Frustrated Conservative

DEMOCRATS CAUSED THE 2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS

2008-11-02T19:24:00.002-05:00

I received the following in an e-mail from a friend. It chronicles the event and action that caused the financial crisis we are experiencing at the present time. Note, that what the Democrat controlled Congress has done to date with the bailout has not addressed the cause of the problem. Banks are still required to make risky loans.

There is a whole lot of finger pointing going on in the world of politics this week. For those who just enjoy history or want to understand how or why we got to this point in financial chaos:

1938: Roosevelt got through a Democratically controlled Congress Fannie Mae.

1970: Freddie Mac was created by Democrats in Congress 57-43 Senate and 234-192 House.

1977: the Community Reinvestment Act was passed by the Democratic Congress (61-39 Senate and 292-143 House) and signed into law by Jimmy Carter. It encouraged banks and mortgage lenders to loan money for housing to people who would not otherwise qualify (with Freddie and Fannie backing same by taking the paper).

1995: President Clinton signed the executive order mandating lenders expand their lending for mortgages to sub-prime borrowers (that means people who would not qualify under any criteria in a sane world). Failure to do so would result in the lending institution not having access to federal funds or the quasi governmental Fannie and Freddie.

1999: Republican Senator Phil Gramm pushed through Congress deregulation laws (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) removing Depression era laws separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities. (a really stupid move) The vote in the Senate was 98-1-1. McCain was the one who did not vote, another republican was the lone no vote. Biden and Harry Reid, who are now saying it's all Bush's fault, voted for the bill. Even Obama this week places the blamed on Gramm, but fails to mention that his running mate voted for it, and Clinton signed it into law.

2003: President Bush tried to get congress to amend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rules to disallow loans to people who would not qualify under normal lending institution rules for making loans. In other words, rescind the Clinton Executive order which had by now become the rules of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The Democrats in the Senate (48) used the threat of filibuster to kill the bill (got to have that magic 60 in the Senate to stop a filibuster).

2006: Greenspan testified before congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both a house of cards and needed a lot more oversight and controls in case this country found itself in a recession in the future. That duty falls to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Democrat Chris Dodd is Chairman. He wasn't thrilled with Greenspan's advice, because he was the number one campaign money receiver from Fannie and Freddie over the years. Obama was number 2, and he raked in his amount in just the past two years.

Every single piece of legislation the Republicans have put up to regulate the financial industry since 2000 has been killed in the Senate by Democrats.

95% of the homeowners are paying their monthly mortgage payments. It's those 5% that are facing foreclosure that will cost the taxpayers a trillion or so if the bailout goes through.The nice thing about "History" is that it is based on verifiable facts.

WHY VOTE FOR OBAMA?

2008-10-31T13:04:00.002-05:00

A friend asked me why some educated, black, and poor people are for Obama, when most of those in her area are for McCain. I thought this was an interesting question so the following is my answer.

First, look at the “well-educated” citizen who supports Obama. I believe the American educational establishment as a whole is very liberal. You see it at all levels.
The education system for K through 12th grade is unionized. This is part of the problem in terms of the quality of education today. Kids are taught the answers to the test, but not taught to think for themselves. Not all teachers are this way, but a majority are. Unions make it almost impossible to get rid of poor teachers. The head of a business can fire a non-performer, but the principal of a school cannot fire a poor teacher.

A quick look at college life at most of our universities reveals a very liberal lifestyle. Casual sex, drinking, and drug use are commonplace. The more you participate in this style of life or have associates who participate, the more likely you are to be tolerant of those with lower morals. Most college courses are taught by liberals, and conservative students must provide liberal answers in order to get good grades. Look at Obama’s associates from the University of Chicago and Columbia University. Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are known domestic terrorists and are professors at the University of Chicago. Rashid Khalidi is a professor at Columbia University in New York. He has been a spokesman for the PLO, which is known as a terrorist group. This is the same University that invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to speak.

Second, African-Americans may be very excited at the thought of one of theirs being President of the USA. But some African-Americans have not learned that a person should be judged by deeds rather than skin color; we have Black Theology churches which teach discrimination towards whites and Jews. There are also Black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who foster discrimination towards whites. And there are those who just believe that one of their own race will ‘do more’ for them.

Third are the poor (and those who feel they are poor, or should have more.) They are looking for help to rise to a higher economic level. They are very vulnerable to suggestions of greater help, and frequently do not look at the true cost of this help, especially when it is in the form of cash. Does this create self-sufficiency, or does it just create a greater dependence on the government? Take, for example, Obama’s pledge to give a tax break to everyone earning under $250,000. The bottom 40% of people do not pay taxes anyway, and would receive a check from the government under his plan. This is welfare and socialism. Handouts like this in other countries have been proven to reduce people’s desire to work. Businesses and high-wage earners will be required to pay the bill. This will cause many businesses to cut their work force, causing more people to be unemployed. Many poor people just do not see or understand this cause and effect.

OUR PRIMARY SYSTEM IS FLAWED

2008-06-25T15:02:00.002-05:00

The Democratic Party has penalized Florida and Michigan for moving their primaries earlier than the Party wanted. The Democrats had planned not to seat the delegates from these states at their convention, but were forced by Hillary Clinton to give each of the delegates half a vote and stipulated how many delegates would be given to each candidate.

Many states including Florida and Michigan wanted their primaries early so their citizens would have a greater say in who the candidates for President would be. The current system of always allowing the same states to go first seems to be unfair. If a candidate wins enough of the early primaries to win the nomination of the party, many people in the states that have late primaries feel their vote does not count.

I feel that it is wrong for the Democratic and Republican parties to dictate to the States when their primaries or caucuses must be held. Is the Democratic Party more powerful than a state? If I was the Governor of Michigan or Florida I would have told the Democratic Party that not seating the full delegation from my state was not an option. Further, I would have told them that any Party not seating our full delegation with full voting rights would have their delegate for President removed from the ballot in November.

There is another flaw in the Primary process and that is the caucus. In caucus states the desires of the people are not necessarily represented, since only a few of the qualified voters are selecting who will win the state. Then there are states like Texas which have both a general primary and a caucus. As I understand it, in the general primary all eligible voters can vote. Then later the same day all those who voted in the general primary can attend a caucus and vote a second time. Candidates receive delegates from both the general primary and the caucus. This method is very flawed. First, most voters are not able to attend the caucus. The candidate receiving the majority of votes in the general primary may not get the majority of delegates in the caucus. Therefore, I feel that caucuses do not represent the will of the people. Caucuses are a state issue. All states should do away with caucuses in any form!

Let’s get back to how and when primaries should be held. In my mind there are two options.

We could have primary elections on the same day in all states. This would allow all states and all voters to feel that their vote counts. The primary period would be shorter. However, candidates would likely visit fewer states and would have to rely on television even more.

I like a second option better. The primaries would be held on 10 dates each 2 weeks apart. The states would be divided into 10 groups, each group representing approximately the same number of delegates. Group One would vote on the first date. The second group would vote two weeks later, etc. Four years later at the next Presidential primary, group two moves to the first date, the other groups move up one place, and group one moves to the tenth date. This allows the candidates time to visit every state and focus on each state.

HIGH GAS PRICES AND THE LIBERALS

2008-05-23T14:58:00.002-05:00

The answer to the question “Why are gas prices so high?” can be traced back to the 1970’s and the extreme Left and Liberals!

I can remember the period very clearly. The price of a gallon of gas was around $1.08 per the EIA (Energy Information Administration) (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld004.htm). The left was saying how terrible we Americans were because America used more gas than any country in the world. We were polluting the air. They wanted the government (Federal and State) to raise taxes on gasoline so a gallon would cost at least $3.00. Keep in mind that was $3.00 in 1972. They felt that at $3.00 per gallon, car manufactures and the American people would be forced to drive less and the use smaller engines (4 cylinder vs. 8 cylinder). One should also note, in 1950 the United States produced 52% of the world’s crude oil; by 1997 that figure had dropped to 10% per EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld001.htm).

Over the past 36 years the Liberal Left (Democrats) has pushed through many laws that restrict our ability to drill for oil in the United States and off our shores. They have also restricted our ability to refine oil in the U.S. These actions make us more and more dependent on foreign oil.

