Monday, April 30, 2007

Why does anyone believe the Cuban government anyway?


For years, the Castro dictatorship has promoted lies.

For example, lie # 1 is that Cuba was a backward country in desperate need of a tropical Robin Hood. Sorry, that's not true! Pre-Castro Cuba had problems (what country didn't in 1959?) but mass poverty was not one of them.

Lie # 2 is that Cuba did not have doctors or health care until Fidel graciously gave us his wonderful system. Sorry, that's not true.

Lie # 3 is Cuba's life expectancy. Sorry, Cubans are not living longer. The Cuban government is playing with numbers.

Cuba's Long Lie Expectancy By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY puts the whole thing in some perspective:

"With a 1990 cutoff of aid from the Soviet Union, there has been a huge decline in living standards, according to University of Pittsburgh professor Carmelo Mesa-Lagos, who is recognized as a leader in Cuban demographics."

The IBD article has a lot of numbers, including the reality that Cuba leads the continent in abortions.

Frankly, I'm not surprised that the Castro regime would lie about its numbers. What amazes me is that the world's media is so gullible to fall for the regime's lies!

How about some good news from Iraq?


Neil Boortz has a note about Iraq in his blog:

"
Good news from Iraq...and from the New York Times? Say it ain't so! The Anbar province of Iraq, just west of Baghdad, is showing a homogeneous front against terrorism. Thousands have joined the police force, working with American troops. Office buildings for government workers are being renovated as well as hotels for visitors. While there is still a ways to go, the decrease in daily violent acts and a united police force is showing turns toward a better direction for stability and freedom for Iraqis." (DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT YOU TO READ THIS)

Of course, good news is bad news if you are Democrat totally invested in defeat!

This lady is a fraud!


Sinatra had it right. He sang "This lady is a tramp".

Let me rephrase it. In case of Hillary Clinton, we sing "This lady is a fraud"!

According to her latest speech, Hillary Clinton will end the war on the first day.

She doesn't say how. I guess we will hear that before we vote in '08!

She is going to end the war and still protect Israel, fight Al Qaeda and keep Iran from moving into Iraq. She is going to do all of that without giving Al Qaeda a victory in the region.

Again, I can't wait for the details. As Perot used to say: the devil is always in the details!

What amazes me is how out of touch the Democrats are:

"They would rather escape into an alternate reality, one in which Americans can choose to end the war by quitting the battlefield. But in the end there is no escaping that for many Democrats, this is all about politics." (What drives the Democrats?
By Jeff Jacoby)

This is all about politics!

Hillary Clinton is a big fraud.

Why did Senator Hillary Clinton think of the Iraq War and so called allies? Let's listen to her in 2003 or days before the start of the war:

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm.


And I have absolutely no belief that he will.

I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade.

If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming.

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision.

I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing.


And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone.

And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective."
(Senator Hillary Clinton talking about the Iraq War and Saddam in
2003.)

Check out the line about our allies:

"...where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing."

That's right. Pres. Clinton couldn't get the UN to do anything on Bosnia or anything else.

Hillary Clinton is a fraud when she talks about working with allies or criticizes the Iraq War. Read what a liberal blogger had to say about this lady:

"Everyone knows she backed the war and spent the subsequent years positioning herself as a leading Democratic hawk.


From smacking down Howard Dean in December 2003, to calling for a larger army, to earning the praise of psychotic warmonger Marshall Wittman by attacking Bush from the right on Iran, she spent years affiliating herself with the party's miltiaristic wing." (Hillary Clinton's history lesson by Matthew Yglesias)

I can't wait for Hillary Clinton to clinch the nomination. She won't have Ross Perot. Therefore, she will need a lot more than 43% of the popular vote to win.

Last, but not least, she is going to debate a real Republican. Let's see what happens when Mrs. Clinton shares the stage with McCain, Giuliani or Romney.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Another book, another opportunist

According to Tenet's new book, the White House did not have a discussion of the Iraq threat.

I find that hard to believe because the entire nation was talking about Iraq in 2002:

"As for Tenet's claim that there was no debate about whether the war was really necessary, it is ridiculous. The decision to go to war was debated in the White House; it was debated in the U.N.; it was debated in Congress; it was debated on Sunday morning talk shows; it was debated in every tavern in North America.

If the decision was wrong, as Tenet apparently believes with the benefit of four years of hindsight, it wasn't for lack of debate."
(
A Basic Tenet of Public Life...)

