Friday, June 30, 2006
Tom McLaughlin is a fellow blogger. He posted "Angry voters" today:
"Legitimate small businessmen suffer too when illegitimate competition with an illegal workforce is able to continually underbid them. Illegals cost about a third of what legitimate workers cost when you add in Workers’ Compensation, Social Security taxes, and all the rest. When illegals get sick or injured and are treated at emergency rooms without health insurance, those costs are passed on as higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums. Legitimate businesses pay for this along with the rest of us, but, with competition getting stiffer all the time, the temptation to go under the table increases."(http://tommclaughlin.blogspot.com/2006/06/angry-voters.html)
Check out the entire post. I have heard the same thing from other employers.
If you play by the rules then you cannot compete with those who cheat.
As I said before, I would like to see a "guest worker" program. However, the current system is a mess and cannot continue.
The US government should advise employers that hiring illegal workers will not be tolerated.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Jerry Narron was the Rangers' third base coach from 1995 to May 2001 when he replaced Johnny Oates. For the record, Oates lead the Rangers to 3 divisional titles.
Oates resigned in May '01 and Narron managed the Rangers for the remainder of the year and '02. He had an awful team. Eventually, he was fired too.
Narron has landed in Cincinnati and his contract has just been extended to '08. (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5737960/)
Jerry Narron was put in a terrible position in Texas. I'm glad that he's getting a chance to prove himself with the Reds.
On the surface, Bush lost. The media is covering this like a huge rebuke of presidential power.
Yet, here are the facts.
The Court wants Congress involved. It did not close Gitmo or call for the release of these prisoners.
Frankly, I want Congress involved too. We need to sit back and rewrite the rules of engagement in this war on terror.
Let Pres. Bush bring this to the Congress. Senators Kyl and Graham are on the move:
"It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts. It threatens our national security and places the safety of jurors in danger. For those reasons and others, we believe terrorists should be tried before military commissions.
"We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions. Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute." (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005464.htm)
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: "I will pursue the earliest possible action in the United States Senate."
Let me predict right now: The House and Senate will give Pres. Bush what he wants.
Check out Andrew Cochran:
"The decision is actually a huge political gift to President Bush, and the detainees will not be released that easily. The President and GOP leaders will propose a bill to override the decision and keep the terrorists in jail until they are securely transferred to host countries for permanent punishment. The Administration and its allies will release plenty of information on the terrorist acts committed by the detainees for which they were detained (see this great ABC News interview with the Gitmo warden). They will also release information about those terrorist acts committed by Gitmo prisoners after they were released. They will challenge the "judicial interference with national security" and challenge dissenting Congressmen and civil libertarians to either stand with the terrorists or the American people. The Pentagon will continue to release a small number of detainees as circumstances allow. The bill will pass easily and quickly. And if the Supremes invalidate that law, we'll see another legislative response, and another, until they get it right. Just watch." (http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/06/prediction_bush_congress_will.php)
Let's see how many Democrats actually vote against tribunals.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution (http://www.ajc.com/) ran an awful cartoon recently. It is so bad that I can not properly describe it. Take a look at this despicable thing:
My understanding is that Atlanta is furious about this awful cartoon. Talk radio is all over this issue.
RBM of Atlanta is a car dealer and advertiser. (http://www.rbmmb.com/index.cfm?action=home)
RBM was not happy with the cartoon. They decided to do something about it. They took out a full page ad expressing their disgust over this awful cartoon.
Check out their letter to AJC: (http://www.redstate.com/print/2006/6/28/144926/013)
This is how you go after the irresponsible media. You don't sue them. You use your advertising, or subscription dollars, to show your disgust.
RBM of Atlanta is right on.
Bill Keller, the NY Times editor, may not understand national security. He does understand dollars and cents.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
This article makes two important points.
First, privatize PEMEX, or at least, modernize it. Check this out:
"In 2004, Pemex had $69 billion in sales and 137,722 employees, according to its Web site; in the same year, Exxon Mobil had $291 billion in sales and 85,900 employees."
Does anyone want to argue with me that PEMEX is good for Mexico?
The second point goes to corruption.
Why are there so many small companies in Mexico operating outside of the law, i.e. informal economy.
The answer is corruption. It takes bribes to legalize companies. Also, Mexican taxes and labor laws are not realistic.
As we have said before, Mexico needs structural change. Every Mexican should read "The Other Path" by Hernando de Soto.
In this book, "...he describes the forces that keep people dependent on underground economies: the bureaucratic barriers to legal property ownership and the lack of legal structures that recognize and encourage ownership of assets." (http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/basic/book_detail.jsp?isbn=0465016103)
It's time for the Mexican people to stay home and fix their country.
Gary's dad was a 16 year NL veteran. I remember him playing for the Cubs and Phillies. He had a pretty good career! (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/historical/individual_stats_player.jsp?c_id=mlb&playerID=118433)
Gary Jr. is having a break out year. (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/player.jsp?player_id=150439)
At 31, this is Gary's best year. He's hitting .332 with 8 HRs and 40 RBIs. He has 25 doubles and an OBP of .381, which is great for a leadoff hitter.