Over the past week the Democrat-controlled Congress has proposed a law which would allow the government to sue the oil producing countries, OPEC, for not producing more oil. What a joke! Maybe more appropriately, what a bunch of idiots! First off I do not believe any international court would rule in our favor. Second, the OPEC countries would not pay even if we did get a judgment rendered in our favor. And lastly, this would cost us friends in the Mideast and as any business major can tell you, lawsuits just add to the cost of the product.

Recently I heard that the world has consumed approximately 50% of the oil available in the world. So why should the Saudis or OPEC or any oil-producing country increase their production just to lower the price for us?

The answer to our supply issue is to increase drilling and processing here at home. Offshore drilling, drilling in Alaska and North Dakota, and oil extraction from shale can provide significant amounts of oil and help keep the price down.

This week I have read several articles in the Washington Times that address this subject very well. “To Give America Freedom”, by Frank Gaffney, 5-20-2008 can be found at http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080520/COMMENTARY03/160902100/1012. There was also an article on 5-21-2008 by H. Sterling Burnett, call “Losing The Energy Race” in the Washington Times which I was unable to find on their webpage. However the same article was posted at eteam.ncpa.org under the title “We Don't Have To Take $4 Gas Prices — We Can Drill”. This can be found at http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/we-dont-have-to-take-4-gas-prices-we-can-drill .

ARE THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES HONORABLE?

2008-04-15T13:21:00.001-05:00

I have observed a decline in understanding Honor. Hollywood and many politicians make fun of the Boy Scouts of America because of their clear definition of Right and Wrong. Many movies make heroes of characters who get the criminal but break our laws and violate the rules of law enforcement on a regular basis. Surveys indicate that a majority of Americans consider it OK to cheat or lie in order to advance their careers. This is not honorable. Receiving awards or achieving milestones or success in our careers or other pursuits does not make one honorable. Many sports figures become heroes to us and our children, but frequently get into trouble with the law, use drugs or alcohol, gamble, etc. These men and women are not honorable and should not be considered heroes. Politicians who lie about their achievements or their opponents are not honorable and do not deserve our support.

Senator Clinton’s comments about being under fire in Bosnia and her experience as First Lady were incorrect. We need to ask if these are just one time mistakes or a pattern of behavior? I feel they are part of a pattern of behavior that has been typical of Hillary and Bill Clinton for many years. Basically the Clintons will say and do anything to achieve their goals. I believe Senator Clinton is not morally straight and not a honorable person!!

One’s honor can be affected by association. Can Senator Obama have a spiritual advisor and mentor for twenty years, who is clearly a racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American and not be affected or share the views of his mentor? Could Obama not realize for twenty years that the Rev. Wright was racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American. I say No!! Obama saying he did not know of the Rev. Wright’s sermons which were videotaped is very hard to believe. His refusal to disassociate himself from Rev. Wright indicates Obama’s true beliefs are not far from the Rev. Wright’s. Add to this Michele Obama’s thesis and her comment that this is the first time she been proud of America only supports my conclusion about Obama. Can Obama be as strong a Christian as he would like us to believe? Does his refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin or to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance say what he thinks of America? You bet!! This is not an honorable American.

I do not believe Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are morally straight.

WHAT DO DEMOCRATS STAND FOR?

2008-04-14T09:03:00.002-05:00

Everyone knows I a conservative / Republican. But over the years I have voted for a few Democrats at various levels of government. This year and for the foreseeable future I will not consider voting for a Democrat. To explain why, I will look at what the Democratic Party and its leadership stand for.

The following represents positions a liberal believes in and supports according to Conservapedia:

1. Large / Larger Government
2. Taxpayer – funded abortion
3. Government-rationed and taxpayer-funded medical care (Socialized Medicine)
4. Same-sex marriage or unions
5. Censorship of prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events
6. A “living Constitution” that is reinterpreted, thwarting the amendment process specified in the Constitution as written
7. Opposition to a strong American foreign policy
8. Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
9. Opposition to full private property rights
10. Promoting liberal deceit if it advances their goals

I would add a couple of items of my own to this list:

1. A lack of support for operation Iraqi Freedom and our military; Cut and run
2. Open borders

It is no secret, that the Democratic Party is presently controlled by the extreme left. This means that they support the above positions all of the time.

Every Democrat we vote for adds to the power of the party leadership. The only way to get change in the Democratic Party is to not vote for any Democrat candidate regardless of his stated position on any of these issues until the party leadership changes significantly.

Voting for Obama just adds one more extreme liberal to the party leadership. He has the most liberal voting record of any Senator. That does not change anything and only adds to the problem.

BRING BIPARTISANSHIP TO A SPLIT COUNTRY

2008-02-19T20:42:00.003-05:00

I have noticed a lot of the media commenting on how Sen. Barack Obama is viewed as the only candidate who can bring bipartisanship to our country. This is a very naïve notion. If either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton is elected President, the divide will continue because they both represent only the extreme left. The media has presented two divides. One is a false divide maintained by politicians to further maintain their personal causes or to create a divide in the voting public. The other is between the extreme left, or liberal, and the extreme right, or conservative.

The false divide is ethnic division between Caucasians and African Americans. For the vast majority of Americans this divide does not exist. In Congress, I do not see any division along racial lines. The Clintons tried to bring this into play only to get the white vote for Hillary. Other public figures like Rev. Jessie Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton fan the embers of this old divide to further their agendas for the benefit of African Americans. All of this has nothing to do with the current divide in Congress, or between Congress and President Bush.

That leaves us with the division between the extreme liberals and the conservatives. A close look at this divide starts with a review of the Republican and Democratic parties. The public voted Bush into office based on the belief that he was a strong conservative and was the best choice for the War on Terror. The current extreme left Democratic party leadership has a strong hatred for any true conservative, especially one who is religious. This hatred is a key factor in the divide between Democrats and Republicans, and, in my opinion, has aided our enemy in the War on Terror.

Let’s take a look at Sen. McCain’s, Sen. Clinton’s, and Sen. Obama’s Conservative and Liberal rankings as tabulated by the ACU ( American Conservative Union). The following rankings are through 2006.

Candidate --------------Conservative Ranking -------Liberal Ranking
Sen. John McCain --------------82.3 -----------------------17.7
Sen. Hillary Clinton --------------9.0 -----------------------91.0
Sen. Barack Obama --------------8.0 -----------------------92.0

The National Journal ranked Sen. Obama as the most liberal Senator in 2007. Sen. Clinton’s ranking did not change in 2007. Sen. McCain’s voting record was more Liberal in 2007 but his lifetime ranking did not change.

Based on these facts it is hard to see how Sen. Obama could possibly bridge the gap or bring bipartisanship to Congress. In fact, these rankings indicate that Sen. McCain would be much more likely to be able to reach compromises between Liberals and Conservatives and to get something accomplished.

ISRAEL IS AN ALLY IN THE WAR ON TERROR

2006-08-08T10:11:00.000-05:00

On July 28, 2006 I read an article titled “Ramsey Clark Plans ‘Emergency March’ to Stop Israel” by Alison Espach of CNSNews.com. This article really irritated me and caused my heart arrhythmia to act up.

This article indicated that former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, various anti-war groups, and Muslim groups have announced their plans for a march on the White House on August 12th to protest U.S. funding of the “Israeli war machine”. Clark claims that providing funding to Israel is grounds for impeaching President Bush. I have searched the Internet for anything that would indicate that the United States has provided any special funding to Israel beyond the normal foreign aid provided each year. I also found out that Israel has not requested any special funding. Once again, the far left has no grounds for their statements.

The National Council of Arab-Americans, Partnership for Civil Justice, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, and the ANSWER Coalition are all a part of this effort. Brian Becker, the national coordinator for ANSWER feels that the Lebanese and Palestinian people need to know that the President is spending tax dollars for the wars in Iraq and in Lebanon without the consent of the American people. Boy, is this way out there, but there is still more!

