This Is Why Public Schools Get Ridicule......

I was reading the headlines on Fox yesterday and came across a headline that caught my eye; Girl, 10, Arrested for using knife to cut food at school. So wondering if the headline was just to grab your attention or if there really was something to this, I went to the article and read the story. I only have one word, well two actually, that comes to mind...... *&$*# STUPID!!!!!!

This article is a prime example why our kids do not get a quality education in the public schools of this country. If the teachers and administrators put as much effort into teaching as they do into stupid stuff like making sure that a 10 year old little girl gets arrested for having good table manners then we would be the best educated population in the world. When I was a student in the public school system, teachers taught. Teachers knew their course of study and they were capable of teaching it. Yes there were some teachers that had not kept up with their field and their were some teachers that while very well versed in their areas were not proficient at decimating that information to their students. But I think the biggest difference was that if a student misbehaved in class the teacher put an end to it right then and there. Teachers controlled their classrooms, but also used common sense and good judgment.  Teachers were not afraid to interact with their students nor were they afraid to discipline them either.

When kids got in a fight, their lives were not ruined by calling the cops and having them arrested and charged with assault and or aggravated battery. The teachers or the football coach got a hold of them, even if that meant physically intervening and then either just sent them on their way or isolated them until tensions had eased and in extreme cases the individuals involved might actually be punished by having to run laps or write sentences (neither of which, by the way, injures the child).  Also, when I was a student it was no big deal, especially in high school, for you to have aspirin or Tylenol in your book-bag and even share it with a friend or teacher in need. Nor was it an issue to ask your teacher if they had aspirin or Tylenol. No one was going to be expelled for being in possession of drugs or arrested for distribution.

So here is the newest show of just how far down our public schools have gone. If you didn't read the afore mentioned story, a little girl had a packed lunch, which was steak, and included (this was probably a parent with common sense) in the lunch box was a steak knife to cut the steak up with. The little girl used the knife for its intended purpose, that of cutting up her food and was subsequently arrested by the police (I hope they feel really stupid, because if the support their actions then that is a whole other blog) and taken to the juvenile detention center and was charged with a felony possession of a deadly weapon on school grounds (Let me show you what I can do with a school chair).

Now I have to say that if this case goes any further, than the already ridiculously stupid path that it has taken, every resident of Ocala, Florida needs to think long and hard about their elected officials and their priorities in upholding the laws.

Putin Solidifies Power and Moves Forward

Well last week Putin led his United Russia to a landslide victory in the Parliamentary elections. And since then there has been even more whispering and wondering and chatter about whether he will try to run again in March or if he would name a successor. The name of a successor was ushered from Putin's lips yesterday and I can't say that I am very surprised by the choice.

World I would like to introduce the next President of Russia...........................................

Dmitri Medvedev.

Feeling a little lost? Not sure who this new leader is? Unless you have been following Russian politics and economics you are probably not familiar with this long time Putin aide and chairman of Russian energy giant Gazprom. Medvedev is from St. Petersburg and was a law professor and has been a Putin aide for many years. He has no real Kremlin support of his own and is not a big player in the power circle of Moscow.

In the last day there was some talk as to what naming such a weak successor meant for Putin's future, as well as Russia's, and there were some that even said that Putin wanted to leave all the power behind. Not sure how these experts got from all Putin's recent moves to him leaving public life. I have to say that I have seen nothing by Putin for the last 3 years that has signaled anything other than solidifying HIS power and increasing HIS control of the central government. Being a much classier and intelligent leader than Chavez, he doesn't appear to be making a move to change the country's constitution which bans him from running for a third term. However, he appears to have found a way around that obstacle, today the wires ran that Medvedev has asked that Putin serve as his Prime Minister.

Now if you didn't see that one coming, PLEASE don't call yourself an expert on Russia or her politics. I am NO expert and I have seen that coming for years not exactaly how it has played out, but I knew that Putin would not quietly retire from power. He has put too much into his goal of reclaiming Russia's past glory and expanding on it, to just hand her over to anyone without insuring that HIS path would be followed.

So the future of Russia after the March elections will have a solid United Russia power base in parliament with a new weak president in Medvedev and the ever strong and ever present Putin there in the fore-front as Prime Minister. And look for the roles of a strong president and weak premier to flip. And don't be surprised if that doesn't become the permanent face of Russia. A weak hand picked president by Putin with Putin running the show as Premier. Putin is determined to see Russia as the super-power that she was and he will not step out of public life until he is sure that her position in the world is secured to his liking.

Ex-wives usually know (them) best

Ex-wives usually get a bad wrap. They are called not-so-nice names and considered to be vindictive and irrational. Then again those claims are made by the men who screwed them over. I think ex-wives can be a good source of information about their ex-husbands. In the process of going through a divorce, as well as, having spent considerable time with the person prior to the divorce (unless you are Britney Spears) most ex-wives get to see ALL sides of the man.

And in the latest case, Marisabel Rodriguez is speaking out against Hugo Chavez's push to make Venezuela "more socialist," which she sees as a "road straight to totalitarianism."

Rodriguez has the intelligence to be concerned about one person being in control for such a long time. And she should be, as we all should be, no mater where we live or whom the person is. There is too much at stake to allow one person to be in control for a very long term. The risk is there that the power will corrupt them and that with this will arise a greed and hunger that will restrict and limit the freedoms and power of the people. The very real danger of this happening was present in Venezuela last week with the referendum vote on the Constitution. Some of the resolutions that were on the ballot would have given and extraordinary amount of power to an elected official.

Rodriguez is also proposing to shorten presidential terms. Something that she helped to put in place as first lady and part of the draft assembly. Stating that Chavez has been in office too long. She is not the only former ally to change their stance, former Defense Minister Raul Baduel rallied the former pro-Chavez party Podemos to vote NO. And a new group has entered the political scene, university students. All this will help change the dynamics of the political power in Venezuela and if successful there it may flow into other Latin American countries.

Iran is not nuclear free

The NIE came out this week and the mainstream media jumped on an out of context line and went full-steam ahead with it.

All the headlines read that Iran abandon nuclear program in 2003. Just another attempt to say that the current administration lied about intelligent reports just to suit their policy. Here are a couple little know facts about the NIE. First the NIE was written by policy makers and not analysts. Second the report states that one program, that of trying to develop a nuclear warhead for their missiles, seems to have been abandon. These two points reflect the media's refusal to tell the complete story.

If the Bush Administration were trying to lie about intelligent then why didn't the policy makers that wrote report toe the line? Now the Bush bashers, if so inclined, could read the whole report, with an open mind, and come out and say that in it totality the NIE states that we need to keep a close eye on Iran and that other programs are just covers for a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program. Now you have ammo that the Bush Administration is trying to push policy. Because you are so convinced that Bush is so wrong about everything. And lies about everything. Please look past your anger and hatred for Bush and look at Iran's history. Iran has a standing policy of being anti-American and anti-Israel and sees both as being the same entity. Iran wants to be a major player in the Middle East and the World, being a nuclear power would grant them that.

Does abandoning one program or goal, that of arming their missiles with nuclear warheads, mean that Iran has ceased its nuclear intentions or desires? Absolutely not. They are still enriching uranium that can be used for both peaceful and military purposes. And in today's world and political climate it is easier and cheaper for them to purchase the technology and weapons than to try to adapt current armament and develop technology on their own.

Do not think that China or Russia would not sell them the technology and resources that they would need. And making Iran a nuclear power would actually benefit both countries. And then you have the other angles to contend with if we turn our attention away from Iran and her intentions. If Iran becomes a nuclear power while Chavez is in power, you can bet that we would have another nuclear power to contend with.

So while you may not like Bush or some of his policies, keep in mind that there are power players in the rest of the world that are using the political division here to their advantage and if we blindly look at everything as a Bush conspiracy then we are giving countries like Iran carte blanche.

One Defeat is all you need when it Counts

YES!!!!!

