POST SCRIPTS

And once again I wonder, what is good enough for you? These two men, whose OPINIONS seem so unreasonable to you are highly qualified and intelligent people. Peter Bergen is a journalist who appears as a terrorism analyst on CNN, he is also the man who conducted the first television interview with Osama Bin Laden in 1997. He is not just some shmuck that I chose to take at face value. This guy knows his stuff – and may arguably have more “real world experience” than you do. Paul Cruiskshank is a research fellow at the Center on Law and Security in the NYU School of Law. Again, pardon me if I feel he knows what he’s talking about.

They say:
Indeed, though what we call “The Iraq Effect” is a crucial matter for the U.S. national security, we have found no statistical documentation of its existence and gravity, at least in the public domain. In this report, we have undertaken what we believe to be the fist such study, using information from the world’s premier database on global terrorism. The results are being published for the first time by Mother Jones, the news and investigative magazine, as part of a broader “Iraq 101” package.

This is not an attempt to sensationalize data and make the war look bad. This is a journalist saying, look, there is some fallout from our attacks in Iraq, and this “has some implications for American security in the future.” Maybe we should take a look at it.

Otherwise this whole argument is simply a dressed up form of the “violence only begets more violence” argument, which I think is absurd.

Basically what your saying to me here is, ‘I don’t agree, therefore it is not factual.’ I hope in the future you can look past the fact that you don’t agree, and see the points I am presenting to you. These are not made up, or exaggerated, I made sure of that – these are the facts, choose to believe them or not, but there they are.

-Since the war in Iraq has started there have been no successful terrorist attacks on our soil. Therefore we should continue the war indefinitely to ensure this trend continues.

Ahhh, interesting logic!?! But it begs the questions: How many successful terrorist attack were there on our soil before the war in Iraq? What years did they take place? Were the Iraqi people responsible for any of these attacks? And most importantly, do we think this war is going to stop, or prompt, future attacks?

-The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have led to the killing or capturing of over 15,000 enemy combatants. Before these wars the United States had only been able to kill or capture terrorists and their supporters in small numbers.

Alright. But don’t you think the number of people the United States considered “enemy combatants” may have increased since we decided to occupy another country in a hostile manner? Could the increase in those labeled “enemy combatants” explain the increase in the United States ability to capture or kill them. And while we are on the subject, what is an “enemy combatant”? Is it the same as a terrorist? And I like the way killing is listed first, and capturing is second – as if the first mission when dealing with “enemy combatants” is to kill them, but if you can’t do that, just capture them instead.

-The Normandy invasion was a complete success due to the fact that it provided a foot hold in an area which was needed to bring about the eventual collapse of a despotic and fascist regime.

And why is the eventual collapse of a despotic and fascist regime our goal? Our duty? Any of our business?

The “facts” I presented you, represented by the events, numbers and data, are accurate. The conclusion I came too changed. Therefore to present opinions as fact, because they are supported by data, is simply not enough. You must impartially look at the data presented and determine if the conclusion is a fair one.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to impartially look at anything. They talk about this phenom in all research and statistic classes. A person comes to the table with thoughts, feelings, opinions, and dispositions that are going to affect the way they view something. It is our duty to try our hardest to be impartial and use our experience to determine if the conclusion is a fair one – something I don’t feel you did. You assumed that because I am a liberal, and speaking facts that you don’t want to hear, that I was being biased and jumping to conclusions. I don’t mind if you question my facts, but I told you where I got them from, they were reliable sources, and if you still doubted them you should have gone and checked them out, not acted as if I was being unreasonable!

Or…"Terrorism is premeditated; perpetrated by a sub national or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target."

I would love to know where you got your definition. It is very good. Mine was just a plain old Webster Dictionary dumb speak, yours sounds more grown up. The point is still the same though – what the United States has done, and is doing, flirts dangerously close with the definition of terrorism.