The article also indicated the ANSWER does not consider Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations. The United Nations does not list them as terrorist organizations either. However, as pointed out by Dr. Ariel Chen, Australia, Canada, Israel, the United States, and the European Union do list Hamas as a terrorist group. Hezbollah is identified as a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States. ANSWER justifies Hamas and Hezbollah as non-terrorist groups because they are political parties that include at least 30 to 40 percent of the people. Dr. Ariel Cohen had a good response to this. He stated “So did the Nazi party”. I say a group, whether political or not, should be judged on its actions. Just because a group has established itself as a political entity does not give it the right to carry out terrorist acts. We could also look at this from the other side, and say that because they represent a political group in a country, then that entire country is guilty of the terrorist acts and must be held responsible.

In my opinion the National Council of Arab-Americans, Partnership for Civil Justice, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, and the ANSWER Coalition are totally out of touch with reality. They completely ignore the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah were the aggressors and caused the current war activity between these organizations and Israel. These terrorist groups have openly stated that their objective is to eliminate or wipe out Israel. They are against any government that is not based on radical Islam. Dr. Cohen is right-on with his comparison of these terrorist groups to the Nazi party.

In my mind the “War on Terror will not be over until Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all other terrorist organizations are eradicated from the world. Terrorist organizations or group cannot be tolerated by the world regardless of the country or political group. Terrorism needs to be an unacceptable way to effect change. All members of these organizations, whether in political parties or not, are terrorist and are the enemy in the “War on Terror”. We need to remember that any nation that supports these terrorist groups is also an enemy of the United States of America. We should consider the National Council of Arab-Americans, Partnership for Civil Justice, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, and the ANSWER Coalition as enemies because of their support for terrorist organizations. They are allies of terrorist organizations. Americans that support these groups should be charged and prosecuted for treason.

KERRY DOESN’T UNDERSTAND RIGHT FROM WRONG

2006-04-27T22:02:00.000-05:00

Thirty-five years ago Kerry appeared before a Senate committee to call for the end to the war in Vietnam. On April 22, 2006 he defended that decision in a speech in Boston’s Faneuil Hall Marketplace. An article in the Washington Post on April 23, titled “Wartime Dissent Is Part Of Patriotism, Kerry Says”, goes into detail about his speech.

Kerry stated that casting dissent in wartime is a patriotic act. He said “I believed then, just as I do now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country’s ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties.”

This is true to a certain point. If someone is against war for whatever reason or religious principle, it is understandable. But if one’s actions aid our enemies it is no longer patriotic. If one has manufactured lies about the conduct of our troops, such as Kerry did thirty-five years ago, and has repeated them, as he has, during the War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom, that person is not patriotic. In fact, Kerry represents to the highest degree possible, the worst in American politics. He will spin the facts to support his position and he will manufacture false evidence. Kerry, along with much of the Democratic Party’s far-left leadership, specializes in this; they are doing everything in their power to undermine the administration’s effort to win the War on Terror.

The Democratic Party’s (and Kerry’s) idea of setting a timeline for pulling our troops out of Iraq only aids the enemy and does nothing to win the war. A premature pullout from Iraq would give the terrorists the victory and would lead to more terrorist attacks. I can only conclude from the repeated pushing of this idea that the current Democratic Party leadership, especially Senator Kerry, do not want to win the war and they have not accepted the fact that we are in a world war against terror. Or maybe they want us to lose the war so they can blame the loss on President Bush and the Republicans.

Kerry says “we are imprisoned in a failed policy” and that the administration has not learned the lessons of history. It is the far left and Kerry who have not learned the lessons of history! If we look back at Vietnam, we won the battles but lost the war. WHY? And why did the American public turn against the war? The bottom line is that you cannot win a war fighting a defensive battle. You must at some point go on the offensive. Fighting only a defensive war just prolongs the agony. Starting with our pullout from Vietnam, the enemies of the United States learned that if they can drag out a conflict long enough and use the American liberal media, they can win.

Is the liberal media totally to blame for all of the negative press about Operation Iraqi Freedom? NO!! It is the Democratic Party leaders like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean who fan the embers of the liberal media in the hope that the general public will grow against the war, and that the embers will grow into a fire that will put them back in power. The Democratic Party leadership has but one goal and that is to gain control of the Senate and win the Presidency in 2008. They do not care who they hurt in the process.

In my book the liberal media and the Democratic Party share the blame. They are the greatest allies the terrorist organizations have. The terrorists could lose every battle in Iraq and win the war with just help from the liberal media and the current Democratic Party leadership!

This type of political game is nothing new for Kerry. He learned it from the Kennedys when he first decided to get into politics. I find him the most despicable figure in politics. Right and wrong are clear, but Kerry, the extreme liberal, wants everyone to believe things are shades of gray rather than black and white. He can always be counted on to vote against a strong military and the things that would help the military remain strong. He will always exaggerate problems with the military and will go as far as lying about them. He has totally lost sight of right and wrong. Kerry started his speech referring to American ideals, but he does not practice what he preaches. What happened to truth and honesty? Is lying to gain votes and power justified? Does Kerry have any honor? NO!

GLOBAL WARMING – WHAT IS THE ANSWER?

2006-04-25T22:25:00.000-05:00

I have heard a lot about Global Warming in the news during the past year, driven primarily by the bad 2005 hurricane season and El Nino. Most of the television coverage centered about Earth Day (April 22, 2006) events, which drew the likes of Al Gore, John Kerry, Edward Kennedy and Howard Dean. It is obvious that they hope to make this an issue the far left can rally around. Al Gore and John Kerry have long supported the doom and gloom of global warming, and hope to gain votes by raising the issue to a higher level. Al Gore is starring in a movie titled “An Inconvenient Truth”, which will be released around Memorial Day. Howard Dean would like to muzzle America’s churches and religious group such as Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA) because they counter the extreme left’s desire to support the Kyoto Accord and ignore the impact on the poor of the world and on our economy. Celebrities like Julia Roberts and George Clooney, as “climate experts” have gotten into the act as well. Fortunately, President Bush and the administration are pushing private industry to work on this issue.

I enjoy nature, wildlife, the outdoors, and the American way of life, so I decided to look into the subject. I wanted to understand if global warming is a real issue, if it is an issue what can be done about it, and is it an issue that requires the drastic action some scientists and politicians are pushing. Was President Bush right in not signing the Kyoto agreement? I reviewed more than 20 articles and Web sites and was surprised at the amount of data available. Most of what I found causes me to disagree with the very vocal far left.

The Kyoto Accord legally binds participating developed countries to cut their combined greenhouse gas emissions to 5 % below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The United States and Australia are among those who did not sign this agreement. (The countries not signing did agree to non-binding talks on a climate-change agreement that will eventually replace ‘Kyoto’.)

The first question that came to my mind was, How much has the temperature of the earth changed in recent years? The answer is, less than .5 degree increase since 1940. Is this a lot, considering how the industrial complex of the world has grown? Has man’s environment improved, and have we done a responsible job? Should we go back to living like the American Indians prior to the arrival of the first colonists? Is the hype associated with global warming justified, or is it just the result of irresponsible alarmists? From my limited research it appears that the latter is true.

Two of the articles I read were written by Marc Morano: “Media Darling on ‘Global Warming’ Assailed by Colleagues” and “Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry”. A third article was written by Randy Hall: “Global Warming Alarmists Seek ‘Circle of Death,’ Group Says”. These articles point out that much of the hype about global warming centers around a NASA scientist named James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Dr. Hansen has spoken out in the news media about global warming, and because of his position at NASA the news media, including the New York Times and “60 Minutes”, proclaimed him a renowned scientist with unassailable credibility on the subject. Now it appears that his colleagues at NASA do not agree with him. NASA encourages their scientists speak publicly, but there is a protocol to be followed which Dr. Hansen chooses to ignore. Data releases, and the data itself, have to be approved by NASA Headquarters before going to the media. Hansen refuses to do so. In an interview he gave on ABC’s “Good Morning America”, he declared that 2005 had tied 1998 as the warmest year on record, but an internal NASA memo provides he failed to clear his data. In addition, none of his peers agreed with his interpretation of the data. George Deutsch, former NASA public relations employee, was warned by other employees (not political appointees) at NASA that Hansen is an alarmist and exaggerates. Deutsch does not appear to be the best source for information -- he had to resign his position due to a resume problem (he was one course short of having the degree claimed on his resume) -- but he provided CNS News with documentation that backs up his accusations.

