Saturday, September 30, 2006

Why are so many legal immigrants opposed to open borders?

The US is a nation of immigrants. Yet, there are more and more immigrants who are horrified with the chaos at the US-Mexico border. Check out one such story
'Battle at the border' :

"When he was 16, Gonzalo Llamas left his home in Zacatecas, Mexico, and illegally crossed the border by paying $20 to use an American citizen's passport.

Though the passport holder was older and balding, Llamas made it across and began his new life cleaning restaurants for $9 a job.

Now 50, Llamas is a U.S. citizen and owns a construction company in San Diego. And he wants the border sealed. The reason? Violent crime."

Also, let's not forget the national security issue.

Open and disorderly borders are an invitation to terrorists. I understand that most illegal immigrants are not terrorists but it only takes a few people to do do some very bad things.

Pres. Bush wins a big one in Congress

Let's not make them mad. Let's not fight back or they will get really mad!

Pres. Bush won a big one yesterday:

The Senate joined the House in embracing President Bush's view that the battle against terrorism justifies the imposition of extraordinary limits on defendants' traditional rights in the courtroom. They include restrictions on a suspect's ability to challenge his detention, examine all evidence against him, and bar testimony allegedly acquired through coercion of witnesses.

The Senate's 65 to 34 vote marked a victory for Bush and fellow Republicans a month before the Nov. 7 elections as their party tries to make anti-terrorism a signature campaign issue."

Don't worry civil libertarians. We are not talking about turning the US into a police state.

Yesterday, I had a chance to listen to some of the Democrat speeches in Congress.

The silliest Democrat had to be Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

"This bill that is here today, because it does violence to the Constitution of the United States will produce convictions that may well be overturned because the bill does not heed the instructions from the Supreme Court. Redefining the Geneva Convention in ways conventions lowered the treatment standards poses a real risk to American forces. This is a time when the Golden Rule really should be in effect. Do not unto [sic] others what you would not have them do unto your troops your CIA agents, your people in the field."

Is this lady serious? What would FDR, Truman and JFK say of this?

Again, are these people serious? The Golden Rule for terrorists?

We are talking about terrorists! We are talking about people who want to blow up an American city.

Are these Democrats serious?

Check out Jonah Goldberg's Terrorists' 'Excuse du Jour':

"Iraq is the excuse du jour for jihadists. But the important factor is that these are young men looking for an excuse. If you live your life calculating that it's a mistake to do anything that might prompt murderers and savages to act like murderers and savages, you've basically decided to live under their thumb and surrender your civilization in the process."

Get serious Pelosi Democrats. You are not running in San Francisco but rather the US.

P. S. Why did Pres. Bush win? Check out Lame Duck Prexy Still Flies By The Anchoress:

"For a president who is supposed to be crippled by his “increasingly unpopular war” and his dwindling poll numbers, Bush [1] continues to get what he wants.

Enough Democrats understand that, NY Times aside, the American people want seriousness - not cartoonish partisanship - when it comes to dealing with terrorists and terrorism. Or, at least they understand it in an election year.

No one wants to see Jack Baueresque torture (well, I’m sure some do) but people understand that we cannot fight a war by being “nice” to people who only perceive it as weakness, and who do not hesitate to abuse and mutilate our soldiers, or hide behind innocent children.

I’m of two minds about torture, and I bet many Americans are. Our better natures say “no,” our humanity says “no.” But weighed in the balance of thousands of lives…the shoulders go up, and we shrug, lacking wisdom, and hoping to do the best we can. I think in the end…we approve the belly slaps and hope they don’t escalate.

War is difficult under the most civilized of circumstances. This is a war unlike any others, and our enemies, un-uniformed, unconcerned with Geneva Conventions, unconcerned (nay, enthusiastic) about collateral damage, will not be defeated by wholly conventional needs.

I can only be honest and say I can see both sides of the thing. I’m not thrilled about it, but I think sometimes we walk blind and have to kiss it up to God and pray for the best, trusting that what we get wrong, in good faith, He will make right.

And may God have mercy on us all.

Ed Morrissey has [2] the best and most informative post I’ve read on this subject. Read it all. Also, read Hugh Hewitt’s interview with [3] Mark Steyn, on his return from Gitmo.

Also, the senate just [4] unanimously approved 70Billion for the war effort. It’s election season, and the Democrats need to look “strong” on security - that’s one reason the vote was unanimous.

The second reason is that for all the talk about “redeploying,” (and leaked NIE reports) the senate understands that to pull out of Iraq right now would be an incalculable travesty.

The German opera is the latest chapter (and there are more coming!)

"Getting along" with intolerant fanatics is failing miserably in much of Europe. You can not get along with people as intolerant as these.

They want their way or no other way. It is intolerance of the first degree.

They are willing to intimidate societies and so far they are winning in Europe.

Why? Because Europeans are not fighting back. They are either scared or their leaders are weak.

Check out Michelle Malkin's post on Ramadan riots in Europe!

For more, check out Critics of Islam under fire...again :

"The Danish cartoonists aren't the only ones living in fear for offending the global jihadi mob. Now, French philosophy professor and secondary school teacher Robert Redeker is under police protection for penning a piece blasting Islamic violence in Le Figaro."

Check out Appeasement at the Opera: Mozart falls victim to fear of Muslim rage BY ROGER KIMBALL:

"There is a certain irony in all this. Our avant-gardist artistic establishment preens itself on being "transgressive," "challenging," "provocative," etc.

But it prefers to exercise its anti-bourgeois animus within the coddled purlieus of bourgeois security.

It has discovered that there is a big difference between exhibiting photographs of Christ on the cross in a bottle of urine or Madonna having herself "crucified" on her current concert tour and poking fun at Muhammad.

The former earns you the delicious obloquy of the Catholic establishment while shoring up your credentials as a brave artistic and moral pioneer.