Beyond hitting, Gary Jr. is playing CF very well.
Why did it take Gary Jr. so long to break out? I don't know but I'm happy that he is in the Rangers' lineup.
Gary is not well known so he won't get a lot of votes. I hope that Ozzie Guillen puts Gary in the AL roster.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
"Challenges for a Post election Mexico" by Pamela K. Starr:
"The July 2, 2006, Mexican presidential election will place Mexico squarely back on the U.S. foreign policy agenda. The three presidential candidates favor sharply different solutions to the country’s pressing political and economic problems, and the stakes for the United States are high." (http://www.cfr.org/publication/10909/?gclid=CJTUldjc5oUCFQ42UAod21InwQ)
Yesterday, Priv. Menchaca's remains arrived in Brownsville, TX. (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/print.php?id=71441_0_10_0)
Who is talking about the Geneva Convention now?
We need to use maximum force and revenge this young man's death. Our enemy is a beast, a criminal, a terrorist who kills and tortures.
Are you listening Bill Keller of The NY Times?
This is great.
What if The New York Times had covered World War II with today's standards?
Check out this post:
"The following is a letter Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, has sent to readers who have written to him about The Times's publication of information about the government's plans for an invasion of Europe....."(http://crankyinsomniac.blogspot.com/2006/06/if-bill-keller-were-ny-times-editor-in.html)
The good news is that Pres. Roosevelt did not have to worry about The New York Times revealing our D-Day plans. FDR shut down the media. Reporters were censored in WW2.
I am not suggesting that we shut down the media today. We live in a different time and it would be imposible to control the Internet, bloggers and international news organizations.
Nevertheless, the media must be responsible. The NY Times did not have to tell us anything about this financial program. It was reckless.
As Tony Snow, Pre. Bush's press secretary, said today:
"The NEW YORK TIMES and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live."
Monday, June 26, 2006
Vernon Robinson is the black Republican candidate for Congress in North Carolina.
Like other black Republicans, Robinson offers a message of hope and personal responsibility.
Also, this guy has some of the best TV ads in political history.
Check him out: http://vernonrobinson.com/index.shtml
What about the twilight zone ad: http://vernonrobinson.com/twilightzone.shtml
Listen to the Bill Cosby ad: http://vernonrobinson.com/radio.shtml
Robinson is great. Help him by going to the website.
"Thank you for continually contributing to the deaths of my fellow soldiers. You guys definitely provide a valuable service with your paper. Why without you how would terrorists stay one step ahead of us? I would love to hear a response as to why you deemed revealing this program a necessity, but that will probably come as soon as the government decides to finally put you guys behind bars where you belong."(http://boredsoldier.blogspot.com/2006/06/letter-to-ny-times.html)
Diana Irey is running against John Murtha. She is a long shot because Murtha is an incumbent. However, she deserves your support.
Her website is: http://www.irey.com/Default.aspx
Speaking of Murtha, John Fund has a great article in The Wall Street Journal:
"Mr. Murtha has been sticking his foot in his mouth a lot lately. He accused Marines in Iraq of murdering civilians "in cold blood," contradicted himself in the same breath by saying they had "overreacted," and asserted that higher-ups covered up the purported crime without backing his statements up.
He told a startled Tim Russert of NBC that U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq could be "redeployed" to Okinawa, Japan, whence they could return "very quickly" to Baghdad--which is 4,899 miles away." (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008569)
I think that it's time to redeploy Murtha to Okinawa!
Lt. Tom Cotton is in Iraq. He has written a letter to the NY Times on the publication of another national secret.
This is worth reading:
"You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance." (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014515.php)
Legally, we can not touch the NY Times. I understand the anger but we can't. We need to go after the traitor who is leaking this information.
The NY Times is guilty of hating Bush. The leaker is guilty of treason.
Check out "The New York Times at War With AmericaBy Michael Barone":
"We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_new_york_times_at_war_with.html)
The Scratching Post is an interesting blogger. This is how they view the NY Times:
"The New York Times is in a steep dive. Its circulation is dropping, its stock price is dropping, its gross income is flat and its net profits are declining 5-10% per year. All of this in the middle of an economic boom." (http://ktcatspost.blogspot.com/2006/06/compromising-national-security-as.html)
Why print the article? Why print an article that does not allege illegal activities? The NY Times ran a story and did not accuse the Bush administration of breaking laws. What's the point? How about this reason:
"I suggest that the NYT is hoping, praying, begging the Bush administration to take them to court. That stock price drop is no fluke. The NYT is an uncompetitive product. Unless they change consumers' attitudes, their revenue will continue to drop."
See the chart inside the post. It is a fact that The NY Times' stock is going down.
Democrats are silent about this article. Why is that? The Democrats learned a lesson last December when the NY Times printed the NSA story. The public was not angry that Pres. Bush was listening to terrorists' conversations. On the contrary, there were angry at the media for publishing secrets.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
How much longer can Democrats keep Rep. John Murtha talking?
This is what he just said:
"American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran..."(http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/135159)
As a Republican, I want Murtha talking and on "Meet the Press" every Sunday.
