Archive for May, 2007

Hamas Provokes Israel Again

israel-flag.jpg In the past 16 days the “Palestinians” (Hamas) in the Gaza strip have fired 310 Qassam missiles into Sderot, Israel as the Israeli Government continues with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert “strategy” of not approving the IDF’s (Israel Defense Force) request (demand) to allow ground troops to go into Gaza and put down this menace.  Wow, I guess the Palestinians should be happy that Olmert is the Prime Minster and not me.  It takes a lot of patience to not respond adequately and protect your own people.  This barrage of attacks has turned 23,000 residents of Sderot into virtual refugees which have fled the town.

This vacillation on Olmert’s part is reminiscent of his hesitance to do the right thing almost a year ago, which led to the embarrassment of the IDF last summer in Lebanon.  I think it might be time for him to go.

I predict this.  First, I doubt you have heard much about this in the mainstream media here in the good old USA, but when Israel finally decides to put a stop to it you will hear a lot about it in the media with every detail of collateral damage, etc.  They won’t mention that Israel is not “targeting” innocent civilians when they go in, just as they haven’t told you that the Hamas is doing just that.  You will also be shown how Israel is bullying the Palestinians (just like last year when they were accused of heavy handed tactics against Hezbollah).

Advertisements

Ron Paul Continued Discussion

ron-paul.jpg I am setting up this post as a location to transfer some off topic discussion that has ensued about Ron Paul as it relates to the war question which stemmed from the abortion question.  I don’t have much to add here other than a link to the video that spawned this thread, posted by Jim here at the Helvidus, a Pachyderm site.  I am transferring the posts on my blog and cross posting a couple off topic comments at the Helvidus blog to this location to be on topic.

Post Debate Fox Interview of Ron Paul:    HERE

The Morality of Abortion

dont-force-your-beliefs.jpg 

“The progeny of two humans is always a human.  That’s just biology.”         

I just read a post from Helvidius, a Pachyderm including the quote above by theobromophile its owner.  You should check it out.  I was going to post a comment and decided that I wanted to expand my comment to a post of my own.  I had been doing some research for just this occasion and here it is: 

Since I have been examining the question of abortion since 1967 it seems that the basic question comes to the “personhood” of the “baby,” “Fetus,” “Embryo,” or “Zygote” as you may please.  There has been much discussion (though you don’t hear those on the left using this much any longer) as to the “viability” of the fetus as it relates to when an unborn child has “personhood” and thus protected by the laws of man and has the civil rights that its humanness affords it.

Thomas Aquinas has summed it up the best as far as I am concerned.  He said that when an action is to be taken it is incumbent on the actor to establish its morality in advance.  In this case, determining when human life or personhood begins is incumbent on the person that would take the moral action, otherwise, according to what Aquinas said, that person must follow the “morally safer” course.  In the case of Abortion it is the responsibility of the “pro abortion” crowd to prove that human life does NOT exist and therefore the law of society and the civil rights of the individual do not come to bear.  Since I have never heard any evidence that disproves the personhood at conception or otherwise establishes personhood at a later date, this moral dictum applies to the would be abortionists and would serve to stop that action, otherwise the result would be “immoral.”  This Thomistic Principle is a long held and understood mandate that has also been understood by others beside me.  Allow me to quote some of them:

“the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life.”   Ted Kennedy 1973

“abortion is morally wrong. It is not a legitimate or acceptable response to any problem of society. And if our country wishes to remain true to its basic moral strength, then unwanted as well as wanted children must be unfailingly protected.”   Ted Kennedy 1976 after the decision on Roe v. Wade

“It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong, “Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected ……”   Al Gore 1984

“arguably the taking of a human life.”  “It is my deep personal belief that abortion is wrong.”  Al Gore  1984

he still regarded abortion as the taking of “innocent human life”  Al Gore 1992

There are others that are now not only “pro-abortion” as opposed to when they spoke of abortion being wrong in the past but also consider the pro-lifers to be some type of Neanderthal type of beings.  What changed that made them so learned and the rest of us so stupid.  It is hard to determine exactly why they have changed their views so militantly, but it should be noted that there is a common pattern between this change and their aspiration for “national political office.” 

You have heard attacks from the left and the media concerning certain Republican candidates that have switched their position to “pro life” as though it is some type of crime, all while they are conspicuously quite about these flips flops from pro life to pro abortion.    Thanks to Neil at 4 Simpsons Blog for the Fetus Graphic above.

War On Terror – Bumper Sticker

wot-not.gif John Edwards like Joe Biden here has had a lot to say about the war on terror.  Most recently it has been about how the War on Terror of George Bush is really a sham and designed for political purposes and NOT to make America safer (see below).  So John Edwards can vote for and claim repeatedly that he will be behind the “War on Terror” until the end and suddenly he is another Democrat getting in the race for the nomination and everything he said before is of no account and that makes Bush the one that is playing politics.  Sheesh!