The latter sends murderous hordes into the streets looking for something, or someone, to destroy."

Back to the opera. As a rule, I don't like attacks on religion, whether it's my Catholic Church or anything else. Religious leaders and symbols should be respected. However, I am not going to blow up an opera house because they run a show mocking The Virgin Mary. I will show my displeasure by posting on my blog or punishing the advertisers.

Also, some people need to understand that "satire" is part of living in an open society. I don't like every form of "satire" but I accept it as a part of living in a free society.

Yet, they canceled the opera in Germany because certain people made a big stink about the show!

What will Europe cancel next?

The Sound of Music? Because women play guitars, show their ankles and make decisions?

Friday, September 29, 2006

TO and his PR lady should apologize to the Dallas Police!

Based on my own, but unscientific survey, this is where Dallas stands on TO. Read Owens' new spin is all garbage, but who cares? by RANDY GALLOWAY:

"Eldorado Owens' perfect little world is constantly disturbed by outside forces. Why do so many evil people want to do a good man wrong?

But give Eldorado credit for one thing.

In his latest misadventure, with local and national hell breaking loose over a reported suicide attempt, Owens was wise enough not to publicly rant at the investigating officers of the Dallas Police Department.

Then again, what's a hired mouthpiece for, anyway?

Somebody named Kim Etheredge, listed as Eldorado's "publicist," stood in front of a Valley Ranch media mass Wednesday afternoon and called the cops liars, among other things.

Now, that's a fool who should be fired on the spot, unless, of course, she was acting under orders from the boss.

Owens even jumped back up in front of the media and thanked the cops after Miss Kim offered her totally unbelievable version of the story. That was smart of Eldorado. That may have also been a game of good cop, bad cop between Eldo and his flack."

The Cowboys are crazy if they keep this idiot on their payroll. Trust me. I think that most Cowboys' fans are with me on this one!

What Hugo wants!

Hugo Chavez is an "ugly son of a you know what" but he is not stupid. Chavez has a plan and it includes a lot more than Venezuela.

Mario Loyola is a former assistant for communications and policy planning at the Department of Defense. Today, he wrote
The New Cold War: Hugo Chávez and the Non-Aligned Movement:

"Chávez seeks to divide the world into two camps, two poles in opposition: north v. south, colored v. white, collectivist v. democratic, “humanist” v. “capitalist imperialist.” Turning the United Nations into its power center, the Non-Aligned Movement, rising as a new hostile superpower in a new cold war, will find itself increasingly drawn to the intoxicating poison of violent Muslim extremism. And the United Nations is now its home base."

Chavez is more dangerous than Castro because of oil. Castro had to depend on the USSR for weapons and economic subsidies. Chavez sells oil.

Let's keep an eye on Hugo. Let's make sure that keeps his fingers out of Colombia, where Pres. Uribe is doing a great job.
Let's make sure that he stays out of Mexico where Lopez-Obrador's movement is desperately looking for international support.

Beyond Mexico and Colombia, Chavez is crazy enough to get too cozy with Iran or North Korea. My guess is that Pres. Bush has privately told Caracas that the US will not tolerate another missile crisis in the Western hemisphere.

Also, let's support the opposition in Venezuela. Based on news reports, the opposition is gaining ground as more and more Venezuelans fear that Chavez is hurting their country with so much anti-Americanism.

No matter what, Hugo Chavez isn't going away unless God intervenes. Let's pray for such an intervention.

In the meantime, let's keep our eyes open with Hugo Chavez. He has the oil money and a disposition to behave poorly!

Why should Mexico care about a fence?

The AP reports this:

"Mexico warned Thursday that the U.S. proposal to build miles of border fence will damage relations between the two countries. The Foreign Relations Department said it was "deeply worried" about the proposal, which is working its way through the Senate, adding it will "increase tension in border communities."

"These measures will harm the bilateral relationship. They are against the spirit of co-operation that is needed to guarantee security on the common border," the department said in a statement."

How about this idea? Get over the fence and the troops.

Mexico should spend as much time attracting foreign investment as it does criticizing the fence. After all, Mexico needs jobs and the fence matters little.

The fence is not my first choice either. However, it represents political frustration on this side. How many more Mexicans are we supposed to absorb?

Unfortunately, Mexico won't help itself. It is depending more and more on "remesas" rather than reforming itself to attract foreign investment.

Allan Wall lives in Mexico. Like me, he believes that you help Mexico by forcing the political class to deal with its structural problems. Check out How To Help Mexico—Close The Border

"For years I have contended that today's mass emigration from Mexico to the U.S. is harmful to Mexico. It encourages the Mexican government to export the people rather than solve the problems here in Mexico. It exacerbates family disintegration and social problems. It distorts local economies. For Mexico, emigration is like an addictive drug that encourages Mexicans to escape to the U.S. rather than solve the problems here. There are actually people here in Mexico who agree with me on this point."

It's time to force the Mexican government to get over the "border fence" and the victim mode. Instead, it should tear down the many other fences that keep foreign capital and modernity out of Mexico.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

It's a whole new ballgame and The NY Times does not get it!

Last Sunday, The NY Times did the classic "journalistic hit job". It printed a story based on leaks and incomplete information. The purpose of the story was to make Pres. Bush look bad, specially now that polls are showing him and the Republicans looking better!

Within hours, the blogs, Internet and talk radio had the NY Times looking for cover.

Why? This is not Vietnam or Iran Contra.

Years ago, conservatives had one choice, and one choice only. We were forced to use the "letters to the editor" option or beg a local TV station to run our 15 second rebuttal at the public affairs show at 5am on Sunday.

I remember doing some of that in the 1980s.

It's different today because we have the megaphone and the NY Times does not.

Liberals don't get it, which is why they continue to lose elections. They still think that it's all Vietnam and Watergate.

