qaida. Another family is Hamas, another is Hezbollah, another is Abu Sayyaf, another is Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, another is Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and PFLP - General Command, another is Ansar al-Islam , and the list could go on and on.

As you see, we could name groups for a while and not get them all, and this is why saying, "We're going after al-Qaida," is such a huge mistake because if we can get rid of any of these or other groups we should do so. We can say that we are going after al-Qaida, but we should make it an exclusive activity.

What if al-Qaida closed up shop and decided to call themselves Little Brown Puppies? Could we claim victory? No, we'd have to go out and wage war against Little Brown Puppies. People often attach too much value to the name as opposed to the agenda of any organization.

Saddam was backing suicide bombers, Saddam also was known to kill his neighbors as well as so many of his own people. We know Saddam was not our friend. Do the math. Should he stay or should he go? It also gives us a base of operations in one of the most volatile parts of the world. Strategically this was the right thing to do.

This method of dealing with individuals, groups, and those nations who support them is nothing new. In the 19th century we send the US 6th Fleet to the Mediterranean to fight the Barbary Pirates. They still operate in that area to this day. Why did we go there? To protect American and indeed, to protect western shipping upon the seas. These pirates were privateers who operated on their own, but were supported by certain nations.

The Marine Corps Hymn mentions 'the shores of Tripoli', and it was from these days and battles it originated.

Nothing was easy, nothing was fast, but we eventually made it not worth the while to decide to try to raid the shipping lanes. It is this attitude we need when dealing with the war on terror. Bush was right when he said it will never be completely over because in the end, it only takes one person with a bomb to keep it alive. This requires much more than responding to terrorist acts, playing defense, and hoping we don't let anything slip by. This requires action, this requires resolve, and this requires a plan that will give us a long term security and stability that Kerry's short-term thinking can not possibly address. What we can do is destroy the infrastructure and make it not worth the time of those who have the funds to support such terrorism as we discover and when we discover it.

What we can do is exactly what we are doing, but those who lack perspective and understanding seem to think our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan / Pakistan are not related or feel that fighting in Iraq is not helpful. The Democrats have a candidate who fits this unfortunate profile and now is not the time for that.

Heinz-Kerry foolishly prattles on...

Teresa was busy acting important and is reported as rebutting a 'heckler' in Colorado.

During a question and answer session, a young man demanded to know why Kerry voted to give Bush authority to attack Iraq but voted against an $87 billion appropriation bill to support the war effort there.
"Is that the kind of thing he would do as president?," the man asked.
Heinz Kerry sharply asked the man whether he had read the legislation that was voted on.
When he said no, she told him that Kerry had supported $60 billion in military appropriations for Iraq, but would not vote for the full $87 billion because he considered it a "blank check."

When the term 'blank check' is commonly used, it means a signed check with no amount to be paid filled in, or is figurative for total freedom of action; carte blanche. Since there is a limit ($87 billion) this excuse she gives is not very accurate. Her attempt to belittle someone for not reading legislation is also a shame considering Kerry himself did not read the Patriot Act, though we all know the course that has taken.

She of course goes on to mention Halliburton, ignoring the reality that Clinton also used Halliburton in the Balkans despite Dyncorp winning what is known as LOGCAP, or Logistics: Civil Augmentation Program (hiring non-military contractors to do certain things).

Clinton basically sole-sourced Halliburton all of Bosnia until 1999 - despite agreeing to terms with the contract winner Dyncorp in 1997 for contracting out civilian operations.

This is not being mentioned to condemn Clinton's choice because his advisors were correct - Halliburton could do the job they needed, Halliburton was already there, and Halliburton had the most expertise in the field. For more information, read this by Byron York.

No Teresa, you husband didn't vote for the bill because he doesn't want the President to have a real chance of success. See, without the money how can we AFFORD more troops to send over there even if Bush wanted to -- how will you afford your 40,000 more troops for the entire military?

They blame bush for not having enough bullet-proof vests, but with Kerry voting no, where would we get the money for them? He determined the risk of Halliburton making money to be worth saying no to the very bullet-proof vests he would condemn Bush for not having for the troops. He even brings this up on his own website in a way to blame Bush for underfunding.

Making sure Halliburton doesn't make money is more important the equipping our troops as long as there is a Republican President it would seem. But once he's in office, *poof!*, he'll fund hiring 40,000 more troops. This is the most partisan, selfish, and immoral act to risk the lives of troops in order to smear your opponent.

Teresa then opened up the bag of idiocy and naivete in a way that only the sheltered and uniformed could possibly reach into, and pulled out this gem, "The way we live in peace in a family, in a marriage, in the world, is not by threatening people, is not by showing off your muscles. It's by listening, by giving a hand sometimes, by being intelligent, by being open and by setting high standards..."

Here we go again, echoing the same line as her husband on matters of how to run international affairs.

The way I live my life with my family or my marriage is really between me and those directly involved. No one of my family will fly a plane into my house, blow up the bus I ride, nor cut off my head!

But the world is a far different place than my family, and as such we need a far different approach. She is nothing short of a dim-wit to think listening, giving a hand, or pure intellectuality will stop terrorists, Iran, or North Korea.

She is the perfect example of the end result of years of relativism and deconstructionalism: We have someone who thinks that if we just sit down and talk everything will be fine since in the end we're all just humans. The sad part is only the prosperity and security of Western Civilization has made it possible to think this way, but it also Western Civilization that people like her find so very offensive and wrong.

This does not work and history shows us this with every castle, wall, moat, piece of armor, and weapon ever made. To ignore this reality is to put the entire nation and all our allies at an unacceptable level of risk and danger. A vote for Kerry is a vote for just this.

November approaches, as do our enemies.

Defining Terrorism

In order to 'understand' terrorism it first needs to have a definition that is accurate enough to actually know if what we are looking at is really terrorism.

The FBI defines it as, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. "

It can be seen that this definition lacks a clear meaning because any revolutionary force could fall under this definition and here's how:

Group A is fed up with the current government for whatever reason, and decide to take action. This in itself - staging a coup - should not be considered terrorism because as Thomas Jefferson stated in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787, "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

This grants the rights to people to take arms against governments they find to be oppressive. It would make sense that Jefferson feels this way since the United States ended up having a bloody revolution in the end.

And in the end the US Revolution was about coercing the current king of England to giving up control of the colonies. We did indeed convince his to back off, and had to again 1812.

When examining the three points of the FBI definiton, the colonists were acting illegally of course, and violently in the end; these actions were of course to coerce the king to let us go, what other reason does one fight a government but to make them see things in a different light? And since these actions were all around things like the Townshend duties and the Intolerable Acts, thus their initiation was deeply founded in political and social issues and objectives.

