The will to live...(Bumped)

Off topic, but that's ok -it's my blog. If you're going through a rough time in your life as I am (see below), focusing on the future is perhaps the only way to make it through.

And Chevrolet made that a whole lot sweeter:

The 2009 Chevy Camaro

I had a '93 Z28 and I'm crazy for them. Can't wait.

Update: A lot of you were referred here looking for Camaro images, so here's a bunch more:I know it's still a concept car, so I don't think the engine compartment will look that clean. But if it does, your mechanic will hate you. I would.

How does one support the war, but only in protest?

The same way one is against the war, but does nothing.

California may ban lightbulbs

Unsurprisingly, the state of California has another bright idea of dictating the free market:

LOS ANGELES — A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

Statism Alert

Stop parenting and watch the government do it for you. Despite what teachers say about parenting not being part of the job, power up for grabs is power to the state:

PEQUANNOCK, N.J. (AP) - Teens who drink alcohol could be caught three days later under a high school's new testing policy for students.

The test, which will be given randomly to students at Pequannock Township High School, can detect whether alcohol was consumed up to 80 hours earlier.

I'm in agreement with the ACLU on this, but at least I'm consistent.

World Bank Trouble

The only reason I'm posting this story is because it's a prelude to what will happen when dramatic UN reforms are pursued.

Anyway, Paul Wolfowitz, the man you anti-war activists have most reason to dislike, is the current president of the World Bank. He's got a bold anti-corruption reform plan for the Bank, but it's come to a screeching halt.

From Fox News:

...it’s little wonder that dramatic change as proposed by Wolfowitz has led to vitriolic dialogue. Wolfowitz’s first major decision — a rejection of loans to corrupt Congo — was supported only by the U.S. and Japanese directors.

Personalities aside, the main problem is the World Bank’s history and structure. It is, after all, an open-handed lending agency where half the governing board is made up of directors who represent borrowers — a concept that would be unthinkable in a private-sector bank. “I can’t recall a borrowing country ever voting against a loan [to its own country], or criticizing it, or voting against a budget,” says one current top insider. “We have no support reining in the budget.”

Indeed, by most accounts, the borrower-directors mainly see their job as simply getting as much money for their countries as possible — supervising a global pork-producing machine, where everybody votes in favor of one another’s projects and nobody abstains from voting for their own.

"This reflects a genuine governance conundrum,” says Robert Holland, a Dallas attorney and former CEO of Triton Energy, who served as the U.S. director on the World Bank’s board from 2001 until last May. “On the one hand, borrowers have a legitimate interest in the development prescriptions handed down by the bank. On the other hand, no characteristic of the bank that I have mentioned to my friends in the private sector produces greater astonishment than the fact that half the board represents borrowers. Their typical response upon hearing that is, ‘My God, the inmates are running the asylum.’" [Emphasis mine]

Likewise for the UN.

Europe: We still want to trade with Hitler

Err... Ahamdinejad.

From the NYT:

European governments are resisting Bush administration demands that they curtail support for exports to Iran and that they block transactions and freeze assets of some Iranian companies, officials on both sides say. The resistance threatens to open a new rift between Europe and the United States over Iran.

Administration officials say a new American drive to reduce exports to Iran and cut off its financial transactions is intended to further isolate Iran commercially amid the first signs that global pressure has hurt Iran’s oil production and its economy. There are also reports of rising political dissent in Iran.

Even on the verge of subduing Iran, Europe hesitates. If there is such a thing as Old and New Europe, the worst of both appears most prominent.

Reagan's plan: Missile Defense

Allahpundit has the video.

Very cool. I think I'm hearing a "thank you" from Israel.

Al Franken to depart from Air America

Poor Al, the monumental rise to the top of radio was for naught.

From Fox News:

Air America Radio, a liberal talk radio network, said Monday that it had reached a tentative agreement to be sold to the founder of a New York area real estate company. The network also said that Al Franken, its longtime headline personality, would depart next month.

I'm sure there will be others who will try and follow Franken searching for that mysterious liberal listener niche. Hopefully, they'll employ more ethical means of acquiring income.

Getting serious in the 9th inning.

That's not how you play ball. But I guess it's how you fight wars.

From the WaPo:

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries.

Now just who were we trying to please fighting in Iraq with such heavy engagement restrictions? Those already against the war? Those already anti-American? Or those peace-loving Sunnis and Shias? At least we're getting serious while still in the game.

Coffee and a Doughnut...

Finally, the two can take the next step, show their true and undying love and commitment to each other, by becoming... one.

Doctor Robert Bohannon, a Durham, North Carolina, molecular scientist... says he's developed a way to add caffeine to baked goods, without the bitter taste of caffeine. Each piece of pastry is the equivalent of about two cups of coffee.

I can sleep easy knowing our top minds are out there bringing such significant advancements to civilization.

Iran begging for war...

