Thursday, November 30, 2006

Are we tough enough to defend ourselves?

Yes Leon. You are watching too much war coverage. Let me give you some simple advice. Turn it off!
Where does this defeatist attitude come from? Why is our media so invested in defeat?
What makes them think that the terrorists will go soft because we go soft?
I agree with Losing the Enlightenment BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON:
"Our current crisis is not yet a catastrophe, but a real loss of confidence of the spirit."
Speaking of a defeatist media, Check out Amy Proctor's great blog. Click and watch!

GEN Abizaid, Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in the Middle East, was interviewed on 60 Minutes Sunday by Laura Logan. While Logan is a very intelligent and professional reporter, far less biased than others at CBS, her inability to grasp some realities in Iraq were evident in her reporting. Her matter-of-fact question about "managing defeat" is a case in point. This is well worth watching.

It was a lot easier when they were screaming from the bleachers!

As I wrote before, the 6 years of one-party rule were great for Democrats. They simply sat in the bleachers and called the manager a bunch of names. No solutions just name calling.
They could vote for the war and then oppose it at any convenient moment. They could accept millions from corporations and then pretend that they are party of little people.
The bleacher era is over. Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi and the gang will now have to enact bills rather than vote against everything.
"What will the Democrats do with their majorities in Congress? The 2006 campaign was pretty much an idea-free zone and provides only a few clues."
"Democrats, who won the midterm elections promising to relieve financial pressures on middle- class families while restoring fiscal discipline to Washington, now face a crunch over paying for their promises."
"For all of the dire warnings and pre-election commotion about the impact of a Democratic majority in Congress, the fact is that - now that it is upon us - it can do little or nothing but harass the administration."
It was indeed a lot easier when they sat in the bleachers and second guessed the manager's lineup!

"The Economist" and Mexico

Yesterday, The Economist had a good review of Mexico. See Mexico's new president:

"Mr Calderón will face a host of challenges after entering office on December 1st besides the fierce opposition he will confront from Mr López Obrador’s PRD, both within and outside Congress. These include ongoing violence in Oaxaca, a state overwhelmed by protests during the last six months and now occupied by a federal police force, and persistent drug- and gang-related violence. Then there is the stalled reform agenda, on whose advancement he has essentially bet his presidency.

The new president’s collaborators insist that his government will be much stronger than that of departing President Fox. Besides the party’s larger share of congressional seats and the increase in the number of PAN governors, Mr Calderón is an experienced politician and an effective negotiator, they insist. They also say that Mexico will benefit from sounder economic fundamentals, stronger institutions and a consistent and proven policy framework, none of which existed six years ago.

However, Mr Calderón’s ability to govern could be severely hampered by the polarising effects of the election, which divided the country along ideological, socio-economic and geographic lines (with poverty being concentrated in the southern states). The makeup of his social cabinet, which is comprised entirely of PAN loyalists, could also prove a liability, as it does not comply with his post-election pledge to form an inclusive government and reach out to other political forces."

The Economist has some good things to say:

"On the positive side, the political weaknesses of the Calderón administration pose little risk to Mexico’s economy. Macroeconomic stability has been achieved and maintained over several years, in no small part because of the sound monetary policy and inflation-fighting skills of an independent central bank, Banco de México, led by governor Guillermo Ortiz, who will remain in place until 2010. Any volatility in recent months in the peso and Mexican stock and bond prices has been triggered more by global and regional trends than by political concerns, suggesting that investors have shrugged off domestic uncertainty. In the coming year, the main threat to Mexico’s economic performance and stability will in fact be its close commercial ties to the US, and the risk of a sharper-than-expected economic slowdown there."

I agree with that. Guillermo Ortiz has been Mexico's quiet hero. I heard him speak in Dallas and he is very sharp.

Good luck Pres. Calderon. We want you to succeed.

The Mexican "sleep over party"

Last night, I watched some of the most amazing TV scenes ever. I did not think that the PRD could top the September 1st performance. But they did!

The PRD had a slumber party with sleeping bags and catered food. They even had a fist fight and the usual screaming that goes with it.

It looked like something out of Saturday Night Live or Mad TV. Unfortunately, they were scenes from the Mexican Congress.

Welcome to the new Mexico and I'm not talking about the border state.

