A very good friend of mine and I were talking about liberals, and she said:
"If common sense were common, there wouldn't be any liberals."
So true, so true. Thank you Brooke.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Wishful Thinking
Blogger James McGovern talked about how bloggers could change the world if they focused on others instead of themselves:
“If every blogger reading my blog instead of choosing to exercise their right to remain silent instead decided to spend just five minutes talking about poverty to one or two other individuals, poverty would be eliminated.”
Uh-huh. Let's see now, talking about poverty to a sufficient number of people will eliminate it.
Hmmmm, must be some magical thing.....umm, still don't understand how that works.....
Let's try this:
Okay, is it working? Anybody notice fewer liberals around?
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Why We Are In Iraq, and Why We Must Remain There
The reasons for how we got there are irrelevant to anyone other than future historians. It's done; so live with it, live in the present and plan for the future.
There are four primary reasons why we are in Iraq, and why we need to remain there for years to come.
First, our forces provide a magnet for the killing fields we have set up - Jihadist aggression is aimed from all over the world at the US forces there; they are the lure. Now that we have been there for four and a half years, our troops know the lay of the land so that they have the battlefield advantage over jihadists, and therefore can more efficiently kill them.
Second, we provide a bulwark against Iranian and Jihadist hegemony in the region. Given Ahmadinejad's visions of both a new Persian Empire and the coming of the 12th Imam, if we withdraw from Iraq, Iran in concert with Syria and Shiite elements in Iraq, will extend a Jihadist hegemony from the border of Israel to Afghanistan. At that time, Mahmoud will make good his promise to wipe Israel off the map. That would not be difficult: once Iraq is compromised, it is a straight road for a million Iranian soldiers to travel on to the Israeli border. Seizing control of Mecca is his next step, and at that time, we will be in no position to protect Saudi Arabia. Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and the Moslem nations of the former USSR will capitulate and sign non-aggression pacts with Mahmoud out of self-preservation. All of this will follow if we abandon our keystone position in Iraq.
Third, Iraq provides us with a military base of operations. Maintaining a free and clear airspace over Iraq deters aggression by Syria and Iran against Israel and their pro-Western neighbors. We may be able to maintain a similar posture using WACS based in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Diego Garcia, planes on aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, and missiles on submarines, but a ground base in Iraq is much closer to the theater of operations, and more reliable.
Fourth, we present an alternative to people all over the Middle East, an alternative to Jihadism. Granted, some people who were formerly neutral are inspired by our presence to turn to Jihadism, but a similar number is inspired by our steadfastness there. Moslems do not respect cowards, those who flee the battlefield, and our withdrawal would be seen as surrender. All those who respect our troops there now will turn on a dime against us in the other countries where we maintain a small presence, and terrorist attacks will increase, not only against us, but against our Moslem allies (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Turkey, et al).
In short, mass chaos, the rise of a pan-Moslem Jihadist empire, and the destruction of Israel will ensue if we "get the troops out."
If there is anyone who does not see this happening upon our premature withdrawal, I would be pleased to hear his or her argument.
There are four primary reasons why we are in Iraq, and why we need to remain there for years to come.
First, our forces provide a magnet for the killing fields we have set up - Jihadist aggression is aimed from all over the world at the US forces there; they are the lure. Now that we have been there for four and a half years, our troops know the lay of the land so that they have the battlefield advantage over jihadists, and therefore can more efficiently kill them.
Second, we provide a bulwark against Iranian and Jihadist hegemony in the region. Given Ahmadinejad's visions of both a new Persian Empire and the coming of the 12th Imam, if we withdraw from Iraq, Iran in concert with Syria and Shiite elements in Iraq, will extend a Jihadist hegemony from the border of Israel to Afghanistan. At that time, Mahmoud will make good his promise to wipe Israel off the map. That would not be difficult: once Iraq is compromised, it is a straight road for a million Iranian soldiers to travel on to the Israeli border. Seizing control of Mecca is his next step, and at that time, we will be in no position to protect Saudi Arabia. Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and the Moslem nations of the former USSR will capitulate and sign non-aggression pacts with Mahmoud out of self-preservation. All of this will follow if we abandon our keystone position in Iraq.