As I recall, the Democrats called on Pres. Bush to have a national debate and to go to Congress for a resolution. Furthermore, the Congress voted in huge numbers to support the decision.

I am not to goint to reprint pages of pro-war statement from Democrats. Let's recall a little
history. Who were these guys debating with:

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) September, 2002): “[Saddam] has ignored the mandates of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV), October, 2002: “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.”

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), March, 2003: “Bill, I support the president's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. I think he was right on in his speech tonight. The lessons we learned following September 11 were that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly when it involves weapons of mass destruction. So regrettably, Saddam has not done the right thing, which is to disarm, and we're left with no alternative but to take action.”

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), September, 2002: “Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the President's approaching this in the right fashion.”

It sounds to me that Tenet is a bit of an opportunist.

First, he stays quiet. Second, he writes a book criticizing everybody.

Many of us had concerns about Pres. Bush holding on to a Clinton appointment at the CIA.

If Tenet did not feel that the country had a good debate about Iraq then he should have resigned. He should have written a NY Times op-ed piece making the case.

Unfortunately, we live at a moment in time when Democrats read polls and public servants do not resign when they disagree with their superiors.

Instead of resignation, they write books or leak classified information to the media!

Let's see if this book holds up after people go through it.

We have 3 outstanding Republicans







Last night, I was so happy that I'm not a Democrat. Can you believe that group? Wes Pruden has it right:

"With only 558 days to go, a lot of the noise is already beginning to sound like mush, or at least mashed peas. The big Democratic "debate" last night in South Carolina was mostly more mashed peas (not even black-eyed, crowder or purple hull peas, just more of those little tasteless green ones)." (558 days to go on a track of mush)

This used to be the party of FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ. Today, they are the party of Moveon.org, Michael Moore and the left.

It's hard to believe that this is the best that the Dems can put on the field.

On our side, we have 3 outstanding and well spoken candidates.

Take a look at the websites:

Team Mitt

"The jihadists are waging a global war against the United States and Western governments generally with the ambition of replacing legitimate governments with a caliphate, with a theocracy."

Rudy 2008

"America cannot afford to go back to the days of playing defense, with inconsistent responses to terrorist attacks, because weakness only encourages aggression. Americans want peace. We’re at war not because we want to be, but because the terrorists declared war on us - well before the attacks of September 11th."

McCain 2008

"In Iraq our national security interests and our national values converge. Iraq is truly the test of a generation, for America and for our role in the world. Faced with similar challenges, previous generations of Americans have passed such tests with honor. It is now our turn to demonstrate that our power, ennobled by our principles, is the greatest force for good on earth today. Iraq's transformation into a secure democracy and a force for freedom in the greater Middle East is the calling of our age. We can succeed."


Saturday, April 28, 2007

France between BDS and "Mon Dieu"


In two weeks, the French will choose a lot more than their next president! It should be a serious vote. It may be the most important election since the US liberated France from the Nazis in '44.

Nevertheless, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is now going crazy in France:

"I am not for a Europe that aligns with the U.S.,” Ms. Royal said on France 2 television.


“I have never been, and will never, go apologize to President Bush for the position of France on the issue of refusing to send our troops to Iraq.” (Royal Accuses Rival of Apology to Bush on Iraq; Sarkozy Denies It)

OK Miss Royal. I am not in favor of aligning with a Europe that can't defend itself.


Let's make a deal. You guys defend yourselves and we will take care of ourselves. We will close our air force bases in Spain, bring the troops home from Germany, take the fleet out of Mediterranean and leave Bosnia to the Europeans. At the same time, we will cancel NATO and let you guys defend your own airspace from Iranian or North Korean missiles!

Last but not least, we will leave Iraq and allow the victorious Al Qaeda fighters to regroup with their buddies in the Paris suburbs.

Why should US soldiers defend ingrates like Miss Royal and the French?

Miss Royal: How about keeping your commitments in Afghanistan:

"
Others — such as the Germans and the French — will commit troops and equipment but won’t let them fight, preferring noncombatant roles." (Oh George, what will we do when you’re gone?)

Forget Iraq. What about Lebanon?

After all, what language would Miss Royal be speaking if the US had not liberated France or kept USSR tanks from Paris during the Cold War.

Are the French silly or what? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

France is the silliest nation in Europe.

Like other Europeans, Miss Royal knows that Bush bashing plays well. It is certainly a nice distraction.