At the same time, I have to admit that this guy has gone from a war critic to a first rate fool.
The Democrats are not going to rebuild their electoral strategy with people like Murtha. At the same time, why should I care about rebuilding Democrat electoral strategies?
A week ago, I wrote a post "Saddam was a terrorist". It was based on translated documents.
We keep connecting dots. Saddam was indeed a terrorist committed to destroying the US. It's sad that so many Democrats changed their positions because Al Gore could not carry Tennessee.
Prof. Victor Davis Hanson wrote:
"the old twin charges — no link between al Qaeda and Saddam, no WMDs — are also becoming largely irrelevant or proving untrue. It must have been difficult for Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times, in their coverage of the death of Zarqawi, to admit that he had been active in Iraq well before the end of Saddam Hussein, along with a mishmash of old killers from Abu Nidal to Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi American who helped plan the first World Trade Center bombing." (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODUzZTEwNjI2ODE5Yzc0OGJhNjEyYmM2YmQ3MTczZjM=)
FOX NEWS has another report on The Saddam connection: "Was Saddam Regime a Broker for Terror Alliances?" by Ray Robison. It is a very long article but I find this very interesting:
"We see a request to the Saddam regime for a training center in Baghdad or Tajikistan from a jihad leader accused by the U.S. State Department during the Clinton Administration of running Islamic extremist training camps."
This notebook thus provides significant evidence that the Saddam regime collaborated with and supported Islamic jihad elements in Afghanistan at a time when the Taliban and Al Qaeda were attacking United States citizens and their interests and plotting the 9/11 attacks.
In this notebook, we see a Saddam Hussein actively seeking to expand his sphere of influence in a region at the heart of the world-wide Islamic jihad movement."(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200908,00.html)
We are now at a critical point in this story. On one side, we have evidence that there was a connection. On the other side, you have people who won't believe anything because they are so invested in a false idea. I guess that Al Qaeda was present everywhere in the Middle East except Iraq.
Christopher Hitchens had it right a couple of months ago:
"It seems amazing to me that so many people have adopted the "Saddam Hussein? No problem!" view before the documents captured from his regime have even been translated, let alone analyzed. I am sure that when this task has been completed, history will make fools of those who believed that he was no threat, had no terror connections, was "in his box," and so forth." (http://www.slate.com/id/2138332/)
Saddam was a terrorist. Case closed.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Check out these posters. Click and see what some of us think of a newspaper that prints secrets at a time of war.
Feel free to send your posters to Michelle Malkin's website.
On a more serious note, send a message to The New York Times:
Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
We need to tell the NY Times that it is unacceptable to print national security secrets! Also, find an advertiser and drop them a note.
Check out "Leaks and the Law: The case for prosecuting the New York Times" by Gabriel Schoenfeld (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/385jqmfk.asp)
John Kerry is on a losing streak. He carried 19 states in 2004. He got 6 votes last week in the US Senate. A few days ago, he got 16 votes.
Kerry's problem is that he can't keep a position for 2 weeks.
Who said this:
"I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy,...a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle" to allow "a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops." (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=3&issue=20060623&view=1)
Who said this in January 2003:
"If you don't believe… Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me,"
The answer is John Kerry.
Check out Kerry's 112 flip-flops. (http://wheels128.blogspot.com/2004/10/john-kerry-112-flip-flops.html)
I am starting a secret movement to have John Kerry renominated in 2008!
Go Kerry go. Bring back Kerry-Edwards. Let's go for an encore!
Once again, the NY Times has run an article disclosing an anti-terrorist program. Who benefits from this disclosure? The bad guys benefit.
What's going on at the NY Times?
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He wrote a very good article about this program and its legal standing. McCarthy's best line is this:
"Yet again, the New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda. Yet again, it sided with al Qaeda." (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjE4ODFmMmI3ZmM5ZGE4ZDQxNmY1ODA5YTQ3NzkxZWQ=)
This program is legal. There is no invasion of privacy. The NY Times does not claim that this program is illegal.
What's going on? The NY Times is not serious about the war on terror. I agree with "National Security Be Damned" by Heather Mac Donald:
"BY NOW IT'S UNDENIABLE: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives." (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/386syqsr.asp)
I think that POWER LINE has it right:
"It makes me slightly sick to think of the administration pleading with left-wing editors, who fear the president more than they fear terrorists, to act in a manner that enables the government to protect public safety." (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014487.php)
We had an election and the NY Times lost. Nevertheless, they are still determined to sabotage our foreign policy.
Former VP Mondale "says he supports a pre-emptive U.S. strike against a North Korean missile that is raising nuclear fears around the globe" (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=127766).
A few days ago, Ashton B. Carter, assistant secretary of defense, and William J. Perry, secretary of defense under Pres. Clinton, wrote a very controversial op ed piece:
"Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. The blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive -- the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea's nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted. There would be no damage to North Korea outside the immediate vicinity of the missile gantry." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101518.html)
Actually, I agree with VP Mondale and Sec. Perry. North Korea is a threat. We need to take it very seriously.