CBS News “60 Minutes” in their March 19, 2006 show profiled Hansen and detailed his accusations of censorship by the Bush administration, but did not mention his link to Gore, Kerry, and Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. Hansen has contributed to the Gore and Kerry campaigns, and has accepted a $250,000 Heinz Award granted by the foundation run by Teresa. On that same day, Hansen endorsed Senator Kerry’s presidential candidacy! Is Hansen’s position based on politics more than facts? YES!! Also, “60 Minutes” has a history of distorting the truth for the liberal cause.

Why are many countries backing away from the Kyoto agreement? Why is the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA) so concerned about how we (the world) address the issue of global warming? The answer illustrates just how complex the problem and solution are. We must understand the causes of global warming; we must address the problem in a way that does not harm or impede the improvements in the lives of the world’s poor; we need to remember that mankind is principally the producer and steward of the world, not the consumer polluter; and we must develop a sound environmental ethic.

We have to act responsibly and recognize alarmists like Dr. Hansen, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. and not jump off the deep end. Are the greenhouse gas emissions the cause of global warming? Based on my reading, the answer is No. According to research done by scientists such as K. Lassen (Danish Meteorological Institute) and Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West (Duke University), the major cause is solar warming. A paper by K. Lassen shows clear evidence that there is a direct correlation between solar activity (sunspots) and temperature changes on Earth during the past 130 years. I am not saying that the greenhouse gas emissions are not contributing to the problem, but we need to understand the full problem in order to take correct action. We should ask, “Is there anything in the atmosphere that reduces the impact of solar activity?” Also, climate experts such as Gabriele C. Hagerl of Duke University say the greenhouse gas buildup will cause significant climate change in the coming century, but not the extreme changes predicted by some studies. New research shows that extreme changes are unlikely to occur.

Based on the information I found in 20-plus articles and Web pages, the Bush administration was correct in not signing the Kyoto agreement. Enforcing the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as proposed in ‘Kyoto’ may cause hardships on many people, economies, and countries. Not that we should not take action, but if the U.S. follows President Bush’s proposals to develop the hydrogen engine to power our motor vehicles, construct nuclear power plants, which provide a much cleaner supply of electricity than fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), and continue to increase our production of ethanol fuel, we could make a significant impact on our greenhouse emissions without hurting the economy.

If we take the approach of forcing tougher restriction on power plants, manufacturing facilities, and motor vehicles, the cost of the products produced will be driven up. This will have an inflationary impact on the economy and will affect low-income families the most. We need to be careful here. Technology can help, but raising taxes to fund these activities can also have a negative impact on the economy and on middle and lower income families in our country.

IMMIGRATION: WHAT’S THE ANSWER?

2006-04-18T22:43:00.000-05:00

On Friday, April 14, 2006, the Washington Post had two editorials on immigration. One, by Eugene Robinson, was titled “My Immigration Solution”; I feel that Mr. Robinson’s solution is no solution at all! In his words, he “would not brand the current influx of immigrants (as) felons or build a fortress wall along the Mexican border.” After weighing all options, he sees the alternative of allowing a limited flow of immigrants across the border, thinking this could “change the current incentive equation”, increasing the number of legal immigrants allowed from Mexico and other South American countries. I believe this idea is a part of at least some of the proposals currently before Congress, but it cannot be the solution by itself. The number of legal immigrants allowed to enter the country must be based on our ability to assimilate them into our society. We need the desired growth rate for our country as well as our ability to produce the resources needed to support our total population.

The second editorial, by Charles Krauthammer, was titled “Immigrants Must Choose”. Mr. Krauthammer says the “Hispanic civil rights movement” needs to decide: “Are they ready to be welcomed into the American family as the last illegals -- or only as the first of many millions more?” I do not believe Congress should place much importance on this “Hispanic civil rights movement”. Those who are here legally already have all the rights of anyone else, and do not need any entitlement. We need to treat criminals and lawbreakers humanely, and ensure they have basic human rights, but the bottom line is that the illegal immigrant has broken the law, whether it is a civil or felony offense. One does not ask a lawbreaker if the law needs to be changed, or if we should allow the breaking of the law to go unpunished forever. The laws that are in place should be enforced. A federal officer should not feel bad about enforcing a law. One should not get mad at a police officer giving someone a traffic ticket, if that person was in fact breaking a traffic law. The illegal immigrant should have no say as to what our laws should be!

The foregoing, to me, is a lot of blether!

Gaining control over illegal immigration is a must! What is the solution? Our borders must be closed to illegal immigrants. It is vital to keep in mind that illegal immigrants are not all Mexican or Hispanic. Eugene Robinson, who would really like an open border, like most liberals has never accepted the fact that we are at war with terrorism. Some of the illegals who have come in along the Mexican border are originally from Asian and South American countries that are working hard at becoming enemies of the United States. We need to be able to identify all illegal immigrants as soon as possible, just from a security perspective.

We need to establish a date after which being an illegal immigrant is a felony. This date should be aligned with registering current illegal immigrants. Employers must have a quick and easy way of verifying that a worker is legal . Requiring all employers to use an automated employment verification system is the way to go. This system exists, but needs to be implemented. After the implemetation date the employer must report any illegal immigrants currently employed, or those who apply for work. This raises the risk to the illegal of being caught. We have to convince the would-be immigrant that it is not worth his risk to come into the United States illegally. This will do a lot to ensure a legal workforce.

We should erect whatever is needed in the way of walls, fences, etc. along our Mexician border, and add new surveillance systems for border patrol.

We should plug any loopholes in exiting laws, ensuring that those who arrange and assist in illegal immigration are prosecuted and convicted. These changes should take place no later than the end of the amnesty period.

Now, what should we do with the countless numbers of illegal immigrants already in the U.S.? Our government is partly to blame for the magnitude of the situation, because they have not enforced existing laws. Our current immigration facilities could not handle deporting them, or even being able to identify them in a short period of time. This needs to be considered when changing the law associated with those already here. It is not feasible to deport 12 million people! Nor is it fair to automatically make them all legal, with no penalty for having broken the law, and put them on an equal footing with those who have already gone through the current naturalization process to become legal residents. Neither is it fair to give preference to Hispanics over any other nationality. And whatever we do, we must not push the illegal deeper into hiding or into an even more dangerous underground existence. Although most Americans hate the word amnesty, it seems to me the only reasonable approach is to come up with an amnesty program such as the Senate has proposed for the current illegal immigrants. However, any amnesty program must have a cutoff date, corresponding with the date for changing the penalty for illegally entering the U.S. from a civil to felony offence. I would implement an amnesty program for a one-year period, after which any illegal immigrant would be liable to prosecution to the full extent of the law.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A “CITIZEN OF THE WORLD”?

2006-04-11T21:08:00.000-05:00

I have for many years considered myself a “citizen of the world”. A comment received on my April 2, 2006 posting ‘Democratic Party Misses The Point’, got me thinking about what it means. The person providing the comment, who calls himself Corndog, used to be a liberal, and stated that the process of becoming a liberal “begins with the psychological renunciation of one’s American-ness, in order to become a ‘citizen of the world’.” As one might expect, this set me to thinking: Could I be shifting to the left? NO WAY!! I cannot ever see myself as a liberal! So I decided to see what was available on the Internet on this subject, and after doing that, I decided to write about what being a “citizen of the world” means to me.

First, I found an organization called World Citizen, Inc., a non-profit organization that empowers the educational community to promote a just and peaceful world through activities for children and youth. Most educators are very liberal; one should ask are the youth being taught to think, or just being indoctrinated?

Next was The World Citizen Foundation. This is a non-profit, non-partisan think-tank dedicated to the design of solutions to international problems based on the fundamental principles of equal human dignity, liberty, democracy, and constitutionally protected basic rights of all. This may or may not be liberal depending on its members.

Then I found the World Citizen Update. This one started by asking “Who Represents World Citizens?” The message began “In politics, the nation-state insidiously controls not only the dialogue but also the electoral process.” Another statement was “the general public’s loyalty on this national political illusion blinds it to the solution of humanity’s ills taken together, i.e. world law based on human rights”. There is no doubt this is extremely liberal.

The last one was called “World Citizen Guide”. This guide was put together by students for students to use when going abroad. The group, Business for Diplomatic Action, Inc., started this because in their words ‘America’s favorability’ in other countries was decreasing. They blame U.S. public policy, the negative efforts of globalization, our culture, and collective personality. Globalization-- hmmm….that is interesting. One should not go abroad with an attitude, or present one’s self as superior. Depending on how this is done, it could be very good.