After all, isn't Bush bashing better than explaining 10% unemployment and zero economic growth?

Isn't Bush bashing better than telling the French that their "35 hour workweek" is over because France can't compete with the Poles, Czechs or Irish!

Bashing Bush is also easier than explaining The Oil for Food Program administered by the UN.

Here is the truth. See How to Buy a French Veto By Dick Morris. The French opposed the Iraq War because they were heavily invested in Saddam.

Looking forward, France does not need another Bush-basher. It needs a president that will put the country in a new direction.

As I wrote before, Bush-hate is an easy and convenient explanation for anti-Americanism. In fact, anti-Americanism is a lot more complex and dangerous than that. It would be nice if anti-Americanism was as easy as replacing Bush with a liberal Democrat.

Bat Ye'or is a smart lady. Her latest study is Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. It is worth reading, specially if you think that Bush is the problem:

"Yes, there are differences. I wrote the American edition in 2004, hoping to alert the American public to the changes that were profoundly affecting Europe on the demographic, religious, cultural and democratic levels.

These transformations will modify Europe's relations with America and increase the gap between both.

This situation is not specifically related to President Bush, albeit his strong Christian faith is one major reason why he is extremely unpopular in Europe.

The core problem is connected to the satellization of Europe by the Arab and Muslim world -- the result of a policy pursued for over 30 years by choice, fear and greed.

The demographic Arab and Muslim weight in Europe combines with the flow of Arab capital, the globalisation of markets and the huge European financial investments in Arab lands." (The Palestinianization of Europe By Jamie Glazov)

Read the entire article. After you read the article, get your family out of Europe because it won't be pretty when Paris goes up in smoke!

P.S. Rich Lowry points out how much France has gone down in the last 20 years:

"The Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom ranks France as only the 44th-freest economy in the world, and it shows.

It can’t cope in a world characterized by free-market dynamism.

It used to rank eighth in the world in terms of per capita GDP; now it has slipped to 19th.

In the late 1970s, France had a bigger economy than Britain’s by a comfortable margin; now Britain has passed it.

Fifteen years ago, France had a per capita GDP that was 83 percent of that of the United States; now it is 71 percent." (French Devolution)

What does Pres. Bush or the Iraq War have to do with that? The answer is nothing!

For more, see Sarkozy vs. Royal By Paul Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.

An interesting view of Mexico and the consequences of illegal immigration



Sam Quinones is a reporter for The Los Angeles Times and the author of two books on Mexican immigration. Yesterday, he presented one of his books and said this:

"It never stops," said Quinones. "Immigration does not solve problems for Mexico; it does not change the conditions that push people to leave.

"Instead it drives the most industrious, risk-taking people away from their communities, and "a precious commodity bleeds out of Mexico across the border," he said." ('Immigration does not solve problems for Mexico')

Very interesting message. I heard the same message from a businessman who said that the better workers are going north.

Are Mexican women the big losers of illegal immigration?


Allan Wall wrote Deadbeat Dads Don’t Stop At The Rio Grande:

"One articulate Mexican woman who has spoken out on this subject is Adriana Cortés, the president of the Fundación Comunitaria de El Bajío (Community Foundation of The Bajío –a region of central Mexico). (Mujeres y familia, víctimas de la migración masculina, El Universal, May 19th, 2003)

According to Cortés: “One of the gravest problems confronting the population of the Bajío is migration, a social phenomenon that has left wives and grandmothers heading thousands of homes.”

She points out that emigration results in these women being forced to bear the burden of raising the children. The children lose their father figure, which in turn helps to create more poverty.

For Adriana Cortés, the best solution is not to keep promoting emigration more and more, but to generate prosperity in the local community in Mexico!"

Allan's article confirms something that I see everyday. More and more, we see men who leave their families and start new ones over here.

Who speaks for the poor Mexican mother who stays behind? Who provides for her?

Illegal immigration is bad for Mexico. Just ask the mothers who are stuck with the full responsibility of raising the children back home!

Friday, April 27, 2007

The Democrats' Iraq dishonesty




Listen to CNN's Michael Ware:

"Well, even more than that, if you just wanted to look at it purely in terms of American national interest, if U.S. troops leave now, you’re giving Iraq to Iran, a member of President Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil,’ and al Qaeda.

That’s who will own it.

And so, coming back now, I’m struck by the nature of the debate on Capitol Hill, how delusional it is.