Welcome to the new Mexico where the left is out of control and determined to do anything to reverse last July's election.

Welcome to the new Mexico where the left pretends to defend democracy by shutting down democratic steps.

Who is going to stand up and defend Mexico? Who is going to say "enough is enough"?

What Mexican politician has the "stomach" to clean up this infantile behavior from grown ups who should know better? I don't know!

From now on, we will call them: LO and his P(arty) of R(etarded) D(ummies). They are certainly acting like a party of retarded dummies!

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Unfortunately, history repeats itself

You can divide the free world into two groups. On one hand, you have people who understand that our enemy wants to blow up a Western city. On the other hand, you have people who do not see evil.
This is why it matters to understand the past. See Revisiting (and Reliving) 1938 By Rick Richman:
"For Churchill, it was evidence that “in the dawn of 1938 decisive changes in European groupings and values had taken place.”
The Western democracies had “seemed to give repeated proofs that they would bow to violence so long as they were not themselves directly assailed.”
Some people say Pres. Bush and PM Blair are the Churchill/FDR of our time. I agree with that.
Back to the article:
"In the impending repetition of the history that Churchill wrote down to warn future generations, it is not yet clear who will be asked to play the role of Czechoslovakia."
In our case, Czechoslovakia will be a Western city that goes up in smoke and thousands are killed.
Of course, the Europeans, and too many of our allies, don't buy into that at all. Many didn't in the 1930s either.

Is this progress? I don't think so!

We've come a long way, baby! Frankly, we've gone so far that we are heading into a black hole. This is not progress. This is a devaluation of our traditions.

This is bad news: 37 Percent of U.S. Births Out of Wedlock
Our cultural devaluation has reached another miserable landmark. Last year, almost four out of every ten babies were born to an unmarried woman.

In 1960, it was 5.3%. Now it is 37%.

This is not progress. This is going in the opposite direction.

According to
Single Mothers and Poverty :

"Approximately 60 percent of U.S. children living in mother-only families are impoverished, compared with only 11 percent of two-parent families.
The rate of poverty is even higher in African-American single-parent families, in which two out of every three children are poor.

According to data compiled by the National Center for Fathering, children in father-absent families are five times more likely to be poor and ten times more likely to be extremely poor than children raised with a father in the home.

New analysis by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research of Census Bureau poverty and income figures reveals continuing economic hard times for women.
While single mothers constitute less than one-fifth of all families, they make up half of all families in poverty.
Furthermore, almost 40 percent of families headed by African American single mothers lived in poverty in 2002."

Why? Because most single mothers are not Hollywood actresses or rockers.
Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of respect for a woman who is forced to raise a family by herself.
Where is the father? Why isn't he around to raise the children?

Our problem is that our society has devalued traditions, such as marriage. It's too easy for men and women to walk away from their responsibilities, such as parenthood.
We have to defend marriage or we will have more babies born out of wedlock.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

The NY Times deserves to lose this one

Let's give a cheer for the bird. He does not like The NY Times either. See Court turns down New York Times in leak investigation:

"The Justice Department says the reporters' calls tipped off the charities of upcoming government raids."

Again, this is not freedom of the press. This is either sloppy journalism or something close to treason.

Let me repeat. Our enemy wants to blow up an American city. What part of that threat doesn't The NY Times understand?

The press and the war, part 3

Everyone should see

"Once it became clear that Hitler was a threat to the existence of the nation, the BBC and other British news outlets started to view what the Nazis were saying with a much more critical eye.

But couldn’t they have figured this out sooner? Why did they swallow enemy propaganda so willingly?

We asked similar questions during the Israeli-Hizbullah war when it became readily apparent that the AP (and thus hundreds of media outlets around the world) were using photos and stories from outright Hizbullah sympathizers whose job could only have been to give enemy propaganda to western reporters.

And in Iraq, many critics have pointed to the almost total reliance by the mainstream press on Iraqi “stringers” for news of what’s happening around the country."

Sooner or later, reporters have to choose sides. In this case, the choice is clear: Our side is freedom and the other side is no freedoms.

Let me put this way. If the enemy wins they will kill the same reporters who are carrying their water.

Objectivity is a silly goal when your enemy wants to blow up a Western city, and the reporters who live in that city!