Do the preceding come across as leftist or very liberal organizations? (Corndog does have a point.) But I would like to tell you my definition of a “Citizen of the World”. Every individual is a citizen of the world! I do not believe that being a “Citizen of the World” means you must be liberal. That is a false theory that has been accepted for too long. All of the above items are rather liberal in nature. Some of the points they cover are important, but there are many differing viewpoints about what can and can’t be done, and what the causes are. Let’s look beyond these.

The world is getting smaller every day. Back in the 19th century, Jules Verne wrote “Around The World In 80 Days”. We now do it in hours, and astronauts can do it in minutes. But this is only a small part of why the world is getting smaller. If the world is ever going to truly have peace, the economy of every country needs to be developed to its full potential. As long as some countries are under-developed and don’t politically fit in with the rest of the world, there will always be a danger of war. This is a huge challenge for the world to overcome. Every year the economies of the United States and other industrial countries become more dependent on each other. How many items do we buy each year that say ‘made in China’, Korea, Japan, France, Norway, etc.? This occurs because things are made better or cheaper somewhere else, or may not be available in your country. This helps keep down our cost of living, and it helps the economies of other countries to grow. Each country needs to find its niche. The more people of different countries do business with each other, the more they realize we all have the same goals in life, and the more tolerant of each other they become.

Then there are issues such as terrorism that are truly global issues that the world needs to address. The more nations take an active role in this fight, the sooner terrorism will become a thing of the past. Each year since 9/11 more countries have come to this realization. The sooner the world learns to recognize evil and address it with immediate and decisive action, the sooner there will be peace in the world, but as long as countries such as those who took advantage of the UN’s Oil for Food program continue to profit by their actions, the longer the process will take.

In conclusion, I say every person is a “Citizen of the World” because every year we are coming closer together and more dependent on each other. Sometimes the process seems hard to see, but it is happening. The extremist Muslim groups that are fighting this change through terrorist activities are actually accelerating the process by forcing the rest of the world to join together to fight terrorism.

WASHINGTON POST DOES IT AGAIN!

2006-04-10T20:59:00.000-05:00

On April 10, 2006, in an article titled “U.S. Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi”, the Washington Post accused the military of magnifying the role of Abu Musabat al Zarqawi in Iraq in order to help the Bush administration justify the war in Iraq by linking Saddam Hussein with al Qaeda. The article is based in part on a quote from Col. Derek Harvey, an officer on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a meeting that took place LAST SUMMER (2005) in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas! Why would anybody dredge up a statement made that long ago to lend credence to an article in April 2006, in view of the dramatic flare-up of the insurgent problem just since the Iraqi elections in December, months after the meeting at Ft. Leavenworth?

I have three problems with this article.

First, the facts related to Zarqawi as presented by the military prove the Post article is without basis. Everyone should read the American Forces Information Service news article titled “Zarqawi, al Qaeda Threaten Iraq, Military Spokesman Says”, by Steven Donald Smith. This article points out that Zarqawi and al Qaeda have openly declared war on the democratic process in Iraq, and that they have recruited, trained, and equipped more than 90% of the suicide attackers who have injured or killed thousands of Iraqis in the past year. This is a fact, not hearsay as the Post indicated.

Second, the Post article implies that propaganda is bad, and is a tool that should not be used by our military or the United States government. Webster’s dictionary defines propaganda as “information or ideas methodically spread to promote or injure a cause, movement, nation, etc; the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement”. The heart of capitalism and our election process are very dependent on propaganda. My take on this is if the information used is based on fact, it is good. However, I must add: if it was illegal to put out false information, many politicians, like John Kerry, who lied and propagated false information about our military in Vietnam and in Iraq, would be in jail and not in Congress!

Third, the Post article opened by saying that the military overstated al Zarqawi’s importance in helping the Bush administration link the war in Iraq to al Qaeda. I do not understand their point. Zarqawi is a member of al Qaeda, and he is in Iraq. The Washington Post is just pushing their own agenda once more, and not reporting the facts. They are trying to make something out of nothing, and hurting our military and the war effort in the process, without just cause.

SENATOR JOHN KERRY SHOULD JUST GO AWAY

2006-04-08T21:46:00.000-05:00

Once again Senator John Kerry opened his mouth and tried to undermine President Bush and his administration in an article titled “May 15 Deadline Urged for Iraq’s Government”. This time, his statements received only minimal support from his own party, but there was one idea Kerry put forth that, if changed slightly, might help get the formation of the Iraqi government moving faster. He suggested convening a summit of Iraqi leaders and others on neutral ground, with the goal of reaching agreement on a government. I do not believe the newly-elected members of the Iraqi Parliament would agree to a summit meeting outside of Iraq, but maybe they could be closured within Iraq, with no contact with others in their home areas, and hopefully come to an agreement. (However, are they doing any worse than our own Senate is doing with the borders and immigration issue?)

Senator Kerry has no respect for people of the Middle East and showed it with his suggestions that the Iraqis do not want democracy as much as we want it for them, and that Iraqi politicians show no commitment to establish a working government. He has always talked down to the people of the Middle East. Unfortunately, his approach only strengthens distrust of the United States in the Middle East, and may cost us dearly.

Setting up arbitrary deadlines like May 15 for having a government formed or risking the pullout of American troops, as Kerry suggested, is a bad idea. This is nothing more than the cut-and-run proposals put forth by Rep. Murtha of Pennsylvania, Sen. Feingold of Wisconsin, and Democratic Party Leader Howard Dean. The Iraqis are attempting for the first time in their history to set up a democratically elected government. They are currently struggling with the selection of Ibrahim al-Jaafari as Prime Minister. We have to give them time to work through the issues surrounding the selection of the Prime Minister and the formation of a National Unity government. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this past week that “it takes patience”, and he quoted Bill Schuster who said “we’re living in the microwave age where we expect everything to be cooked in about 30 seconds.” In Rumsfeld’s words “The world isn’t like that”, but despite the difficulties associated with putting the Iraqi government in place, progress is being made. There are now in excess of 240,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, and they are carrying more and more of the load. Now is not the time to cut and run!

Kerry also said the Bush administration has made only half-hearted diplomatic efforts to overcome the issues preventing the government from being established. He stated that the administration has failed to support U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s efforts. Of course there is no basis for these statements. Has the Ambassador said this? NO! Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice visited Iraq this week and pushed the issue, but Kerry totally dismissed her efforts.

Senator John Kerry should just shut up and go home. In my book he is a terrible example of what a Senator should be. The foundation of his career was based on lies about American servicemen in Vietnam. He is what I call pure politician, which means he will say or do anything to get votes no matter who he steps on or hurts in the process. There is no honor in this man. No one should believe anything he says.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY MISSES THE POINT

2006-04-02T20:54:00.000-05:00

I read an article on cnsnews.com today that really illustrates what is wrong with the Democratic Party today. The article is titled “Iraq War Frustration Key to Dem Victories, Says Rangel”. Representative Charles Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) statements will only drive those in the middle between the far right and extreme left to vote Republican.

According to the article, Rep. Rangel said that voters should not just be frustrated over the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, ‘they should be outraged’. The outrage to me is the way in which the Democratic Party leadership has tried to undermine the administration. For example, Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-Wis.) call to censure President Bush for authorizing warrantless surveillance of phone calls between persons in the United States and known Al Qaeda operatives. Previous Presidents going back at least to Jimmy Carter have done the same thing! I believe the U.S. Constitution gives the President the right to take this step, and I am glad he did so.

There is no justification for Feingold’s action in the midst of war. It should be noted that afterwards Senator Feingold got a boost from the far left in the Democratic Party in his possible bid to run for President in 2008. Senator John Kerry pursued a similar push from the far left by calling for the impeachment of President Bush over the same issue, and he is hoping to make another run for President! These people are playing politics with no concern for the War on Terror, the impact on our troops, and the impact on the American people. In fact, actions like these should raise the question, do the Democrats even realize we are in a global war on terror?