It is for this reason that we need to give a better definition to terrorism. Here is a beginning (though probably not complete in itself it is a start).

Terrorism is the willful and targeted destruction of life and property of those who are not in direct control, nor have direct authority, of the political or social cause the enactors are against. Exceptions would be the military or other tools of the government structure directly involved with the enforcement of the political or social policies in question.

This basically enables our Revolution to happen without any significant number of people being called terrorists. It also enables the French Resistance and many other groups to not be called terrorists.

It does however make just about any attack on the US Military a non-terrorist activity, but in the end those actions are not the same as killing people who are not armed, trained, nor in the service of the government to enforce the desires of the government.

You can not compare the Cole bombing to a bus load of civilians being blown up because one is there on official US government business, the others are not there on the part of any government business, they are simply trying to mind their own.

The Marine Barracks in Lebanon is another one. This is not a terrorist act because of the same criteria. Taking a plane of civilians and flying it into another building full of civilians is definitely terrorism.

What about a nuclear attack against Hiroshima? What about firebombing Dresden? How about V-2s over England? These are all questions that need to be asked to see if the definition stands the test.

War blurs the lines - it is true. For example, when there was a sensible peace after the First World War (i.e. no unconditional surrender, the aggressors were left relatively intact) there was only a lull in the fighting. To say that there was a First and a Second World War is actually not to look at the history of the time in between. It was nothing more but a ceasefire and a time to regroup and reorganize.

France knew this, proof is the Maginot Line.

As a matter of fact there longer and more prosperous times in breaks of fighting during the 100 years war. The Peloponnesian War was a fight amongst make Greek groups, but mainly between Athens and Sparta. At one point, after ten years of fierce fighting, Athens agreed to a treaty called the Peace of Nicias that said there would be no more fighting for fifty years. In all her ancient wisdom Athens did not realize that Sparta only used this time to rebuild the war machine - not the cities. Athens, with all her sophistication was too busy talking about peace to realize the outcome.

Sparta attacked after a failed campaign by Athens against Sicily and eventually sacking Athens and destroying her society. Sparta was allied with the Persians who waited until the time was right and then moved in as well. Nothing remained except what you can see as a tourist today.

What does that have to do with the questions mentioned above?

When nations battle each other the aim is to conquer. Perhaps not in the empire-building sense, but to take over and at least start over. In order to start over there must be a willful commitment from those who lost not to attack or do it again. Promises are not enough as those in Athens and France and England can attest.

The victorious side must take the will to fight away from the enemy. With terrorism there is no real way the terrorists would conquer a city let alone a nation so the ends are not the same. The ends is to manipulate the current government and population for the terrorists desires. This difference is key. And while yes the bombing of Dresden was to destroy the capability of the city to produce weapons to be used against allies we also understood the secondary result of taking the will to fight out of the people.

Scorched Earth Policy is the same. Make the enemy understand that to do this again will be even more costly and horrible, thus the desire to rebel, attack, or attempt to conquer will not be as likely.

V-2s over England had the same effect. It was to frustrate the English, show them that Germany had technology that they could not stop, and to slowly erode the will to fight. Those bombs unto themselves could not win the war, but they could cause attrition of will which is a good start.

Nation versus Nation fighting is very different that a group versus a nation, or a group versus a society.

Sparta knew what Athens did not - fighting will continue forever without decisive victory because people have pride. Any victory must eliminate all pride in the previous government and its accomplishments. The Treaty of Versailles failed this, and the result is well known.

Thus terrorism is not possible when one nation engages another, despite the horrors of combat and war on the population.

Kerry's Plan is Naive

Here is a transcript of the Kerry Plan.

Kerry still likes the W. is for wrong idea, so Kerry's Sesame Street letter of the campaign continues.

Bush is wrong on this, wrong on that, wrong over here, wrong over there. Ok...

His international plan is as resolute as any post-JFK (the real JFK) democrat has been, but that isn't saying much.

"Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan ... the president rushed to a new war in Iraq. That was the wrong choice."

Kerry of course voted for this measure. But he'd have never actually gone to war... really... or something.

"Instead of bringing the world together against the terrorists ... the president alienated the countries whose help we need to defeat them. That was the wrong choice."

Despite France and Germany and so forth being unwilling to send troops they are still cracking down on terrorists in their own country and they are still keeping lists of finances to block, etc. They didn't want to go to Iraq because of that wonderfully successful Oil for Food program that was permitting them to make a decent amount of money. Aren't you, Senator Kerry, upset with them for this?

"Instead of facing the urgent nuclear dangers in North Korea and Iran ... he allowed these dangers to mount on his presidential watch. That was the wrong choice."

We'll get to that one...

His solutions show how much he and his advisors understand the world, current and recent events, and the personalities involved:

"As president, I will expand our Army by 40,000 troops so that we have more soldiers to find and fight the enemy..."

But didn't you just say Bush was going to bring back the Draft? How will you do this without a draft Senator Kerry? It sounds more like you want the draft. Hmm...

Side note to speech writer: FIND and FIGHT the enemy sounds better than fight and find...

"And we will accelerate the development and deployment of new technologies to track down and bring down terrorists."

Going to bring Al Gore in to invent something cooler than the internet? Here's where the ideas get really good:

"I will secure all nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union within four years."

Good luck considering there are many undocumented nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union. Maybe if we do a Google search...

"This week, Iran announced its intention to process enough raw uranium to create five nuclear weapons.
I will make it clear to Iran that we will lead an international effort to impose tough sanctions if they do not permanently suspend their uranium enrichment program and provide verifiable assurances that they are not developing nuclear weapons."

Tough sanctions on an international level. Where have I heard this before? Oh yes, the United Nations. This isn't tough enough Senator Kerry, this is not tough enough at all. How will you verify it either? Sounds good on paper, but...

"Yesterday, there were reports that North Korea are preparing to fire an intermediate-range ballistic missile that may be able to carry a nuclear warhead. I will work with our allies to get the six party talks with North Korea back on track — and I will talk directly with the North Koreans — to get a verifiable agreement that will eliminate their nuclear weapons program completely and irreversibly. We have to get serious about diplomacy with North Korea now. Only then will we have the support of our allies for action if diplomacy fails."

You stupid, stupid man. This is the most dangerous nation on the earth right now, and you propose the most idiotic things in the world right now.