I have been hoping for it and it finally came and it came when it mattered most. Way to go university students of Venezuela!!! They looked at the issues and decided that they opposed handing more power over to Chavez. Good on them for sticking to his preaching of democracy and giving it back to him in the ballot box. The results were close, 51% to 49%, but the opposition won. This was the first defeat that Chavez has suffered since taking the Presidency in 1998.

Many of the constitutional reforms that were part of the national referendum would have given Chavez power verging on dictatorship. Some of the most disturbing parts of the reforms including the appointment of governors and mayors as well as bringing the Central Bank under the control of the President. These are issues that caused Chavez dissent even among his most ardent supporters, including his former Defense Minister, Raul Baduel.

This single act by the voters of Venezuela may prove to the rest of Latin America that democracy is and can be alive and well. And one day later the fact that Chavez for the moment is accepting the defeat, at least until he can figure away around it, also gives rise to the belief that this may well be the century of the Americas.

Today In History---Cuba became communist

On this day in 1961 Fidel Castro announced that he was a Marxist-Leninist and than under his leadership Cuba would become a communist country. This statement came after the Bay of Pigs disaster, when the CIA did not follow through on their promises to support the loyalists. That would not be the last time that the US promised to support revolutionists or pro-American dissidents and then hung them out to dry. Then we shake our head and wonder why people in the world hate us.

After Castro declared Cuba communist it became a key pawn in the cold-war. The Soviet Union coddled the small island nation to attempt to place missiles within 90 miles of American soil. This stare down between the US and USSR was the closest that we came to a nuclear war. Most people do not remember the Cuban Missile Crisis or the 13 days in October 1962, when thousands of Americans held their breaths wondering if Kennedy could get us out of a nuclear confrontation.

On 28 October 1962 both the US and USSR agreed to remove missile bases that were close to the other's land mass. That was our bases in Turkey and their bases in Cuba. And so the cold-war continued until the Wall opened in 1989. With the end of the cold-war most people assumed that all communist countries would follow suit. That didn't happen, China saw the chance to become a big player on the world scene and step up to the plate. In it's shadow remain Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba.

Cuba is still only 90 miles from our shores and still communists. Being from South Florida I am a little more aware of Cuba's presence than most Americans and we also get more Cuban news here than the rest of the country. Cuban Americans here in South Florida have been holding their breath for months now hoping to hear the news that Fidel has passed. They believe that with Fidel out of the picture that Cuba will gain the real chance to be free and independent. I hope that they are right.

It will be a long road if they chose to take it. One of the things that most Americans don't realize about other countries around the world is that most don't allow their citizens access to a lot of the resources that we take for granted. Their text books are written differently and they view the world with certain taught basis. Just like we do. The difference is that we can make the effort to seek out different points of view and new information so that we may make informed decisions and create informed opinions about the world around us. So when the uncensored doors of the world are opened to the Cuban people they may find some things strange and even troubling, it may be easier to go back to the old ways if for no other reason than the comfort of familiarity. Venturing into the unknown can be a wonderfully scary thing to do and is not for the faint of heart. I happen to believe that the Cuban people are ready and willing and very capable to make this journey and we need to be open to helping them without pressure or influence.

Putin Check Mates Kasparov

In an anti-government rally in Moscow the police swarmed in and put their sights on Kasparov. Kasparov is famous enough as an international chess champion that he is seen as a major target by Putin's government. I think that with this election will show just how calculating and thought out Putin has been in trying to return Russia to the Soviet Union. This is an election that most Americans do not even know is taking place much less paying any attention to, however this election will have broad implications for the United States and her interests globally.

We sit here and rant about the bickering between our candidates, as well we should but we need to be aware of the politics of other countries as well. And right now the political events in Pakistan and Russia are just as important as our own. What happens in the upcoming election in Russia may well set the stage for some challenges in our own political future.

Putin has been strategically aligning himself against us without creating too much friction and he has been able to do this because for the most part the mainstream media here in the US does not support the current administration and  therefore does not blast any head of state when they speak out against our government. When reports make it to the headlines about other heads of states speaking against our own it is presented more as a see how wrong you are report against our government instead of as offense against all Americans.

One of the things that we have to realize as Americans is that our opponents look at us collectively and put us all in the same stereo-type, unlike us where we separate the government from the people. When our enemies attack us they do not concern themselves with the collateral damage that they may cause, the ends always justifies the means. So we need to keep that in mind when we see and hear the opposition speak against us.

We need to look at the larger pictures sometimes before we take hard fast stands based on 2 minute sound-bites. We are a global power living in an international environment, we cannot be an isolationist nation it will not work and it will most definitely not improve our security.

And you call Bush stupid........

2 April 2007

"It makes no sense for politicians in Washington, D.C., to be dictating arbitrary timelines for our military commanders in a war zone 6,000 miles away," Bush said.
The above statement is very accurate, however politicians are so power hungry and greedy that they do not concern themselves with petty issues like reality.

If the bill becomes law, "our enemies in Iraq would simply have to mark their calendars," Bush said.

This statement seems to be very out of the realm of comprehension of the minds of Congress. It must be nice to live in such a fantasyland. Where you can play with people's lives without the ramifications of dealing with the consequences of your actions. Hey, here is one that we should think about—wonder if the politicians would be so keen to set a pull-out date if after said date, we divided Iraq into geographic sections and assigned one of the supporters of the troop pull-out to each section and every time that someone in that section was killed or injured by insurgents then the assigned politician would loose the same number of persons from their family/friend circle. By the way their family/friend circle would also include their biggest financial supporters, as we really want them to feel some pain.  Wonder if even the mere thought of possibly losing members of these lists would give them the incentive to be more realistic in their assessment of how and when our troops leave Iraq. It would certainly show which ones even have a shadow of a heart within their breasts. Then we could tell them every time that they loose someone that we support their job as politician, we just don't support their decision for a troop pullout, because as they say they support the troops just not the war. Somehow I don't think that they would buy our support, do you? But we could tell them that our support for them is just as real as their support for our troops; nothing like salting a wound when it is fresh and bleeding.

What happened to the days when elected officials considered it a duty and honor to SERVE society? When you were elected to an office because you were respected and trusted? When you didn't worry about re-election and always did your best to do what was right? When being a politician was in addition to your career or profession or job? When you didn't do the job for power or money or a stepping-stone?  Where have all the TRUE heroes gone? Where have all the GREAT role models gone? Where have leaders with morals gone? Why is it that our best people are not on Capitol Hill? Why is it that as citizens and voters we do not demand better from our lawmakers? Why did we allow peace to make us soft? Why did we allow prosperity to make us lazy? Why are we not concerned about the citizens of the world? When did we change our perspective from the world beginning at the end of our nose to the world ending at the end of our nose?

Deadly Day in South Florida

14 September 2007

Yesterday was not a good day in South Florida.

We had 4 law enforcement officers shot here. That brings the total in the last 10 weeks to 6 locally and at least 7 statewide. According to the Department of Justice more law enforcement officers were shot in the first 6 months of this year than in all last year. (There were 48 officers killed in the line of duty in 2006. That was 7 fewer than in 2005.)

It has been a rough summer for the boys in blue here in paradise. Broward County had two deputies shot in less than 10 days, one fatally and the other still hospitalized with a severe head injury. Then right on the heels of these events a deputy was shot in the Tampa area.

But yesterday was the worst day since 1976, 4 Miami-Dade officers were shot making a traffic stop while working a burgalry detail. The suspect, Shawn Labeet exited his vehicle and fired his AK-47 multiple times, hitting all 4 officers. One officer was fatally wounded, one seriously wounded and the other two were treated and released.

As can be expected the incident and ensuing manhunt was the focus of all of South Florida yesterday. The media was sent chasing leads and stories across two counties, in the end there would be 5 crime scenes and another shoot-out. Late last night law enforcement cornered Labeet in a Pembrook Pines apartment complex. A shoot-out ensued that left Labeet fatally wounded. While the result is a victory for law enforcement it will bring little relief to the families left behind.