Rep. Rangel suggests there is fear that the reputation of the United States has suffered and that we have lost friends in Europe because of the President’s action against Iraq. He is most likely concerned about our relationships with France and Russia. I would not use the word ‘friend’ when referring to France and Russia, when it comes to Iraq. Their part in the oil for food scandal must be considered a major cause for the War in Iraq. If they had worked as hard at enforcing the sanctions against Iraq as they did at getting around them, the war might not have happened. They were part of the cause, not the solution. France and Russia are only worried about themselves, their stature in world politics, and the money coming into their economies. The world agreed that Saddam Hussein had to go. The only way in Iraq to effect a change was to remove Hussein and the Baathist party from power. I do not believe there was any other way to effect the change. The bottom line is that if we stay the course in Iraq, we will have gained respect, done much to deter radical Islamic terrorism, and established a stronger bond of friendship and trust in the Middle East.

Rep. Rangel’s concern about the growing deficit is a concern of everyone, but we must remember that we are at war, and we must provide the military with the resources required to do their job as safely as possible. What would the Democrats do to help reduce the deficit? Probably cut military spending, and cut and run from Iraq! The only other possibility would be to raise taxes, which would have a negative impact on business and would slow the economy. The best solution for the deficit is to work with the Republicans as a team. A united Congress would do more to end the war on terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom than anything.

If we stop and look at what the Democratic Party has done since Operation Iraqi Freedom began three years ago, it is clear that they have done nothing to help the situation. They aided Al Qaeda! Al Gore’s statement that our government has committed “terrible abuses” against Arabs in the United States, and John Kerry’s comments that our troops were terrorizing Iraqi civilians, clearly show how they twist the truth and lie about our troops. Kerry, as a senator, has never supported our military. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy both have voting records of non-support of the military.

Rep. Rangel states he submitted the bill to reinstate the military draft because lawmakers have lost touch with our military men and women, and because a disproportionate number of service members come from low-income households. There has been no evidence from Democrats that they are at all concerned about our military personnel. In fact, taking their actions as a whole, they provided no support at all. It appears to me that Rangel is much like Hillary Clinton, who looks down her nose at those who serve in the military, CIA, etc. Reportedly Hillary, while Clinton was in office, was continually rude and abrasive to those who were charged with protecting her life. Vice President Al Gore also looked down on those protecting him. It is said that “Al got angry at his children and pointed to his detail saying, ‘Do you want to grow up and be like them?’”

Taking all of the above into account, and wanting to win in Iraq and in the War on Terror, why would anyone vote for a Democrat for national office?

CONGRESS MUST ACT!!

2006-03-28T21:46:00.000-05:00

Today there are at least three proposals on the table for the Senate to consider in addressing the illegal immigration issue.

There is the House of Representatives bill (H.R. 4437) that is aimed at gaining control over illegal immigration. A key component of this legislation will require all employers to use a new automated employment verification system. H.R. 4437 will change the undocumented presence of immigrants from a civil offense to a felony offence, will plug existing loopholes in the law to ensure that those who arrange and assist in illegal immigration are prosecuted and convicted, will erect 700 miles of wall along our Mexician border, and will add new surveillance systems for border patrol. This bill addresses the issue of closing the borders to illegal immigrants, but does not provide a good way of dealing with the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country today.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has passed what they call an Immigration and Border Security bill proposed by Senators Kennedy and McCain. This would give the 12 million illegal aliens a shot at U.S. citizenship without returning home first. It would give them temporary legal status for six years as long as they can prove they are employed in the United States. They would be fined $2,000, undergo a background check, learn English and study American civics, and pay taxes. They could then get in line behind others to apply for U.S. citizenship. They would be permitted to change jobs and bargain for wages. This bill proposes a way to handle the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country today, but does nothing to close the borders and stop the flow of illegal immigrants. In fact some feel it would only cause an increase in the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border.

Senator Frist may put forth his own bill, which would deport people who come into our country illegally. This proposal would crack down on human smugglers and make it easier for employers to confirm their workers’ legal status. This bill adds 15,000 more border control officers, requires new investment in unmanned aerial vehicles, cameras, and sensors. It would also build a barrier along the 1,951 mile border with Mexico.

I find all of these bills unacceptable if considered alone. We need immigration laws that address all of the following as aspects of the issue: 1. Deter people from wanting to come to this country illegally 2. Close the border to illegal immigrants 3. Address how to handle the illegal immigrants already in our country, without harming the economy and 4. Establish new immigration quotas.

The biggest hang-up appears to be between amnesty for all illegal immigrants already here, and total deportation of all illegal immigrants. I feel that nether approach will work. I prefer a one-time amnesty for those who would register for legal status. This should be limited to 60 or 90 days. After that, the only answer is prosecution under the law and deportation.

This border and immigration issue is the most important business for Congress and a compromise solution must be obtained quickly. Whatever is done must address all four aspects of the issue. Congress should not be allowed to take a Spring break (or whatever they would call it) until this business is fully taken care of. Leaving it for a later session should not be an option.

RELIGION: A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT

2006-03-25T22:39:00.000-05:00

On March 23, 2006 the Associated Press ran an article titled “Top Muslim clerics: Convert must die”. This article starts by saying “Religious leaders urge courts to ignore West, hang Christian”. They are demanding that Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man who converted from Islam to Christianity, be executed.

The United States, Australia, and Europe are putting a lot of pressure on President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to free Rahman, who is facing the death penalty for converting. It is wonderful that so many countries have united to press the Afghan government. I firmly believe that freedom of religion is a basic human right. The world has long talked about human rights, but freedom of religion has, to a large extent, been ignored. Is the killing of a person for converting to a different religion any different than ethnic cleansing? NO!!

When I was in school, and admittedly this has been forty or fifty years ago, I was taught that there were two kinds of religion: polytheistic and monotheistic. Polytheists believe in many gods; examples we were given of polytheism were Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc. Monotheists believe in only one God, and the only monotheistic religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Our teacher said (and mind you, this was in a Maryland public school) that whether you called Him Yahweh, God or Allah, you were referring to the same Deity, and that members of these three great religions were basically all brothers because of their belief in the same One Supreme Being. Some creeds are stricter than others, just as some families are stricter than others, but I think of God as a Father Who, although He can be stern, is a just and loving God, and I find it difficult to believe that He would want one of His children killed because that individual changed from one religion to another.

The Islamic law that requires the death penalty for converting from Islam is as outdated as the reasons behind the Crusades. Are religious leaders and governments enforcing this kind of barbaric punishment, anything more than terrorists themselves? Should they be treated the same way as any other terrorists? We have not done this because of not wanting to offend Muslims, but some clerics have gone too far! No one wants to mark religious leaders as terrorists, but how can we avoid it? Civilized nations must stand together and not give ground on this issue. How can there ever be peace in the world if religions leaders are allowed to practice this kind of terrorism? Hard-line Muslim clerics need to understand that there is more than one key to the door of the Kingdom of Heaven.

NEWS MEDIA CROSSES THE LINE

2006-03-24T18:41:00.000-05:00

Thursday this week the Washington Post ran an article by Walter Pincus titled “Ex-Iraqi Official Unveiled as Spy”. This article states that Naji Sabri, Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister, was a spy for France and the CIA. The second paragraph is what caught my eye. The retired officials who provided the information to the writer of this article refused to be identified because the information provided is classified.

Mr. Pincus and the officials who provided information about Naji Sabri and what had taken place are guilty of releasing classified information. It is my understanding that this is against the law. When I was in the U.S. Navy, and when I worked in private industry on government contracts involved with classified material, it was very clear that sharing classified information with anyone, including family, was illegal. Those who release or publish classified information should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I do not understand how the Washington Post feels it is justified in publishing such information. It’s high time the government starts prosecuting these people. They should be fined and put in jail for the maximum time allowable under the law. The government should also stop paying any retirement benefits to these people.

The liberal press seems to feel that the laws of our country are only guidelines that can be broken when they feel like it. The law only applies to others and not the press or liberal media. A member of our armed forces who releases classified information is subject to court martial, jail time, and a dishonorable discharge. It appears to me that we have a double standard that allows government officials and the media to break the law and not be punished.

IS THE U.N. WORTH IT?