Talking directly to the North Koreans is exactly what they want. It works like this Senator:

Kim Jong-Il is an egotistical, maniacal dictator. He wants to do things his father could not, and demanding that the United States sits down with North Korea as equals - and make no mistake this is what you'll be doing when you sit down alone with them - will permit North Korea to say how they have intimidated the most powerful nation in the world. They will say that it is only with power and defiance that America listens, and this will be a rallying time for all those North Koreans to see how powerful they have become under the wise and daring rule of Kim Jong-Il. This will rally the people - something North Korea needs desperately to do - and something we can not let them do.

Also, sitting down with them alone is to slap the face of South Korea. Currently South Korea is not my fondest of nations either, but there things that need to be remembered. Across, just north of the DMZ, North Korea has over 8000 artillery guns, and over 2700 multiple rocket launchers --all of which can hit Seoul (pop: 10+ million) since Seoul is only 37 miles away. Seoul might think they have a vested interest int hese matters and it would only be polite - as to not alienate our allies - to let them be there, at the table.

North Korea is also smart. Many of the sides of the mountains facing away from South Korea have been made to hide artillery and supply vehicles, some of these mountains are thought to be able to survive nuclear blasts, too.

When you go in to talking to North Korea alone -- hey didn't you mention how bad it is to 'go it alone'? - a very important ally (South Korea) will feel left out of things that are very important to her. This is a bad idea. Since North Korea likes to play with missiles perhaps Japan should be invited to these talks as well.

You are either too uninformed, too stupid, or too egotistical to understand this.

North Korea needs to feel isolated and without anyone to talk to on it's own terms. North Korea can never feel like it has the upper hand, nor can they feel that they can tell the US, or any other nation what to do or how to do it. I am not an expert in the field of behavioral science, but to me this is obvious when dealing with a maniac.

Senator Kerry is incapable of understanding why certain elements of politics are the way they are, and this is yet another reason we need George W. Bush for FOUR MORE YEARS.

Kerry: More Help or More Harm?

The Washington Post seems to think that when conservatives get upset about Kerry's remarks over Iraq, and his wonderful wife's comments hinting about bin Laden, that is 'rhetoric'. Dana Milbank's article is headlined with, "Tying Kerry to Terror Tests Rhetorical Limits".

So what exactly are some of the things Kerry has said to make people think that? As stated earlier, he's said that al Sadr was a legitimate, or sort of legitimate voice in Iraq when he decided it was the right thing to be critical of Iraq and Coalition policy that removed his newspaper (which was used to promote and organize violence) from publication.

The most telling sign that Kerry does not understand that what he says about Iraq is, if not emboldening the enemy, it is not making life for our Soldiers easier. Check this out:




The words written behind this 'misunderstood' figure say, "No More Bush".

Kerry also likes to say, "They're charging 17 percent more for Medicare while making America pay $200 billion for a go-it-alone policy in Iraq. That's the wrong choice; that's the wrong direction; and that's the wrong leadership for America."

Of course, it has been mentioned that 17% of all the coalition are not the U.S., but go it alone still seems to be his response. Either he is willing to snub and mock our allies, or he is completely uninformed as to what is actually going on in Iraq. Either case is a bad case for someone who wants to be President.

Does talk like his embolden?

Terrorists thought so in Spain where a cowardly attack lead to Spain pulling forces out of Iraq. It is true that the election was a close one, but after the attack people decided to grant the terrorists their wishes. Is that considered emboldening?

Kerry talks of sagging troop morale, but just as with Vietnam, Kerry is a source of negative attacks and comments when he uses words like quagmire , failure, and all the rest that add up to saying that our troops are in fact dying for everything groups like ANSWER say they are - things like oil, US Imperialism, and of course many leftists say our troops are dying for nothing at all.

Has Kerry ever said anything positive about U.S. Troops and not taken those statements back? EVER?

The Democratic Party picked a horrible candidate and it shows.

Take another look at the image and you will see why we need FOUR MORE YEARS.

Tolerance

The leftists of the world love to paint conservatives as intolerant. Intolerant of minorities, intolerant of homosexuals, intolerant of 'those not like us', and intolerant of anything else hat might seem like conservatives are terrible people.

There have been times in the past where conservatives most certainly have been on the wrong side of issues of tolerance, but since no party can claim the formula for utopia, a permanent condemnation seems inappropriate.

Tolerance, however, is also a costly proposal when used to further the ambitions of those who wish harm towards the very society where tolerance is a cherished characteristic.

Tolerance demands that all profiling is wrong, that statistics which may say one group is more likely to do this or that are racist or xenophobic, and tolerance also says that we must respect other cultures' values as if they were our own.

When people fly airplanes into buildings, we need not try to understand them for the sake of anything but to know how to stop them from doing it again. Their motivation is as equally irrelevant.

When a guy named al-Sadr prints a newspaper not offering a point / counter-point in Iraq, but prints how Americans should die and be kicked out of Iraq, John Kerry says, "It's interesting to hear that when they shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq and, well, let me change the term 'legitimate.' When they shut a newspaper that belongs to a voice, because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment."

Tolerance and open-mindedness make Kerry's vision cloudy. Not to mention that he's a partisan who really has never cared about American forces on the ground since his testimony the 1970s.

He is trying to cater to the emotions and appeal to the crowd of 'pacifist' who see this war as white versus non-whites, blood for oil, and all those people who look for reasons to blame the United States for (fill in reason here).

There can be some who say that, "Well Bush said that we won't win the war on terror and then made a correction, Kerry does the same here."

Bush did make a correction yes. And since we don't know the entire interview Kerry might have been slanting all the questions one way in order to make a point and then got caught in his own spin. It happens, and it doesn't make you a bad person either.

What does make you a bad person is when you publicly say that, "...aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment." So Hamas and Hezbollah are only sort of terrorist groups? Are you daft Senator Kerry?

When Hamas blows up a bus of people in Israel are they sort of dead?

Leftists try to embrace that which is unworthy of being embraced and this is yet another example.

Leftists have a hard time tolerating historical symbols of a place called 'The Angels" (Los Angeles). Leftists do not like public expression of Christian faith. Leftists despise Bush because he takes his faith more seriously than they would like to see. Relativism comes into play and leftists say that Bush's Christian ideas remind them of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism. But the strangest thing is they really do not come out to condemn Islamic beheadings of Westerners in Iraq, but they do condemn Bush's policies.

The tolerance of the left is a lie. It is a tool to make those who disagree with them look unthinking, uncaring, and incapable of understanding the situations and problems facing others. Leftists prefer not to tolerate America, leftists prefer not to tolerate people who make Christianity a central part of their lives, all the time leftists do tolerate Islamic Fundamentalists, they do tolerate tyrants in places like Iraq, or Syria (while characterizing Bush as being Hitler).