Perphaps, the NY Times editors should go back and read The
'Media Party' is over By Howard Fineman:

"A political party is dying before our eyes and I don't mean the Democrats. I'm talking about the "mainstream media," which is being destroyed by the opposition (or worse, the casual disdain) of George Bush's Republican Party; by competition from other news outlets (led by the internet and Fox's canny Roger Ailes); and by its own fraying journalistic standards."

The party is over. Of course, the NY Times will be back with another story to try to save the sagging electoral fortunes of the Democrats. Once again, their front page "hit job" will meet a massive retaliation from thousands of people who can go on line and respond.

The party is over but the NY Times is still trying to fetch another drink!

The American left feeds the hate America industry

This is a fascinating article. It should be read by American lefties.

Victor Davis Hanson writes The Hate-America Industry:

"When bin Laden praised William Blum’s Rogue State, it soared to the top of Amazon’s sales charts.

So too now has Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival—as soon as the semi-literate Hugo Chavez held it up at the United Nations.

The Left sees it as McCarthy-like to even suggest that our own are the ideological godheads of the enemy.

But it is true.

I am going through the rough draft of a new Al-Qaeda reader this morning, translated and edited by Raymond Ibrahim, soon to be released by Doubleday.

What do Dr. Zawahri and bin Laden complain about from their caves in Pakistan?

Why, of course, the American failure to sign Kyoto, our desecration of the environment, George Bush reading a goat story on the morning of 9/11, Halliburton, and—that critically-important concern of radical Islam— the lack of campaign finance reform in the United States.

Much of their rants are simply jottings and notes taken from watching Fahrenheit 9/11 and killing time in hideouts by listening to talking heads on CNN."

Do people seriously think that Clinton planned this?

The spin goes like this.

Clinton went on FOX News to excite the troops. He jumped all over Chris Wallace to pick a fight with FOX News.

It may be that Pres. Clinton had that in mind. However, I don't know of anyone who thinks that this interview helped Pres. Clinton's image or his wife, Senator Clinton.

So what's going on? Pres. Clinton is obviously very sensitive to terrorism. He knows that history will be very harsh.

Texas contrasts: A real hero in Houston, a first class idiot in Dallas

Yesterday, we woke up to the news that Terrell Owens (TO) was in a hospital. There were all kinds of rumors about a suicide attempt.

Frankly, I don't know and I don't care. I hope that TO gets whatever help he needs. TO is a sick man surrounded by a bunch of "yes people" who are taking his money and riding on his fame.

Like many Cowboys' fans, I did not want TO here because he is an accident waiting to happen.

TO is all about TO. He should doing hip hop rather than wearing the Cowboys' uniform.

Over in Houston,
Officer Rodney Johnson was shot and killed after taking an illegal alien into custody during a traffic stop.

Johnson was a very responsible father of 5 and a good husband. He was loved by his comrades in the police force.

I hope that everyone takes a minute and remembers Officer Johnson because he is a real hero.

At the same time, I hope that TO gets the heck out of Dallas so that we can stop talking about him and his silly PR lady who said that TO
"has 25 million reasons to be alive."

The Iraq War critics who do not offer any solutions!

Everyday, we hear a new criticism of the Iraq War. At the same time, we don't hear any solutions.

We are in an election season so partisanship is normal. Both sides play politics.
Yet, the Iraq War is a little too complicated for simple partisan criticisms.

The Democrats' Iraq Problem By David Ignatius goes to the heart of the matter. The Democrats have lot of criticisms but not any solutions.

It's a little too late to argue about a decision made 40 months ago, specially a decision supported by most Democrats in Congress.

Like me, Ignatius understands the strategic importance of this war. Unfortunately, many Democrats are so obsessed with winning in 5 weeks that they don't care about what they are saying or its consequences.

In this article, Ignatius writes this:

"But with a few notable exceptions, the Democrats are mostly ducking the hard question of what to do next. They act as if all those America-hating terrorists will evaporate back into the sands of Anbar province if America pulls out its troops. Alas, that is not the case. That is the problem with Iraq -- it is not an easy mistake to fix."

My gut feeling is that most Democrats privately understand the disastrous consequences of cutting and running. If they win a majority, I don't think that they will cut and run because they can't.

So what's going on? The Democrats are caught between reason and an unreasonable left wing that wants Pres. Bush to fail at any cost. This left wing forces Democrats to say many things that they will regret if they win a majority. In fact, a Democrat majority will end up disappointing most liberals because they will have to govern rather than scream from the bleachers.

As Ignatius said:

"Here's a reality check for the Democrats: There is not a single country in the Middle East, with the possible exception of Iran, which favors a rapid American pullout from Iraq. Why? The consensus in the region is that a retreat now would have disastrous consequences for America and its allies.

Yet withdrawal is the Iraq strategy you hear from most congressional Democrats, whether they call it "strategic redeployment'' or something else."

He concludes:

"But what you hear from most Democrats these days is: Gotcha."

Gotcha may win a few marginal seats in 5 weeks. It won't solve the larger problem.

Another good article is
A Dishonest Debate on The Iraq War By Jonathan Finer.

Are Democrats born this way?

Are these people born this way?

A few months ago, they blamed everything on the Bush family and the oil companies. Didn't you get sick of all of those stories about global warming and hurricanes?

What happened to hurricanes this year? Did they all switch parties and become Republican hurricanes?

On Wednesday morning, I paid $2.01 a gallon and filled my tank for a little bit over $20.

I'm happy. I like it. Of course, I am not a miserable liberal!

The conspiracy insanity has now reached CNN. Check out Are Falling Gas Prices a Sneaky Scheme to Help Republicans?:

"In a September 15 report for "The Situation Room," CNN reporter Bill Schneider wondered if the current decrease in gas prices has been timed to help Republicans in the midterm elections."

Check out Conspiracy against common sense by JOE SOUCHERAY:

"The other day I learned that gas prices are arranged by the Bush administration. That had not previously occurred to me, any more than they might arrange the price of computers or yogurt.