All three shootings here in South Florida were law enforcement officers doing routine duties, stopping a driver running red lights/stop signs, approaching a vehicle in a drug store parking lot, and stopping a vehicle that was driving erraticately. This series of recent events highlights that even the most routine events in law enforcement can be deadly. But the more pressing issue is the complete disregard for peace officers and law that these individuals displayed.

Two of the shooters had extensive records, one that while showed a total disregard for authority did not show violent behavior. The other was wanted on an outstanding warrant for aggravated assualt with a deadly weapon. And the third suspect is an unknown.

How did this happen? Why were these persons on the street to begin with? It is my opinion that the courts are to blame. There is way too much poliltics in the court room. If you commit a crime, especially a violent one, like aggravated assualt with a deadly weapon, you should not be walking the streets. And before the excuse of over crowded jails is brought up--which is a whole other blog topic--put them on house arrest then, but keep them off the streets. Violent offenders should not be out on the streets they should be detained by any means available till their court date. And we as citzens need to support our law enforcement agencies by demanding that the courts get tougher on violent offenders.

Let that be the legacy that these fallen officers leave behind.

Who is held to higher standards?

27 August 2007

Well the breaking news right now is that Gonzales is resigning.........

And the big deal is that less than 10 federal prosecutors may have been fired for political reasons. Oh, BOO HOO!!!! I got news for you that is what happens when you work for elected officals. It might suck, it might be wrong, but it is the way politics works and until the American society decides that this is wrong it is acceptable.

Hum, didnt Clinton fire almost 200 federal prosecutors? Which top offical resigned over that? Better yet who screamed foul in that political move?

And when faced with this comparison, then you hear that Gonzales might have misled Congress when he testified about the firings and other issues.

Hum, what was it that then President Clinton said on national TV and again in a sworn deposition in a CRIMINAL investigation (not a Congressional fact finding probe)? Oh yeah, I didnt have sexual relations with that woman!!! He sat in the same chair that the acts occured in and didnt even have the balls to name Monica by name (because as a politican and lawyer he knows that if you give her a name then you make her a person and invoke feelings).

I missed Clinton's resignation, oh yeah that is right he didnt resign!!!!!!!!

Dont get me wrong I think that most of our politicians dont deserve our trust.

But wrong is wrong regardless of which political party you belong to. But it is amazing how the democratic slant of the media makes it a haven for misdeeds by those members of the democratic party and turns into the Spanish Inquistition for any perceived wrong doing by a member of the republican party.

So much for journalism bringing truth to the American people and holding the government accountable for the actions of ALL its members.

Obama visits Miami.........

27 August 2007

Obama chose to voice his ideas for a new policy towards Cuba in the same auditorium that Ronald Regan announced imposing strict bans on travel and economic relations with the communist regime. Miami is home to many Cuban exiles and there are strong emotions with reguard to Cuba - America relations.

I think it is obvious to state that the Cuban-American community wants the communist regime toppled. If there is any divergence it is in how to accomplish this. For years there has been very strict bans on travel and even stricter restrictions on economic relations with the country or industries within the country. The reason behind this was to devastate the economy and there by facilitate a collaspe of the ruling government. Well, while well intended we did not acheive the goal we wanted. So maybe it is time that we step back and take another look at how to achieve a better enviroment, economic and political, for Cuba and her people.

Obama would like to see and ease in travel restrictions and the economic policy eased to make it easier for Cuban-Americans to send money to relatives still in Cuba. These are small steps that with the current climate might help shift the regime just a little our way. And with Chavez trying to buy Cuban alliance with Fidel, we cant afford to be stubborn and close-minded on this issue. And this is not a Miaimi or Florida issue; what happens in Cuba affects the whole region and impacts the world.

America can not be an isolationist country or we will be a country defeated.

Chavez socialism is abusive relationship.......

26 August 2007

As I have been reading the articles concerning Hugo Chavez and his antics -- I keep telling myself that this is an abusive relationship. If you start with the begining and follow through to now- Chavez' rise to power has been a step by step climb taken from any DV relationship.

Over a decade ago this charming, charismatic hero appeared on the scene. And he said all the right things and acted the part of the answer to all the prayers of the poor, the weak, and the disinfrancised. He was able to gather the energy of their hopes and dreams and used it to secure power for himself. Then he appeared to be true to his word as he nationalized industries and created jobs. The people saw these things as being great. What they didnt see was Chavez arresting opposition and spreading propaganda to create the basis that he needed to stay in power. He created the US as an evil villian that he and he alone could protect Venezuela and the rest of South America from. He made loud and rude comments about America, he arrested and threw out Americans that he labeled as spies. With his control of the state run media it was easy for him to create a completely false vision of himself for the people of Venezuela.

He has created a dependency of the Venezuelan people on his power. He has convinced them they need him, when the reality is the opposite. He has convinced them that they would be nothing without him, the same as any abuser. Now he is going to rewrite the constitiution so that he can consolidate power and increase his tyranny. He is a smart and cunning man-he is a danger to the peace and stability of Latin America and the world. And just like with an abusive relationship if the victim (the Venezuelean people) is not seperated from the abuser the results will be fatal.

Throw Us Under the Bus, Please!!!!

12 March 2007

So the Democrats are showing their support for our troops once again. Setting a pull out date, how nice of them. They still don't get it. You cannot give deadlines to the enemy. Could you be any more anti-troops than that? They might as well hand the insurgents copies of all our mission plans and defense capabilities. Hell, why not just sign a surrender agreement right now. Maybe we should put all the supporters of the troop pull out on a plane send them to Iraq and let them go to every school and every clinic and every village and tell every innocent civilian that we are going to bail on them again.

And NO we do not have the troops to protect your visits to these villages and schools and clinics, take your chances; you are peace loving enlightened intellectuals that understand the insurgents and are civilized enough to reason with them so you have no need for military escorts!!!!!

That would show the world that they can count on us; that we have backbone and the stomach to go the long haul. NOT!

I just get more and more irritated with the Democrats every time they shoot their mouths off. The problem is that they are so anti-Bush and anti-Republican that they don't even look at the issues or the big pictures. All they want to do is show that they went against Bush that they were on the opposite side of the argument with the Republicans.

What is it with Democrats that being against Republicans and Bush is more important that doing the best thing for national security and interests? Why would they cut off their nose to spite their face? Why is it that they are more concerned about one detail than the bigger picture? How is it that they only know how to be reactive and never proactive? Why is it that they never want to prevent something but only pick up the pieces after and then only if they cant get someone else to do it and only if it wont hurt too bad.

What happened to the true Democrats? FDR must be so disappointed in his party today; even JFK had a better grasp of world politics and international relations than any of the Democrats in Congress today.

If it were up to the Democrats we would still be under terrorist attacks, because they would not have pushed for any retaliation, except for maybe a UN resolution calling the acts uncivilized. Yeah, that is what we should have done, whined to the UN that Usama was not playing nice, that the Taliban were supporting terrorism and encouraging attacks against innocent civilians. Yes that is ALL that should have been done and then in 10 or 15 years after the current Democrats had left public office the next generation of leaders would have been left to clean up the mess that would have grown exponentially unchecked in that time. What a wonderful thought, what a nice legacy to leave our children!

With Allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

17 February 2007

If you have not been paying close attention to world politics and activities then you may not be aware of the detrimental actions of two of our 'best' Muslim allies.  The end result will be that we will have a harder time achieving our goals in the region and insuring a secure existence for our country and her interests abroad.

There has been intelligence and rumors, as well as, covert actions by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, at least as far back as the mid '90's that should give a reason for pause when it comes to depending on these 'allies' to do their part to help defeat terrorism. Both countries independently have supported terror organizations and extremists views of Islam. Not only have these countries allowed extremist views and organizations to flourish within their borders, they have also funded and supported extremist and terror groups internationally.