P.S. See this Power Line post
Story of Sunnis Burned Alive Going Up In Smoke:

"There is no doubt plenty of violence in Baghdad to go around. But the current attitude toward the situation in Iraq is one of hysteria. That hysteria is being shamelessly stoked by news organs like the Associated Press, who rely--apparently uncritically--on reports from stringers who may be imposters, and may be agents of the insurgency. Such reports are repeated endlessly and thereby add to the momentum for surrender in Iraq. The difficulty of getting reliable reporting out of Iraq should not become an excuse for an abandonment of all journalistic standards."

Silence on immigration reform

The Washington Post has an interesting article today New Congress Unlikely to Rush Toughest Issues:

"Immigration is another area in which Democrats are proceeding cautiously even though the Nov. 7 elections appeared to remove a major roadblock.

The current Congress reached an impasse on illegal immigration, with the House Republican majority insisting on an approach that strongly emphasizes enforcement, while a bipartisan Senate group -- backed by President Bush -- sought broader changes, including guest-worker programs and pathways to legal status for illegal workers.

With Democrats poised to take over both houses -- and Bush in office for two more years -- the Senate approach would seem to have momentum.

But party leaders have made no promises about when or how they might move an immigration package, which would involve at least five House committees.

Moreover, it is clear that the election did not eliminate the nation's deep divisions over what to do about illegal immigrants.

"The elections definitely have raised expectations in immigrant communities that real reform is possible," said Josh Bernstein of the National Immigration Law Center, which supports broad-based changes to help illegal workers.

"But it's still too early to say whether that will translate into actual legislation."

A major rewrite of immigration laws "is enormously complicated," Bernstein said, "and has deep effects on our economy, our identity, the kind of country we're going to be. There are a lot of interests that are very legitimate, whether it's business, worker unions or immigrants from different countries. . . . It's highly emotionally charged on all sides."

In other words, the Democrats are not putting immigration reform on top of their agenda. Why? As we noted before, most of their new members ran on border security.

What are border agents saying?

What are the border agents saying about our border mess? It sounds to me that they are making a reasonable proposal. First, call for border security and a guest worker option.

Ex-agents OK guest-worker plan By Jerry Seper:

"In its position paper, the association said:

•Aliens now in the United States must be here with permission or they should leave or be removed. It said that can be achieved only by securing the borders and passing legislation establishing "meaningful processes" for the screening of those who wish to enter legally.

•It "absolutely opposes" any legislation giving legal status to those who entered the country illegally or who entered legally and remained in the country illegally.

•It supports "meaningful employer sanctions," adding that current laws are adequate although their use "has been subverted to meaninglessness through political and legal pressure initiated by those who benefit from the presence of illegal aliens."

•Congress and the White House need to direct the Homeland Security and Justice departments to aggressively enforce existing immigration laws."

Our allies need to stand up and face the music

The world wants more multinational operations. How can you do multinational operations if the other nations don't have troops or leaders willing to spend more money on defense? Do you remember the fiasco of sending 25,000 troops to Lebanon? Are we still waiting for the French to lead the effort?

Bush to Press Allies on Defense Spending By DESMOND BUTLER:

"According to estimated figures published on NATO's Web site, France spent 2.5 percent of its GDP on defense last year, Britain devoted 2.4 percent and German expenditures were at 1.4 percent, down from 2 percent at the end of the Cold War. Canada was among the members with the lowest spending, at 1.1 percent of its GDP."

The US has been doing all of the heavy lifting. It's time for our allies to stop criticizing the US and start putting some money into defense.

The article goes on:

"Despite U.S. pressure, some NATO allies have continued to cut overall spending.
"Many of the European nations, particularly the smaller and medium-sized powers, are hitting the budgetary wall," Michele Flournoy, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington said at a briefing Tuesday.

The alliance's mission in Afghanistan has exposed some of the defense shortfalls, the analysts say."

Pres. Bush needs to press our allies to spend more money. Afghanistan is a critical test for NATO. If NATO cannot succeed in Afghanistan then it may be time to reconsider the organization.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Will Mexicans say TGIF?

In Texas, we say TGIF, or "Thank God it's Friday". Will Mexicans say TGIF next Friday? Mexico has been waiting for this Friday since July 2nd.

Over the weekend, I checked out an old book.

Caspar Weinberger (Pres. Reagan's Sec of Defense) wrote
"The Next War" in 1997. It speculated about potential war scenarios for the US military.