Whether you’re for this war, or against it; whether you’ve supported the way it’s been executed, or not; it doesn’t matter.

You’ve broke it, you’ve got to fix it now. You can’t leave, or it’s going to come and blow back on America."

Did anyone ask a Democrat about this? Frankly, I did not watch the MSNBC debate.

Based on a couple of video clips, it appears that the Democrats were trying to outdo each other on getting out of Iraq.

Did anyone ask about the consequences? I heard Gov. Richardson say that he would pull us out of Iraq on his first day in the White House. Is that stupid or what?

Based on some soundbites, it does look like the Democrats made a prophet out of Rudy Guiliani! (Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win)


Speaking of consequences, read The Alternate Reality from Strategy Page:

"If we leave, two things happen."

Read the article. It is very long. However, I can give you this advance information. If we leave, very bad things will happen!

In other words, there is no pretty way to end this thing.

If we leave early then our next president will have to go back and fight a bigger war.

If we support Gen. Petraus then there is a chance of stability.

Shouldn't every American be wishing for victory in Iraq? Yes!

Why? Because Iraq is a war between Al Qaeda and the US.

It does not matter how Al Qaeda got into Iraq. It does not matter whether Saddam and Obama were or weren't pen pals. They were both committed to the destruction of the US.

What matters is that they are there now and fighting to drive us out with spectacular bombings.

Do the Democrats know this? Yes.

What are they so delusional behind the microphone?

The answer is that the Democrats are living in the land of political opportunism. They are trying to use the war to win the next election!

Also, Democrats are more and more dependent on the left wing groups for cash.

These groups want us out of Iraq today, regardless of the consequences.

Frankly, these groups don't care because they hate Pres. Bush. They want Pres. Bush to fail. What they forget is that you don't land the plane by blowing up the cockpit.

In private. Democrats understand what Ware is saying and the great report from StrategyPage--military news.

This is why they are not rushing to support Sen. Reid! (Dems fail to back Reid's 'Iraq war lost')

So what should they do? They should be serious but that translates into saying that Pres. Bush is right.

Unfortunately, they can't do that. It would take a "profile in courage" to put the nation first. There aren't a lot of such profiles on the donkey side!

So what are they doing? They are playing word games by passing legislation that will never become law. In other words, they are acting irresponsibly and playing politics! (Harry's War)

Like always, there is Joe Lieberman! (One Choice in Iraq) His Senate speech today would have made Pres. Truman very proud.

Nevertheless, the poll-reading Democrats should heed this advice from Brian Faughnan:

"When the decision to leave Iraq is presented as one without any costs--'leave now and Americans stop dying'--it sounds great.

But the real world ramifications are far deeper.

If advocates of an easy, pain-free withdrawal get their way, they may be shocked when they encounter the buyer's remorse that follows." (What Happens Next in Iraq)

We are witnessing an amazing political story. On one side, Pres. Bush is a realist and sees the big picture. On the other side, there are candidates who tell you what you want to hear.

Which one is history going to remember fondly? My money is on Pres. Bush!

So long Rosie


Rosie introduced a lot of men to "The View". I must confess that I did not know about "The View". My wife did watch it once in a while but not me.

The good news is that Rosie alerted men to "The View". At least, we learned what our wives were watching.

The bad news is that Rosie is an idiot:

"She was so rude, crude, and inappropriately vulgar that you expected someone on the dais to lean over and ask her, as Tony asked his sidekick Paulie last week on The Sopranos, “Ever get tested for Tourette?” Her performance at the luncheon had Barbara Walters covering her face with her hands in embarrassment. That’s why her announcement, less than 48 hours later, that she was leaving The View at the end of June, was no big surprise." (
No Rosie Future for The View by Myrna Blyth)

I'm all for free speech. However, I'm also for good taste. Rosie is repulsive!

Is it all a big green pain in the behind?



The global warming show moves on. Now, we get this:

"Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits." (
Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’)

Take a look at The March Of The New Luddites By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY:

"Today's Luddites want to turn the clock back hundreds of years. Instead of textile looms, they want to smash clothes dryers."

Worse than that, Gore's fanatics are keeping us from having a reasoned discussion about the environment. After all, I want clear air as much as they do. I just don't want 15% unemployment! It's hard to enjoy clean air and swim in clean lakes when you are unemployed and your wife can't go to Kroger!

Unfortunately, global warming has turned into a refuge for the left, the same left that hates capitalism.