One of the cable news channels did a piece on the theory that Republicans are conspiring to pressure big oil to lower the prices.

Bloggers and activists and the always-available roster of college professors offered the belief — some of them, hearing themselves, seemed sheepish — that lower gas prices would get more Republicans elected in November.

Even the Gallup Poll weighed in. According to its research, 42 percent of those polled agreed with the following statement: "The Bush administration deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall's elections.''

And of those who believe such a thing, nearly two-thirds are registered Democrats. Wow. Talk about enough said."

Read it and laugh! And don't forget to enjoy the low gas prices and the wonderful US economy!

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Why are mothers angry with Senator McCain?

In 2004, the "mother vote" was a critical component in Bush's reelection. In fact, Bush carried the married female vote in huge numbers. They were called "security moms"!

Senator McCain needs to clean up his image after the recent terrorist treatment debate.

McCain is still my first choice for 2008. However, I do think that he has to work to get the mothers back on the bus.

7-11 sticks it to Hugo!

Cheers for 7-11.

According to the AP news service, 7-Eleven Dropping Venezuela-Backed Citgo:

"Convenience store operator 7-Eleven Inc. is dropping Venezuela-backed Citgo as its gasoline supplier at more than 2,100 locations and switching to its own brand of fuel."

This is a great victory for the marketplace and the American people:

"7-Eleven spokesman Margaret Chabris said that,

"Regardless of politics, we sympathize with many Americans' concern over derogatory comments about our country and its leadership recently made by Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez."

Chabris said a boycott of Citgo gasoline would hurt the 4,000 employees of the U.S. subsidiary, who have no connection to Venezuela."

Freedom of speech is a good thing. Freedom to choose is even better!

Finally, a Mexican official who makes sense on illegal immigration!

During the Mexican presidential election, many of us were listening for something about illegal immigration. In fact, illegal immigration concerns raised the US interest in this election.

LO did say something. However, how can you believe anything from LO's mouth? Calderon spoke in generalities.

Yesterday, we had a Mexican visitor in Dallas. This is the first time that I've heard a Mexican public official appreciate the damage that this border chaos is doing to Mexico.

Check out
Mexican bank chief talks immigration:

"Guillermo Ortiz, Mexico's central bank governor, admits he takes a contrarian view on immigration policy. Unlike the current Mexican administration, Mr. Ortiz thinks tougher enforcement policies in the U.S. might help Mexico."

Is that refreshing or what? Then he goes on to share some interesting economic data:

"Mr. Ortiz said the Mexican economy must become more flexible and more competitive in energy and telecommunications to facilitate growth and businesses. Higher economic growth rates would help absorb a growing number of workers who leave Mexico for work in the U.S.

But closing the gap between Mexican and U.S. wages – a key driver of migration – will take decades, Mr. Ortiz acknowledged.

A recent Pew Hispanic Center survey in seven cities, including Dallas, found that most Mexican immigrants held jobs in Mexico before migrating to the U.S.

Remittances sent back to Mexico from immigrants, legal and illegal, have steadily increased.

At the current pace, remittances may reach $25 billion this year.

Mr. Ortiz said their steady growth over the last few years reflected better tracking methods, not increased migration.

Remittances are more important as a safety net for Mexico's poorer families than as a key lubricant to the economy, he added.

Mexico has the highest per-capita income rate in Latin America, according to the World Bank. Yet 48 percent of the population was living in poverty in 2004, according to the World Bank.

This year, the central banker expects the Mexican economy to grow at 4.6 percent to 4.7 percent. It grew about 3 percent in 2005."

Mr. Ortiz is a breath of fresh air. How about more officials like Sr. Ortiz? Wouldn't that be nice?

Everything is wonderful in Cuba.....really?

Over the years, we've heard about Cuba's socialist paradise. I'm sure that you've heard similar stories:

free education but not the freedom to read your book of choice;
free medicine but our relatives keep asking for everything, from eye glasses to simple aspirin;
free elections as long you vote for the state party;
free press as long as you read Granma;

and I can go on.

Over the years, I've had my share of arguments with Latin American lefties who like Castro because he hates the US.

Today, Henry "El Conductor" Gomez has this great post in The Babalu Blog,

A few questions...

We've heard the justifications before.

We've heard statistics, of dubious merit, relating to life expectancy and literacy.

We've heard about the "miracle" of Cuban health care.

Great, let's take all of those things to be true for one minute ask ourselves some logical questions:

If things are so great in Cuba

Why is the only media permitted on the island of a government/communist party nature?

Why is internet access restricted and censored for normal Cubans?

Why aren't foreigners and Cubans allowed to mingle freely?

Why are there no political parties in Cuba other than the communist party?

Why aren't there presidential elections?

Why do people risk their lives to leave the country in droves?

Why is there a lottery for US visas?

Why does it bother the Cuban government so much that there is news ticker in the US Interests section?

Why does the dropping of pamphlets of differing points of view amount to a capital offense?

The answer, for anyone with two brain cells to rub together, to these questions is simple.

The current system of government in Cuba is a fraud of the greatest magnitude.

It can not win a real debate in the so-called battle of ideas.

If it could then they would encourage the debate instead of stifling it.

Every day the international news media expects us to believe that Fidel Castro has been in power for 47 years because that's exactly what Cubans want.

Even FDR, one of America's greatest presidents, wore out his welcome and his four terms resulted in a constitutional amendment limiting presidents to two terms.

They expect us to believe that there is nobody in Cuba that disagrees with the government and that its the US that stifles dissent even though in our country you can pitch a tent across from the White House and say whatever you want.

You can even buy a parcel of land near the president's home and hold as many protests as you want.

But everyone in Cuba is perfectly happy?

The fact is that the media in this country thinks we are fools. And truth be told many among us are fools as judging by some of the emails and comments I get regularly.

fidel castro is a coward. He knows he isn't popular.