Kerry has aligned himself with these people - if he himself is not already in their camp anyhow. People like Lieberman have been pushed to the side of the Democratic party and marginalized because he is a voice of reason and articulation who will not be tolerated in the camp of the tolerant.

Another good decision by Kerry - Edwards 2004.

Respect and Judgments

Ever hear, either directly or indirectly, "You (he, she, whatever) have to earn my respect," by someone who obviously doesn't really have a clue that most of the time respect is a two way street.

What ever happened to the idea that you should respect everyone until they have proven to be unworthy? How in the world can someone 'earn' the respect of someone who initially doesn't respect them?

Is 'earning' this person's respect worth the investment? Usually it is not because 'earning' actually means bowing down to them and treating them like some sort of god or goddess. This can usually be heard from young people too stupid to know when to shut their mouth, and too full of themselves to even know they should. The statement itself is a way of saying I don't care about you so let's just skip the formalities.

These same people also have another habit of saying things like, "You need to accept me for who I am."

More people need to say something like, "No actually I don't. In order for me to accept you, you need to earn my respect." Ohh the look on their face I could imagine... "Hey, that's my line."

The reason this is being mentioned is because, after reading the article about convicted felons and them whining about voting, or being told to whine about voting something struck me.

These exact people ARE being told that society does not have to accept them at face value anymore and that is driving them crazy. Society needs no criminals, and society needs no criminals influencing the events of the day for normal citizens. If the whole civil process were so important then perhaps criminals should understand how important order and the rules are.

I can honestly say that I do not respect ex-cons, I do not care about their time spent the 'the pen'. I've seen too many honest people struggling away every day - myself at times included - to feel any real emotion for those people who felt the need to destroy the way normal Americans want to live.

At the same time I'd not be mean to them, but their deeds are unworthy of proper respect and they must earn the rest of it back.

In those states where felons lose the right to vote, this is exactly what happens. These states have decided that felons time served isn't enough to ensure a responsible citizen. Since habitual crime is an issue and a concern they have every right to be concerned. The idea that serving your time absolves you of your past actions is untrue since many felons can never buy a gun, and some felons have to report where they go to authorities at all times, too.

These rules / laws have both stood up to courts of appeal, thus are perfectly within the rights of the state to create and enforce.

The fact that the majority of these types (criminals) are Democrats speak poorly of the party since obviously they see the Democrats as nothing but marks. With so many causes to champion, championing the cause of criminals should be a low priority.

Congratulations Democrats on another cause unworthy of supporting.

Convicts Feel Cheated

This is a sad article.

There seems to be a few people hard at work to solidify the minority vote for the Democrats and it looks as if they have some people working as 'news reports' at Reuters and Yahoo.

"Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts.

The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been deprived of the right to vote under laws that have roots in the post-Civil War 19th century and were aimed at preventing black Americans from voting. "

Those laws simply state that if you are a felon you lose your right to have a say in the workings of society because you have decided to act as if you were not part of society. Also, every state has a State Clemency Board that permits some felons (mostly non-violent or those who have been a responsible member of society for a while) to re-gain the right to vote as well.

If the right to vote is so important 1) don't be a criminal, or 2) once you serve your sentence be good and prove yourself worthy of taking part in society.

And yes of course blacks are disproportionately felons, so yes blacks are disproportionately blocked from voting. This is not racism, this is simply a pattern of criminal behavior.

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

Behind on rent or utilities will be arrested? People believed it? I guess they might have a point after all with idea the butterfly ballot was too hard to understand.

As far as parking tickets go... If you have outstanding fines levied against you by court order, then you just might qualify for being arrested. Personally I think this is a good idea to catch criminals. But then again you might not want my opinion about profiling.

In a mayoral election in Philadelphia last year, people pretending to be plainclothes police officers stood outside some polling stations asking people to identify themselves. There have also been reports of mysterious people videotaping people waiting in line to vote in black neighborhoods.

Impersonating an officer has been illegal for a long time now, but I guess since according to these people having police around a voting place might discourage people from coming, there is no one there to check on these things are there?

Video cameras on public grounds like schools or churches -- places you usually go to vote -- are not against the law. Don't be scared people, just go vote.

Minority voters may be deterred from voting simply by election officials demanding to see drivers' licenses before handing them a ballot, according to Spencer Overton, who teaches law at George Washington University. The federal government does not require people to produce a photo identification unless they are first-time voters who registered by mail.
"African Americans are four to five times less likely than whites to have a photo ID," Overton said at a recent briefing on minority disenfranchisement.

Don't get your license suspended, don't break laws, act like normal citizens and everything will be fine. If blacks don't care enough to bring a license, or keep their license then they have more pressing matters than just voting.

While the Federal Government might not make demands about licenses, but states can. Voter fraud is big (see my previous post), and it seems that a photo ID being required to take place in a very sensitive and important activity (voting) is not too much to ask. How do they buy liquor, is that an unfair requirement, too? Cigarettes?

In other swing states, 4.6 percent of voters in Iowa, but 25 percent of blacks, were disenfranchised in 2000 as ex-felons. In Nevada, it was 4.8 percent of all voters but 17 percent of blacks; in New Mexico, 6.2 percent of all voters but 25 percent of blacks.

Sounds like a lack of true role models, parental guidance and a total disregard for authority are taking quite a toll in some states. Again, don't be a criminal.

"This has a huge effect on elections but also on black communities which see their political clout diluted. No one has yet explained to me how letting ex-felons who have served their sentences into polling booths hurts anyone," said Jessie Allen of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Didn't I bring this word up earlier? Communities don't have 25% of its members being convicted felons. Communities need to teach responsibility and ... dare I say it... values.

Jessie Allen, let me explain why people convicted of a felon should not vote unless they ask for the right back: They do not care about society. They are not responsible people. These people need not vote nor run for office (Marion Barry) just because they got out of prison. Let them ask if it is important to them. Let them work at being citizens and examples to the community.

Responsibility. Learn it. Embrace it. Then none of this will matter to you.

Forced to Take a Car at Gunpoint?

Although I'm not a big Oprah fan - mainly for her glossing over of women in Islam with her deceitful interview with Queen Rania of Jordan - her car givaway seems to have left some people whining about having to pay taxes on the 'winnings'.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that some of the people just can't deal with paying the taxes on the car.

"As I was standing up there, the responsible portion of me said, 'This is very nice, but where am I going to get the money for the taxes.'"