Sorry. I love capitalism. It works a lot better than socialism.

P.S. There is a new movie coming out that challenges the global warming crowd:

"In the film’s introduction Hayward states “the problem with Vice President Gore and other global warming extremists is that they distort the science, grossly exaggerate the risks, argue that anyone who disagrees with them is corrupt, and suggest solutions are easy and cheap -- And that is an all too convenient fiction.” (New Global Warming Film Confronts Al Gore by Michelle Oddis)

Thursday, April 26, 2007

McCain is in and that's great!


Senator McCain is officially in and I'm happy. See the video!

His best
line was:

"We are fighting a war in two countries, and we're in a global struggle with violent extremists who despise us, our values and modernity itself."

Senator McCain gets it. We are not at war with these people because of Kyoto or global warming. They want to kill us because we are a modern society, where little girls go to school and people go to a church of their choice.

My second favorite line was on Social Security and entitlement reforms:

"No government program is the object of more political posturing than Social Security and Medicare. Here's the plain truth: there are too few workers supporting too many retirees, and if we don't make some tough choices today, Social Security and Medicare will go bankrupt or we'll have to raise taxes so drastically we'll crush the prosperity of average Americans. Too many politicians want to ignore the problem, and run for re-election by threatening anyone who wants to fix it."

Thank you Senator McCain. Thank you for putting this one on the table. I wrote about this! (The entitlement crisis is serious and headed our way!)

The entire
speech is here!

Rudy-G is right! The Democrats don't see the threat!


Rudy Guliani hit a 480 ft. home run:

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued.

“We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

After his speech to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner, I asked him about his statements and Giuliani said flatly: “America will be safer with a Republican president.” (Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems winBy: Roger Simon)

It's about time. Rudy Guiliani is simply challenging Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama and John Edwards. He is challenging them to put a plan on the table and own up to the consequences.

Like Kevin Drum, I found the Democrats' responses to Guiliani so weak:

"So I was curious: how would the Dem candidates respond? With the usual whining? Or with something smart? Greg Sargent has today's responses from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over at his site and the verdict is in: more whining.


Obama: "Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low blah blah blah."

Clinton: "One of the great tragedies of this Administration is that the President failed to keep this country unified after 9/11 yada yada yada."

Unbelievable. Neither one of them took the chance to do what Rudy did: explain in a few short sentences why the country would be safer with a Democrat in the Oval Office.

Is it really that hard?

Giuliani's position is clear: more war, more domestic surveillance, more torture, and fewer civil liberties.

And while it's true that the liberal position on making America secure is a little more complicated than the schoolyard version of foreign affairs beloved of Bush-era Republicans, it's not that complicated. So instead of complaining about how mean Giuliani is, why can't Obama and Clinton just tell us what they'd do?

Whining just reinforces the message that Democrats are wimps. The real way to be "hard hitting" is to explain why Giuliani is wrong and what Democrats would do instead — and why the average Joe and Jane would be safer and better off without guys like Giuliani bumbling recklessly around the globe leaving a stronger al-Qaeda and a weaker America in their wake.

Until they do, Rudy and the Republicans are going to win every round of this fight."

Frankly, the Democrats need to start planning their general election strategy. Sooner of later, they are going to have debate McCain or Giuliani.

P.S. On Tuesday night, I heard Lawrence Wright's Warnings on The Hugh Hewitt Show. Wright is the author The Looming Tower a Pulitzer winner for general non-fiction and a:

"...chilling account of the rise of al Qaeda awakens any objective reader to the facts that this worldwide Islamist threat is not the creation of the Bush presidency, and more than retreat from Iraq would stall its growth or limit its appeal.


There is no alternative to fighting it wherever it appears, just as there is no alternative to cabining Iran’s ambitions."

Just a few words about Yeltsin


It's hard to think of Boris N. Yeltsin without recalling the end ot the USSR. I can still remember Yeltsin with a Russian flag and surrounded by lots of happy faces. That was then, this is now!.

Yeltsin was consequential, athough he had his problems. At the same time, no one is perfect, specially the leader of nation without any democratic traditions.

How will Yeltsin be remembred?

On the positive side, I like Russia's Agent of Change (For All His Flaws, Boris Yeltsin Started Something Big)
By Anne Applebaum.

On the negative side, he did miss some opportunities. (Boris Yeltsin His rule was marked by lost opportunities and fearsome political corruption BY DAVID SATTER)

My guess is that history will be kind to Yeltsin.