That's why he must keep the people of his island on an information island.

That's why he can't allow people to think for one minute that they have

A RIGHT to disagree with ANYTHING.

That's why he can't allow any new ideas to take root.

It's time for everyone who is reading this to take action by writing/emailing/calling the news media and demand that they cover Cuba and repression and the opposition with as much fervor, skepticism inquisitiveness as they cover other issues."

I agree with you Henry.

The Mexican baby invasion

This is a hypothetical telephone conversation between a young mother and her "mami" back in Mexico:

"Mama, mi bebe es gringo"

"Pero hija. Quien es el papa."

"No se pero mi bebe es gringo."

"Pero reyna y con que dinero"

"Mami, aqui todo es gratis."

Do you hear all of those babies crying? Yes. They are "anchor babies", which is what we call those little Mexican babies conveniently born on the US side of the border.

The Houston Chronicle has a great story about this:
'Border baby' boom strains S. Texas. The subtitle is: More illegal immigrants are pouring into the state to give birth.

How to get legal? Years ago, you went to the US embassy in Paseo de la Reforma and got in line to get your "visa".

Today, you get pregnant! Yes, that's right!

First, get pregnant in Mexico, even if you are unmarried. Second, cross the border. Third, rush into a US hospital emergency room a few hours before the birth of your baby. Last, but not least, claim that your baby is a US citizen because he or she was born over here rather than over there:

"Doctors and health officials say they are overwhelmed by both the new arrivals and those immigrant mothers who already are in the state. Even Houston's feeling the pinch. An estimated 70 percent to 80 percent of the 10,587 births at Ben Taub General Hospital and Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital last year were to undocumented immigrants, administrators say."

Call it the "baby attack". Call it whatever you want but this is costing lots of money!

The article goes on:

"Immigrants "want a U.S.-born baby" and know that emergency room staffers don't collect any money up front, said Dr. Mario Rodriguez, an obstetrician in Starr County.

"The word is out: Come to Starr County and get delivered for free. Why pay $1,000 in Mexico when you can get it for free?" Rodriguez said."

It's time to sit down with Pres. Fox, or Calderon, and put an end to this free lunch.

The Mexican government needs to provide these "travelers" with some type of insurance card, i.e. Mexico pays!

This "baby invasion" has to stop or US voters will stop it on election day!

By the way, do you understand now why so many US citizens and legal residents are outraged with this illegal immigration issue? How would Mexicans feel if Central American women were flooding their public hospitals?

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Finally, the NIE report

As I wrote last week, one of the problems with stories based on leaks of classified information is that they are incomplete.

The leaker has all of the information. However, he leaks whatever serves his political agenda.

On Tuesday, Pres. Bush decided to release the report.

I agree with The Wall Street Journal in Declassify the Terrorism NIE:

"It's impossible to know how true this report is, of course, since the NIE itself hasn't been leaked. The reports are based on what sources claim the NIE says, but we don't know who those sources are and what motivations they might have. Since their spin coincides rather conveniently with the argument made by Democratic critics of the war, and since this leak has also conveniently sprung in high campaign season, wise readers will be skeptical."

Robert Kagan makes a great point in More Leaks:

"For instance, what specifically does it mean to say that the Iraq war has worsened the "terrorism threat"?

Presumably, the NIE's authors would admit that this is speculation rather than a statement of fact, since the facts suggest otherwise.

Before the Iraq war, the United States suffered a series of terrorist attacks: the bombing and destruction of two American embassies in East Africa in 1998, the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Since the Iraq war started, there have not been any successful terrorist attacks against the United States. That doesn't mean the threat has diminished because of the Iraq war, but it does place the burden of proof on those who argue that it has increased."

Beware The NIE by Robert Dreyfuss is very interesting too:

"That conclusion, that the war in Iraq is creating terrorists, was treated as manna from heaven by Democrats, and not surprisingly.

But is the war in Iraq producing more terrorists? I don’t think so.

In their eagerness to knock down Bush’s war in Iraq by using reports about the NIE, the Democrats risk giving another boost to the president in the “other” war, namely, the so-called war on terrorism."

It's a shame that a US president has to release classified data to contradict irresponsible journalists. However, I'm glad that he did it!

P.S. This is the NIE report released today. Like any other battlefield "real world" report, it assesses the good and bad from an ongoing war.

Thank God that FDR did not have to comment on war assessments circa 1943-44. Otherwise, the Democrats would have been in serious trouble in '44. Of course, FDR had the Republicans as an opposition party. Bush has to deal with Democrats, specially the wing of the party that will go to any length to undermine a war effort!

Blame it on FOX News and avoid dealing with the truth

First, it was Wal Mart. Now, it's FOX News.

In both cases, the Democrats have decided to declare war on two companies who lead their respective fields.

The Democrats believe that FOX News is out to get Pres. Clinton and the rest of the party.

Of course, this is not true.

What about Juan Williams on FOX News Sunday? Or Mort Kondracke on The Beltway Boys? Or Allan Colmes on prime time? Or Susan Estrich?

Don't insult our intelligence by blaming all of this on FOX News.

Let's deal with the substance, or Pres. Clinton's record, rather than trying to kill the messenger.

The New York Times should stop running stories that put US soldiers at risk!

Yes, we have freedom of the press. However, newspapers are also supposed to be responsible and honest.

The NY Times is not honest or responsible.

Last Sunday, the NY Times ran another story based on leaks. It left the impression that the war in Iraq is recruiting tool # 1.

Unfortunately, the NY Times did not tell the readers that they were printing selective portions of a report that they didn't see. In other words, The NY Times was the recipient of "leaked details" from a "leaker" with a political agenda.

Check out
More of What You Won't Read in the NYT:

"Thankfully, the actual NIE is not the harbinger of disaster that the Times and WaPo would have us believe. According to members of the intel community who have seen the document, the NIE is actually fair and balanced (to coin a phrase), noting both successes and failures in the War on Terror--and identifying potential points of failure for the jihadists."