Well here's a hot tip for your responsible rear end, tell them to give the car away to charity, or perhaps just not accept it. It is quite strange to hear all these people whining about a car offer for them that basically ends up as a 75% off sale being turned into something undesirable.

People really need to look at themselves when they say things like, "We have to pick the car up between Oct. 1, 2004, and Feb. 28, 2005," said Nelson. "We've decided that we are going to wait until the first of the year so we can have all of 2005 and the first four months of 2006 to figure out how to pay for this."

Figure out? Well, you can either get a loan, or just not take the car. It all seems pretty simple to me. Waaaaah!

Iran Learns from CBS's Blunder

The BBC is reporting that bloggers and the internet in general are a need of an attitude adjustment.

"...some recent reports have now suggested that Iranian authorities are considering the creation of a national intranet - an internet service just for Iran - which would be separate from the world wide web."

Yes, the internet is a dangerous place, even its inventor, Al Gore has seen his child turn into a Frankenstein when he says, "The Administration works closely with a network of 'rapid response' digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops.'"

Mr. Ex-Vice President, would you prefer the Iranian suggestion? You're trying your darnedest to keep Nader from being able to run for President, so I think we all know your true feelings about how things should be.

Kommisar, my papers are in order!

Liberals and Little Folk

Liberals always claim to be for the little folk. They are the ones who are 'lookin' out for ya', they're the ones who want to keep big bad capitalists in check - usually through taxation and regulation, and yes, they're the ones who are supposed to be the type who is willing to go to bat for you when no one else will.

Unless you stand in their way. Once that happens all the colorful words used to describe those capitalists, conservatives, and other stupid and / or greedy types now are used on you.

Welcome to the club Ralph Nader. See Ralph, I might not like you much, but you do indeed stand for something and won't sit in the back when you don't get it. Although this characteristic is bad in everyday life, in politics and commentary is is a valuable trait.

Ralph has a game plan that scares the Democrats because they can not stop him. Ralph knows that the lunatic fringe of the liberal world is his, and he also understands what his followers mean to the left in general. He is attempting to leverage these voters to bring the Democratic party more in line with where he thinks it should be heading.

It also scares the Democratic Party because his supporters are as fanatical as they come in the world of American politics and they will not miss a meeting, protest, nor a vote.

Being the defender of liberty and the rights of the little guy, what do you think the Democrats would do to someone expressing their unalienable right of free speech and to run for political office?

Force them off the ballots of course. Like Al Gore, they Democrats depend on the courts to try to either change or ignore the laws in place. They look for technicalities in the signatures collected, they try injunctions and restraining orders in court, and they of course sling mud at them.

This poor minority of free-minded liberals are outcasts to their own side of the fence and are treated as if they were carrying a very dangerous disease. Of course they are carrying something -- ideas that the Democratic establishment does not like.

Keep it up guys, let those true colors keep shining through.

Kofi's Lack of Perspective and Understanding

Kofi decided to show his lack of ability to grasp proportion and, as I've been saying over and over, it shows his lack of ability to understand context and cause and effect.

Here's an excerpt from his speech today:

Yet today the rule of law is at risk around the world. Again and again we see laws shamelessly disregarded: those that ordain respect for innocent life for civilians, for the vulnerable, especially children.
To mention only a few flagrant and topical examples. In Iraq we see civilians massacred in cold blood, while relief workers, journalists and other noncombatants are taken hostage and put to death in the most barbarous fashion. At the same time we have seen Iraqi prisoners disgracefully abused.
In Darfur, we see whole populations displaced and their homes destroyed while rape is used as a deliberate strategy. In northern Uganda we have seen children mutilated and forced to take part in acts of unspeakable cruelty, lands seized and needless civilian casualties caused by Israel's excessive use of force.
And all around the world we see people being prepared for further such acts, through hate propaganda directed at Jews, Muslims, against anyone who can be identified as different from one's own group.

OK, let's take a close look at what he said in front of a world audience and attempt to gain some understanding of why the world thinks the way it does.

He invokes 'the children' as all people do, but like most of them he knows that no one will disagree with him since they do not want to look like they support what happened in places like Beslan.

In Iraq we see civilians massacred in cold blood, while relief workers, journalists and other noncombatants are taken hostage and put to death in the most barbarous fashion.

He and I both agree on this point. People who have no real tactical value are being murdered and killed for no real reason at all. Journalists, at times, actually might be on their side, too.

At the same time we have seen Iraqi prisoners disgracefully abused.

And then Kofi loses balance and focus. Some how he finds it fit to put Abu Ghraib into the same paragraph as those who kidnap and murder people. Relativism at work right here.

In Darfur, we see whole populations displaced and their homes destroyed while rape is used as a deliberate strategy. In northern Uganda we have seen children mutilated and forced to take part in acts of unspeakable cruelty...

So Kofi, what is an enforcer of the 'Rule of Law' like the UN going to do? Will you intervene or will you simply idly mention it from your very comfortable place in New York since this was brought up quite vocally by the United States at the General Assembly? Since the UN is so unwilling to help out in Iraq (and that's every nation's decision most certainly), I'm sure Germany and France has some troops to help out with that. Will you ask them? Of course not. Lip services in matters of life and death is horrible.

...lands seized and needless civilian casualties caused by Israel's excessive use of force.

They've been whining about that since 1968, and even before. Since Kofi really doesn't know what it takes to secure a nation it makes sense that he'd not grasp why Israel actually kills Hamas leaders, builds fences, and otherwise does what it thinks it needs to do to secure safety for its citizens.

Israel is a whole other topic that needs its own posts -- and soon shall.

And all around the world we see people being prepared for further such acts, through hate propaganda directed at Jews, Muslims, against anyone who can be identified as different from one's own group.

Israel is prepared and needs to be prepared or it could face complete destruction at the hands of some friendly neighbors.

I am curious Kofi, where is all the hatred propaganda directed against Muslims?

This is a very international example of postmodernistic relativism and how it equates naked human pyramids with beheading civilians. They consider Israel to be guilty of 'excessive force' because Israel will not knock on the door and attempt to arrest the Hamas leaders anymore. Israel will not risk their own people when they have other ways to stop Hamas activities.

This is also what is being constantly fed to people at the universities around the US and the world.

Document Fraud not the Biggest Concern

CBS means nothing in the light of this!

Will this story make the headlines anywhere at all?