The black and white of the Bush tax cuts



The "gloom and doom" brigade is going to have a hard time explaining this economic data:

How about black unemployment? See this one:

"What the media did not note, however, is that the current rate of black unemployment is lower than the average rate achieved during President Bill Clinton’s second term, and that black unemployment has dropped precipitously since the full implementation of President George W. Bush’s tax cuts in late May 2003.

Since those tax cuts went into effect, the rate of black unemployment has dropped 2.7 percent to just 8.3 percent.

Comparatively, this statistic averaged 8.6 percent during Clinton’s second term." (Anti-Bush Bias (in Black & White)

Where is Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? Will they come out and praise the economic results?

Probably not! Why not? Jackson and Sharpton are invested in "victim hood". They are not interested in hearing about the new black middle class. They want victims! After all, what would Jackson and Sharpton do without victims?

Of course, I don't waste my time with Jackson & Sharpton. I admire these black Americans:



Wednesday, April 25, 2007

The violence in Mexico


Last week, the State Dept. issued a travel warning to US citizens in and out of Mexico. (See Mexico travel advisory issued by ALFREDO CORCHADO)

Understandably, Mexicans are sensitive about these warnings. They hurt tourism and general commerce. Worse than that, they drive investors elsewhere. At the same, what is the US Dept of State supposed to do? Have you been to Nuevo Laredo lately?

How can Mexico change its violent image?

First, Pres. Calderon must continue the war on drug cartels. It won't be easy but it is necessary. According to Strategy Page:

"Some 24,000 members of the Mexican military are currently involved in Mexico's war on drug gangs."


This is a huge number. It represents a commitment of historic proportions. I am not an expert of Mexican history. Yet, I don't recall any recent military commitment of this magnitude.

Second, Pres. Calderon must fight corruption. In many ways, Mexico is at war with cartels and itself. Corruption is the tragic dividend of decades of one-party rule.

However, there is a new realism:

"Others have done the same, but Calderón is different. He recognizes something that eluded too many of his predecessors: You cannot fight crime without fighting the criminal element within law enforcement." (Mexican corruption impedes crime battle )

Third, Mexico must cut its dependency on remesas and illegal immigration to the US.

Why? Illegal immigration has a created a culture of crime at the border. Worse than that, illegal immigration allows US employers to hire Mexicans illegally in Dallas rather than legally in San Luis Potosi.

What about the $20 billion in remesas? They would be easily replaced by hiring millions of Mexicans in maquiladoras and other manufacturing operations in Mexico. Mexico needs investment rather than remesas!

Illegal immigration is hurting Mexico. It is bad for Mexico. I won't even mention the negative impact on families and children! (See Mexican wives seek ouster of husbands from U.S. By Stephen Dinan)

It won't be easy to win this war and change Mexico.

The bad news is that cartels will bring horrific violence to TV screens. They will do everything possible to kill honest public officials and intimidate journalists.

The good news is that Mexico has a tough man at Los Pinos. Also, the Mexican military has good record in modern Mexican history. According to a recent survey, Mexicans have a good opinion of their military. (Strategy Page)

It looks to me like Calderon understands the problem. Mexico must clean itself of criminal elements sooner rather than later!

P.S. Allan Wall wrote last week:

"On Thursday and Friday of Holy Week, 21 persons were slain in narco attacks. This compares to three such murders on the same days a year ago.

Since January 1, the 2007 total count is 673 persons killed in narco attacks in Mexico.

At this point in time last year the tally was 542.

During all of 2006 over 2,000 Mexicans were slain in narco killings.


In contrast, during calendar year 2006 there were 895 U.S. military personnel who died in Iraq." (Would Legal Drugs End Cartel Violence in Mexico? )

Michelle's new cheer!




Michelle Malkin is a sharp young woman. I love this one!

Sing along with the
The Defeatocrats’ cheer.

More bad economic numbers for The NY Times!


Time for a pinch hitter? discusses the latest economic problems at The NY Times:

"The desire among shareholders for change is understandable.


Shares of New York Times have fallen 48 percent in three years.

Net income fell 3 percent in 2004 and 13 percent in 2005, and the company posted a $543 million loss in 2006.

In the first quarter of 2007, profit dropped 32 percent.

It seems clear, however, that the Sulzberger family remains intent on staying its course, which consists of converting what was once called "the newspaper of record" to the functional equivalent of a broad sheet for the American left."