2006-03-23T13:59:00.000-05:00

The value of the United Nations is a question that I have debated with myself for years. Two articles in the Washington Post on Tuesday and Wednesday this week stirred me to write about this subject.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2006, in an article by Fareed Zakaria titled “Why Iraq is Still Worth the Effort”, he supported military intervention to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, but was “appalled by the crude and unilateral manner in which the Bush administration handled the issue”. Did he want a U.N. resolution before we attacked? My instinct tells me that if we had waited for the U.N. Security Council to take action, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Hussein’s troops would still be killing the Iraqi people at a rate of 70-125 per day. Iraq would be actively supporting Al-Qaeda, they would be training terrorists, and they would be sending terrorists to hit our embassies, our ships, and our homeland.

My distrust of the effectiveness of the U.N. in the Iraq situation is based on the fact that France and Russia (both permanent members of the Security Council) were implicated in the United Nations Food For Oil scandal. Based on the show Breaking Point on the Fox network October 17, 2004, there is strong evidence in the Duelfer report that Russian, Chinese, and French companies were selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. French officials were receiving payoffs from Hussein to the tune of $2.9 billion dollars, and directing French companies how to take advantage of this situation. This was still occurring only twenty days prior to the start of the Iraq war. Hussein knew that France and Russia would not agree to support a U.N. invasion of Iraq, or join the coalition, due to their financial involvement, and he gambled that we would not invade without their support.

Hussein did not acknowledge that he had destroyed his chemical weapons because he felt that would be perceived as weakness in the Middle East. He planned to resume producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have been in full production within two years of sanctions being lifted. He was pursuing missile systems, tanks, anti-tank weapons, and nuclear materials, and also had plans to develop a terrorist weapon using aerosol ricin. Waiting longer for France to join the coalition would have just given Saddam more time to increase arms and to set up a stronger defense. Sen. John Kerry’s statement that he would not have gone to war with Iraq without the United Nation’s full support would only have played right into Saddam Hussein’s plan.

The Tuesday March 21, 2006 article by Dafna Linzer titled “Security Council Fails To Reach Accord on Iran” makes me wonder if the United Nations is capable of addressing the most important issues of our time. Can there be any doubt that Iran wants to obtain nuclear weapons? I believe that all the members of the Security Council agree on this. This time it is Russia and China who oppose sanctions. Are they benefiting from Iranian nuclear development? How dependent is China on Iranian oil? Russia and China want the crisis given back to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which they believe would be more likely to pursue a negotiated settlement. The IAEA has been negotiating with Iran for at least two years and has reached the conclusion that the issue needed to be escalated to the Security Council. Iran has broken its November 2004 agreement to suspend its uranium enrichment program. The Iranian government has told the world they have resumed uranium enrichment work. Getting into more negotiations is a good way for Iran to stall, giving them more time to continue nuclear development. The United States, France, and England believe the threat of sanctions would cause Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activity. This crisis seems to be clear-cut. If the Security Council cannot come to an agreement on strong and immediate action against Iran, then the United Nations must be considered impotent.

For me the United Nations has limited value. It does a good job with humanitarian help, and does provide peacekeeping forces where needed. It does provide a forum for countries to discuss issues, and some things have been accomplished. But if we cannot correct the corruption within the organization and establish a higher level of ethics for all involved in U.N. operations, and if the permanent members of the Security Council can not put their own jingoistic needs aside and do what is right for the world, its value will always be limited. I believe we need the U.N. and must keep it going, while understanding that on major issues or crises where the Security Council fails to act, nations will be likely to take action on their own.

THE THIRD YEAR OF THE WAR IS OVER

2006-03-20T23:26:00.000-05:00

I was reading the featured articles in Sunday’s Washington Post titled “Three Years in Iraq”, and at first was pleased that the Post was featuring our servicemen’s thoughts on the war. My positive feeling did not last long and was replaced with anger and frustration when I saw one sentence printed in bold type, ten times larger than anything else in the article (other than the title). “I don’t have any skills besides blowing up people.” This is a quote by Army Staff Sgt. John Thomas. Trust the Post to pick the most negative statement to feature, and for all we know it was taken out of context, to boot.

Here are a few statements that caught my eye and could have been featured instead of all the negative ones:

The first was by Lance Cpl. Daniel Finn, a Marine infantryman. He talked about an Iraqi woman who had her tongue cut out by Saddam Hussein’s men, people with no fingers, and others who had been tortured. This brings back memories of WWII and the Nazi concentration camps. Who among us could deny that these people needed liberating from the tyrant Saddam Hussein as much as the innocent victims of WWII needed to be liberated from Hitler’s Third Reich?

Marine Major Don Broton says “The kids were extremely friendly, the parents were extremely friendly. They are a hell of a lot more friendly than some of my neighbors in California are.” Naval Airman Clint Davis indicated what he thought was the most important thing of all, “You should ask how we feel about people in the Middle East. We love those people. They deserve to have free speech and to vote and to live freely without oppression and without fear. They deserve to be citizens of the country they were born in”. My friends and son who are in Iraq have also told me that it is easy to see that most of the Iraqis are glad we are there.

The writers stated that although those interviewed had a lot to say about how bad fighting is in Iraq, it is, however, “not bad in the ways the veterans see covered in the media”. “It was dangerous and confused, yes, but most of the vets also recalled enemies routed, buildings built and children befriended, against long odds in a poor and demoralized country. ‘We feel like we're doing something, and then we look at the news and you feel like you're getting bashed.’ ‘It seems to me the media had a predetermined script.’ The vibe of the coverage is just ‘so, so, so negative.’" Boy, was that guy right on, and I would add that the Democratic Party leadership is driving the liberal media to this approach.

This article was slanted to appeal to liberals and left-wingers, and puts the focus on the horrors of war. Many extreme liberals and antiwar people don’t respect those who serve in the military, secret service, police, etc., so it is not surprising the Washington Post would choose to highlight one quote by one soldier that would appeal to this group. I can tell you from my experience the statement “I don’t have any skills besides blowing up people” is in no way characteristic of our service men and women. The ex-military personnel I hired in my 30-plus-year career were outstanding employees, and in general out-performed those without military experience. Staff Sergeant John Thomas probably has more to offer a civilian employer than he realizes.

THE WASHINGTON POST STRIKES OUT AGAIN

2006-03-19T23:04:00.000-05:00

On Friday March 17, 2006 the Washington Post editorial page printed an article by David Ignatius, titled “Fighting Smarter In Iraq”. The negative spin in the first paragraph of this article really made me angry! According to Mr. Ignatius “Three years on, the U.S. military is finally becoming adept at fighting a counterinsurgency war in Iraq. Sadly, these are precisely the skills that should have been mastered before America launched its invasion in March 2003. It may prove one of the costliest lessons in the history of modern warfare.”

David Ignatius totally ignores what is required to build a new Iraqi army, including recruitment, manpower training, leadership training, equipping, and field-testing. We totally dismantled Saddam Hussein’s army; it takes time to rebuild a military force that has the trust of the Iraqi people. There were those who argued that we should not have disbanded the existing army, but kept much of it intact and used it as the core of the new one. The trouble with that approach was that: 1) neither we nor the Iraqi people were willing to trust the ex-leaders of Saddam Hussein’s army in leadership positions in the new army, and 2) almost as much time-consuming training would still have been required. And, once we started putting Iraqi’s new military in place, it took time to get enough of a force up and running for it to be recognized by the Iraqi people and thereby become effective. I believe the goal is eventually to train 225,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers. This is a major undertaking, and not one accomplished quickly.

Mr. Ignatius implies that the Multinational Force has only recently started to make progress. Untrue! The civilian death rate in Iraq since January 2003, just before the war started, has dropped from 70-125 per day under Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship to 25-28 per day. U.S. military casualties dropped 27 % between 2004 and 2005, and so far in 2006 our casualties are running 62% lower than in 2005. This is a tremendous improvement that the mainstream (read liberal) press does not make known to the public.

The rest of Mr. Ignatius’s article has positive things to say about the transfer of responsibility over to the Iraqi security forces, so why did he have to start with the negative comment about Operation Iraqi Freedom? There is only one answer, and that is the political agenda of the Washington Post. This is just another example of how the press in the United States likes to distort the truth and mislead the public. We are winning on the ground in Iraq, but the terrorists seem to be winning in the liberal press!