What happens if North Korea reacts by attacking our troops or fires a few missiles at South Korea?
Will Democrats start crying when we take casualties? Will they call for a withdrawal when one of our planes gets shot down? Will they start citing polls about unpopular America when 50,000 march in a foreign capital?
We went through this with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Democrats were for the war and then panicked as soon as casualties started.
Can we trust Democrats?
If we destroy this missile on the launching pad, North Korea will retaliate one way or another. My guess is that they will attack the South and we will be drawn into some kind of confrontation.
I am willing to go the distance. Are the Democrats willing to do the same?
Also, North Korea demonstrates the limits of negotiating with dictators. The Clinton administration made a generous deal with NKorea. Unfortunately, Clinton was not willing to enforce it. In the end, NKorea got the food and supplies, as well as the nuclear weapons.
We live in very dangerous times. Are the Democrats serious about national security? Do they have the stomach to be unpopular?
We will defeat NKorea but it won't be pretty. It won't be Kosovo or Haiti. We can not fight this war by flying our aircraft at 40,000 feet as we did in Kosovo. We will take casualties. There will be plenty civilian deaths because NKorea is well armed and Seoul is close to the border.
Again, can we trust Clinton-Kerry-Feingold Democrats to go the distance in Korea or anywhere else?
My guess is that Pres. Bush will try to destroy the missile in the air and avoid a direct attack on NKorea. At the same time, I am confident that Pres. Bush will go the distance if NKorea wants to fight.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Last night, Bill O'Reilly referred to this Arizona Republic editorial. It is worth reading. Check out the opening line:
"Enough with Abu Ghraib. Enough with the self-loathing hand-wringing over the killers harbored in comfort at Guantanamo Bay. Enough with the still-unproved condemnations of U.S. Marines at Haditha.Two U.S. Army soldiers, Pfc. Kristian Menchaca of Houston and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker of Madras, Ore., have been found dead at the hands of the still-potent terrorist insurgency in Iraq.Not just dead, but tortured, we are told. Their unrecognizable bodies dumped at a roadside that had been wired with bombs. According to an Iraqi military spokesman, the soldiers "were killed in a barbaric way." (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0622thur1-22.html)
Let me say it again.
We are fighting a war against people who want to destroy our civilization.
The West needs to come to its senses. Let's not make the same mistake that democracies made in the 1930's. We waited too long to tackle Hitler and 50 million were killed because of it.
We are in a war. I know that some liberals have difficulty dealing with that.
Take my word for it. We are in a war, and our side needs to win it.
Yesterday, Pres. Bush took a question about how the Europeans see the US. Frankly, Pres. Bush was too polite.
However, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel reminded Europeans:
"Don't forget I was born in '45. At that time Vienna and half of Austria laid in ruins and without the participation of America, what fate would have Europe? Where would be Europe today? Not a peaceful, prosperous Europe like we love it and where we live, and I think I will never forget that America fed us with food, with economic support." (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_062106/content/america_s_anchorman.guest.html)
Well done but it fell short.
Chancellor Schuessel should have also said this:
"My friends, US troops have protected us for 60 years. They kept Warsaw Pact tanks from our streets. The US Mediterranean fleet has kept our favorite ocean free of hostile submarines. And last but not least, our American friends did not send us an invoice."
What's all of this anti-Americanism rooted in? Europeans are cracking up. Europe is sinking and can not compete with the US, Japan, South Korea, China and India. European economies can not create jobs.
On Iraq, many European leaders were in Saddam's pockets. It's easy to hate Bush. It's a lot more difficult to admit that European leaders took money from Saddam in exchange for a Security Council veto.
How do you say "bribe" in French? I don't know but it rhymes with Saddam. Check out "Iraq and the Importance of the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Scandal"(http://www.meforum.org/article/716)
The bad news is that bashing Bush has become an international pastime. The good news is that they said the same things about Reagan. Check out my previous post "They did not like Reagan either" (http://cantotalk.blogspot.com/2005/11/they-didnt-like-reagan-either.html)
Nevertheless, I would encourage the anti-Americans to read these articles:
1) "Moral leadership and the War on Terror" By Joseph Loconte (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzhjZWRjNjg2OTVjMjQxNmZmZjg2NmI5ZmQyZDQxM2U=)
Check out this line:
"For all his faults, President Bush sees correctly what is now at stake in Iraq: The forces of decency and democracy against the macabre vision of al Qaeda and Islamic fascism. His determination to stay the course is grounded in a set of moral and democratic ideals."
2) "Anti-Americanism's Deep Roots: The Current Wave of Hostility Will Ebb. But This Is About More Than the Iraq War." By Robert Kagan.
Check out this line:
"The fact is, because America is the dominant power in the world, it will always attract criticism and be blamed both for what it does and what it does not do."
3) "Dealing with anti-Americanism" By Erin Carden (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzQyYTk0ZDk0N2M0YWRmMTAxMGZlYTYxOWM4ZWMzNTc=)
Check out this line:
"The American people have, after all, sacrificed blood and treasure for the safety and well-being of many of these countries in which anti-Americanism now flourishes."