NEW YORK (Reuters) - About 46,000 people are registered to vote in two states, New York and Florida, a violation of both states' laws that could affect the outcome of the November presidential election, according to an investigation by the Daily News.
Many New Yorkers spend the winter months in sunny Florida, which played a pivotal role in the 2000 election after George W. Bush narrowly won the state in a contested ballot recount. Florida could be a crucial state in the November presidential election.
The New York tabloid examined computer records to ferret out duplicate registrations in New York City and Florida.
The Daily News said it could not provide an exact count of how many people vote in both places, because millions of names are purged between elections. But the newspaper found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68 percent are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 16 percent didn't align themselves with a party, the newspaper reported on Sunday.
The duel registrations have gone undetected because election officials do not check voter rolls across state lines, the newspaper said.
"There's no extensive investigation normally on a voter registration form," Steven Richman, general counsel for the city Board of Elections, told the paper. "We accept it at its face value."

Wow. Conspiracy theories are no longer needed because the conspiracies real and factual.


Hat tip to the Dennis Prager Show for making me go out and hunt this down.

With the Sunset Comes the Vampires

While screaming that blood will flow in the streets, many leftists blame Bush for permitting the ban on 'assault weapons' to expire. We all know that if Congress wanted this to continue it would have, but as I've stated context and evidence is not enough to stop the attacks again our President.

CNN jumps on board the facts-without-context-boat claiming that, "Loopholes allowed manufacturers to keep many weapons on the market simply by changing their names or altering some of their features or accessories. And because existing weapons and large ammo clips were protected by a "grandfather" provision, many pre-ban guns remained in use."

CNN does not bother then to ask, with all of the loopholes and grandfather clauses, how could this be effective legislation?

Reality says that it was not. First of all fully automatic weaponry was already banned, and not too many militaries would really want to launch an assault with the guns this law banned as their primary infantry weapon because these still were only semi-automatic rifles.

The law said that rifles with removable magazines and two or more sinister characteristics could not longer be made for public sale, nor sold new in the US. One of these characteristics was a folding stock. Obviously these enlighten lawmaker types like Dianne Feinstein thought that a folding stock would make it easier for criminals to hide the weapons. They also banned pistol grips, and even pistol grip-like entities associated with wooden (or synthetic) stocks.

My personal favorite - because I felt safer without them being on the streets and in the hands of thugs was when they decided that bayonet lugs were worth banning as well. When two robbers want to rob a gas station I have seen so many police reports where witnesses has heard the robbers say, "Fix bayonet!" before entering the building. Often, while watching our local news, we hear about people being held up in the street at bayonet point, too. Perhaps since they've tried to ban all magazines capable of carrying more than two rounds these elected officials think that criminals will resort to poking the victim into submission if they run out of rounds.

No, these people are idiots when they claim this law did any good. I'll grant them the 'noble experiment' award and send them on their way.

They do not use logic, they use emotion to decide how to make a law, and since some guns look mean and others do not, then it is those gun that need to be banned. Basically, if they've seen the gun - or any gun that looks like it - in a movie then it probably needs to be banned. This is firearm profiling and it needs to be stopped!

Russia Hauls in People

According to a story out of The Moscow Times, it seems that, "In two days of raids, Moscow police have rounded up more than 11,000 Russians and foreigners on suspicion of living in the city without registering with the authorities."

It would appear that Russia has some problems, and without having two oceans to help protect it from so many terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, it looks like the Mama Bear might be up and about in her cave.

OTHER NEWS:

I was curious to see some statistics on how many people have been arrested in the United States since September 11th, and especially those arrests tied to the evil Patriot Act. It goes to figure that there were some conflicting stories associated with it.

NPR had a piece from May 24th of this year stating, "In the wake of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of arrests have been made..."

Thousands as of May 24th... good to know. Of course, since it was NPR I wanted to be a bit more responsible than CBS so I decided to check for some more data since I was not comfortable with that source all together.

In a less vague report from The Washington Times reported something quite different, "The USA Patriot Act has helped federal, state and local terrorism investigators arrest 310 persons since the September 11 attacks, 179 of whom have been convicted, and has proved to be "al Qaeda's worst nightmare," the Justice Department said yesterday in a report."

Ah, so it is the evil and demonic John Ashcroft is the one who does the count. So I said let us look at the DoJ's site and see what we can find. Bingo! It did not take long to find some answers.

Over the last two years:

• Our intelligence and law enforcement communities, and our partners, both here and abroad, have identified and disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells;
• Worldwide, nearly two-thirds of al Qaida's known senior leadership has been captured or killed -- including a mastermind of the September 11th attacks;
• Worldwide, more than 3,000 operatives have been incapacitated;
• Terrorist cells across America have been broken up, in cities including Buffalo, Seattle, Tampa and Portland (Oregon);
• 361 individuals have been criminally charged in the United States in terrorism investigations;
• Already, 191 individuals have been convicted or have pled guilty in the United States, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid and "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; and
• Over 515 individuals linked to the September 11th investigation have been removed from the United States.
  

So, I was still looking for the arrests number in the thousands. The Washington Post cites from the DoJ, NPR just kind of blathers... I do admit that 361 people being CHARGED has nothing to do with arrests in the sense that they are being held without charges being filed. This is understood. What is also needs to be understood is that you shouldn't just go around spouting numbers as if they were opinions about the weather when you can not substantiate those numbers.

It never fails that even when just looking around for some simple figures you can run into some very biased 'reporting' on the part of even government funded programs.

True Liberalism has already Won

Little do the modern leftists realize, but thoughtful, considerate liberalism has already won. Modern liberalism really took roots after World War II when the average American realized how injust and cruel the world could be and many people decided to take action.

These people raised a generation in the hopes of never having to even see the same films brought home by the likes of Ernie Pyle, let alone actually have to fight and die.

These modern liberal become very outspoken as they grew up and while many of them shirked their duty and fled from Vietnam, many others still did what has to be done in the same way the previous generation did.

The modern liberals did notice some of the injustice in the United States, and thus starting in the 1950s and continuing on through the 1970s, helped create an environment that enabled change.

While it is true many were loud, many were also thoughtful, intellectually stimulating, and knew how not just to convey emotion but a logical argument for change. Many of the older generation were also fond of these ideas - people like John F. Kennedy who was a tough, strong, and very pro-American on foreign policy, yet understood enough about the world to realize the need for a good public image and got the Peace Corp moving.

Kennedy also pushed the civil rights movement into high gear with freedom rides and James Meredith. Kennedy also increased US 'advisors' in Vietnam from 1000 to 16000 by November of 1963. Kennedy understood what it would take to keep the United States at the top and he also understood that at all times forces and powers align against us and must never be taken too lightly.