But don't worry leftists, whoever does strike Iran, it'll be America's fault.

From the AP:

Iran expects to start installing thousands of centrifuges in an underground facility next month, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Friday. The installation would pave the way to large-scale uranium enrichment, a potential way of making nuclear weapons.

On the sidelines of the World Economic Forum, Mohamed ElBaradei said: "I understand that they are going to announce that they are going to build up their 3,000 centrifuge facility ... sometime next month."

Maybe it is our fault, in an abstract way... for letting Iran be Iran, since 1979. And letting the UN be what it is today: a purely symbolic organization.

Does risk outweigh freedom?

Freedom is not freedom from risk:

A Roman Catholic elementary school adopted new lunchroom rules this week requiring students to remain silent while eating. The move comes after three recent choking incidents in the cafeteria.

Why do we insist on raising children in risk-free environments, when we know they'll face it later in life? Absolute absurdity.

From Russia, with no love.

Ed Morrissey has hit this nail on its head:

Russia has not covered itself in glory in recent months, even apart from the increasingly autocratic domestic policies of the Vladimir Putin administration. One of its former agents wound up dead through poisoning by polonium after he started criticizing Putin. Now a sample of HEU winds up on the black market, and Russia won't cooperate.

[...]

We used to excuse the exceptions to good relations from Russia and Putin. It's difficult to see anything else these days.

Why we keep acting like they're our friends is beyond me. I sometimes think this facade of "good relations" is just to keep Russia quiet and out of our way.

Countering Bush's Positive Speech

Not much time, but I must say that after Bush gave his SOTU, the public response was better than expected.

The press seeks to counter that. Look at the stories, and headlines:

Carl Bernstein: Bush Administraton Has Done 'Far Greater Damage' Than Nixon at E&P
Senate panel opposes Iraq troop increase at WaPo
Bush can no longer dictate his terms at the Financial Times
At Trial, Hints of Intrigue and Betrayal at the NY Times under a photo of Bush and Rove
Surpluses could be just promises at USA Today

Maybe I'm looking too much into it, maybe not.

Military Heat Beam

Not as cool as laser beams, but something I could see the troops using often:

The U.S. Defense Department on Wednesday unveiled what it called a revolutionary heat-beaming weapon that could be used to control mobs or repel foes in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The so-called Active Denial System causes an intense burning sensation causing people to run for cover, but no lasting harm, officials said.

"This is a breakthrough technology that's going to give our forces a capability they don't now have," Theodore Barna, an assistant deputy undersecretary of defense for advanced systems and concepts, told Reuters. "We expect the services to add it to their tool kit. And that could happen as early as 2010."

This isn't actually a heat beam, but much more awesome. The Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser, which is soon to be operational in Israel -for those Hezbollah rockets. I imagine the U.S. has something similar.

Dumbest move in 21st century

If it goes through, Iran and North Korea have signed their death warrants:

North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.

Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran's nuclear scientists.

Don't think we have the guts to do anything about it? If you're right it wouldn't matter, Israel would. Britain has good reason too.

Ahmadinejad makes headlines yet again.

"...the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives."

Would that be before or after you're thrown from office because of Iran's economic collapse?

He also had a few words for his Islamist friends:

The Iranian president also directly tied events in Lebanon to a wider plan aimed at Israel's destruction. He called on "regional countries" to "support the Islamic resistance of the Lebanese people and strive to enhance solidarity and unity among the different Palestinian groups in a bid to pave the ground for the undermining of the Zionist regime whose demise is, of course, imminent."


Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilation several times in recent months, and has recently added the US and Britain to the list of countries he says will be destroyed.

President Bush and the 2007 State of the Union

I was impressed actually, at least as far as Bush and his speeches go. As for the meat of it, I was somewhat less impressed. Some good ideas and some bad ones. Overall it was good. I won't comment on it any more than that because a lot of others share similar views.

If you missed it, the full text is below.


THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. And tonight, I have a high privilege and distinct honor of my own -- as the first President to begin the State of the Union message with these words: Madam Speaker. (Applause.)

In his day, the late Congressman Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr. from Baltimore, Maryland, saw Presidents Roosevelt and Truman at this rostrum. But nothing could compare with the sight of his only daughter, Nancy, presiding tonight as Speaker of the House of Representatives. (Applause.) Congratulations, Madam Speaker. (Applause.)

Two members of the House and Senate are not with us tonight, and we pray for the recovery and speedy return of Senator Tim Johnson and Congressman Charlie Norwood. (Applause.)

Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

The rite of custom brings us together at a defining hour -- when decisions are hard and courage is needed. We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway, and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies -- and the wisdom to face them together.

Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate -- and I congratulate the Democrat majority. (Applause.) Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities. Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we're all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; to guard America against all evil; and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us. (Applause.)