P. S. My advice to the French. Call the UN if the Germans march into Paris!
Thursday, June 22, 2006
This finding is significant. My guess is that more findings will make this story more interesting.
There are a couple of good articles on the WMD story:
1) "The real story on WMDs needs to be told -- but carefully" By Hugh Hewitt
2) "The Worst of Intentions: What Saddam's Iraq was up to" by Daniel McKivergan (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/783pliue.asp)
How often have you heard that the poor is fighting in Iraq?
Tim Kane, Ph.D. wrote for The Heritage Foundation:
"Put simply, the current makeup of the all-voluntary military looks like America. Where they are different, the data show that the average soldier is slightly better educated and comes from a slightly wealthier, more rural area. We found that the military (and Army specifically) included a higher proportion of blacks and lower proportions of other minorities but a proportionate number of whites. More important, we found that recruiting was not drawing disproportionately from racially concentrated areas."(http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm)
Why did we wait so long to hear about these WMDs? I don't know the answer.
The Belmont Club is running a post called "The Gas Shells". They are offering an explanation. Check it out:
"General Tom Mcinerney is reporting on Fox Hannity and Colmes right now that that the administration has been keeping this low profile to avoid exposing 3 of the 5 members of the UN Security council; Russia, China, and France. McInerney says these weapons will be traced to these countries, and asserts it is well known that Russia helped Saddam move most of his WMD stockpiles out of Iraq before the war."
We continue to hear that illegal immigration is hurting the US economy. Actually, it is not. Illegal immigrants are working. There are lots of Americans willing to go around labor laws and hire people without papers.
Let's face it. Illegals work because the economy is very strong and employers hire them.
Check out "The Border and the Boom" By Jerry Bowyer:
"Data released just last week strongly suggests that labor markets are so strong that the United States is easily absorbing immigrant labor; what's more, the economy is producing so many jobs that we've entered a labor shortage." (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=061606C)
What's the issue? This is about national security and the rule of law.
We cannot afford open borders. It is a threat to our national security. We live in a world where people are desperately trying to blow up a Western City. Chaotic borders allow them to come in. Do you leave your home unlocked? We should not leave our borders open.
The second issue is the rule of law. We cannot allow employers to break laws without consequences.
Let's legislate a comprehensive reform. It should include permanent work visas for professionals and temporary work permits for low skilled labor. We need them both. Our economy is so vibrant that we need engineers and people to pick tomatoes.
Immigrants make the US a stronger economy. But we need legal immigrants.
Why is the rule of law important? Check out "Corruption is the reason Mexicans keep coming to America" by James Thayer:
"The World Bank concludes that corruption is "the single greatest obstacle to economic and social development" because it "undermines development by distorting the rule of law and weakening the institutional foundation on which economic growth depends." (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/336kciid.asp)
Illegal immigration is just another form of corruption. The rule of law can not be overlooked, no matter how hard immigrants may work.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
"Once again we see the absolute lack of integrity, honesty, and the unending opportunism of Democrats who are currently more interested in regaining power than they are in protecting and defending the U.S." (http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/06/democrats-magic-school-bus.html)
Pres. Bush has a plan in Iraq. Is it working? Yes.
It is working but people need to look at the numbers rather than listen to the partisan rhetoric coming from Democrats.
How is security doing? Take a look a this report: "Iraq’s security picture: Is it really improving?"
This is a very long but good article. Check out the graphs and note the incredible improvement made by Iraqi forces.
Take a look at this one from blogger Captain Ed, "Iraq Already Has A Plan For Coalition Withdrawal"(http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/andromeda.cgi/7253)
Share these articles with those who say that Pres. Bush does not have a plan.
In fact, he does. Guess what? It's working well.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
North Korea is not bound by agreements. According to DRUDGE:
"North Korea says it has full autonomy to conduct missile tests and outsiders do not have the right to criticize its plans, Kyodo News agency reported Tuesday. The North Korean Foreign Ministry regards the issue of a long-range missile test launch as one "not bound by any statement such as the Pyongyang Declaration," a deputy chief-level researcher at the ministry's Asian Affairs Department told a group of Japanese reporters Tuesday."
What's the point of diplomacy? Who do you negotiate with?
In a civilized world, countries sign agreements and respect them. Most countries do.
North Korea exempts itself from agreements.
We went through this with Saddam Hussein. For 10 years, Saddam Hussein violated every agreement and the West did nothing. In fact, we simply passed another UN resolution criticizing him for violating the last one.
Is this any way of dealing with people who don't respect agreements? I don't think so.
The bad news is that Dirk Nowitzski will pay a $5,000 fine for kicking a basketball into the stands. What was he thinking? I love intensity but kicking a ball is silly. Again, what was he thinking?
The good news is that he won't be suspended.
The Mavs need to regroup and stop blaming the referees. Mark Cuban needs to get serious and start acting like an owner rather than an English soccer fan.
Cuban has been good for the Mavs. He turned around a sick franchise and has been great with the fans. Cuban has also done a lot of charity work.
The referees did not hurt the Mavs. It was bad shooting and defense.