Third, Iraq provides us with a military base of operations. Maintaining a free and clear airspace over Iraq deters aggression by Syria and Iran against Israel and their pro-Western neighbors. We may be able to maintain a similar posture using WACS based in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Diego Garcia, planes on aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, and missiles on submarines, but a ground base in Iraq is much closer to the theater of operations, and more reliable.
Fourth, we present an alternative to people all over the Middle East, an alternative to Jihadism. Granted, some people who were formerly neutral are inspired by our presence to turn to Jihadism, but a similar number is inspired by our steadfastness there. Moslems do not respect cowards, those who flee the battlefield, and our withdrawal would be seen as surrender. All those who respect our troops there now will turn on a dime against us in the other countries where we maintain a small presence, and terrorist attacks will increase, not only against us, but against our Moslem allies (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Turkey, et al).
In short, mass chaos, the rise of a pan-Moslem Jihadist empire, and the destruction of Israel will ensue if we "get the troops out."
If there is anyone who does not see this happening upon our premature withdrawal, I would be pleased to hear his or her argument.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Arguing About the War
Word of advice - never, ever engage in an argument with a liberal about the battle in Iraq; they have recognized that one cannot argue ends, only means to a common end, and have redefined it to appear that conservatives and liberals are only arguing about when and how to leave Iraq.
Conservatives don't want to leave Iraq any time soon; perhaps 20-30 years from now may suffice to deteriorate the ability of the Jihadists to a safe level. Iraq is a strategical keystone in the war, not the war itself. To both secure a killing field of Jihadists and maintain a base of operations in the Moslem world, we need to stay in Iraq for a very long time.
So when a liberal starts on about how long till we're out of Iraq, simply reply that it might take 30 years to kill all the Jihadists, and let it go at that.
Conservatives don't want to leave Iraq any time soon; perhaps 20-30 years from now may suffice to deteriorate the ability of the Jihadists to a safe level. Iraq is a strategical keystone in the war, not the war itself. To both secure a killing field of Jihadists and maintain a base of operations in the Moslem world, we need to stay in Iraq for a very long time.
So when a liberal starts on about how long till we're out of Iraq, simply reply that it might take 30 years to kill all the Jihadists, and let it go at that.
Simplicity of the US Constitution
Tomgee, a poster on Townhall.com says it best in reference to the Constitution:
One of the founding fathers' great achievements was that they wrote a brief instruction manual for self-government in plain English. You need to be literate but you don't need to go to law school to understand it. The founding fathers wanted to build a country where ordinary people could succeed; where you didn't have to be a powdered-wig cousin of a noble or hire a $400/hr expert every five minutes to interpret the rule book for you.
One of the founding fathers' great achievements was that they wrote a brief instruction manual for self-government in plain English. You need to be literate but you don't need to go to law school to understand it. The founding fathers wanted to build a country where ordinary people could succeed; where you didn't have to be a powdered-wig cousin of a noble or hire a $400/hr expert every five minutes to interpret the rule book for you.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Coincidental Adjoining Headlines?
Al-Qaida in Iraq takes heavy losses...
Frustrated Democrats mull strategy.
In an attempt to recoup heavy losses to US troops, UBL had a private teleconference meeting with Democratic leaders in Congress yesterday, asking for additional funds from discrete sources. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid referred him to Michael Moore and Yung Yuen "Norman" Hsu, prominent Democratic fundraisers.
In another display of being out of touch, Reid had to be reminded by Senator "Fridgidaire" Clinton that "Normie" was in jail.
Frustrated Democrats mull strategy.
In an attempt to recoup heavy losses to US troops, UBL had a private teleconference meeting with Democratic leaders in Congress yesterday, asking for additional funds from discrete sources. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid referred him to Michael Moore and Yung Yuen "Norman" Hsu, prominent Democratic fundraisers.