Do you understand now why these people are always "doom and gloom"? Wouldn't you be pretty negative if you worked at such an organization?

It goes without saying that the Bush years have been bad for The NY Times!

And Democrats want to talk to this guy?


Some of us are old enough to remember 27 years ago today!

Around 7am ET, Pres. Carter went on TV and delivered the bad news. The hostage rescue mission had failed. (Tehran hostage rescue mission fails)

So how does Iran remember this?

"On such a day, the enemy, using the most advanced weapons, invaded this land. But heavenly aides supported the Iranian nation and clobbered the enemy in the desert," the radio quoted Mr. Ahmadinejad as saying during a Cabinet meeting in Tehran." (
Ahmadinejad lauds anniversary of U.S. deaths)

And the Democrats want to talk to this guy?

I think that Senator McCain is right!
Bomb, bomb Iran!

Is Al Qaeda planning something big before the French elections?



We live in a post 9-11 world. Terrorism is a fact of life. This is why we must take every report very seriously:

"The Spanish intelligence service fears that al-Qaeda militants could attack a target in Spain or in France in the coming weeks, possibly before the French election runoff, a media report said on Monday." (Spain fears al-Qaeda attack in France )

Over in London:

"AL-QAEDA leaders in Iraq are planning the first “large-scale” terrorist attacks on Britain and other western targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a leaked intelligence report.

Spy chiefs warn that one operative had said he was planning an attack on “a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki” in an attempt to “shake the Roman throne”, a reference to the West." (Al-Qaeda ‘planning big British attack’)

Again, let's hope that the authorities are quietly breaking up some of these networks.

Last summer, the UK broke up a terrorist ring planning to blow up commercial flights over the Atlantic. Over here, we have not been attacked since 9-11.

Here is the bottom line: We are at war with a committed enemy who wants to blow up a Western city and kill thousands!

I have a question: Why France? Isn't France the most anti-Bush government in the West?

The answer is simple. They are at war with the West not Pres. Bush or PM Blair.

When will the West get it?

Still not getting it? See A ruthless foe By Michael O'Hanlon:

"Their only purpose in violence has been to tear down, not to build up an alternative vision they genuinely support. They are ruthless killers who often seem to kill just for the pleasure of it."

The global warming fanatics!


John Herbert puts all of this global warming "doom and gloom" in some perspective:

"They paint a picture of the world losing a third of its species to drought, of 250 million thirsty Africans and melting glaciers sweeping away mountaintop homes. All that doom and gloom — and not a single serious study to back it up." (Doom and gloom, but no reliable data on global warming)

Should we care about the environment? Of course, we should. However, this is not about the environment. This is another crusade motivated by something based on emotion rather than facts! (Environmental Alarmists Have It Backwards By John Stossel)

The French suburbs and the elections


The AP reports from Paris:

"Many blacks and Muslims in the troubled neighborhoods ringing French cities voted for the first time, saying they were motivated by one desire: to stop law-and-order, tough-on-immigrants Nicolas Sarkozy from becoming president.

Sarkozy, the front-runner after Sunday's first round of voting, is deeply unpopular in housing projects populated largely by second- and third-generation immigrants, many of them Muslims from former colonies in North Africa who live mired in poverty and joblessness." (France's Ghettos Hope to Beat Sarkozy)

What is Royal going to do if she wins? I don't know and she doesn't know either!


Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Privacy and parents


OK. He is 18 and old enough to fight for his country.

However, is he old enough to be disconnected from his parents? I don't think so. We have gone too far with all of this privacy stuff:

"It is time for the Right to Privacy and its ramifications to be reexamined by the courts, but most importantly, average people in America need to tell their legislators that they care about these issues and they will not vote for anyone who does not support the rights of parents.

From opposing parental notification of an under age child getting an abortion, when that same child has to have a parental permission to get her ears pierced to keeping information about serious trouble your late teen/early twenties child is having coping in the world from parents, privacy has gone awry.

It is time to apply common sense and it is time for parents to demand their rights back, beginning today." (Virginia Tech Lessons for Parents by )

The key word is common sense. Unfortunately, common sense was missing all over in the V-Tech tragedy.

PLEASE SUPPORT OUR BLOG AND RADIO SHOW

MY BOOK: CUBANOS IN WISCONSIN

Follow by Email

MY TWITTER

BLOG ARCHIVE

Search This Blog

Loading...