It included the usual references to Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, North Korea, China and Russia. Yet, Sec. Weinberger included a chapter on Mexico.

Unfortunately, many of Sec. Weinberger's assumptions look rather real today. See StrategyPage's The Border War and Its Costs:

"The border wars, between rival drug gangs, has not only caused a business slowdown all along the border, but news of the situation has hurt tourism. Foreign visitors have declined five percent so far this year, compared to last year. It's not just the gunfire, scary looking criminals and rumors about all this, it's also the government response. Lots more police and soldiers on patrol, some carrying automatic weapons. For tourists, this is reassuring and scary at the same time. And the drop in tourist traffic has cost the Mexican economy some $200 million so far this year. The gang wars in northern Mexico have killed over 600 so far this year. The murder rate in many border towns is 2-3 times what it is in New York City, and kidnapping is a growing criminal activity."

Mark in Mexico has the latest from Oaxaca.....and it's not pretty.

Don't get me wrong. I want Calderon to succeed. We want a prosperous neighbor.

At the same time, things don't look pretty in Mexico!

Then there is AMLO. It's true that most Mexicans do not like what AMLO is doing. AMLO is a jerk but he is a persistent jerk. As far as I can see, AMLO has the stomach, and troops, to go the distance. He is not going away, regardless of what Mexicans may think of him.

AMLO's strategy is simple: Make life miserable for Calderon. AMLO knows that he won't be president of Mexico. At the same time, AMLO knows that his movement can create the kind of political and economic chaos that causes capital flight or personal safety issues (kidnappings).

Question: Does Calderon have the stomach to confront AMLO? We don't know. The answer to that question will tell us a lot about Mexican politics in the future.

In the meantime, Friday is here. Will Mexicans say TGIF?

For a little historical perspective, see
What's at Stake In Mexico City By Enrique Krause.

Rudy will be OK

Like many conservatives, I don't like Rudy Giuliani's positions on abortion and same sex marriage. At the same time, we like his leadership skills and how he managed New York City.
Yes, Rudy won't get the nomination. However, he would make an outstanding running mate.
2008 will be about leadership in a post 9-11 world. Is anyone better qualified than the former mayor of New York City? Is there a stronger leader on the Republican bench? Also, Rudy puts NY and NJ in play.

I agree with Lorie Byrd:

"Events between now and November 2008 will determine which issues ultimately play the biggest role in voters’ choice for President. Over the next two weeks, though, as Americans observe the anniversaries of Katrina and 9/11, the issues of leadership in times of crisis and how best to fight the war on terror will make for an excellent opportunity for Rudy Giuliani to shine."

Where is Fidel?

El Comandante must be resting. He has not been seen in public for some time. Is he dead? Who knows?

For more on Cuba's "socialist paradise", read Cuban utopia reality check:

"If one were to believe all of the propaganda issued by the Cuban government and parroted by the American media you'd have to believe that Cuba is one big happy island where everyone gets top notch healthcare (for free), where everyone gets top notch education (for free), where the populace is almost unanimously behind fidel castro and his regime, where there is almost no crime, etc. etc.
You'd just have to forget about the hundreds of thousands that have fled the country in the last 14 years (not to mention the more than 1.5 million since 1959).
You'd have to forget that unless they have relatives in the US that can send them medicines Cubans often don't get the medications prescribed by their "free" doctors.
You'd have to forget about the forced labor that Children in Cuba must do in exchange for their "free" educations.
You'd have to forget about Oscar Elias Biscet and all the other political prisoners that had the temerity to disagree with their government and the gall to do it publicly."

What else do you expect from "poll readers"?

In 2000, 4 million liberals (including Michael Moore) voted for Ralph Nader because they were sick and tired of Clinton's vanilla liberalism.

So how do Democrats reward all of those liberals who worked for their election in 2006. They went on
Fox TV and said:

"Three Democratic congressmen who are about to take important leadership posts said on Sunday they plan to pass popular legislation blocked by Republicans but would refrain from pushing some of the most controversial elements on the liberal agenda."

What a kick in the teeth to all of those who licked envelopes and made phone calls to get the vote out.

Of course, what else do you expect from poll readers?

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Where are the feminists?