In another display of being out of touch, Reid had to be reminded by Senator "Fridgidaire" Clinton that "Normie" was in jail.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
SCOTUS and Roe v Wade
I have yet to hear anyone, in the government or elsewhere, propound an alternative solution to Roe v. Wade. While I am personally opposed to the killing of the unborn, my libertarian sensibilities require me to observe that the US Constitution is silent on the matter - a ruling no one in the SCOTUS ventured when it was originally debated.
The Constitution is a document that prescribes and proscribes what the Federal Government may or may not do, not a body of statutory law concerning individual conduct with a few exceptions. The creation and enforcement of criminal statutes are the province of individual States, while individual conduct that falls under the purview of the Federal Government in the course of its prescribed responsibilities remain the exceptions: treason, insurrection, counterfeiting, smuggling, illegal immigration. Those five criminal activities are offenses that concern the country as a whole, so naturally are Federal offenses. All others, in accordance with the forgotten 10th Amendment, are the province of the States: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The red herring put forth in Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy, is an improper interpretation; the right to privacy is meant to restrain the government from interfering in the non-criminal, private acts and possessions of individuals. If the Federal Goverment or a State government, by legislative action, determines that an action by an individual is a criminal act, the right to privacy concerning that action is void - it is no longer in the private sphere, but in the public sphere, as it has a deleterious effect upon other individuals. If an individual State determines that xyz is a criminal act, the SCOTUS may not disable that legislative action under the rubric of individual privacy, unless that criminalization is in conflict with the rights of individuals enumerated in the US Constitution.
For instance, if a State criminalizes the practice of a certain religion, the SCOTUS may step forth and strike down that law, as it interferes with the 1st Amendment. Or, if a State creates a law that individuals must open to inspection their private bank accounts to State investigators without a warrant, then the SCOTUS may strike that down as it is in conflict with the 4th Amendment, and the general right to privacy. However, if a State determines that an action taken by an individual upon another individual causes harm, and such criminalization does not interfere with an individual's rights, the SCOTUS should be silent upon that law.
Therefore, a proper reading of the US Constitution allows individual States to prohibit or allow abortion without comment by the SCOTUS - simply, it's none of their business.
The Constitution is a document that prescribes and proscribes what the Federal Government may or may not do, not a body of statutory law concerning individual conduct with a few exceptions. The creation and enforcement of criminal statutes are the province of individual States, while individual conduct that falls under the purview of the Federal Government in the course of its prescribed responsibilities remain the exceptions: treason, insurrection, counterfeiting, smuggling, illegal immigration. Those five criminal activities are offenses that concern the country as a whole, so naturally are Federal offenses. All others, in accordance with the forgotten 10th Amendment, are the province of the States: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The red herring put forth in Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy, is an improper interpretation; the right to privacy is meant to restrain the government from interfering in the non-criminal, private acts and possessions of individuals. If the Federal Goverment or a State government, by legislative action, determines that an action by an individual is a criminal act, the right to privacy concerning that action is void - it is no longer in the private sphere, but in the public sphere, as it has a deleterious effect upon other individuals. If an individual State determines that xyz is a criminal act, the SCOTUS may not disable that legislative action under the rubric of individual privacy, unless that criminalization is in conflict with the rights of individuals enumerated in the US Constitution.
For instance, if a State criminalizes the practice of a certain religion, the SCOTUS may step forth and strike down that law, as it interferes with the 1st Amendment. Or, if a State creates a law that individuals must open to inspection their private bank accounts to State investigators without a warrant, then the SCOTUS may strike that down as it is in conflict with the 4th Amendment, and the general right to privacy. However, if a State determines that an action taken by an individual upon another individual causes harm, and such criminalization does not interfere with an individual's rights, the SCOTUS should be silent upon that law.
Therefore, a proper reading of the US Constitution allows individual States to prohibit or allow abortion without comment by the SCOTUS - simply, it's none of their business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)