It's up to The NY Times to answer some of these points. Will they come out and debate this? Or will they hide in their offices and avoid the conversation?

A Latin American perspective on Hugo Chavez

Send out the clowns By Carlos Alberto Montaner puts a Latin American perspective on Hugo Chavez' insane speech at The United Nations:

"Objectively speaking, what good is the United Nations?"

That's exactly right. What's the UN good for?

In fact, Chavez did have a good idea during his 15 minute rant. Chavez suggested that the UN should move from NY and go elsewhere.

The UN has turned into a stage for people like Chavez, who are not democrats nor respectful of their own people.

How does Monica feel about this interview?

Wonder what Monica thinks of all of this?

Clinton's terrible (or selective) memory

Clinton-isms worked in the late 1990s for several reasons:

1) The country was allowed to get into a "our problems are over" post Cold War mood;
2) The country was happy with the stock market, unemployment and the boom that fueled everything in the second term;

3) Ross Perot divided the middle class so that a Democrat could get elected with 43% of the popular vote;
4) The country was in an "Animal House" party mood; and last but not least,
5) Pres. Clinton was afraid to risk his approval ratings by doing something about problems.

To be fair, Pres. Clinton told us about the threats.

He warned us in the '98 and '99 State of the Union messages! He said that Social Security was going broke but left the problem to his successors.

He warned us several times that Saddam had WMDs. In fact, he bombed Iraq for days (without the consent of the UN) because Saddam was a threat.

He gave this speech on December 16, 1998:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Question. Why were US forces only joined by UK forces? Because the international community laughed at Pres. Clinton in much the same way that it laughed at Pres. Bush in 2003. The exception was reliable PM Tony Blair.

The UN did not start being irresponsible when VP Gore failed to win his home state of Tennessee. It was just as worthless and irresponsible in 1998.

The UN did not work with Pres. Clinton either. Don't buy all of this garbage that the world loved the US until Bush invaded Iraq. The UN did not work with Clinton on Haiti, Bosnia or anything else.

Remember Rwanda? Clinton couldn't even persuade the UN to do something about the human tragedy in Rwanda!

In fact, Senator John Kerry was so angry with the UN that he went on CNN and said this:

"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)

Why do certain people believe that the UN and the US used to work together before Bush invaded Iraq? What planet were these people living in? It was not earth!

Back to the Iraq speech. Pres. Clinton went on:

"Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire."

I wonder how many anti-Bushies remember that speech? or Kerry's attack on our so called "allies"?

Question: Who lied about Iraq first? Was it Pres. Clinton or Senator Kerry?

Unfortunately, the Clinton presidency was about feeling good and having a good time. Clinton never went the distance. He kicked the can forward hoping that it would magically find its own way to the garbage.

Eventually, every "Animal House" party comes to an end. Eventually, someone has to clean the dishes or pay the bill.

The first "reality check" came in March 2000 when the stock market crashed setting off the recession that Pres. Bush inherited in 2001.

The second "reality check" was more deadly. It was 9-11 when 3,000 people were killed.

Pres. Clinton's legacy looks a lot different after 9-11 and the stock market crash.

During his infamous TV interview, Pres. Clinton said this:

"I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much."

This is a lie. Let me repeat. This is a lie.

Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and contributing writer to the
Business & Media Institute. He is also contributing editor for the Media Research Center's Today he wrote Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical Revisions:

"With that in mind, a thorough LexisNexis search identified absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever suggesting that Mr. Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden, or did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000.

Quite the contrary, Republicans were typically highly supportive of Clinton’s efforts in this regard."

As a Republican, my criticism of Pres. Clinton is that he did not do more.

I supported Clinton on Bosnia. Why? Because it was the right thing to do.

I supported his Iraq policy, although it was not enough. I believe that Clinton should have taken out Saddam Hussein in '98 when Iraq kicked out inspectors and gave the "finger" to the international community.

Check out what Speaker Gingrich said about our military action following the embassy bombings:

"Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do."

What about Senator Jesse Helms:

"The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism"

Does that sound like right wingers were critical of President Clinton?

Read Sheppard's article because it tears Clinton's assertions to pieces.

Also, check out
Bill Clinton: Play It as It Lies by Ronald A. Cass, Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and author of “The Rule of Law in America” (Johns Hopkins University Press):

"In the history books, he deserves to be counted as the President who did not protect us against al-Qaeda, who left the impression they could attack us without penalty, whose wasted opportunities contributed to the travesty of 9/11. Tough talk now should not be allowed to obscure that fact. Lies now should not go unanswered."

Nobody knows Pres. Clinton better than Dick Morris. Check out The real Clinton emerges:

"But beyond noting the ex-president’s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of ‘is’ is” could perform."

Check out a woman's perspective. See He’s Just My Bill By Myrna Blyth:

"Yes, Clinton is clearly obsessed with protecting his legacy, and reminding him that it remains in the toilet is sure to set him off. Neither his rock-star popularity with certain groups nor his six-figure speech fees, gratifying as they may be, can help him with that. And it makes him, as Wallace found out, crazy."

Check out Did Clinton Really Give Bush A “Comprehensive Anti-Terror Strategy?” The former president says he did. The record says he didn’t By Byron York:

"Perhaps the former president hoped to put an end to the questions about his record on terrorism. Instead, he just brought the issue back to public scrutiny."

Check out Bill's bull? :

"Former advisers ridiculed ex-President Bill Clinton yesterday for saying he had a plan to invade Afghanistan, topple the Taliban and kill Osama Bin Laden after jihadists nearly sank the destroyer Cole."

Clinton knows that his legacy has been shattered. I don't care how many standing ovations he gets in Paris or Toronto. Back here, his real legacy is that he could not deliver Arkansas (his home state) to the Democrats in 2000, 2004 and won't in 2008!