The international feminist movement has two problems with the success of Afghan women.
First, they were liberated by Pres. Bush and the US.
Second, Afghan women don't believe in abortion.
Beyond that, how can we continue to avoid the success stories in Afghanistan.

Myrna Blyth writes about women's issues. She is the author of "Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness — and Liberalism — to the Women of America".

Today, she wrote Afghan Entrepreneuses
--A group of Afghan businesswomen visited the U.S. for a management course:

"I met an amazing group of Afghan women last week.
We met at Thunderbird, the graduate school of international business located in Phoenix.
The women, all entrepreneurs in Afghanistan, had come for a two-week course to improve their business skills.
In between classes in marketing and finance, they had time to see a few sights, including the Grand Canyon and, almost as exciting, a dollar store.
In Afghanistan they run a surprising array of businesses.
One is an engineer and heads an Association of Women Engineers. Her business is the construction of small villages.
Another manufactures soccer balls, while a third has a company that produces washing powder in Kabul. Her competition, not surprising, consists of imports from China."

What an amazing story. Yet, an unreported amazing story.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Bad news for Hispanic women!

Hispanic Family Values? by Heather Mac Donald paints a rather grim picture of the future:

"Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country—over three times that of whites and Asians, and nearly one and a half times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control."

Yet, it gets worse than that:

"Despite the strong family support, the prevalence of single parenting among Hispanics is producing the inevitable slide into the welfare system.

“The girls aren’t marrying the guys, so they are married to the state,” Dr. Sanchez observes.

Hispanics now dominate the federal Women, Infants, and Children free food program; Hispanic enrollment grew over 25 percent from 1996 to 2002, while black enrollment dropped 12 percent and white enrollment dropped 6.5 percent.

Illegal immigrants can get WIC and other welfare programs for their American-born children."

Where is all of this going to stop? I don't know but it makes you wonder.

Free trade and the Democrats

PETE DU PONT is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. He wrote Protection Racket:

"Free trade is the most important single way to promote growth," Milton Friedman said in an interview a few weeks before his death. But the new Democratic congressional majority doesn't understand that."

The Democrats want to restrict free trade and replace with something called fair trade, which is a silly way of describing protectionism.

Trade agreements have been good for the US economy:

"The North American Free Trade Agreement, signed into law by President Clinton in 1993, has expanded total trade between the U.S, Canada, and Mexico by 172%.

U.S. exports to Mexico have grown by 189% and to Canada by 111%. U.S. agricultural exports to Canada have doubled, to $10.6 billion from $5.3 billion, and to Mexico even more--to $9.4 billion from $3.6 billion.

More than one million jobs were created in America by NAFTA.

Overall the U.S. Trade Representative's office says that 10.4% of the 2005 American GDP is the result of U.S. exports of goods and services.

The Peterson Institute says that globalization boosts the U.S. economy $1 trillion annually, or about $10,000 per household. There is no question that trade both increases jobs in some areas and decreases them in others, both internationally and domestically. When cars replaced carriages, computers replaced typewriters, and E-ZPass replaced toll-takers in America, some jobs were lost and other were gained."

Thank God for Pres. Bush's veto. It will stop a lot of silly ideas coming from a Democrat Congress that does not understand free trade.

A note about Iran

Arthur Herman has taught history at George Mason University and Georgetown University. He is the author of "The Idea of Decline in Western History", "How the Scots Invented the Modern World", and, most recently, "To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World (2004)", nominated in 2005 for the Mountbatten Prize in naval history. Today, he wrote
Getting serious about Iran:

"In 1936, the French army could have halted Hitler’s reoccupation of the Rhineland with a single division of troops, but chose to do nothing. In 1938, Britain and France could have joined forces with the well-armed and highly motivated Czech army to administer a crushing defeat to the German Wehrmacht and probably topple Hitler in the bargain. Instead they handed him the Sudetenland, setting in motion the process that in 1939 led to the most destructive war in world history.
Do we intend to dither until suicide bombers blow up a supertanker off the Omani coast, or a mushroom cloud appears over Tel Aviv, before we decide it is finally time to get serious about Iran?"

The Iran crisis just got more complicated. See
Russia sends missiles to Iran:

"Russia has begun delivery of Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Iran, a Defense Ministry official said Friday, confirming that Moscow would proceed with arms deals with Tehran in spite of U.S. criticism."