The Saudi royals have long been known to provide moneys and other support to radical Islamic movements to help change the political climates of other countries. The facts are that Saudi Arabia produces a large number of international terrorists. Most of the suicide bombers in the GWOT have been of Saudi nationality. Not only were most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudi, but also based on which group you site, between 40% and 60% of the suicide bombers in the Iraqi Insurgency are Saudi. When the FBI arrested one of Al Qaeda's top persons in Faisalabad, according to General Posner, he stated that his primary contacts in Saudi Arabia included three princes of the royal family. The irony of this revelation is that those three princes, as well as the named contact within the Pakistani government, all died within a very short time of the respective governments being notified of the information.

The U.S. was caught between a rock and a hard spot, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were needed to have any success in the GWOT, yet, the truth of the matter is that they are largely responsible for the enemies that we fight in that war. The choice was made by the U.S. that our need for these regional, strategic partners was greater than our ability to wage any effective attack against Afghanistan or Iraq without them.

So do we have control over these 'allies', and do they have any form of allegiance to us in this war? Our control or influence over these allies is more limited than we would like to imagine as can be seen in recent events between the two countries when Gen. Pervez Musharraf made a recent official visit to the Kingdom. This visit was a stop on a tour of 5 capitals in the region, but was of the most notice for what went on behind the scenes. The Pakistani President and the Saudi King meet in secret for 3 hours and then in a ceremony the King awarded Musharraf with the King Abdul Aziz Award. Also brokered in this visit was "an epic accord of 7 secret clauses on the terms in which Pakistan would make nuclear weapons available to, and sell, Saudi Arabia nuclear-capable missiles."

We have the makings of some very precarious moments in the future. There is a common theory that the royal family and Gen. Pervez Musharraf walk political tightropes in their respective countries, yet if things continue globally down the road that they are on right now, it will be the United States that finds itself on an international tightrope without the preverbal saftey net.

Friend or Foe? What day of the week is it?

13 February 2007

Determining who our friends are and who they are not is becoming more and more difficult. It really is almost a day-by-day roster of who wants what from us. If someone wants something from us, money, aid, influence, weapons, protection, defense then they do their best to kiss our ass. But if they are not getting anything or what they want from us then heaven help us in their media. It is amazing how the world wants us to become just and honorable and fair when they are not getting what they want. World leaders and international media rip our country and our policies to shreds and then turn around in the same breath and kiss our ass looking for a hand out or bale out. God, love their honor and justice!!

It is hard to believe that in the last 30 years, there were very clear sides with the Cold War in full swing. The Iron Curtain divided Europe. South America, Africa and Asia were up for grabs. And the grabbing went on and on and the Super Powers were played by warlords and tribal chiefs that could barely read and write if at all. Now in the 21^st century we have the mess of our making but only one super power cleaning it up.

But what will the future hold? Putin has his ambition in full swing and high gear, he sees his time for making his moves and we have given him the room and the backing to do it.

Looking closely at the internal politics of Russia you can see the old order rising out of the dust like the phoenix out of the ashes. Putin blocks our moves every chance he gets; however, he has been careful not to slap us fully in the face. And here we are war weary, tired and ready to go back to being self-indulged and instantly gratified. We are right were Putin and the world wants us and our own media has made it easy for them to get us here.

Our own media slams our administration every chance that it gets, they pump out a liberal agenda that screams socialism and even feigns on communism, failing to realize or admit that if either of those schools of thought took over here in this country their own freedom to slam the government would cease to exist.  Maybe we should start a new program, since the academic institutions seem to have such a love affair with socialism and communism, I propose that all senior year journalism students should have to intern in a communist society. They should have to live, eat and breathe journalism in a communist country. They should be required to sign a wavier that if anything happens to them in that year, they are on their own, if they become imprisoned, executed, assassinated or if they just disappear it is just life. Wonder if that would impress upon any of them the true value of freedom of press?

The media especially has become so yellow that they have forgotten that with freedoms does come a certain amount of responsibility. They seem less inclined to verify the accuracy of charges against people if what they have supports their agenda. And no longer is the media's agenda one of informing the public of the facts of the events that have impact on their readers and the world around them. No the media's agenda is that of forming opinions and creating thought patterns that promote the climate and social conditions to create the atmosphere that they desire.

This lack of concern for their responsibility to the public and our society has made them the perfect bedfellows for our enemies. Terrorists have learned to wage war in the media when they cannot win it on the ground. Our fair-weather allies have learned to use the media to their advantage also. Both know that our MSM will promote to our public that America is an evil empire that attacks countries for oil, and ignores the requests of the civilized world to keep our 'war mongering' troops in check. And where are the reports about the atrocities committed by the insurgents or the taliban, they are far and few between? Where are the stories in the media about the real reasons that our 'allies' wanted us to show restraint with Iraq and now with Iran? Where are the sound bites by Putin that show his intentional isolation form the west?

Well, I can help the media out with that one, Putin has been quoting Czar Alexander III; the quote is, Russia has only two allies -- the army and the navy. This is something of notice to Russia's own citizen,, but not to MSM here. The state run media in Russia is creating the condition for a self-imposed isolation and also creating an image of the enemy. The common people of Russia are again being conditioned to believe that it is them against the world.

We can't afford to fight GWOT and another Cold War at the same time, and Russia cannot control the terrorists, nor can she defeat the terrorists. It is my opinion that Russia is sitting back and hoping that the GWOT will so strain our resources and military that in the near future they will be able to step in and gain control and influence on a wider scale than they ever imagined under Stalin. I don't think that they have the capacity to understand the mentality of the enemy nor do they have the ability to influence the actions of their own bedfellows that will have to arise for them to have what they are yearning for.

We must step up and complete our missions in Iraq and A'stan, we must accomplish some form of lasting stability so that we can reassess our footprint and take a clear and unbiased view of the world as a whole to insure our security and the security of our interests abroad. And we must do this before Putin and his Russia make their move!

Put up the Walls Boys!!!!!

14 January 2007

Well the NEW Iraq plan is out and everyone is grabbing hold of the troop increase!!! I love the way a whole plan is discussed and MSM grabs one detail and runs with it!!!!!

If you only needed ONE piece of the puzzle to make everything work, then it would be a picture and not a puzzle!

There are, however, other aspects to the plan. One of the other plans is to divide Baghdad into zones and wall them off. Then sweep them of insurgents and terrorists and militias. After they are swept then maintain that security for the citizens in the zones. This could be a daunting task.

Personally, however, I think that the idea of Baghdad being divided up into 9 zones and being 'walled' off and dealt with, is a good one. There is at least one area in Baghdad that has done that for months now under the direction of the elders of the neighborhood (see Salam Pax's video blog). This area is one of the safest areas in Baghdad.

The 'cleaning up' of these zones will fall to the Iraqi Army. There will be units brought in from the north to relieve the 6^th, 8^th, and 9^th divisions that currently maintain the Baghdad AO.

I completely love the idea that the units of the IA that will be brought in to do this house cleaning are the ones that are majority Kurdish, that will deflate the fact that Sunnis are after Shiites and Shiites are after Sunnis. This will also eliminate the concept that the mostly Shiite Iraqi Army will not forcefully go after the Shiite militias. The word is that the units will NOT answer to Iraqi Military Headquarters. This means that they will be free to do the job and do it right.

This plan was used in Tall Afar and was successful. Now it is time to clean up Baghdad and let the peaceful citizens of the city get on with their lives and get on with building a better Iraq for ALL Iraqis. It will become the American military's job to go in after the IA has 'cleaned' the area and maintain the security and rebuild the area so that infrastructure is up and running and increase the job market.