So win tonight and stop looking for excuses.
Monday, June 19, 2006
On Sunday, South Korea tied their World Cup game. In Los Angeles, thousands of Koreans filled the Staples Center to watch their home team.
South Korea is a happy and civilized nation. They enjoy this prosperity because Pres. Truman stopped communist aggression 56 years ago.
North Korea is a poor and miserable nation. (http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=8927973&postID=115068167829551653)
Their leader announced that NK would test a missile that could reach US soil. According to news reports:
"The Taepodong-2 is the North's most advance missile and is capable of reaching parts of the United States with a light payload."(http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060618/D8IASCDO1.html)
What a contrast. The communist north can't feed its people. The free south is prosperous and a booming economy.
What will the US do if the North Koreans actually fire this missile?
The White House has apparently warned NK.
My guess is that NK is bluffing. However, if they do fire the missile, then let's hope that Pres. Bush replies with a few US missiles.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Let me send a special greeting to all of the fathers. I believe that the following quote applies to me and so many of us:
"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."
Mark Twain, in "Bringing Up Father," Reader's Digest, September 1937
Saturday, June 17, 2006
As for the referee, he did seem a little too eager to show the cards. Let the players play. Call the flagrant fouls and let the men play.
"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth.
"Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country. I don't see why people care about patriotism." (http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/6/17/10826/0224)
Nataline Maines of the Dixie Chicks should sing and shut up. She does not have a clue and it shows everytime that the pretty chick opens her mouth.
By the way, check out the Kerry video on Iraq. Watch Kerry go from harsh anti-Saddam rhetoric in 2001-03 to his current position.
My favorite line is:
"KERRY: "So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that’s our great concern - where’s the backbone of Russia, where’s the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they’re now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq." (CNN’s "Crossfire," 11/12/97)
Kerry was angry at our allies, who did not support Pres. Clinton on Iraq either.
So much for the "global test"!
Click and watch the video here.
Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council. He is one of my favorite bloggers at The Bull Moose. Check out his latest "McGovernites With Modems":
"Presidential elections are won in the center by hawks and not by left wing populists with dovish inclinations. It is folly to reject a proven formula for success." (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/mcgovernites_with_modems.html)
The Democrats have put themselves in a corner. They have to nominate an antiwar candidate or lose their base (i.e., money).
This is why Sen. Kerry has presented his 3rd position on the Iraq War. (http://cantotalk.blogspot.com/2006/06/kerrys-greatest-hits-on-iraq.html)
This is why Sen. Clinton was booed because she rejects a timetable.
This is why Sen. Lieberman is contemplating an independent run for the US Senate this fall. Lieberman is a Truman Democrat on national security.
Like 1971-72, the Democrats will invest all of their electoral hopes on someone who wants to bring the troops home.
Sen. McGovern was nominated by the antiwar Democrats in 1972.
By election day '72, Pres. Nixon had successfully withdrawn most US troops. So McGovern ran against a war that wasn't an issue anymore. Nixon inherited 500,000 troops and reduced them to 26,000! Nixon also forced North Vietnam to sign a peace treaty that recognized South Vietnam.
The war worked for Nixon in '72. He carried 49 states and 61% of the popular vote. The Democrats have never been the same since the angry left took over the nominating process.
The Democrats are now making the same mistake. They will spend the next 18 months saying that Bush lied about WMDs and that the war was a mistake. On the other hand, Republicans will run on national security and the War on Terror.
When will Democrats learn that Americans do not elect defeatists?
As Michael Novak puts it:
"The Left no longer believes we should “pay any price, bear any burden” in the cause of liberty all around the world. The Left no longer believes in winning every war we get into." (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTkzNjE3YTc4YWZkZDBkNDE3ZDYxZWUxZWVkMzBmYWQ=)
2008 will be 1972. On election day '08, most US troops will be out of Iraq and there will be other issues on the War on Terror agenda.
The Democrats will run against a war that won't be an issue on election day! They will suffer their 8th defeat in the last 11 presidential elections! (1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004 and eventually 2008)
When are the Democrats going to fire the coach with the lefty playbook?
Friday, June 16, 2006
Today, Paul is finally 64.
I remember listening to the song and joking with my brother about Paul being 64 someday. He is today.
Happy 64th Paul!
Get the album and sing along:
"When I'm 64
When I get older, losing my hair, many years from now,
Will you still be sending me a Valentine,birthday greetings, bottle of wine?
If I'd been out 'till quarter to three,would you lock the door?
Will you still need me, will you still feed me,When I'm sixty-four?
You'll be older, too. Aaah, and if you say the word, I could stay with you.
I could be handy, mending a fuse, when your lights have gone.
You can knit a sweater by the fireside, sunday mornings, go for a ride.
Doing the garden, digging the weeds, who could ask for more?
Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm sixty four?
Every summer we can rent a cottage in the Isle of Wight if it's not to dear.
We shall scrimp and save.
Ah, grandchildren on your knee, Vera, Chuck, and Dave.
Send me a postcard, drop me a line stating point of view.
Indicate precisely what you mean to say, yours sincerely wasting away.