Russia sits in the Security Council, which naturally makes you wonder why anyone expects anything worthwhile to come out of the UN.

As Hugh Hewitt reports today:

"Iran must conclude that if Russia is willing to sell it the weapons necessary to defend nuclear facilities, it cannot really be intending to force the halt of construction on those facilities.

If Iran is going to be stopped, it won't be as a result of a Security Council resolution."

The press and the war, part 2

In a previous post, I wrote about the press and war. I quoted from Michael Novak's What the Islamists Have Learned !

Patterico has a great
post on the war and The LA Times:

"Is the L.A. Times reporting unconfirmed enemy propaganda from an Iraqi stringer with ties to the insurgency? Or is the paper simply misreporting the facts, and failing to seek out and report the military’s side of the story? You be the judge."

This is another example of our news media helping the enemy.

Lenin had a great line: useful idiots. Should we use the same line against some of our media?

Democrats and border security

The Democrats have completely forgotten immigration reform in their agenda for next year.

Why is that? Because most new Democrats ran on border enforcement rather than comprehensive reform.

Where do the new Democrats stand on immigration? See this!

The new Democrats want border security first. This is going to be tough pill for Hispanics who invested their hopes and dreams in the Democrats.

Friday, November 24, 2006

I support a draft

REP. CHARLES RANGEL published Why I want the draft:

"If this war is the threat to our national security that the Bush administration insists it is, then the President should issue a call for all Americans to sacrifice for the nation's defense. If there must be a sacrifice, then the burden must be shared fairly."

I agree with Rep. Rangel. Yet,
I disagree with some of the other things, such as that the military is for poor people.

In fact, the military is attracting top people.

See The Ivy Soldier BY SETH GITELL. See Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003–2005:

"Recruits have a higher percent­age of high school graduates and representation from Southern and rural areas. No evidence indicates exploitation of racial minorities (either by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas).
Finally, the distri­bution of household income of recruits is noticeably higher than that of the entire youth population.

Demographic evidence discredits the argument that a draft is necessary to enforce representation from racial and socioeconomic groups. Addition­ally, three of the four branches of the armed forces met their recruiting goals in fiscal year 2005, and Army reenlistments are the highest in the past five years."

Nevertheless, I have supported a draft for years. Everyone should serve. Everyone should get a taste of the real world that comes from wearing a uniform and understanding what this nation stands for.

Yes, I support a draft. I do not support Rep. Rangel's reasons!

The press and the war

There are 3 good articles about the media and war. To say the least, our media does not see the threat.

The Press at War by James Q. Wilson looks at coverage:

"We are told by careful pollsters that half of the American people believe that American troops should be brought home from Iraq immediately. This news discourages supporters of our efforts there.

Not me, though: I am relieved.

Given press coverage of our efforts in Iraq, I am surprised that 90 percent of the public do not want us out right now.

Between January 1 and September 30, 2005, nearly 1,400 stories appeared on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news.

More than half focused on the costs and problems of the war, four times as many as those that discussed the successes.

About 40 percent of the stories reported terrorist attacks; scarcely any reported the triumphs of American soldiers and marines.

The few positive stories about progress in Iraq were just a small fraction of all the broadcasts.

When the Center for Media and Public Affairs made a nonpartisan evaluation of network news broadcasts, it found that during the active war against Saddam Hussein, 51 percent of the reports about the conflict were negative.

Six months after the land battle ended, 77 percent were negative; in the 2004 general election, 89 percent were negative; by the spring of 2006, 94 percent were negative. This decline in media support was much faster than during Korea or Vietnam."

Of course, this is not lost on our enemy. Let me repeat "our enemy" because they are just as likely to blow up New York, Montreal, Paris or Mexico City. They are also just as likely to blow up the offices of the ACLU as the headquarters of National Review.

This enemy hates the West. They do not hate Pres. Bush, although cynical analysts continue to push that lie.

What the Islamists Have Learned by Michael Novak should sent a sobering message to all of those who think that these folks are mad at the West because the US, and several allies, invaded Iraq:

"What we have discovered in Iraq is the weakest link in the ability of the United States to sustain military operations overseas. That link is the U.S. media. They are Islamists' best friends.

Experience shows that the mainstream press of the United States is alienated from the U.S. military.