P.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had the best line of the week. She said this:

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida..."

What did we learn about Pres. Clinton's character?

Pres. Clinton picked the wrong reporter to throw the "right wing conspiracy" garbage to. Chris Wallace is one of the best in the business. He's been around for a long time and has no clear partisan streak. Frankly, I've seen Wallace ask tough questions of Republicans and Democrats. Wallace is always very respectful and prepared.

Why did Pres. Clinton get so mad?

Rusty Humphreys makes a great point. Check out A stained dress, a TV mini-series and a glimpse of narcissistic rage:

"If you didn't see Bill Clinton lose control and reveal his pain when asked a few legitimate questions by journalist Chris Wallace on Sunday,
take a moment to get up to speed.

Bill Clinton hasn't shown that much passion since Monica Lewinsky snapped her thong at him. This is classic behavior of a narcissist. Wallace's interview could be used by psychology classes the world over as a teaching tool to give students a real life glimpse of a narcissist and how a narcissist responds when their image has been injured.

As we all witnessed, a narcissist will fight like a cornered animal when they believe their image has been impacted in a negative way. When a narcissist's all-important image has been tarnished like when Bill Clinton is faced with history– they will lash out like nothing you've ever seen. This is known as narcissistic rage."

That's right. Clinton is a narcissist obsessed with a legacy, a legacy that shrinks with time.

Monday, September 25, 2006

Hugo Chavez is hurting Venezuela not the US

(This cartoon is from Babalu)

If you don't speak Spanish, see this:

Chavez: "You are a devil, you smell like sulfur, you are a drunk, you are the demon, you are genocidal Mr. Devil, you are a Dictator, you are an assasin Mr. Devil, you are..."

Bush: "Yeah!Yeah!, everything you say, filler up boy!"

At the UN, Chavez was a loudmouth punk who took cheap shots at Pres. Bush and the UN itself.

Back home, Chavez is not doing so well.

The Washington Post has an outstanding editorial today: Hurricane Chávez

It confirms what many of us have been saying. Chavez is hurting Venezuela rather than Pres. Bush or the US. Check out some key points:

"Since Mr. Chávez took power seven years ago, Venezuela has mismanaged its oil so disastrously that production may have fallen by almost half, according to the estimates of outsiders, reducing global oil supply by a bit more than 1 percent.

He inherited a competent national oil company that produced three times more per worker than its Mexican counterpart. He immediately starved it of investment capital and dispatched ignorant political cronies to oversee it. When this abuse provoked a strike, Mr. Chávez fired the staff en masse, getting rid of two-thirds of the skilled employees and managers.

Mr. Chávez imagines that he can damage the United States by rerouting Venezuelan oil to other markets.

He fails to understand that oil is fungible: If Venezuela's crude is sold to the Chinese, the Chinese will buy less of it elsewhere, freeing up supplies for U.S. consumers.

But Mr. Chávez also appears oblivious to the technical difficulties in sending oil halfway round the world rather than selling it in his own hemisphere.

Oil tankers do not come cheap, and China will have to build special refineries to process the heavy brand of crude that Venezuela produces."

Beyond economic mismanagement, what we are witnessing in Venezuela is a madman using undemocratic means to stay in power:

"Yet it is not the United States but rather Mr. Chávez's own countrymen who should most fear his intentions. Venezuela's courts, media organizations and civil society groups have been bullied into submission, and Mr. Chávez is talking about a constitutional change that would allow him to remain in power indefinitely."

Let's hope that Venezuelans can rid themselves of this lunatic named Hugo before it is too late.

P.S. Pay attention Mexico. You have your own little Hugo living in some tent. His name is LO and he speaks with a different accent. Yet, they are both leftist charlatans. As they say in Texas, these two are up to no good!

Is Osama dead? Check the 9 reasons that Osama may be dead!

We don't know anything about Osama. Is he dead? Is he alive? I don't know! However, you need to check this:

Top 9 Signs That Osama Bin Laden Is Dead by Buckley F. Williams

9. Voted in 2006 Democratic primary.

8. Left orders for his followers to work up a last minute decree stating that "anyone whose name rhymes with Fosama Tin Zaden" receives an extra 50 virgins upon his death.

7. His terrorist intramural basketball team has been trying to acquire a new center.

6. Did not send a fruit basket to
Bill Clinton after his appearance on Fox.

5. There are reports that a Pakistani woman happened by his cave with exposed skin on her ankle and was actually not beaten, tortured and beheaded.

4. There is an greater aroma of
rotten flesh and feces than usually emanates from his cave.

3. Satan just placed his biggest Viagra order ever.

2. Just released a new album with Tupac.

1. There is a general sense of calm among northwestern Pakistani goat herds.

Of course, we don't know. However, we would not be sad if OBL is dead, specially if he was killed by a US missile fired by a New York pilot.

They'd be selling insurance if we had not invaded Iraq!

Pres. Bush is such a party pooper. He invaded Iraq and a bunch of people were forced to change career plans!

The upcoming election is not turning out the Democrats' way. Their big leads have disappeared. In fact, it's looking more and more like Nancy Pelosi will have to return the drapes that she bought for the Speaker's office.

At times like these, the Democrats can always rely on The NY Times to carry their water. Today, the voice of the antiwar left (aka The NY Times) had this headline--Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

This is an excerpt:

"A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."

Read the story and you will see that it is entirely based on leaked details. We have not seen the full report and neither has The NY Times. We have only seen what certain "leakers" told the NY Times. We are only reading what the editors of The NY Times want us to read about this classified report.

What do we know about leakers? They are generally people with an agenda. They are usually the guys who lost the election bent on sabotaging the efforts of the elected leaders.

Also, leakers are cowards. They leak classified information, which is against the law.

I would have a lot more respect for them if they went public and resigned in protest.

No way. They want to leak and keep their government health insurance.