We're not the first to come here with a government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on -- as long as we're willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done. (Applause.) Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and to help them to build a future of hope and opportunity -- and this is the business before us tonight.

A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy -- and that is what we have. We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move, and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government, but with more enterprise. (Applause.)

Next week, I'll deliver a full report on the state of our economy. Tonight, I want to discuss three economic reforms that deserve to be priorities for this Congress.

First, we must balance the federal budget. (Applause.) We can do so without raising taxes. (Applause.) What we need is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. (Applause.) Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. (Applause.) I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and we can balance the federal budget. (Applause.)

Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching. (Laughter.) In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process, expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress, and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session. (Applause.)

And, finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience, and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet, we're failing in that duty. And this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this chamber knows this to be true -- yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and goodwill, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid -- and save Social Security. (Applause.)

Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools that give children the knowledge and character they need in life. Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, preserving local control, raising standards, and holding those schools accountable for results. And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap.

Now the task is to build on the success, without watering down standards, without taking control from local communities, and without backsliding and calling it reform. We can lift student achievement even higher by giving local leaders flexibility to turn around failing schools, and by giving families with children stuck in failing schools the right to choose someplace better. (Applause.) We must increase funds for students who struggle -- and make sure these children get the special help they need. (Applause.) And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future and our country is more competitive by strengthening math and science skills. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children -- and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law. (Applause.)

A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care. (Applause.) When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. And we will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. (Applause.) But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy.

And so tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll tax -- or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills. At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans. (Applause.)

My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing federal funds and use them to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would give our nation's governors more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need.

There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts. (Applause.) We need to help small businesses through Association Health Plans. (Applause.) We need to reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology. (Applause.) We will encourage price transparency. And to protect good doctors from junk lawsuits, we passing medical liability reform. (Applause.) In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors. (Applause.)

Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America -- with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we're doubling the size of the Border Patrol, and funding new infrastructure and technology.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in, and that will leave Border Agents free to chase down drug smugglers and criminals and terrorists. (Applause.) We'll enforce our immigration laws at the work site and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers, so there's no excuse left for violating the law. (Applause.)

We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. (Applause.) We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty. (Applause.) Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law. (Applause.)

Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.

It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power. (Applause.) We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. (Applause.) We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- (applause) -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

We made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies here in Washington and the strong response of the market. And now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years. (Applause.) When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the current target. (Applause.) At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but it's not going to eliminate it. And so as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. (Applause.) And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. (Applause.)

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change. (Applause.)

A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of our citizens across our nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. We have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty, as well, to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. (Applause.)

For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that the terrorists can cause. We've had time to take stock of our situation. We've added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us -- unless we stop them.

With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled: that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented, but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them. (Applause.)

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that's the case, America is still a nation at war.

In the mind of the terrorist, this war began well before September the 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people. (Applause.)

This war is more than a clash of arms -- it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come and kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom

-- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they're given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates and reformers and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security, we must. (Applause.)

In the last two years, we've seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East -- and we have been sobered by the enemy's fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution, they drove out the Syrian occupiers and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections, choosing a transitional government, adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world, and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity that we should never forget. (Applause.)

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia -- and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in. Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory. (Applause.)

We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. (Applause.) We didn't drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now it's time for their government to act. Iraq's leaders know that our commitment is not open-ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad -- and they must do so. They pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party -- and they need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad. Iraq's leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks -- to achieve reconciliation, to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens, to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq, to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life, to hold local elections, and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secure. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance for success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq, because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is the greatest ally -- their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September the 11th and invite tragedy. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East, to succeed in Iraq and to spare the American people from this danger. (Applause.)

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you've made. We went into this largely united, in our assumptions and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field, and those on their way. (Applause.)

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. And that's why it's important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. It's why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. We'll show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.

And one of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. (Applause.) Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. (Applause.) A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle because we're not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations. We're working with Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the Gulf States to increase support for Iraq's government.

The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. (Applause.) With the other members of the Quartet -- the U.N., the European Union, and Russia -- we're pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. (Applause.) In Afghanistan, NATO has taken the lead in turning back the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive -- the first time the Alliance has deployed forces outside the North Atlantic area. Together with our partners in China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, we're pursuing intensive diplomacy to achieve a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. (Applause.)

We will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma -- and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur. (Applause.)

American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger and poverty and disease -- and that is precisely what America is doing. We must continue to fight HIV/AIDS, especially on the continent of Africa. (Applause.) Because you funded our Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the number of people receiving life-saving drugs has grown from 50,000 to more than 800,000 in three short years. I ask you to continue funding our efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. I ask you to provide $1.2 billion over five years so we can combat malaria in 15 African countries. (Applause.)

I ask that you fund the Millennium Challenge Account, so that American aid reaches the people who need it, in nations where democracy is on the rise and corruption is in retreat. And let us continue to support the expanded trade and debt relief that are the best hope for lifting lives and eliminating poverty. (Applause.)