This was also the time of the ignorant, loud, spoiled, and angry leftists. These people had no understanding of anything other than yelling, fighting, and hating the United States. These people embraced ideas like Communism, Marxism, and of course Soviet-style Stalinism because, like a youth stuck in rebellion over the authority of the parents, none of these people understood what they were really doing, they only did it because it 'felt good', 'seemed right', or offered them the adventure and sense of belonging they thought conformity would not grant them.

It was not the rioting in the 1960s that made the average American realize that racism was wrong. It certainly was not the protesting of our troops in Vietnam that finally made us leave. It was not the burning of bras, nor the burning of draft cards that made us realize some of the things we did.

It was thoughtful, logical, engaging liberals who changed public opinions on the issues I've mentioned and so many others.

We now are a society with more equality, and more chances for those considered minorities
to succeed than any other place in the world. We have the foundations and resources of so many brilliant minds that it is now impossible to even know everything in one subject let alone many. Our advances are a result of the thoughtful, concerned liberal who really did want the best for this nation and the people who live here.

These wonderful people are no longer considered liberal. They are considered middle of the road and sometimes even conservative. Those liberals who remain have gone from noble crusader who only wants what is right to the shake down artists who are more of a problem than an answer to any of the current problems we still may have.

The anti-war crowd never got their way and now we see them protesting again, this time with another generation of spoiled, loud, angry leftists who are not interested in intellectual debate. These types once again would rather just yell and scream because they are people without substance, they are motivated more by catch phrases than by research and analysis.

True liberalism, patriotic liberalism, won the day and we all see the results. Discrimination exists on such a small and fleeting level that people like Jesse Jackson really do not have much to do today. We have come far, and we do have to thank people like Kennedy and other true liberals for helping us get here.

As far as the leftists who are yelling, screaming, and even putting down people like John F. Kennedy go, we must all understand that they do not wish for anything but conflicts and insults. Let them shout and cry and have their protests and their puppets. They are nothing more than the marginal fringe who worship the likes of Moore and wish for American failure in order to help their cause because they alone can do nothing since they are without wisdom, context, and values.

Accusational Journalism

Dan Rather's pressure for George Bush to 'explain himself' in the light of the whole idiocy concerning the forged military documents is a telling example that gives an idea of exactly how far someone might go to keep a subject alive -- despite the lack of anything credible.

It reminds of something China might do at a trial against an enemy of the state. By producing fake documents accusing someone of something, the prosecution taints the judge and jury. Even after being disprove, the documents have had a lasting effect because the prosecution can simply ask, "While the documents might be forgeries, they bring up some points that should be addressed. Since the defendant refuses to address these points it is obvious that he has something to hide."

This logical fallacy is exactly why the defense is not required to take the stand, and in fact why, according to the Fifth Amendment that no person, "... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...".

Although it might seem strange, the idea that no person should be made to have to an answer to anyone who decides to make accusations is an important one for any free society. The accusations must be compelling and reasonable and currently, without any documents, CBS only has a few biased people running around spouting off on a subject matter most people do not really seem to care about anyhow. All this has done is degrade the level of authority and respect for CBS.

So basically, without that provision in our society, Bush and Kerry both would have to answer to everyone who makes a claim no matter how stupid or how false it may be. Rather seems to think that this is a good way to keep a story alive, but it will only lead Dan down a path of becoming labeled a partisan, badgering, liberal who gives time to a few Bush bashers but not to the Swift Boat Vets because he is too nuanced for their rhetoric.

We must be careful in which direction we head in the light of these events because making demands of people by having them answer the charges of faked documents seems something made up on a tyrannical system where facts are secondary to appearance and attack dogs have no leashes.

A Voice in a Silent Forest

This is reproduced without permission, but here's the link.

A Wake-up Call : Almost all terrorists are Muslims..
Abdel Rahman al-Rashed*


It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.

Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.

Osama bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.

What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement." Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?

These images, when put together or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing.

For it would be easy to cure ourselves if we realize the seriousness of our sickness. Self-cure starts with self-realization and confession. We should then run after our terrorist sons, in the full knowledge that they are the sour grapes of a deformed culture.

Let us listen to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the sheikh – the Qatar-based radical Egyptian cleric – and hear him recite his fatwa about the religious permissibility of killing civilian Americans in Iraq. Let us contemplate the incident of this religious sheikh allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians.

This ailing sheikh, in his last days, with two daughters studying in "infidel" Britain, soliciting children to kill innocent civilians.

How could this sheikh face the mother of the youthful Nick Berg, who was slaughtered in Iraq because he wanted to build communication towers in that ravished country? How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?

In a different era, we used to consider the extremists, with nationalist or leftist leanings, a menace and a source of corruption because of their adoption of violence as a means of discourse and their involvement in murder as an easy shortcut to their objectives.

At that time, the mosque used to be a haven, and the voice of religion used to be that of peace and reconciliation. Religious sermons were warm behests for a moral order and an ethical life.

Then came the neo-Muslims. An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry.

We can't call those who take schoolchildren as hostages our own.

We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us, whatever the sufferings they claim to justify their criminal deeds. These are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image.

We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.

We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these heinous crimes, without confronting the sheikhs who thought it ennobling to reinvent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people's sons and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and American schools and colleges.



*Abdel Rahman al-Rashed is general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel. This article first appeared in the London-based pan-Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.

A Modern United Nations

I've taken shots at the United Nations a number of times, but I have never really explained what a modern United Nations would be more fit to do.

Since complaining without giving any alternatives is something for which I have much disdain, I'm going to try to give an outline of what the United Nations is in fact good at doing.

1) A meeting place for nations to speak.

This seems obvious, but it still needs to happen. If one nation has a problem with another but a dialog can not be initiated or maintained then speaking about it in front of other nations might bring them around to being a bit more open. Sometimes not, but it is a good place to start.

2) World-Wide Surveys.

For the most part the UN has a good deal of statistics via UNESCO and these statistics do serve as a good guide in determining who is where on subjects from education, to technology.

These can be valuable, and are indeed good indicators of what is going on in certain nations compared to others.

3) An Arbiter

If nations agree, the UN - with all its research ability and members - could make a wonderful arbiter. This would have to be set up to facilitate an escrow project as well since there would be no way to enforce a decision once it is made. For example:

Nation A feels that Nation B has been slant drilling. This process has cost Nation A close to a billion dollars over the last five years. Nation B says that it has not, and insists that Nation A has engaged in negative attacks upon Nation B across the region for what could be decades. In order to make sure 'frivolous lawsuits' do not come into play, what ever compensation one nation asks for must be risked in order to get it.