POPULATION SPRAWL VS FOOD PRODUCTION

2006-03-16T23:01:00.000-05:00

When my wife and I were first married 40 years ago, we used to take Sunday drives from our home in suburban Maryland up towards Frederick and then west to Middletown and Boonsboro. Middletown was then a very small town about 50 miles from Washington, DC. I used to think how beautiful the Middletown Valley was. It was basically all farmland, with green pastures, cattle and cornfields, few roads and few people.

Today Middletown is just another suburb of Washington, DC, full of houses and townhouses, roads, automobiles, and thousands more people. It has become a sad reminder to me that we have a developing problem in the United States associated with farmland and our food supply. The following is just an overview of the problem as I see it. Hopefully, the government will address this issue in much more detail.

Per the United States Census Bureau, in 2000 the population growth rate in the U.S. was 1.22 percent. The current forecast by the Census Bureau indicates the growth rate will drop to .46 percent by 2050, but this still means that the population of the United States in 2050 will be 390 million people, and the food they eat has to come from somewhere!

Our U.S. farms produce 99.3 percent of our food supply, and about 1.2 acres of farmland is needed for each person in order to have the diversity we enjoy today in our food. Taking the population and farmland data above, by 2050 we will only have .897 acres of farmland per person; as we will undoubtedly increase the amount of ethanol production to supplement the gasoline needed for automobiles and other vehicles, thereby committing more grain (and the land to raise it on) to non-food use, the ratio of farmland-to-food production is only going to get worse.

The Population-Environment Balance (Balance) Organization indicates that in 2000 the United States had 470 million acres of arable land. They stated that we lose about 1 million acres of farmland each year due to urbanization, the addition of new roads and highways, and industrial expansion. In addition, about 2 million acres of farmland are lost each year to erosion, salinization, and waterlogging. Put this all together, and by 2050 we will have lost 120 million acres of farmland in this century alone.

In my opinion, the government needs to address this issue as soon as possible. We must ensure there are programs in place to improve the yield of our farms, and to reduce the rate at which we are losing farmland to natural causes and urbanization. It is clear that the ‘urban sprawl’ which has been taking place is going to have to stop, or at least be limited to land that is unusable for farming. Perhaps we need to put heavy taxes on the sale of farmland for non-farming use, or just not allow the rezoning of farmland to other purposes.

In addition, the era of the super-size suburban home has to come to an end. The mentality of Bigger and Bigger, which too many people have subscribed to, and which has spawned the so-called "McMansions", needs to be replaced with a willingness to return to more modest types of housing. Our farmland is too valuable to be eaten up merely to satisfy the greed of those who feel that 6,000 square foot houses are a necessity.

Are there any plans in place, or a way of monitoring our progress? I see and hear very little on this subject.

HOW CAN WE TELL WHAT’S GOING ON IN IRAQ?

2006-03-13T21:20:00.000-05:00

We cannot rely on the mainstream press to provide unbiased reporting about the War on Terror or Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sunday’s Washington Post included an editorial titled “New Questions in Iraq” which attacked Marine General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all of our military leaders, saying that they are so obsessed with drawing down our forces in Iraq that they make “ludicrously positive” statements about our progress. This is unsurprising coming from a newspaper that does not like to report any of the positive facts about the war and, as I have pointed out many times, they distort the truth to make it look like we are losing the war. They support the “loser attitude” of the Democratic Party leadership.

Their editorial is, I assume, referring to the comments General Pace made on March 5th to the effect that the terrorists are desperate, and their attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra was aimed at trying to push Iraq into civil war. General Pace also indicated that Iraqi security forces and their leaders are staying calm. This does not mean there is no danger of civil war breaking out. It does mean that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people recognize what the terrorists are up to, and are working hard to try to ensure that the country does not slip into civil war. The Post is totally ignoring the fact that the security forces are very popular with the Iraqi people, and also that they understand what the insurgency is trying to do. If you would like to read exactly what General Pace said, it can be found at http://www.dod.mil/news/Mar2006/20060305_4394.html.

In November of 2005, Senator Joe Lieberman (D) from Connecticut stated “Our troops must stay”, and reported on the significant progress he had seen between visits after returning from his fourth trip to Iraq. This received virtually no coverage in the Washington Post and other liberal newspapers.

If one wants facts and not pre-judgments, we must go to news sources other than liberal newspapers like the Washington Post. I for one trust reports from sources such as the American Forces Information Service, Multinational Force Iraq, The Fox News Network, and CNSNews.com. The American Forces Information Service includes reports on individual operations such as “Iraqi Police Nab Insurgents; Soldiers Find Weapons”. If you look at the popular media reports on these operations and then compare them to the reports given by our military leaders, it is easy to see who is lying or distorting the truth. Check out the article by Randy Hall, a CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor, titled “Job Is Getting Done in Iraq, Despite US Press, Veterans Say”, which provides a view from our soldiers.

THE WAR ON TERRORISM – STATUS

2006-03-12T14:16:00.000-05:00

There are two events that occurred this past week that impact the War on Terrorism.

The first is the damage caused by the collapse of the Dubai Ports deal. I am not taking sides on this, but merely pointing out the impact on the War on Terrorism. This was a victory for the terrorists. An editorial in the Washington Post (Happy Now? – 3/10/06) points out that “Any government in a Muslim-majority country will have to ask itself: Why take the risk of friendship? If governments find no good answer to that question, the fight against radical Islamic terrorism will suffer.” The article is referring to friendship with the United States.

A second article in the editorial section the same day by David Ignatius (Burning Allies) also reinforces the impact of the ports deal and focuses on just how western the UAE really is. He points out how the U.S. does not live up to its rhetoric about free trade and partnerships with its allies. America talks a good story but doesn’t follow through with the Arabs. Mr. Ignatius talks about how the UAE has built a modern economy, and how their people feel they are America’s friends.

The Dubai Ports deal failure may also affect the investments in America by the Arab world at a time when our economy is dependent on foreign capital. Our government now has another issue to work through with the Arab world.

The second event is the securing of our nation’s borders. The passing of H.R. 4437 in the House of Representatives was a successful battle in the war on terrorism, but it still needs to make it through the Senate. This bill, as I pointed out in my March 10th posting, is a good start and needs to be made into law. Our government still needs to swiftly address the issue of the 12 million existing illegal immigrants in the United States. How we transition them into legal immigrants, and extend to them the guaranteed wage and employment rights must be a top priority. Reducing the number of illegal immigrants in our country will help the government identify or isolate potential terrorists. Let’s keep the ball rolling.

WE ARE WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ

2006-03-11T22:57:00.000-05:00

It was a real delight to find an article about our progress in Iraq that agrees with the information I get from my son, who is in Iraq for his second tour of duty, and from friends who are also currently serving there. The article is by Randy Hall, a CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor who covered a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington hosted by the conservative group America’s Majority, and is titled “Job Is Getting Done in Iraq, Despite US Press, Veterans Say”. I really would like everyone to read this article, so I will only mention a few excerpts from it.

Marine Corporal Richard Gibson identifies what he calls two “tipping points” that took place in 2005. The first was that the number of Iraqi security forces surpassed those of coalition troops, which means the Iraqis are taking over more of the operations against the insurgents. The second was the December 15th election, in which the Iraqis selected their first national legislature. This election has broken the previous tie between the two primary insurgent groups, the Baathists and Al Qaeda. As the new government’s security forces increase in number and take over more of the fighting, the Baathist remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime are withdrawing; the Iraqi security forces are very popular with the people, and unwillingness to attack their own is taking the Baathists out of the fight.

The article also points out that the civilian death rate in Iraq since January 2003 has dropped from 70-125 per day under Saddam Hussein, to 25-28 per day. U.S. military casualties dropped 27 % between 2004 and 2005, and this year casualties are running 62% lower than in 2005. This is a tremendous improvement that the mainstream (read liberal) press does not make known to the public, because it does not support their primary political position--bashing the Republican administration.

J. D. Johannes, military veteran and reporter, says for the terrorists to be able to win here they would need help from their great ally, the U.S news media. He points out a battle in Iraq that lasted 30 minutes, which the news media reported as a “major conflict”, saying the coalition suffered “high casualties”-- another example of how the press in the United States likes to distort the truth and mislead the public, as a direct quote from the article shows: “The general who was involved in the fighting later said that he and his forces had been victorious on the ground, but the terrorists ‘had won it on CNN’.”