When America serves others in this way, we show the strength and generosity of our country. These deeds reflect the character of our people. The greatest strength we have is the heroic kindness, courage, and self-sacrifice of the American people. You see this spirit often if you know where to look -- and tonight we need only look above to the gallery.

Dikembe Mutombo grew up in Africa, amid great poverty and disease. He came to Georgetown University on a scholarship to study medicine -- but Coach John Thompson got a look at Dikembe and had a different idea. (Laughter.) Dikembe became a star in the NBA, and a citizen of the United States. But he never forgot the land of his birth, or the duty to share his blessings with others. He built a brand new hospital in his old hometown. A friend has said of this good-hearted man: "Mutombo believes that God has given him this opportunity to do great things." And we are proud to call this son of the Congo a citizen of the United States of America. (Applause.)

After her daughter was born, Julie Aigner-Clark searched for ways to share her love of music and art with her child. So she borrowed some equipment, and began filming children's videos in her basement. The Baby Einstein Company was born, and in just five years her business grew to more than $20 million in sales. In November 2001, Julie sold Baby Einstein to the Walt Disney Company, and with her help Baby Einstein has grown into a $200 million business. Julie represents the great enterprising spirit of America. And she is using her success to help others -- producing child safety videos with John Walsh of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Julie says of her new project: "I believe it's the most important thing that I have ever done. I believe that children have the right to live in a world that is safe." And so tonight, we are pleased to welcome this talented business entrepreneur and generous social entrepreneur -- Julie Aigner-Clark. (Applause.)

Three weeks ago, Wesley Autrey was waiting at a Harlem subway station with his two little girls, when he saw a man fall into the path of a train. With seconds to act, Wesley jumped onto the tracks, pulled the man into the space between the rails, and held him as the train passed right above their heads. He insists he's not a hero. He says: "We got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms. We have got to show each other some love." There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey. (Applause.)

Tommy Rieman was a teenager pumping gas in Independence, Kentucky, when he enlisted in the United States Army. In December 2003, he was on a reconnaissance mission in Iraq when his team came under heavy enemy fire. From his Humvee, Sergeant Rieman returned fire; he used his body as a shield to protect his gunner. He was shot in the chest and arm, and received shrapnel wounds to his legs -- yet he refused medical attention, and stayed in the fight. He helped to repel a second attack, firing grenades at the enemy's position. For his exceptional courage, Sergeant Rieman was awarded the Silver Star. And like so many other Americans who have volunteered to defend us, he has earned the respect and the gratitude of our entire country. (Applause.)

In such courage and compassion, ladies and gentlemen, we see the spirit and character of America -- and these qualities are not in short supply. This is a decent and honorable country -- and resilient, too. We've been through a lot together. We've met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence -- because the State of our Union is strong, our cause in the world is right, and tonight that cause goes on. God bless. (Applause.)

See you next year. Thank you for your prayers.

State of the Union...

I'm pretty busy today, which isn't all bad because the news is largely revolving around Bush's speech which hasn't happened just yet.

But here's whats expected:

Importance of supporting the war in Iraq,
reduce our dependence on oil,
some health care plan,
commitment to a budget surplus,
and maybe a mention of social security, education and illegal immigration.

Iran tests missiles

An act of defiance, a show of strength:

Iran conducted missile tests Monday as its leadership stepped up warnings of a possible military confrontation with the U.S.

Meanwhile, Iran plans to ration citizens, in another show of strength:

The Iranian government has decided to ration gasoline in OPEC's second biggest producer in the Iranian year that starts in March 2007, state-owned Iran newspaper reported Wednesday.

And Russia, being the good neighbor:

The Russians have fulfilled their commitment to provide Iran with advanced anti-aircraft missile systems that will help shield the country's nuclear program from Israeli and or American air strikes.

America's Low Ratings

Ugh. What do you bet this will make the front page of several newspapers:

The World Service survey, conducted in 25 nations including the US, found that three in four respondents disapproved of how Washington has dealt with Iraq.

The majority of the 26,381 respondents also disapproved of the way five other foreign policy areas have been handled.

Now that it is officially popular to be anti-American, I'll no longer be pro-American... since I'm rebellious by nature, I'll be anti-anti-American.

The number of those who said the US was a positive influence in the world fell in 18 nations polled in previous years.

In those countries, 29% of people said the US had a positive influence, down from 36% last year and 40% two years ago.

If we're not the good influence we were, perhaps we should stop funding these 'benevolent' international organizations. Let them pony up a bit more. Come on Europe, lead by example, show us how to do it right. We'll just watch.

Bush's Low Ratings

It's Drudge's main link, as if it's near earth-shattering.

But here's an excerpt from Bloomberg News:

Seventy-one percent of Americans said the country is on the wrong track, up from 46 percent in an April 2003 poll, the month after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. A majority of those polled this month don't approve of how Bush is handling the Iraq war, terrorism or the economy.