“The core of this presidency has been a political doctrine that George Bush calls the ‘Global War on Terror.’ He has used this doctrine like a sledgehammer to justify the worst abuses and biggest mistakes of his administration… The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan. It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world… The ‘war’ metaphor has also failed because it exaggerates the role of only one instrument of American power–the military… we must move beyond the idea of a war on terror.”  …. John Edwards

Lets examine where John Edwards has been on this issue when other sympathies prevailed in the electorate.

  1. Voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq
  2. At DNC Convention in 2004 in acceptance speech for Vice Presidency: “We are a nation at war, global war on terror.”
  3. Democratic Platform in 2004 that Edwards ran for President on:  Today, we face three great challenges above all others – first, to win the global war against terror; second, to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; and third, to promote democracy and freedom around the world, starting with a peaceful and stable Iraq.

Now up to recently when the left blogosphere started panning the use of the words “war on terror” even the left portion of the Democratic party largely separated their view of the War in Iraq from that of the “War on Terror,” but Mr. Edwards now is stepping out with a disingenuous change of rhetoric to fit with the base of the Democratic party.  Ok, so be it, but who is using the words “war on terror” for political purposes.

I would like to add that even when Edwards was trying to sound strong on the “war on terror” including the war in Iraq, we come to find from his campaign manager (Bob Shrum) of 2004 when Edwards was running for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency that both John and his wife were against casting his vote in the Senate for the War in Iraq, but his political consultants (in Shrum’s own words here paragraph 5) prevailed on Edwards that he needed to vote for the resolution, which of course he did and so I wonder how much more political you can get with this issue than to change your vote for the war resolution based on your own political needs.

And just one further point, I wonder how we have intercepted so many terrorist plots in the U.S. and world at large and have spared this country from additional attacks so far and for so long if the President is not trying to make America safe as  Edwards claims (his words not mine).  [hmm]

UPDATE:  I wanted to update this post to include a link provided by a commenter “Total Transformation Test” of a video of John Edwards stating that he will support the “War on Terror” to the end. here

Joe Biden Wants War (again)

joe-biden.jpg So, Senator Joe Biden (D-Del) calls for the use of troops in Darfur here and doing so without checking with Jimmy Carter relative to what Jimmy calls a “pre-emptive war” here meaning that the security of the United States is not directly threatened.  This is the same Joe Biden that is against the troop surge in Iraq even though he spent most of the past few years complaining that we need more troops in Iraq here.  There’s nothing like the administration saying that it was going to actually do something to cause a Democrat to change his mind about its’ advisability.

He thinks we should commit our military to Darfur yet we should pull out of Iraq even though he voted in favor of the “Authorization to Use Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.”  When asked about his vote to go to war in Iraq he lied here (last paragraph)  when he said “remember what the resolution said, Tim (Russert), it didn’t say ‘go to war.’ It said, ‘Mr. President, if you can show these things, then you can use force.”

How convenient for someone that wants to run away from his vote.  The only problem is it doesn’t say that.  His vote to go war was his vote on Public Law 107-243 and Section 3 is the relevant section which says that the President has 48 hours “AFTER” the starting the use of “FORCE” to report to Congress that he was unable to solve matters diplomatically, which the Bush administration complied with.  Read it here yourself and then tell me that the authorization was CONDITIONAL therefore requiring the President to report to Congress before going to war.  Everybody knew that Joe was an admitted plagiarist, but now we know he is a bold faced liar.   Hmmmmmm……….  

It seems to me he wants troops in Darfur (like many Democrats and Celebrities) and is using the same arguments that were valid for war in Iraq.  Biden says that he supports it because of the killing of 200,000 people (which he calls Genocide).  If that is grounds for sending troops (sorry Mr. Carter about prohibition of a Pre-Emptive War) then he should have been for troops going to Iraq on the same humanitarian grounds as this.  Saddam had killed literally hundreds of thousands of people himself.  Read here for details on the deaths under Saddam.

So here you have another “pretender” to the Presidency that has changed his tune on the war more often than a symphony orchestra getting ready to play a concert.  It is amazing how declaring for the nomination for the Presidency can evoke such strange behavior. So now you have a call by the Democrats for use of Military Force in Darfur, and in so doing contradict all the complaints they have made against the Bush Administration for going to war in Iraq (which many Democrats voted for).