Give me your answer, fill in a form, mine forever more.
Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm sixty four?
by John Lennon/Paul McCartney
It was put up or shut up in the US Senate. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=Akz5fNP_Pt.BwMlU6_M3ZWys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)
Sen. Kerry put a resolution to a vote and 6 Democrats were willing to go on record calling for a withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2006:
Barbara Boxer of California
Robert Byrd of West Virginia
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
Tom Harkin of Iowa
Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts
John Kerry of Massachusetts
What happened to the other 45 Democrats? Once again, we see a party that talks a lot but won't go on record calling for a withdrawal.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
13 months ago, I predicted that Hillary Clinton would not run. Read my post: (http://cantotalk.blogspot.com/2005/05/it-doesnt-take-village-it-takes-270.html).
Let me say it again. Hillary Clinton is not going to run in 2008. The answer is very simple. She can not win. She can not get 270 electoral votes.
This is what Hillary Clinton can look forward to in 2008:
1) She is not Bill, who was very quick on his feet and had a natural charm. Her voice is annoying. Republicans have carried the male vote, 60-40%, since the 1960s. Do you think that men will vote for this woman?
2) Ross Perot is not running in 2008. She needs more than 43% of the vote.
3) She will increase Republican turnout.
4) Best case scenario: She carries 19 states.
5) Worse case scenario: McCain carries 40 states and forces Clinton to defend New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Hillary Clinton will make an announcement in early 2007. She will serve the full six year term.
Who will replace Hillary? I hope that the Dems invest their electoral hopes on another Kerry or Gore campaign. Their best chance is a Lieberman-Warner ticket but they won't do that.
John Hawkins wrote "The Top 8 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think". (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15542)
This is a good article. I agree with Hawkins.
I found this so this funny......our friend Val Prieto and The Babalu Blog:
We interrupt our regular blogging schedule to bring you the following breaking news:
ME CAGO EN FIDEL!
We now return you to our regularly scheduled blogging...
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
For much too long, MSNBC, the leftist bloggers, and many in the media, have been obsessed with the Karl Rove indictment. In fact, leftist bloggers constantly reported that Rove would be indicted next week, then next week and next week.
So here we are. Karl Rove won't be indicted. Instead, he is going to clean the Dems' clocks once again on election day. Karl is on a mission and he is going to get even on election day. Put your money on Karl because he has won more elections than any Democrat in the US!
The entire Libby case is hard to follow. I do agree that leaking a CIA operative's name is wrong. However, Libby was not indicted for that. He was indicted for lying about conversations that he had with the press.
As I predicted last September, Libby won't be convicted. The Libby defense will put Joe Wilson on the stand and the jury will see that Valerie's husband is a first class charlatan.
Wilson lied and lied. The White House had every right to defend itself against a charlatan who was deeply invested in the Kerry campaign.
This whole case was a political battle. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL has it right in today's editorial::
"The tragedy of this episode is that a political fight over the war in Iraq was allowed to become a criminal matter.
Mr. Wilson spun his false tale in an effort to discredit the war and deny Mr. Bush a second term.
The liberal media put partisanship above their own interests in demanding a special counsel probe of "leaks"--until that probe turned on their own sources. The Attorney General at the time, John Ashcroft, passed the buck to Mr. Comey by recusing himself on flimsy grounds--an act of political and legal abdication.
So what we are left with is a three-year political spectacle that has kept the White House under siege during a war, weakened or pushed out of office some of its most important aides, and made liberal celebrities of Mr. Wilson and his wife. And to what public purpose?
A prosecutor with more wisdom than Mr. Fitzgerald would have long ago understood he was injecting himself into a political brawl, closed his case, and left the outcome to the voters. " (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008513)
That's exactly right. The voters decided this in 2002 and 2004. And Karl Rove will make sure that they decide it again in 2006!
So we are left with humor. I found this poem about the Rove story. Read it and enjoy it with me!
"The Night Before Fitzmas" (Apologies to Clement C. Moore)
Twas the night before Fitzmas and all through the blogs,Not a creature was stirring, not even the firedogs.
The indictments were sealed at the courthouse with care
In hopes that Karl Rove soon would be there.
Lefty bloggers were snuggled all safe in their beds
While visions of frog-marches danced in their heads
When over at Truthout there arose such a clatter,
We all surfed over to see what was the matter.
"Rove's been indicted," Jason Leopold claimed,
Without much concern for those he defamed.
When what should my wondering eyes happen to see
Than Ambassador Joe Wilson, sipping iced tea.
"My wife's been exposed," he announced with a cry,
"Rove told Bob Novak, she's a CIA spy!"
"On Kristof, on Hamsher, on Oliver Willis!
On Maguire and Moran and a blogger named Phyllis!"
"Rove must be destroyed," he exclaimed with some gall,
"Now smash away, smash away, smash away all!"
"There's only one thing that would make this all groovy,
If Tom Cruise was selected for my part in the movie."
But I heard him exclaim ere he drove out of sight
"Fitzmas ain't coming, so to all a good night!" (http://brainster.blogspot.com/2006_06_11_brainster_archive.html#115021288256287604)
Good night to the left.