Bush, who addresses the nation before a joint session of Congress tomorrow, will face many members of his own party who blame him for Republicans' losing majority control of the House and Senate in the November 2006 midterm elections.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush's State of the Union speech will focus on issues including the Iraq war, energy independence, health-care, immigration and education.

His approval numbers aren't going to get much better if he talks about his "guest worker program," or how some tax modifications are going to provide affordable healthcare, or how we are winning Iraq, like we have been for the last three years.

Bush is going to have to come off really strong, really hardcore-conservative, really goddamned stubborn, really goddamned tough. Why? If he wants any say in what gets done in Washington, he's going to need political capital, and frankly, he gets the exact opposite when he tries to be the uniting moderate figure.

Bush must step up the rhetoric for the base, so he can work with the Democrats behind the scenes. But don't bet on that happening.

Some choices are wrong.

I've had it with the abortion debate. Had. It.

^{(warning: link contains graphic content)}
You can't tell me with a straight face these aren't weren't people.

Take the poll

I've got a poll on the sidebar under my links in an effort to get a glimpse of what matters to people today, or at least the faithful readers.

So have at it, it only takes a second.

40 reasons to ban guns...

I'm sure this has been around the net since Al Gore created it, but it's always refreshing.

My favorite: The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

Another good one: Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

Democrat Party of Big Business

Not quite, but increasingly, yes:

In part, the business community's early influence reflects its status as a constituency Democrats can't afford to ignore. As party candidates prepare for the 2008 election, in which they hope to hold and extend their congressional majorities and also take over the White House, they will need substantial business support in the form of campaign contributions.

Other than that paragraph the newsworthy story is in between the lines. In typical fashion, the LA Times goes on to say how the Democrats are "open" to discussion, in stark contrast to the Republicans.

Interest groups supporting the Democrats have in recent decades largely consisted of environmentalists, unions, trial lawyers, and minority-rights groups. They've just added one more to the fundraising pile: business. Clever.

Letter urges BATFE to prosecute Bloomberg

More than two dozen national and regional groups of American citizens over the weekend called for a federal investigation of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

In a letter to Michael J. Sullivan, acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the 26 organizations, through the auspices of the Liberty Coalition in Washington, D.C., called upon BATFE “to immediately investigate and prosecute New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg...

John Snyder at Human Events has a nice article on Bloomberg's disregard for the law, read the rest of it.

I'm not too knowledgeable about BATFE, but why does this strike me as futile? If it didn't seem that Bloomberg and BATFE are after the same thing, I might think otherwise.

News Flash: Cold War Over

Apparently the Soviet Union Russia didn't get the memo.

A top Russian general warned that a missile defense system that the United States wants to deploy in eastern Europe would pose a "clear threat" to his country.

At least as far as I know, we face no real threat from the former Soviet Union, rather from obnoxious states like Iran and North Korea. Should Iran get a nuke before we can stop them, Europe sits relatively defenseless. But I think this missile defense is really more about China and Pakistan than Russia, Iran, or North Korea. The latter three are facing collapse. Pakistan is already nuclear and could easily be overrun by extremists, and we all know about China's belligerence and Taiwan ambitions.

The Russians are just being geopolitically savvy:

Czech and Polish leaders rejected Russia's fears as groundless.

Czech Defence Minister Vlasta Parkanova retorted that "the Russian Federation is perfectly aware that it is not threatened by this system."

She said the statements coming out of Moscow smacked of "political propaganda."

"I consider the Russians' fears to be absurd," Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said.

The prime minister on Saturday announced that Washington had asked to start talks on locating part of the system, a radar station, on Czech soil.

Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski confirmed that his government had been approached by Washington for talks and also dismissed Moscow's claims that the defence system targeted Russia.

"The Russians have known for years what projects the Americans have in the making. They were even invited to be part of this system," he said.

Russia doesn't fear the U.S., they just don't like us. They are however, allied with Iran and China who is allied with North Korea and Pakistan. Russia has been and will continue to make every attempt to limit American power in Europe and the Middle East.

Iran blocks nuclear inspectors

I just can't believe Saddam, er Ahmadinejad would do such a thing. Unprecedented!

In this AP story, Iran reportedly blocked 38 UN nuclear inspectors from entering the country probably in response to the recent sanctions imposed against the regime.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said some inspectors were admitted, but maintained that Iran could decide who should be turned away.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency submits a long list of inspectors to member countries and the countries have the right to oppose the visit by some inspectors," Mottaki told the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

The head of the parliamentary committee of national security and foreign policy, Alaeddin Borojerdi, had been quoted by a students' news agency as saying Iran had barred 38 inspectors.

Last month, the U.N. Security Council imposed limited trade sanctions on Iran because of its refusal to cease uranium enrichment...