Illegal Immigration (France)

nicolas-sarkozy.jpg Well now that the pro Western and pro American Nicolas Sarkozy was elected President in France they have ruled out legalizing undocumented (illegal) immigrants in mass.  This may be their last opportunity for saving their country from being overrun by the Islamists.  This is something that maybe we should pay attention to here in this country.  Is anyone smearing them by calling them racists for this decision?  Who knows, with the way things are going I may have to lift my personal boycott of France soon.  But let’s not get ahead of ourselves too quickly. 

And here is a novel idea………..

Sarkozy had said he wants to ensure that those who join families in France can speak French and that family members receiving them can support the newcomers.

If you want more details on this please check out the following link from the Daily Mail UK.  French Immigration.

The Misery Index

jimmy-carter.jpg From the man that brought us the “real life” understanding of the Misery Index (as first articulated by economist Arthur Okun), Jimmy Carter has now declared that George Bush is the “worst President ever”…….whewww!  He has been waiting for 25 years with hopes to transfer that title to some Republican.  His only options have been Ronald Reagan, Bush the 1st and Bush the 2nd.  For those of you that don’t know, Okun came up with a term that first took on popular meaning during the Carter Administration.  It was called the “Misery Index.”  This is an economic indicator that measures how badly Americans are suffering economically.  Carter blew this index off the chart.  The index was formulated by taking the inflation rate and unemployment rate and adding them together.  Some have added the interest rate to this to further quantify the impact of economic suffering.  When you combine the Misery Index and inflation rate during the Carter Administration you establish an aggregate that likely will never be reached again.

Under the Carter administration the Okun Misery Index was 16.27 (worst ever).  Under G.W. Bush during the first term it reached 7.98 and at this time for the 12 month period ending April, 2007 for the inflation rate and the February, 2007 unemployment rate Bush’s Misery Index has dropped to 6.8.  (the lower being the better)  The best rate ever since the numbers have been kept is the Eisenhower Administration (6.26) and the second best is essentially a tie between GW Bush and the Johnson Administration.

So by the standard that most Presidents are measured by the “voters” Carter is the worst President ever, but I suspect that he is trying to change the subject to the war in Iraq which I would like to call the war on terror.

Let me state here that I vividly remember the day our embassy was invaded on 11/4/1979 and Americans were taken hostages in Iran and held for 444 days under the Carter administration.  It was this “crisis” that launched Ted Koppel and the program Night Line.  I remember being glued to Night Line every night throughout the crisis.  Each program was opened with Day 35, Day 36, Day 37, ………Day 421, etc.  On almost every broadcast the program stated that the administration “said today that a military option is not on the table.”  Well guess what, Iran realized that they had nothing to fear from Uncle Sam and kept the hostages until the next big event.  The Hostages were released on 1/20/1981.  Do you know what occurred on that day?  It was the inauguration of Ronald Reagan.  I remember watching the inauguration on a split screen broadcast with the boarding of the hostages on an airplane to return to the US on the other half of the screen.  Yes folks, the Iranians were not going to allow one day to pass under the Reagan administration while they held U.S. Citizens as hostages.

It is also my firm conviction that (as some say) our past foreign policy has a lot to do with our situation today and that I STRONGLY BELIEVE it is the way Carter handled the Iranian Hostage Crisis that has had a tremendous amount to do with the problems we have with Iran today in particular and with terrorist in general.  They learned that we could be intimidated.

Carter also stated that we have now endorsed the use of the “pre-emptive war” which means to attack a country when our own security is not directly threatened.  Who is he kidding, we have done this often and recently by Clinton in Kosovo, so he is lying here and knows it and so are others that claim that Iraq is the first time it has happened.  But there should be no surprise here that Carter is against “pre-emptive action” to protect American interest when he was too timid to use military action after the terrorist or terrorist countries struck us first.

So when you add the Misery Index to the Carter legacy of the Middle East I have to say the Carter still holds on to the title of WORST President ever although he would like to avoid that label.  In short, no doubt the Carter Presidency is a major contributor to the United States problems today in the Middle East and I am not surprised he is eager to transfer some of that blame on others.

UPDATE 5/21/2007: Jimmy Carter took the opportunity to clarify his remarks concerning President Bush today.  He said that his comments over the weekend about the Bush administration were “careless.”  Carter said he was answering a question about the foreign policy of former President Richard Nixon, as compared with that of the current administration. He said he wasn’t comparing the Bush administration with all those through American history.  This is a bunch of crap as though he was comparing bad foreign policy (of Bush) to bad foreign policy (of Nixon).  If Nixon was understood to be a good President about anything it was considered to be Foreign Policy.  After all to absolutely everyone’s surprise he opened up dialogue with China.  Also in his own words he said “of all time” not just versus Nixon, so again the heat is on and he is lying while trying to dodge the reaction to his comments.  I’m not buying it.  It is time for Jimmy to head for the pasture and fade away.


May 2007
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Blog Stats

  • 7,379 hits