This can go a long way towards decreasing violence and civil strife in the immediate future. The lasting effects will depend on how successful the sweeps are and how well the Iraqi government demonstrates after the 'clean up' that it will be a unified government for a unified Iraq. I think that the ONE MUST DO in the sweeps, to insure that the success is long lasting, will be the removal of Al Sadr. As long as Al Sadr remains there will be friction and violence and strife. So on the lists of things that MUST BE accomplished, the removal of Al Sadr must be Number 1. There are basically no alternatives, the down side to this is that his removal will make him a 'martyr' and that is going to create some fallout. However, it will be easier to handle the fallout than it will be to allow him to remain. If Al Sadr is removed and the sweeps remove all elements of insurgency within the city and the infrastructure gets up and running completely and the job market picks up then Al Sadr's martyrdom will be short lived. Iraqis are like most other people they are mostly concerned with their families, so if they are finding jobs and earning money and increasing their standard of living and secure without the militias they will not be openly influenced by the 'martyr'.

So I say bring in the troops and let the Kurds show Baghdad how it can be and should be!!! It will be interesting to see what the next few months holds for the citizens of Baghdad and I for one am hoping that they finally get on the forward path.

A Message to Iran and Syria………

12 January 2007

President Bush unveiled his new strategy for Iraq and in it he did not extend an olive branch to Syria or Iran. Good on him!

According to Iran and Syria they are and always have been innocent. Yeah, right!

Now I do have to say that I don't think we should totally or completely isolate them as Bush alluded to. I think that we should have face-to-face meetings with them and put it all on the table. This is they way that meeting should go………

We are not here to offer you any compromise.

We are not here to ask for your blessing.

We are not here to ask for your permission.

We are not here to ask for your assistance.

We are not here to negotiate.

Here is what we are here for;

You will secure your borders.

You will stop sending in insurgents.

You will stop supplying weapons.

You will stop supplying money.

You will stop supplying bodies.

You will stop promoting violence.

Failure to comply with the above mentioned statements.

(Yes, they are statements and not requests.)

Will, not may, but WILL result in reprisals.

We will close any "HOLES" in your borders.

We will bomb ANY suspected logistical locations supporting the insurgents regardless of their location.

We will freeze ALL assets of ANY suspected insurgent funders.

We will eliminate ANY insurgents within the borders of Iraq.

We will attack and counter attack ALL forms of civil strife that the insurgents promote.

Have a nice day.

When is enough enough?

8 January 2007

I was reading about the new Polish Archbishop and the Rev. Janusz Bielanski of Warsaw that resigned over their "cooperation" with secret police in Communist Poland. And it made me wonder, when is enough enough?I mean there are still people that are hunting down WWII war criminals. Now, before someone thinks I either dont believe that the holocaust happened or that I dont think that what happened was awful, I do. But, I also think that justice has been served. At some point you have to let go.

The argument against Warsaw Archbishop Stanislaw Wielgus, is that he cooperated with Polish Secret Police during the Communist rule. Their basis is that he signed a piece of paper that said that he would. This paper had to be signed before he would be permitted to travel to West Germany to study. Now, Im thinking that if I were a young person in communist Poland and all I have to do to get a chance to leave and go to West Germany to study is sign a piece of paper that states that I will cooperate with the secret police, Im signing and getting the h#*$ out of Dodge!!!!!!
We have here jurisprudence in our legal system that allows for a legal defense of duress or coercion.
Black's Law Dictionary(6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]."
I think that most normal people can look at the situation of Archbishop Stanislaw Wielgus and Rev. Bielanski and see duress and coercion.
To my knowledge there has been NO hard evidence brought against them where they gave information that led to the detention or death or disappearance of any persons. I also have not seen any reports that they has been 'unlawfull' or 'illegal' in any other manner. And it is this point that I am leading to.If you have men that did or participated or said 'evil' or 'bad' things while trying to survive in a society that was a state of constant duress and coercion, how can you truly blame and try and hold accountable every single individual of that society? Do not get me wrong, persons like Hess and Himmler and Mengele deserved to be hunted down and brought to trial. But, I do not think that every person that wore a German uniform or was a registered member of the Nazi party was a criminal nor should they be hunted down expecially years later.
Here is the way that I look at it if these persons were able to get out of Germany and in their new countries never commited criminal acts then I say give them the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe that truly bad people change and therefore if they were very willing participants they will do these things again and some of them did, but most of them did not.

Now back to the Archbishop Stanislaw Wielgus, so he signed a piece of paper so that he could leave an oppressed country for a breif time and study in an open society. He then returned to his counrty and served, well apparently, for many years and the thanks that he gets is that he is forced to resign over a peice of paper. A piece of paper that says what? That he agreed to at some time in the future to cooperate with the secret police? Would any of his accusers have shown more bravado at that same moment in time? How many others signed the same piece of paper? Where is the proof that he actually ever cooperated? Where are the list of names of people that he turned over? Where is the blood on his hands?
I think that the 'grudge' that is being held is unfair and unhealthy. I guess that you can say that it is human nature to hold a grudge against someone that has done you wrong and to a degree I understand that, but how do you hold a grudge against someone that has not wronged you personally? And why would you want to? I do not get this, but I know that I think differently. I do not hold grudges, not at all really. As I am typing this I am trying to think of any grudges that I hold and I am drawing a blank.
 It is, however, not in one's best interest to hold a grudge. Why not, you ask? Because when we hold a grudge or hate someone then we act and do things based on that grudge or hate. What we are doing in essence is allowing the person or thing that we have a grudge against or hate to have power that they do not deserve. Think about it if you hold a grudge against someone or something then you will do things based soley on that -- such as if you hold a grudge against an ex and therefore because of this grudge you no longer socialize with mutual friends what have you gained? Nothing. You have lost. You have fewer friends, and the ex has power over you.
The same is true in this instant. The communist ideals still have a power over the people of Poland. At some point you have to let go of the hate and anger and hurt.
Do not forget the injustice; learn from it and prevent it from happening again. But do not let it consume your life, do not let it rule you, do not let it win. 

Dont Bite the Hand that Feeds you...........

7 December 2006

But by all means BITE the hand that attacks you!!!!
And starve it too!!!!!If we want to win the war in A'stan that is just what we need to do. We have to attack the WHOLE enemy. The Pentagon has been unhelpful in assisting with the opium problem in Afghanistan. "Military units in Afghanistan largely overlook drug bazaars, rebuff some requests to take U.S. drug agents on raids and do little to counter the organized crime syndicates shipping the drug to Europe, Asia and, increasingly, the United States, according to officials and documents." (Los Angeles Times, December 5, 2006, Pg. 1, Josh Meyer) However, that opium crop is the source of the bullets that kill our troops, the bombs that blow up our convoys, the surface to air weapons that attack our aircraft and the security that the Taliban enjoy, especially in the southern part of the country. It is the profit from the opium fields that provide the cash to secure loyalty, propaganda, intelligence, weapons and 'martyrs'.
During previous combat engagements we have carried out carpet bombing to destroy the infrastructure of the enemy, we have carried out selective target bombing to destroy the logistical resources of the enemy, we have even destroyed the headquarters of the arms dealers supplying our enemy (too bad that building was also the Chinese Embassy).
Now, I know that the purpose of our military is to defend and protect our country and its citizens, lands and interests from attack by enemies of the state, whether foreign or domestic. I, also, know that the method for doing so is to plan, execute and complete a military operation to achieve a military goal. And that our military leaders try to confine these military operations to a narrow scope with well defined goals and procedures. These methods are well suited for conventional warfare, however the GWOT is not conventional in any manner. The unconventional manner of  the war on terror is such that not even the use of guerrilla tactics is enough to ensure mission completion.
Our military leaders have to do something, that for some may be a totally foreign concept to them; they have to think totally outside the box. However, along with thinking outside the box they have to keep in mind that we are fighting the terrorists and not become them. This can create a very complex and disconcerting issue for our leaders. We instill in our military leaders respect for life, morals while engaging the enemy, and conscience in planning, executing and completing the mission. We do not believe that the end is the justification for the means, that makes us who we are and we are not the terrorists.
Keeping that in mind I think that we need to expand our concept of how we defeat the enemy. The war that we are waging is like no other war we have fought in our history. The economic and media fronts are almost more important than the frontlines. We have to really appreciate the terror organizations ability to sell their cause to the masses and to use propaganda to recruit new members. We have to understand how cash is a weapon also. We have to learn to attack their cash flow just as we would a bomb making factory or the arms dealers headquarters. We have to eliminate their ability to exist.
We dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki not because we believed in the death of innocent civilians, but we made a tough choice--drop the bombs and kill numerous civilians to save multitudes more. This decision was not made lightly and did result in an earlier end to the war than would have been possible without the bombing. I think that we need to make another hard choice here with Afghanistan and the poppy fields -- I would not recommend dropping hydrogen bombs on the poppy fields, however I am thinking that napalm bombs or another ordnance that would achieve a similar goal, the quick and efficient destruction of a poppy field with as little collateral damage as possible, would be a smart choice in helping to prevent the future destruction of property and loss of life globally.
We have to look at the whole picture and the complete enemy. We have to remove their ability to recruit, publicize and attack. We have not been effective thus far in countering their offensives in the media or online and playing catch up at this point might bog us down in a true quagmire. However, if we remove their ability to produce, promote and distribute their ideals to open ears then we will shift the advantage in our favor. We have the advantage on the ground in the combat zones it is in the unconventional areas that we are losing the war. So the Pentagon needs to put their egos on the back burner grant the DEA's request for assistance in so much as they can to eliminate the poppy fields of Afghanistan. One or two sweeping operations whose goal is the complete destruction of cash crops of illegal substances in theater should effectively limit the enemies ability to mount a resistance of substance.