In addition, the American press is extremely vulnerable to anti-U.S. propaganda.

Thus, the American public will be fed nearly everything that foreign adversaries--our band of brothers--wish to feed it about the war."

Last but not least, the media's coverage has been extremely negative. Take a look at
Rebuilding in Iraq tops 4,000 projects By Rowan Scarborough:

"Today, the Pentagon is handing out a score sheet:

•Six new primary care facilities, with 66 more under construction; 11 hospitals renovated; more than 800 schools fixed up; more than 300 police stations and facilities and 248 border control forts.
•Added 407,000 cubic meters per day of water treatment; a new sewage-treatment system for Basra; work on Baghdad's three plants continues; oil production exceeds the 2002 level of 2 million barrels a day by 500,000.
•The Ministry of Electricity now sends power to Baghdad for four to eight hours a day, and 10 to 12 for the rest of the country. Iraqis are now free to buy consumer items such as generators, which provide some homes with power around-the-clock.

Mr. Popps said all this was accomplished despite a concerted effort by terrorists to bomb construction sites and kill workers. Thursday's kidnapping of private contractors south of Baghdad illustrates the problem. The State Department was forced to increase spending on security, up to $5 billion of the $20 billion, or risk losing more projects to saboteurs. "

Why aren't you reading that?

You cannot win a war this way.

Again, let me repeat it. Pres. Bush will go back to Texas in '09. The terrorists are not planning to retire, specially now that they understand that the media is on their side.

Sooner or later, we are going to have to defeat these people. We can fight among ourselves and delay the fight. As we learned in the 1930s, delaying the inevitable only means that more people will be killed.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Dallas is mad about Romo

Have you ever seen anything like this?

Take a QB from a small college. He is not drafted. He signs as a free agent with the Cowboys. He stands behind the starting QB for 3 years and does not get a single snap in the NFL.

Six weeks ago, he gets into the 2nd half. Today, he is 4-1 as a starter and the most popular man in North Texas.

Would Hollywood buy such a script? No way. Yet, that's the story of Tony Romo.

Put me down as a Romo fan and let's go Cowboys!

P.S. He
threw 5 TD passes today against TB!

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Fidel and the Latin American left are not doing well

Has anybody seen Fidel lately? He is alive, in the sense that his heart is still beating. Yet, it's becoming a lot more difficult for the communist regime to conceal Fidel's illness.
Michael Barone has a great post today Latin American Politics: Leftism Repudiated:
"At this time last year, with elections looming in Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Peru, Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, many analysts were predicting victories for candidates of the left, and Venezuela's Hugo Chávez was salivating at the prospect of gaining numerous anti-American allies in the region.
But the only Chávez-backed candidates to win were Evo Morales in backward Bolivia and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and the latter claimed to be much more moderate than in his Sandinista days.
Alan García and Felipe Calderón won in Peru and Mexico after running ads tying their opponents to Chávez. Lula da Silva, re-elected in Brazil, and Michele Bachelet, elected in Chile, are both center-leftists whose policies are not significantly out of line with the "Washington consensus" favoring free markets and free trade."
Barone writes:
"There's a great article by John Lyons on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal, headlined "Populism Loses Appeal for Voters In Latin America."
The left has not delivered. It makes a lot of noise but it does not attract the foreign investment that Latin America needs to create jobs.

New poll on illegal immigration

According to a new Reuters poll, Americans want border security and a guest worker program:

"Two-thirds of Americans favor a guest-worker program with a path to citizenship," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"Maybe a lot of Americans think back to the stories of their own immigrant families."

"But Americans also want to close the borders to keep out illegal immigrants in the future," Carroll added.

"There are big margins for a tougher border policy among all parties and among men and women."

Farmers Branch, and other cities, will be pleased to read this:

"Sixty-five percent of American voters support -- and 32 percent oppose -- laws in their own community to fine businesses hiring illegal immigrants, according to the poll."

It sounds to me that Americans are making a sensible request: Give some people a chance to work but protect our borders.

The Iraq factor in the last election

Iraq and the Election by JOHN MCINTYRE makes a good point:

"Eugene Robinson
makes a mistake many on the left are making in interpreting the election results as a repudiation of the Iraq War and a desire to get out."

I believe that the message was this: find a way to win!