It did not take long for people to react.

Captain's Quarters said this:

"First and foremost, Islamist radicalism didn't just start expanding in 2003. The most massive expansion of Islamist radicalism came after the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when the Islamists defeated one of the world's superpowers.

Shortly afterwards, the staging of American forces in Saudi Arabia to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait created the most significant impulse for the expansion of organized Islamist radicalism and led directly to the formation of al-Qaeda. It put the US in Wahhabi jihadist crosshairs for the first time.

So should we have allowed Saddam to invest Kuwait rather than risk amplifying the Islamist impulse? Some might argue for that in hindsight, but it would have put all of our allies and trading partners at risk in the region, as Saddam would not likely have stopped with his "19th Province".

It does mean that we should have gone all the way to Baghdad then and there, removing Saddam and doing what we're doing now twelve years earlier. We could have worked with a less-radicalized Shi'ite majority and an Iraqi population more inclined to trust American resolve -- and we would have left Saudi Arabia years before 2003.

Unfortunately, we decided to allow Saddam to survive, and then got caught up in a 12-year war that only occasionally looked like peace.

We had to keep tens of thousands of forces staged in Saudi Arabia, the action that prompted al-Qaeda's formation and mission in the first place, for a dozen years while we allowed Saddam to continually defyboth the cease-fire agreement and sixteen UN Security Council resolutions.

Either we had to acknowledge defeat in that war and retreat from the region after 9/11, or we had to end that twelve-year war in order to prosecute the war on terror in the region where terrorists lived.

Did that make Islamists more angry? Yes, I'm sure it did, and it probably did give them a great propaganda tool for recruitment.

However, here's the crux of the problem: no matter what we do to fight the Islamists and to establish liberal thinking in opposition to them, they're going to get motivated because of it.

Even an abject surrender and a return to isolationism will not work, because their victory over us will be an even greater motivational force for Islamist expansion.

We had to conclude the Iraq war in order to fight radical Islamist terrorists. We could not afford to allow Saddam to escape the noose -- which our erstwhile allies on the Security Council tried through the corruption of the Oil-For-Food program -- and to have his miltary on our flank in the region.

When the planes flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, that truth finally dawned on Washington DC -- that the long quagmire in Iraq had seriously endangered the US in the region and beyond, and that we had to end the one war as a part of the new war that terrorist had thrust upon us.

To put it bluntly, fighting terrorists and upsetting their plans for regional domination will make them mad.

Creating opportunities for liberalizing democratic structures to thrive in their back yard will give them enough resentment among Islamists to recruit more terrorists.

If we don't already know that much, then we haven't paid much attention.

When George Bush warned us that this would be a long war, this is exactly what he meant. The only way to win this war is to give the people in the region better options than Islamic totalitarianism, and a success in Iraq will go a long way towards that goal."

Power Line added this:

"It may be the case that the terrorists are recruiting more members than before, and it's likely that terrorists rely heavily on the war in Iraq when they engage in recruiting.

But it does not follow that the war is hurting the overall terror fight or even that it's materially helping terrorists recruit.

If we had not overthrown Saddam Hussein, the terrorists would hardly be without a sales pitch. They could cite the "crusade" in Afghanistan (which some liberals assure us would be intense if only we weren't bogged down in Iraq), our support of Israel including our support of its bombing campaign in Lebanon, our support of the Saudis, and the fact that we backed down in Iraq.

These sorts of recruiting pitches fueled the rise of al Qaeda in the 1990s.

If the NIE argues that this decade's Islamofascists need the war in Iraq on top of its traditional arguments in order effectively to recruit, I'd like to see its evidence.

One should also ask whether any alleged recruiting gains are offset by the fact that a state that supported terrorism and had significance experience and know-how with a variety of WMD is out of business.

I wonder whether the NIE gets into this subject, which undoubtedly is a sore one for our spy agencies.

Finally, one should ask what the impact on terrorist recruiting of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be.

Past terrorist recruiting efforts are said to have fueled by the U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon in the 1980s and Somalia in the 1990s, and of course by the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan.

It seems obvious that a U.S. pull-out in Iraq under present conditions would represent the mother of all recruiting opportunites. But maybe our spy agencies believe that a pull-out would cause would-be recruits suddenly to conclude that we're not evil infidels after all.

De Young glides around this whole issue by noting that the NIE does not offer policy recommendations. But don't our spy agencies consider the likely effects of changing our policies?

If not, they have little to offer us when it comes to thinking about what our policies should be.

JOHN adds: This is the latest cheap shot in the CIA's war against the Bush administration.

As I've said before, one of the inherent vices of leaks of classified information is the selectivity of those leaks.

When anti-Bush intelligence officials want to damage the President with a leak to the Washington Post, they relate certain features of, in this case, the National Intelligence Estimate, that they think will have the intended effect.

But we don't get to see the whole report; just the reporter's spin on the spin she was given by the embedded Democrats in the agencies.

We have no way of knowing, based on this kind of news story, what the report actually says, or how sound its reasoning is.

By the way, note that the report was completed in April. So the Democrats held their leak until it could be of service in the election campaign."

We do know that The NY Times has a political agenda. This is why I will wait until the full report comes out. Frankly, I don't trust The NY Times!

This report is part of a silly notion that our invasion of Iraq turned young men away from insurance sales, or some other pursuit, into terrorists.

I wish that it was that simple but it is not.

Terrorists are in Iraq because they see that war as a key battle. Why are they so committed to defeating the US in Iraq? Why haven't terrorists said that "Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda" and moved on to another battle zone?

On this issue, the terrorists do not agree with The NY Times editorial board or most US liberals!

We will never know what would have happened if we had not invaded Iraq. We do know Saddam Hussein's track record. We do know that terrorists would have found some other reason to recruit others, just as they had before we invaded Iraq!

Will liberals ever get serious about the threat that we face?




Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

Follow by Email



Search This Blog