No One Venturing ... Absolutely Nothing Gained

5 December 2006

President Bush met with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. This was another attempt by Bush to get Iraqis to step up. And again the response fell grossly short.  Personally, I dont think that it was a total failure, things were said that I think the US should use in Iraq and with the Iraqi government.
First, Aziz al-Hakim told the press that he did not think that the American troops were conducting decisive strikes against the insurgents, that stronger actions needed to be taken. I have to agree with him on that one, however, as is usually the case he wants these tactics to be used not against ALL militias and insurgents, just the ones that are loyal to Saddam Hussein. He denied that Shitie militias are fueling the sectarian violence. Wonder where he gets his news, not only are the Shiite militias conducting major and numerous strikes against Sunnis, they are blackmailing and intimidating the Iraq government. This would be the same government that their political arms are in the majority, that is enough to make any Iraqi, especially one of other than Shiite affiliation apprehensive.
Again, I say they need to turn loose of this revenge mode left over from Hussein's regime. This is a NEW Iraq, one for ALL Iraqis. The international community as a whole needs to apply pressure to the Iraqis to step-up and be bigger problem solvers than they have been. If the Iraq government really wants to be respected in the international arena then they need to start acting like a fair and just government. Al-Sadr and his militia need to be removed--there does not appear to be any way to work with this cleric in the new government. He IS NOT part of the solution, he IS part of the problem, a major part.
Someone, actually EVERYONE, in the Iraqi government needs to realize how much easier their jobs would be if al-Sadr and his militia were removed from the picture. It does not take some in-depth analysis of the situation to see that more than half of the problems have one source. Sure the whole situation is complex and difficult, but the idea of making it more complex or giving up and accepting him as a factor is just unacceptable at this point. Al-Sadr was given the opportunity to be a player at the table to help move Iraq forward, that is not his desire, he does not want to see Iraq move forward, he wants to see Iraq move backwards, he has his own agenda and it is in no way in line with a safe and secure Iraq for ALL Iraqis. That in and of itself is enough to make him an obstacle that needs to be removed.
"The strikes [the insurgents] are getting from the multinational forces are not hard enough to put an end to their acts, but leave them to stand up again to resume their criminal acts," Hakim said in a speech at the United States Institute of Peace. "This means that there is something wrong in the policies taken to deal with that danger threatening the lives of Iraqis."
I have to agree with Hakim on the fact that there is something wrong in the policies. Where we disagree is what it is that is wrong. He wants tougher strikes that eliminate the Sunni/Baathist militias, leaving the shiite ones in tact. I want the policies to be applied equally, every militia needs to be at least disarmed, more effectively they need to be eliminated. Think about this, if US troops were to surround a Sunni neighborhood and wipe-it out the Iraq government would claim a victory against the insurgents, however, if the same US troops applied the same policy against Sadr City, the outrage would be intense and extreme. This one hypocrisy makes peace in Iraq under the current government a basic impossibility.
The Iraq leaders want Iraq problems to be solved by Iraqis and I am all for that, they should be they are the best qualified to solve the problems, but they have to have the strength and determination to do it and so far Im not seeing it.
Am I frustrated? You bet I am. Am I ready to cut and run? Hell no!
Rome was not built in a day and neither will Iraq be. The common Iraq family needs to be able to live in peace and security. We need for that to be our only mission. I do think that we could stand to bang some heads together in the next Iraqi cabinet meeting, but we know that is not going to happen!! Maybe Allah can help us out with that one.

Nothing Gained

30 November 2006

The following quote is from Pres. Bush's remarks after his meeting with PM Al-Maliki in Jordan.  "One of his frustrations with me is that he believes that we've been slow about giving him the tools necessary to protect the Iraqi people," Bush said. "He doesn't have the capacity to respond. So we want to accelerate that capacity."

We've been slow, I would beg to differ, we have not been slow. He has not done his job to maintain the capacity that we have provided him and the Iraqi government. He has not demanded that the militia's stand down--they do more damage to his capacity than anything that the Americans do. It is the militias that are bombing the police stations and recruiting places. It is the militias that are killing anyone that is working for the betterment of Iraq, not the Americans. It is his own supporters, Sadrists that have boycotted the government because of Maliki's meeting with Bush. They are flexing their power and Maliki is letting them. If he wants "the capacity to respond" to mean something then  he needs to let the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army do their job and not put Sadr City and Al-Sadr off limits to law and justice. You cannot have a free and independent nation with international respect if your laws only apply to some and not all. If Iraq is to be a safe and secure place then NO ONE can be above or outside of the law. Someone needs to remind him that he is Prime Minister of Iraq not of Sadr City.
There has been suggestions that he is a puppet leader and I must agree with that. However, there are elements that want you to believe that it is Washington that is pulling the strings, they are wrong, dead wrong, his strings are not that long--they do not reach past Sadr City.  It is time for Iraqi leaders, ALL Iraqi leaders, to step up to the plate, to come together put differences aside and make decisions that will move  ALL of Iraq forward.
It is inexcusable to me and should be to the Iraqi people, that the leaders of their elected government show less internal fortitude running the government than the masses did in going to the poles and placing their votes. It is my humble opinion that Al-Maliki has lost his ability to be the right man for the job. He lacks the strength and charisma to overcome the petty bickering of even the factions within his own coalition, much less the difficulties of a unified Iraqi government. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be anyone with these qualities left in Iraq. How is it that a country with the population and history and culture of Iraq has allowed its populace to lose their strength and ability? With all that Iraq has to show for her past it appears that she is struggling to show anything for her future.

A Little Much!!!