What a shame. Team USA was awful against the Czechs. They were specially awful in the second period.
The bad news is that Team USA is underachieving big time. This is starting to look like 1998.
The good news is that no one cares, unless you are a handful of Americans watching the games. I won't be shocked if UNIVISION outdraws ABC and ESPN.
By the way, it's a shame that Andres Cantor is not doing the TV games anymore. He is the best of the US based announcers.
Soccer is a difficult game to watch. To be fair, I did not grow up playing soccer. In fact, I don't remember playing a game in my youth.
Let's hope that Team USA turns it around. However, they have Italy next and that's a tough game.
Last but not least, why is everybody beating up coach Arena? What did he do? He put his best players on the field and they stunk. Blame the players!
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
FOX NEWS published another document:
"A newly released document appears to provide evidence that in 1999 the Taliban welcomed "Islamic relations with Iraq" to mediate among the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and Russia, and that the Taliban invited Iraqi officials to Afghanistan.
The document, captured in Iraq but never before seen by the public, offers glimmers of new insight at the Pentagon's Foreign Military Studies Office Web site. The FMSO is a research and analysis center under the U.S. Army's Training and Doctrine Command.
This particular document mentions two men with similar names, each with ties to Pakistani religious schools known as madrassas, Jihad training camps, the Taliban and Al Qaeda." (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,199052,00.html)
Check out "What Happened to Those Chemical Weapons?" by John H. Hinderaker (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014323.php)
These documents, as well as Saddam's track record between the 1991 cease fire and March 2003, make a strong case.
It's a shame that this whole issue has been so politicized by the Democrats. It's a shame because they were the ones who told us that Saddam had WMDs, ties to terrorism and represented a threat to all.
After all, this is what Senator Hillary Clinton said on the Senate floor during the Iraq debates:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
October 10, 2002--Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq)
Monday, June 12, 2006
The devil meets Zarqawi
Pres. Bush is meeting with his war council this week. What should come out of this meeting?
First, Pres. Bush should go on TV and declare once again that the US is not cutting and running from Iraq. The new Iraqi government, and the brave Iraqi army, should hear it again. This is not Vietnam. The US won't cut and run. Don't be afraid to choose sides. The US is not going to leave you behind.
Second, House Republicans should go through with their Iraq War resolution. Force the Democrats to take a position on Iraq. The Democrats have had a free ride on Iraq. They vote for the war, tell us about Saddam's WMDs and then say that the war is wrong.
If the war is a mistake then vote that way!
If you want troops out of Iraq then vote that way!
Go on record.
Don't hold your breadth. The Democrats want to be on both sides of this issue. History will record that Democrats, the same ones who warned us about Saddam's WMDs, have been pathetic opportunists.
Third, and most important, we should go for the kill. Al Qaeda is wounded. This is no time to get politically correct. A good terrorist is a dead terrorist! If we need more troops then let's send them!
Fourth, let's support the new Prime Minister in his efforts to increase security in Baghdad. You can not have commerce and stability if gangs are shooting innocent people. Law and order is essential.
Speaking of Zarkawi's death, I like what Bill Kristol wrote:
"Would we be safer if he were living there, under Saddam's protection, securely planning attacks around the world and working on his chemical and biological weapons projects? Zarqawi's life and death remind us that we are engaged in a global struggle." (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/310rojxt.asp)
Why was Zarqawi in Iraq? Why did he take arms against the US?
"Their Man in Baghdad: What Zarqawi--and al Qaeda--were up to before the Iraq war" by Stephen F. Hayes
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Hollywood has mocked marriage again. This time, it is Brad and Angelina, the new darling couple, who had a baby out of wedlock.
Don't get me wrong. She is a cute baby. I wish her a long and happy life.
Besides that, Angelina and Brad are good actors. I hope that they make a lot of movies in the future.
What is the message? What are the consequences? Their message is that marriage does not matter.
However, marriage matters. It is essential for children.
Marriage is about the nurturing and development of children. All civilizations have favored marriage as the ideal setting for nurturing and developing children.
I understand divorce rates and bad parenting are too common today. However, human failure does not mean that we should downplay the importance of marriage.
According to The Brookings Institution:
"Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites. Every year about one million more children are born into fatherless families. If we have learned any policy lesson well over the past 25 years, it is that for children living in single-parent homes, the odds of living in poverty are great. The policy implications of the increase in out-of-wedlock births are staggering." (http://www.brookings.edu/printme.wbs?page=/comm/policybriefs/pb05.htm)
It is worse among African-Americans. Check out Clarence Page on NPR:
"Forty years ago, a government report on the state of the black family in America warned that almost one out of four black children were born to unmarried mothers. Recent figures suggest that now, almost 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock." (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4865449)
Angelina's baby won't need any welfare. She will be OK. Unfortunately, most young women who have babies out of wedlock are not so lucky.
Marriage and two-parent homes are the foundation of family life. We should not mock marriage and parenthood by glamourizing out of wedlock births!
Sorry Brad and Angelina. You are setting a bad example!