Iran is increasingly unpopular, despite its anti-Americanism. Consequently, or more accurately, because of Ahmadinejad, Iranian public opinion of their regime reflects this as well. And surprise surprise, public opinion provides opportunity a plenty:

In comments published Monday, Iran's most senior dissident cleric, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, joined the criticism. He said Iranians have the right to nuclear power, but questioned Ahmadinejad's dealings with the international community in obtaining it.

"One has to deal with the enemy with wisdom, not provoke it," he said, according to a copy of his comments made available to The Associated Press. "This (provocation) only creates problems for the country," he told a group of reformists and opponents of Ahmadinejad on Friday in the holy city of Qom, 80 miles south of the capital Tehran.

Montazeri, 85, is one of a few grand ayatollahs, the most senior theologians of the Shiite Muslim faith. He had been the designated successor of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the 1979 Islamic revolution...

As much as the world and the U.S. want Ahmadinejad out, let's just hope the CIA doesn't give any aid to this bandwagon commandeering Ayatollah.

Hillary or Obama in '08?

It could be neither. We all know it is way too early to predict with any accuracy the Democratic ticket. That goes double for the Republicans.

But when it comes to Hillary vs. Obama, I think Hillary has got the edge, and here's why.

Second Amendment Carnival VIII

Welcome to the eighth edition of the Second Amendment Carnival

Providing the best 2nd Amendment coverage the blogosphere has to offer.

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." -Senator H. H. Humphrey, 1960

***

Today, thankfully we have people with A Keyboard and a .45, to tell the horrible truth about assault weapons (beware poodles!) or to take on the ever-so constitutionally-inept mainstream media journalists.

Constitutional Rights, and how to earn them! The War on Guns delivers.

Firearms aren't the only way to defend one's life and liberty, Ronocracy fingers out a good story.

Alphecca on Ray Nagin's refusal to return firearms, and Barack Obama might be a control freak, in a gun sorta way.

Statistically speaking, you're asking the wrong question, but Front Sight Press has answers. FSP also on one brave Hollis Wayne Fincher.

South Dakota is number one in Concealed Carry permits, and TFS Magnum notices something about its crime rate.

I'll just quote this one from The Phoenix's Fire:

You see, in the real world, "bad guys" get guns through non-legal channels all the time. They aren't law abiding people with everyone's best interest at heart... that's why we call them "bad guys". And, in the real world, the "good guys" on the planes on 9/11 didn't have any weapons. I wonder if Mr. Afeef remembers how that turned out.

The Militia, National Guard and Federal control; what it really means to be Armed and Safe.

Rolling back government intrusion, a new site for a background check idea.

Will the penalty for the few in D.C. who own guns that aren't locked up tighter than Fort Knox be the same as this idiot's? -How does the FBI Say Uncle? And what about socioeconomic discrimination?

A Geek with a .45 informs us of what guns are for.

Examples of perfect sense at Pro-Gun Progressive, and another in Maryland.

Countertop Chronicles shares a fine example of government doing what it does best.

To Ride Fast and Shoot Straight may prove difficult in San Francisco, where guns have more to fear than criminals, apparently.

And more on Wayne Fincher, and perhaps you'd like to show your support.

***

"[W]e should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?" -Patrick Henry, 1788

Many thanks to all those who participated in this edition, and stay tuned for Carnival IX. If you would like to participate in the next 2nd Amendment Carnival please go here, or submit via email to freeconstitution-at-gmail.com

Duty and Honor

Attention selfish anti-interventionists. The man who wrote the following died for freedom. What is even more honorable, is that he died for the freedom of others.

Why I Joined:

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.

So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

May he rest in peace. Via Michelle Malkin

California: Parenting the Parents

More statist government intrusion, but it's "for the children:"

SACRAMENTO - The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best -- but Lieber begs to differ.

"I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,'' Lieber said. "Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?''

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting "any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

I remember getting spanked, and it was the first and last time I got in serious trouble with my parents. And I am grateful for it. California has hit a new low, punishing parents for parenting, dictating to parents what they can and cannot do.

Engaging Iran

There's a lot of talk about warring with Iran, especially in the Beltway, but don't be fooled.

For example, have a look at this AP story about Democrats sending Bush a message, warning him against taking on Iran:

Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers.

"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.

But as much as Iran has provoked the U.S., be it trotting around the globe inciting anti-Americanism, funding terrorists, developing nukes, and meddling with Iraq, president Bush is not stupid.

If we learned anything from Iraq, it is that war with another nation will require a majority of public opinion, with clear justification. This clear justification must be known to the public, as to ensure lengthy support for the war, just what we don't have regarding Iraq. The president's critics are simply playing politics:

The Bush administration, and several members of Congress, say they oppose talks with Iran and Syria because of their terrorist connections. Bringing the two countries into regional talks aimed at reducing violence in Iraq was one of the study group's recommendations.

"Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Hamilton asked.

The 2008 elections are around the corner, war with Iran is unlikely before then. So what do you think the Democrats are going to say about Republicans and Iran. They will make Iran an issue, cast the Republicans as stubborn hawks itching for war, while they are left as the alternative to a bunch of warmongers.

Considering our experience in Iraq, who do you think Americans would vote for?

Chinese Star Wars

Well, it is the 21st century:

Britain has joined the US, Japan and Australia's condemnation of China after the communist country destroyed a satellite in space using a ballistic missile.

What gets me is the naivety of these enlightened statesmen, thinking they can prevent the world from developing outer space capable defense systems. Just like the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty or the Treaty of Versailles, you can't prevent sovereign nations from advancing their defensive and consequently offensive military capabilities.

“We are concerned about it firstly from the point of view of peaceful use of space, and secondly from the safety perspective,” Mr Shiozaki said.

Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the American National Security Council, said the US “believes China’s development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of co-operation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area”.

Alexander Downer, Australia's foreign minister, said his country did not want to see “some sort of spread, if you like, of an arms race into outer space”.

Taro Aso, the Japanese foreign minister, said the Chinese had sought to reassure Japan its intentions in space were of no threat to anyone.

“China consistently uses space only for peaceful purposes,” Mr Aso quoted the Chinese foreign ministry as saying.

The comments fit with the ruling Communist Party’s mantra in recent years that the nation’s rise as a world superpower should not be feared.

China joined the exclusive club of top space nations in 2003 when it sent up its first manned mission, joining the United States and Russia.

There has always been and always will be arms races.

One more example...

...when America leads the way in world politics. The sanctions against Iran are one of the U.S.-led efforts to bring a stop to an increasingly dangerous rogue regime.

An Iranian woman carries her shopping in a supermarket in northern Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, Jan. 17, 2007. Prices for vegetables have tripled in the past month, housing prices have doubled since last summer _ and as costs have gone up, so has Iranians' discontent with hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his focus on confrontation with the West. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

Via Gateway Pundit

2nd Amendment Carnival Saturday

Just a heads up. I've got quite a few submissions in already, but have room for more if you'd like to participate.

If you are going to, you can submit here or email the permalink to freeconstitution-at-gmail.com by Friday night.

Economy may head for collapse

Just as the economies of Japan, France, Germany, Italy and Russia are rapidly being jeopardized by a shrinking working population and aging seniors dependent on government programs, so to is America's economy. But we have more time to do something about it, which is still not much.

The Federal Reserve Chairman warned us again of the danger, remember the doom and gloom of the impending social security crisis, well that is still there, and it's just the tip of the iceberg:

"Unfortunately, economic growth alone is unlikely to solve the nation's impending fiscal problems," Bernanke told the Senate Budget Committee.

Bernanke acknowledged that official projections suggest the U.S. budget deficit could stabilize or shrink in the next few years, but cautioned: "We are experiencing what seems likely to be the calm before the storm."

Left unchecked, the costs of so-called entitlement programs, such as
Social Security and Medicare, are set to soar as increasing numbers of the baby boom generation retire.

"Dealing with the resulting fiscal strains will pose difficult choices for the Congress, the administration, and the American people," Bernanke said.

"However, if early and meaningful action is not taken, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost," he added.

The chairman essentially argued that raising taxes and/or cuts in spending may help. But the core of the issue is demographics. Remember those pyramid charts in school showing the population percentage by age groups, with the young being the wide foundation and the old the small peak on top. Well, today the foundation is shrinking, and that top is getting larger and consequently heavier.

Our problem is that Americans increasingly are having less kids, which is only offset by immigration, much of which is illegal. We need to encourage families to be families -have kids, and fix the immigration problem so it fits our needs, rather than gambling with open and uncontrolled borders.

Think about it.

To my friends of freedom:

So you don't want America playing the world police anymore.
You are sick of us contributing more than our share to ungrateful and undeserving nations, a lot of which turn to criticize us, as they oppress their own.
You're sick of America trying to save the world, especially when it looks like Iraq, or worse.
You're tired of tyrants standing high behind that UN General Assembly pulpit just to spit upon the soil they stand.

And so you want America to stop.

I share your frustration, but don't throw away the power and influence America has abroad in anger.

You love liberty as I do, but just as it is with man, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed" is for good nations "to do nothing."

Don't stop thinking about your liberty, just start thinking about the world's.

Must read

A very informative report on Iraq from Bryan at Hot Air. Bryan, along with Michelle Malkin have a lot to say, and I guarantee you will find some things you haven't been told.

Iraq strategy

Here's one way of looking at it...

Why third parties will never be taken seriously...

I am not going to argue the merits of the American two-party system, but with that being said the American system has been in place for over two centuries, giving plenty of time for any sincere third party to gain a foothold. So why have so many third parties achieved so little?