17 November 2006

In Holland, policies associated with the nationalist fringe in 2002 have been co-opted by the center: holding asylum-seekers in detention centers, more muscle for the police and intelligence services, and visa examinations that require would-be immigrants to watch videos of homosexuals kissing and of topless women on the beach. Everyone must learn to speak Dutch, and Muslim clerics must mind what they say in their Friday sermons for fear of deportation.
Read full story here  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061117/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_burqa_banThe headline that proceeds this article is Dutch Government Proposes Ban On Burquas. Now, I, personally, would never wear one and I find it completely unacceptable and barbaric to require a woman, or anyone for that matter, to wear anything. However, if the individual person choses to wear an item of clothing or covering, how ever you would like to define it, that should be their right.
I do understand to a degree the argument against wearing burquas while conducting offical business, such as having your DL photo taken, especially since it is used as a form of official ID. I do not consider that an infringement on someone's rights, religious or otherwise. Why not you may ask. Because in this country if you were to loose that DL, anyone and I do mean anyone could use it without any problem. On the otherside of the issue, I do not agree with France's ban on any head scarf, not that I agree with much that the French do! If they are not going to allow head scarf's for Muslims, then they should ban all head gear of a religious nature, and while they are at it any jewelry that depicts any religious affiliation. After all the argument over the burquas was that France was a secular society. So shouldnt it be secular for ALL Frenchmen?
What got me in the opening paragraph was the requirement of all immigrants to watch videos of homosexuals kissing and women topless on beaches. Okay, guys I know that you are all for that, at least as long as the kissers are women and the sunbathers have nice racks!! But that being said let me put it to you another way, how many of you guys watch "Queer As Folk"? How would you like for your entry into a country to be based on you watching an episode of that show? Yeah that is what I thought, as you guys sit there going "Are you out of your mind?" "Im not doing that!"
Apparently the Dutch are importing some VERY GOOD smokes into the country these days.
Now here is the question that I ponder, what action or reaction passes or fails you on that part of the exam? And if you are revolted or disgusted or offended are you denied entry? And do the Dutch believe that only Muslims would get offended by these videos? So have we now located the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah? Is the Dutch government sending out a message--moral people need not apply?

Reflecting on Rummy

15 November 2006

This isnt the topic that I started with today and I will finish that post, but I got diverted and somewhat bogged down. So in an attempt to get my mind headed in some direction, even if it was backwards I went out to read some of my favorite blogs ( I will have to make that an upcoming post). And a couple have given their thoughts on Rummy's resignation. In reading the expert's opinions and our real people opinions about the expert opinions, I thought everyone seems to be missing the real event that happened. At least the real political event in my view.

Remember this one; the thing that Pres. Bush did that guaranteed my support of him 'forever' was his decission to go to war and then sticking to it without worrying about the political fallout. Another words he said we are going to war and he did it, even in the face of devasting political consequences. With that action he became MY President! I may even have to write him in in the next election!!!

How does this relate to Rummy, very similarily in my eyes. There were alot of calls for the firing of Rummy before the election. But did MY President buckle under pressure? NO! If he were Clinton or maybe even Bush Sr., Rummy would have been out the door as soon as he became political baggage. That is why I like Bush. He did not play the political card and fire Rummy to gain Republican votes. You gotta love that about him.

As for Rummy, I like him-albeit it in that Cold War nostaliga way. But I do over all like him, he has served his nation and her citizens well. That being said I do believe that it was time for him to go. My reasons are probally not the same as others calling for his resignation, I think the politics so marred him as to make it impossible for him to do anything effective. The general public does not see and therefore is not always aware of the behind the sences restrictions and power strugles that go back and forth between Capital Hill and the Pentagon.Hello, Congress-you are to give the military a mission and then let them plan, execute and complete the mission. It is called delegation of authority--here's an example that you might be able to relate to, or at least comprehend; a pipe in your house breaks, causing a flood, what do you do? You call the plumber and have him come and fix it, and if you are smart and do not want to pay double for his services you stay out of his way and let him do the job.

Congress has become so populated with egomaniacs that they do not know when to stop. Here's one for you, Congress; If you approved these Generals and Civilian Leaders and you are the experts in what we need, then why tell them how to do their job? If they were not the best qualified for the positions, why did you approve their appointments?

So either you were right and you need to leave them alone to do their jobs; or you were wrong and we need new members in Congress, because you are not qualified to determine the capabilities of the military leaders that you have approved. So which is it?

Service Above Self

11 November 2006

For those veterans in Johnston County, thanks came from the best place. The JROTC Cadets for the 4 high schools in the county that have programs jointly along with the School System honored service members, past and present. It is a great thing to see high school students take the time out of a long weekend to practice for and then honor our veterans. Each of the four JROTC programs had their cadet commanders speak to the veterans. I have to say that even though I was not a parent of one of the cadets that spoke, my hero was a flag bearer, I was still full of pride at the articulation and poise these young men and women possessed. They spoke with thought and apprecitation and pride. There is leadership to be found in the youth of today!
There were veterans from WWII to Desert Storm, one of honor was a survivor from the USS Arizonia. Other speakers spoke of their experiences from their time in service and combat. Coming from a familiy with a deep sense of service and  patriotism, I knew of the events that they spoke, and when they were mentioned one uncle or cousin or another came to mind. Yes, I thought, I know that battle, I remember the stories told at family dinners. Our most distinguished speaker of the event was Gen. Shelton (USA Ret.). He spoke of those men and women that recognize that freedom comes at a cost. He honored their "service above self" and their action in reply to the challenge posed by Pres. Kennedy, "ask not what your country can do for you; but what you can do for your country." At the end of the ceremony and the honoring of the past and present veterans, the cadets Passed in Review for the General. And as a very proud parent of one of those cadets, I was overwhelemed at the resounding applause given to the future veterans of this great nation. I know that not all of those cadets will chose to wear a uniform past high school, but some of them will. Among those that will includes my own hero. I know that she will be honored and thanked for her own "service above self" action for she has already experienced the graditude of the highest magnitude, applause from those that came before her.

Happy Veteran's Day!

11 November 2006

Today, around the country and world, people are taking time out to remember and honor our service members. On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the war to end all wars ended and the world rejoiced. So to mark the occassion V-E Day (Victory in Europe), became Armistace Day and Rememberance Day and now Verteran's Day. Other things have happened since that glorious day, the war to end all wars is now WWI, and we have had WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. Those are only the ones that you might even remember, unless you are a veteran that served in one of the numerous smaller theatres that were not mentioned in MSM or the history text books. For over 200 years men and women have chosen 'service above self' in defense of this great nation and her people. So today take a moment and thank those that not only "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" but had the courage and sense of  "service above self" to step up and wear the unifrom of our armed forces. I salute you all, past, present and future. For you are the heart of our nation. It is your blood that corses through the  veins of this country and spills to protect her. It is your honor and loyalty that shroud our freedoms in an impenetrable shield. It is your duty and service that allow us to sleep soundly every night. For it is you, the soldier, sailor, airman and marine that makes America. Thank you! Today and everyday.