So, both Nation A and Nation B put up the billion dollars and the arbitration begins. Once a decision is made -- though they could come back with no decision, return the assets, and call it even -- then the escrow account is tapped and one party is compensated. This simple system could replace the international court as well.

4) Many of the aid programs the United Nations oversee are very much worth doing and should be continued. Obvious the Oil for Food program was a sham and corrupt, but for less political places having an international body to help is never a bad thing.

5) The World Health Organization deserves much credit when it comes to diagnosing, treating, and increasing public awareness of diseases and other health issues around the world.

These are the major reasons to have a body like the United Nations because, in reality, no single nation can do this as impartially. I scoff at using the term impartial in relation to the UN as much as the next critic, but I also know that most of the impartiality has been lost because of the UN's role as a political body.

Some side notes to consider as well: Membership is only a membership to the group of nations for the sake of meeting. NOTHING is binding unless agreed to on a nation by nation basis. In other words there are no vast international treaties. If the US wants a treaty with 10 nation the US will go to each nation individually and get a treaty. The UN is not a power broker nor is it a blanket treaty maker. This is a large problem today with silly things like Kyoto. If the US doesn't sign for some reason other nations decided Kyoto was not important and no it has fallen apart. This is daft and shows that UN treaties are more political than practical and this needs to end.

Membership dues are voluntary, and failure to pay is failure to use the facilities. An exception is when a nation faces destruction, etc. I think most Americans would be very willing to pay the dues (they'd be much smaller) and go on.

Since there would be no 'international military force', nations who wanted aid would need to ask nations for help.

Nations which do not have a system of arbitration in place for their own people shall not be granted the use of it in disputes. There is no reason to extend the very rights that a dictator or supreme ruler will not give to his or her own people. These nations may sit in and observe, but nothing more.

These are some of the main considerations we all need to think about when determining the role of the United Nations in this new century and millennium.

Another Bark without Bite?

Fox News reports that the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency has given an ultimatum to Iran. Fox News has jumped the gun on this one in its use of the word 'ultimatum'. The actual wording is closer to 'strongly urging' Iran.

The situation is the same as it has been for so long: The UN has 'experts' look at various things relating to the given situation. These experts then bring the findings to a meeting and from there a bunch of unelected bureaucrats talk about what should be done.

Strangely enough, there is nothing binding with the Iranian 'ultimatum', nor is there a specification for action if this 'ultimatum' were to expire (November). So by January this board, this committee will be up in arms acting all shocked that Iran did not follow the directive.

'Then what???' you might ask -- as if you do not know.

We'll have 17 or so more of these or the next twelve long years. That's once scenario, but there is another much more hopeful scenario that I am hoping to see take place: Israel takes action.

Tammuz, or Osiraq, or even Osirak depending on who you are, was the nuclear facility that Begin eliminated for the sake of not only Iran who was directly engaged in a war with Iraq, but also for Israel since we now can see exactly how much Saddam did in fact sympathize and support terrorists intent on destroying Israel.

Soon it may be time for Sharon to step up to the plate and I anticipate that the strongest of actions will make Iran a nuclear-free zone for many decades to come.

Also, by having Israel do this job and not the US we run less of a risk of getting China even more nervous as times move forward. China's close ties with Iran, its resentment and paranoia about so many western (read: US) troops in Afghanistan, and what is perceives to be a large powerplay by the US to up the regional influence in the Middle and Far East all add up to a delicate situation with the large nation.

One could also hope the perhaps Russia might decide to take an interest in Iran, but this is perhaps too hopeful at this time.

In light of the words the UN has for Iran we are left not wondering what Iran might do, but what the UN might do once November comes and goes.

What has changed since Beslan?

Now that Samil Basayev is in what he thinks to be a safe location he has come forward naming Shahid Brigade Riadus-Salahina as being the 'crew' responsible for the downing of two Russian airliners as well as the revolting actions in Beslan.

His statement speaks volumes when he says, "Kremlin vampire destroyed and injured 1,000 children and adults, giving the order to storm the school for the sake of his imperial ambitions and preserving his own throne" in relation to Putin and the actions taken by those Russian forces in Beslan.

Basayev claimed Russian special forces had a plan to storm the school from the beginning of the two-day siege. The Russian government has said it didn't want to storm the school but had no choice after gunfire and explosions erupted on the third day of the siege.

Basayev somehow expects people to think it wrong for Russian forces to come up with a plan for taking the building by force. Since Russia will not give these terrorists camera time, Basayev wants to blame the deaths on Putin. Not too many people are buying it so Basayev had to make sure everyone understands that when he takes a school full of children, teachers, and parents captive that if they die it is not the fault of the people who lined the building with explosives and held everyone at gun point.

It certainly is not the fault of those who shot those who tried to flee and then dragged them back into the building and dropped the body in the gym for all to see. How could we blame these terrorist thugs for shooting and burning all those children when obviously it was Putin who did all this?

He speaks the same language of those who claim that America brought 9/11 upon itself. mother Jones has a take on it, as do so many others. There will always be people who refuse to understand that in this world there are people, groups, and sometimes nations who just don't like you. Every once in a while they get enough power, or if not power, at least nerve to strike at you.

For the most part we have been safe from such attacks because of oceans and, for the longest time, the only people with any power were either our allies or those who understood the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction while we pointed weapons at each other.

The enemy today does not have the direct backing of any nation willing to admit it (I stress willing to admit). This is because the US and our allies have sent a strong message to nations who might consider overtly backing those who will do us or our allies harm.

People always forget or ignore the fact that Abu Abbas was in Iraq. It also seems to slip their minds that Abu Nidal just happened to die in Iraq.

There are some nations who have taken us at our word and one of them is Libya. Our actions do make a difference and they do send a real message to terrorists everywhere.

Now Russia is faced with a 9/11 of her own and to expect this nation to cringe in a way reminiscent of Spain. When Spanish leader Zapatero was quoted (see above link) as saying, "We're aligning ourselves with Kerry. Our allegiance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil, and for a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration." it sent a message that bombing trains works, and the election fix was then on in a way that Democrats who complain about Florida could never understand.

Russia will not be such an easy mark to bring down. What ever the history people wish to claim as an excuse for willfully murdering children in a school as an objective to further your cause, the Chechens have some learning to do and that learning might happen as the Hinds and T-90s come rolling back in.

Europe is scared because there is a nation who does not huddle behind internationalism right next to them. Europe has a right to be scared though because Russia will not be so kind as the United States if (when?) the Mother Bear comes out of her cave.