But that's the wrong question to ask, third parties in the past have achieved a lot, not only by (intentionally or not) splitting the votes of one party thus improving the odds of another, but by adding to the national debate, addressing important issues that other parties won't touch, transforming the major parties, and occasionally they lead to the creation of a new dominant party.

But that was in the past. Today we have Republicans itching to tax, ready to "control" guns, eager to put the environment before prosperity, and willing to increase the size of government. We've also got quite a few Democrats that won't touch our guns, reluctant to raise taxes, ardently pro-life, and willing to limit government.

The point is that today's major parties are all over the map. If you're in a moderate state and you're a Democrat wanting to go to Congress, but the incumbent is also a Democrat, your best chance is to run as a Republican. People win like that. This doesn't bode well for a third party when every position has been taken by Republicans and Democrats.

The dominant parties are collapsing, not in a practical sense, but ideologically. Party affiliation is increasingly determined or at least willingly facilitated by location and expediency, not personal values or beliefs. Thank God there are still a few differences, otherwise we'd be calling them "party A" and "party B."

So what does this have to do with third parties not being taken seriously?

I'll start with this question: Can you name any third parties in American politics that aren't around today? If you named more than one or two consider yourself above average. There have been around 80, which is another sad fact by itself, that so many have disappeared with so little memory.

Another simple answer is that third parties are just that: third. If second place is the first loser what the hell is third? Some obscure fringe group not even worth mentioning? All too often these parties are only worth mentioning merely because they caused the otherwise unlikely electoral loss of a dominant party.

Third parties are traditionally the obscure, the fringe, or so damned principled that they leave the dominant party because of a disagreement over something like the gold standard, but many have formed in protest of both major parties.

Not only are third parties obscure, fringe and third, they are mainstream, moderate and consequently, 4th, 5th, 6th... 20th. It's all about ideology, the more radical you are, yeah you might identify more closely with the Communist party, but not too many others would vote for the Communist party. The more mainstream you are, the more you relate to the main parties, which is why not too many others would vote for your Libertarian party.

That's the problem with third parties, they too are all over the map, except they lack the luxury of simultaneously being united. The only strength the third parties have is disgruntlement with major parties, since every issue is already owned by them.

One could argue why third parties do so poorly is because of the major two, which is a valid argument. But let's not shift all the blame. Some third parties have done well, even nationally.

I mean, I could easily see myself voting for a Constitution party member or a Libertarian party member. I agree with a lot of what they advocate, except I won't vote for them. Foreign policy is very important to me. Those two parties are so damn isolationist it is like asking us to go backwards and ignore the threats abroad until we wake up on 9/11 again, or would 12/7 be a better example? At least the neocons and the realist Democrats are willing to do something abroad to protect our interests, including security interests.

But that's just me. I would find it hard to believe Americans care as much as I do about America's role in the world. It's not the issues that has got the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party down, it's that they're populist in their message. I mean do you honestly think a majority of Americans are in favor of readily available abortions? I seriously doubt it, but that is the party that won, the Nancy Pelosi party. Or what about George Bush's stand on stem cell research, most Americans disagree with him. But we sure re-elected him. The big two aren't populist parties, and when it comes to spread their message they rally the base, not everybody who is listening.

The third parties of today won't be taken seriously most importantly because they're principled populists, oxymoronic if you ask me, but they pull it off nicely, so nicely they don't win much. I mean look at the Iraq war.

Pretend it's 2003. Everybody knows Saddam has WMDs or at least highly suspects it. France, Russia, & China screwed us at the UN, but Saddam remained. Whatever your party, you have to have a foreign policy of some kind, and a nuclear Saddam would really mess things up for our badly needed oil, or for downtown Manhattan with a briefcase and a lunatic. You may not have taken the steps Bush has, but you would have done something about Saddam. France, Russia and China sure the hell weren't going to. Yet every third party I can think of is most assuredly against the war in Iraq, it's on their front pages plain sight. It's as if they had known all along Saddam didn't have WMDs. But that don't matter, it's popular to be against the war, anybody can muster up any ol' principled stand to be against the war, and that's what they all did.

Being populist attracts few, especially for the long term. Win the hearts and minds of principled people, and you have a solid base, a base that can grow.

The third parties don't have the luxuries of the major parties, and that's why they don't have the luxury of being populist. But they sure give it hell. They'll take any stand for votes, accept any politician with clout, spread any message for publicity, and continue down the easy counterintuitive path of perpetual insignificance.

While we get screwed by the Republicans and Democrats, the third parties have got to learn to get their collective head out of their collective ass.

French Politics

I am really uninterested in French politics, but the reason I find the French presidential race to merit a mention, is because the candidates don't seem to be facing reality. France may have begun to collapse, and these two aren't going to do much, if anything about it.

Here's a fair look at both candidates.