Farmers Branch and the rule of law

For years, Farmers Branch was a quiet community between Carrollton and Dallas, west of Addison and east of Irving. Today, FB is in the middle of a huge battle.

Should FB be enforcing immigration laws? No. The feds should be doing that. Of course, our federal government isn't.

It did not take long for some to accuse FB city council members of "racism", anti Mexico-ism, anti Spanish-ism, anti immigrant-ism and every other "ism" in the lexicon.

What is the new definition of "racist"? It is opposing open borders and the rampant violation of immigration laws.

We need to contact the Academy in Madrid and update Spanish dictionaries: "Racismo" is now opposing illegal immigration!

How in the world do you accuse someone of "racism" because they believe that employers should hire legal workers?

Of course, Farmers Branch, and other 50 cities contemplating similar initiatives, are not against Mexico, Spanish or anything else.

This is about the rule of law. This is not about immigrants. This is about illegal immigrants.

Again, this is about the rule of law.

This is about defending the law abiding employer who hires legal workers and respects the law. We should not be defending the one who hires illegals to get around labor laws and minimum standards.

Shouldn't we applaud the honest employer? Yes. We should honor him by shutting down the dishonest employer who is using illegal workers to make a higher profit or to get around the law.

Why does the rule of law matter? The answer is that you cannot have prosperity without a respect for the law.

Hernando de Soto is president of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy (ILD), the Lima, Peru-based think tank that advocates for property-rights reforms in developing nations.

I agree with De Soto:

"People need the rule of law," he said.

"That's why they migrate to the United States. They leave countries that are lawless. Everybody likes certainty; they like standards. People understand that's the only way you can find security."

Again, why does the rule of law matter? See this from the Fraser Institute--
Economic Freedom and Rule of Law Key to Ending Latin America’s Years of Stagnation and Poverty:

"Latin America has never had a sustained market-based reform effort and, most dangerously, has failed to establish the rule of law.

If Latin Americans are ever going to build prosperity and reduce poverty, we must enter into a period of real reform – especially in building the rule of law.”

Question: Should we allow people to break the law without consequences? We should not.

Let's call it what it is. This is a debate about illegal immigrants and the rule of law. This is not about immigrants and Mexico!

Yes, I support a guest worker program. However, I do not support massive violations of our immigration or labor laws.

Last but not least, let's remember that forcing Mexico to reform itself is the most humane thing that we can do. We are not helping Mexico by allowing its political class to punt on difficult issues and export its problems to the US.

Again, the rule of law matters. It matters a lot!

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Let's hope that Mexico's serious leaders show up on December 1st

For years, Mexicans complained that their politics was predictable and boring. I guess that 70 years of one party rule will do that to you. However, Mexico is a little too exciting at the moment.
At the Zocalo, LO has appointed himself president. I saw some of the ceremony last night and it was bizarre to say the least.
Over at the Congress, some legislators are threatening to shut down the place and keep Calderon from taking the presidency.
Mexicans used to complain about a tyrannical presidency. It looks to me that Mexico may have a bad case of legislative excess.
Over at Los Pinos, Pres. Fox is acting like a man who forgot that he was elected to enforce the law. Is he going to show up and hand over the presidency?
From up here, Mexico looks a little crazy! Let's pray that everything works out because we don't need more pressure on our borders.
Mexico today reminds me of Gore Vidal's book, Abraham Lincoln. The president-elect was secretly brought into Washington because of genuine fears of assassination or kidnapping. Lincoln was eventually inaugurated but the South broke away from the Union.
Let's hope that it does not get that crazy in Mexico.

What part about "they want to kill us" don't you understand?

WAR HAS NO 'ELEGANT SOLUTIONS' By AMIR TAHERI is very blunt but to the point:
"Although numerous terms are used to describe Iraq, only one reflects the reality of the situation: war. The U.S.-led Coalition didn't go to Iraq for a picnic.

It went there to fight to dismantle one of the most vicious regimes in recent history and to replace it with a regime chosen by the Iraqi peoples.
Those objectives have been achieved but are challenged by the elements that Blair talked about.

The message to those in search of elegant solutions is simple:
This is a war, stupid!

And what are the options in a war?

One can fight to win. One can surrender to the enemy. One can panic and run away.
These are the options in Iraq. So, let the debate begin."
Let it begin.




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

Follow by Email



Search This Blog