Cutting Off Your Nose To Spite Your Face

30 October 2006 

In the last couple weeks there has been numerous articles in various papers around the country as well as lots of buzz in the blogging community about the Pentagon trying to pull the plug on military bloggers. As is usual with the Pentagon someone somewhere has gotten their fragile little egos hurt--maybe they have never really served their country in the heat of battle or maybe they are like Kerry not a TRUE hero or may be someone is just on a major power trip. Whatever the case may be the screws are being put to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to reign in what they tell the American public as well as the international community via the internet.
Im all for OPSEC, I do not want our military guys in unneeded harms way--yes it goes with the territory but we can limit how much danger they face. I believe that we should use every resource to aquire the best intel to keep our guys ahead of the enemy and give our boys the upper hand where ever they may be engaing the enemy. But when we are, as many have pointed out, losing the media war and the war of public opinion the Pentagon has decided to kill off by startvation and slow torture one part of the campagin that could provide us with the greatest benefit. That being the independent reporting of military bloggers.
I have been reading the blogs of military guys serving in various locales around the world and yes I have read somethings that Im not sure I would agree with, totally within the boundaries of OPSEC, but some of the issues are just the higer-ups on power trips. Citing issues like pics of the front gates of the bases in Iraq--hello please tell me that our military leaders are not naive enough to believe that we dont have the enemy in the bases on a daily basis giving intel to the insurgents about how the camps are layed out and what security measures are being used--because we do. Or slamming kids who post pics of themselves geared up to go out and that the ammo belts shows the tracer count to the enemy--hello some of Ossama's men served in our military, some with our most elite forces --they already knew the tracers count along with the weapons that we carry and the capabilities of those weapons. Outside of the use of real names of soldiers I have not seen any real OPSEC violation--now in the defense of the Pentagon and the VA NG Unit that is now playing the role of 'Big Brother' in the milblogging world, I have not read every single blog posted by every single service member. But without reading a single military blog I can find out the locations of our troops, their camps and the number of soldiers on the ground. I can access maps and satilite images of the areas that are in the fore front of the war on terror. I can find all the intel that I need to launch an effective attack against our boys in uniform.
If the Pentagon stifles the voice of the military blogging community they will be giving the war away. What no amount of leadership or speeches by the highest leaders can do is give reality to the masses about what our boys are doing and how they are doing it. When you read a soldier's account of a raid or patrol and hear about his/her interaction with the local people good or bad you can form a "fair and balanced" evaluation of what is happening on the ground 8,000 miles away. When Americans turn on the TV for the news they hear how soldiers were killed and how the death squads killed numerous more civilians. The press is full of stories of what we did wrong or of what went wrong--if the Pentagon wanted the American public to be in this for the long haul they would be highlighting these bloggs and referring the media to them for their realistic content. Blogs of servicemembers could be used to point out that 100 service members signing a petition to get out of Iraq is a negligiable minority and that most troops know why we are there and believe in making Iraq and Afghanistan safe places for the people there. The Pentagon should making the stories that these bloggers tell recieve double the attention that one nay sayer here or there receives.
Instead the Pentagon is screaming OPSEC and attempting to starve the one hand that could pull them out of the media tail spin that partisan politics has gotten them into.

No more Political Parties!!!!

It doesnt work, it never has and it gets worse every year.
Here is what I propose--we go back to 8th grade civics class;

Teacher - "What type of government do we have class?"
Student - " It's a democracy."
Teacher - "Yes, but what kind of democracy is it?"
Student - Silence (how many kinds are there?)
Teacher - "Well, anyone?"
Student - "Republican one? But my parents are Democrats."
Teacher - "Not really. We have what is called a representitive democracy. Can anyone tell me what the means?"
Students - Silence (this is so boring, why do we need to know this crap anyway)
Teacher - "Okay, what this means is that we elect representitives to speak for us."
Students - Dear in the Headlight Stare (and that means what--im hungry when is lunch)



Well, and I wonder why people dont get it. They dont have a clue, we teach civics/government maybe twice in 12 years of public education and then wonder why we do not have more citizen involvement in government. On the flip side of the equation, we slept, talked, and cut up through the 2 classes that taught us about the workings of our government as the forefathers set it up and we wonder why the politicans dont do what they say they will.
Why should they, we dont do what we should as voters and citizens.
The system is not broken; the users are not following the instruction manual!
You know, that priceless piece of paper that starts with "We the people" commonly referred to as The Constitution.
If we want to end corruption and the status quo then we need to return to our roots. We need to do away with political parties and platforms. Every canidate should be indepentent. Everyone runs against each other in the primary and the top 2 vote getters are placed on the ballot for the general election. And that should hold true for the president also, in that case though it should be the top 4 canidates that make it on the ballot for the general election and there should be no running mates. The number 1 vote getter is President and the number 2 canidate is Vice-President.
The forefathers thought that true democracy would be inefficient and ineffective, wonder what they would think of how we have mutilated their ideas? They were thoughtful and careful in their establishment of our government. They created checks and balances, they divided the running of the government, they spread out the power to maintain equality. And they even provided for the states to be watch dogs of the federal government and vise versa.
But we have grown lazy and complacent. We do not follow the issues, we are too interested in the mud slinging. We do not question the canidates, we judge the sound-bites that someone else decided were the 'guts' of what was said. We listen to 'experts' and follow their lead instead of gathering the information and making the decissions themselves.
How did we get to this state and how far down do we have to go before we grab ourselves by the bootstraps and yank us back up where we belong?

More Laws Less Enforcement Is Wrong

The Supreme Court is going to hear District of Columbia v. Heller. In March, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the ban on handguns in D.C., declaring the law unconstitutional. What is at stake is the interpretation of the Second Amendment, the right of individuals to bear arms.
I think this is an easy call. This is a clear case that it is so much easier for politicians to pass a law on paper and say that made things safer than to actually do the hard thing and tell voters that money has to come from somewhere to increase the manpower and abilities of law enforcement as well as over -hauling the corrections system of the country to actually rehabilitate those that can be and incarcerating those that cannot and executing the most heinous criminals in our midst. The Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. And this right is guaranteed for a very good reason, to protect the citizens of the country from the threat of a tyrannical government. Now there is an argument that we do not need that right anymore, but if we give up that right then which right should we give up next?
And the idea that we should limit the number and type of firearms that people have is also something that I am against. Again if we start limiting who can have what firearm then where do we draw the line? I have a very hard time with anything that infringes on individual rights. I do not believe in limiting freedom of speech or religion, even when I think that people abuse those rights. I do not believe in infringing on the protection of the 4th amendment against illegal search and seizures, not even in the wake of 9/11 and the GWOT. The thing that makes America great is our individual freedoms.
In regard to the argument about the 2nd Amendment, here is my stance---it is our right to own weapons so that if the need arises we are duty bound to act responsibly as citizens of this great nation and rise up against the tyrannical government and reestablish the government for the people by the people and of the people. If limits are placed on who can own what weapons and how many and when and where then we are shrugging our responsibility as citizens of this country to stand guard against any injustice committed against any individual of this country by the government or agents of the government. If we allow the slow methodical disarming of our citizens then there will be nothing to stand against unjust actions of the government. Yes the pen can be mightier than the sword, however sometimes you have to use the sword to back up the pen.
Now there is an argument that we need gun control/bans to prevent murder. No, if someone is going to commit murder than they are not concerned about obeying the law. And no matter what bans you put on firearms there will always be a black market that will provide the supply of weapons that are needed by criminals. Banning weapons does not significantly reduce the number of murders and violent crimes. The basic reason is that criminals are just that criminals and do not obey laws so all that such laws do is impose undue hardship on the law abiding citizens of our country.
If we are truly interested in making our streets safer from violent crimes then we need to start at ground level. The leaders of communities need to promote community involvement and awareness. And when a crime is committed anyone that has any information should come forward and help law enforcement bring those persons responsible to the courts. To ensure that law enforcement is capable of this, we need to make sure that we have the best law enforcement officers at every level. We need to make sure that they are the best trained and equipped and that they perform their jobs above reproach. They need to be compensated to the standard that we wish to achieve in their performance. At the level of the courts we need to push to have plea bargains taken off the table for repeat offenders. We need to see that the judges sentence each person convicted based on their expertise to what will provide the best chance of reformation for the individual without placing undue risk on the community. We need to have the resources to rehabilitate those persons that can be and provide them with the means to lead productive lives when returned to society instead of booting them out the gates of prisons with $24 and no where to go and no one to lean on. The judges also need to place those individuals that present as career criminals in prison for the duration of their lives, and those most heinous of criminals need to be executed.
In the corrections system we need to revamp the system from top to bottom. In the juvenile arena we need to demand that those detained are educated and mentored. We need to work with schools and business to provide futures for these minors before they are lost. We need to make sure that they have a support system when they are released and that they are monitored. And there should be no negativity if these same individuals can be placed in the military services or the Peace Corps or job corps to help make the transition from child to adult. In my opinion these options should be used more to help get these minors on their feet. In the adult system, some of the same things need to be adopted. If someone comes into the system with an addiction then it needs to be treated. If they come in without an education they need to be educated. If they come in without a skill then they need to learn one. And again upon their release they need to be supported and monitored completely to insure that they don’t return to the penal system. It should also be part of the condition of their release that they give back to the community in some way. And as a society we need to allow the persons that are successful to be members of the community without any bias or discrimination.