• The United States attack on Iraq was premeditated:

o Prior to January of 2001 Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld each demonstrated a predisposition to employ U.S. military force to invade the Middle East, including, specifically, to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein

o Since 1992, Cheney has endorsed a “bold foreign policy” that includes using military force to “punish” or “threaten to punish” possible aggressors in order to protect the United State’s access to Persian Gulf oil and to halt proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

o In January of 1998 Rumsfeld and seven other future Bush-Cheney administration appointees signed a letter sent by a conservative policy institute named “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) to then President Clinton, which called for U.S. military action to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power.

o Around September 2000, 12 future Bush-Cheney administration appointees, including Wolfowitz, “Scooter” Libby, Stephen Cambone (long-term aide to Rumsfeld), participated in drafting “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” a PNAC policy statement which asserted that the “need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” PNAC acknowledged that its goals would take a long time to achieve “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

o On February 11, 2001, Bush ordered the fist air strikes since 1998 to be conducted outside of the United Nations agreed upon No-Fly zone, to get Saddam Hussein’s “attention.”

o Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, United States intelligence agencies determined that 9/11 was the work of the terrorist organization al Qaeda, spearheaded by Osama Bin Laden. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from Yemen, and two from Lebanon. This information, along with the conclusion that no evidence linked the attacks to Saddam Hussein, or al Qaeda was immediately communicated to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, and others

o Bush-Cheney administration members began discussing an invasion of Iraq immediately after 9/11. Bush, Rumsfeld and others also assigned various subordinates, including former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, CIA Director George Tenet, and General Richard Meyers to look for intelligence that could justify attacking Saddam Hussein’s regime

o On September 17, 2001, Bush secretly ordered the formulation of preliminary plans for an invasion of Iraq, while admitting to his aides that no evidence existed to justify an attack.

• The attack was clandestine – since parts of the truth were kept from the American people, and arguably sub national, since it was not with a knowing consent that Congress declared war

• Our motives in war with Iraq are definitely politically motivated and violent

• And even though it may not be our
intention, there have been 106,069 journalists killed (37 by acts of war and 14 by US Forces), 7,010 Iraqi Police and Solders have been killed, and a UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian causalities have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. [These statistics were taken from the British Ministry of Defense poll preformed in August of 2005] - Which seems to me a whole lot like perpetration against a noncombatant target.

I must tell you Meagan that you are confusing the act of instilling “terror” with our common understanding of “terrorism”. Every army form the dawn of time has sought to instill terror in the opposing army. This is not the same as an enemy targeting non-combatants in order to bring about a result they cannot hope to achieve by engaging the opposing force. To try and compare the two, I think is disingenuous, and forgive me, but a bit insulting.

That’s my point Nick, we are not instilling terror in the opposing “army” – in fact their activity is increasing. The only people feeling the terror we are trying to instill are the Iraqi people who lived under the horror of Saddam Hussein and are now living under the horror of a war torn country. And although I don’t feel the United States is targeting non-combatants, they are being affected, and it is in an attempt to bring about a result we cannot hope to achieve by engaging the opposing force. I am sorry that you feel this is a bit calculation and insulting. I feel the way Americans are viewed by most of the world because of the actions of our own regime in charge.

You cannot honestly believe that there is no difference between the “terror” a combatant feels in the course of battle, and the act of terrorism which is directed against non combatants in order to get ones way.

I do not, just like I don’t feel killing innocent people just because they live in the vicinity of “strategic and tactical military objects” is a effective way to instill fear in a combatant.
I am sure the terrorists of 9/11 felt that the twin towers and the Pentagon were “strategic and tactical military objects”, and I am sure we could all agree their objective was to instill fear in our military, our nation. What they succeeded in doing was really pissing off the United States, prompting us to fight back with a frightful vengeance.

I am just worried that we may be inciting that same vengeance.

Make no mistake Meagan, the only people really confused about the morals and culture of our military reside solely in America and those countries to which we do not fight. Our enemies in Iraq recognize our benign nature towards non-combatants and exploit it every chance they get. They do so with the full complicity of western media which is more than willing to ignore statements from the military at the same time that they report the statements of terrorist organization.

Here is something I can speak with some personal knowledge about. Having traveled a far bit in other countries, I can tell you there are many people throughout the world who are confused about the morals and culture of our military.

There are many people, both inside and out of the United States, asking the same questions that I am. And there are many people in Iraq who are morning the deaths of their loved ones from one bombing or another that don’t feel our military forces are benign in their nature towards non-combatants. I do not mean to demonize the military, even though it may not sound like that – what I am saying is there are people out there who have experience very different from yours.

One can argue that some of our “pretenses” were mistaken, but how can one accurately claim they were false? What was false about our intent to remove Saddam from power? What was false about our desire to prevent Iraq from continuing to be a state sponsor of terrorism? What was false about our desire to bring about the end of his human rights violations? What was false about our desire to see that he had in fact destroyed any illegal weapons stocks he had? None of these were false pretenses.

Saddam Hussein’s desire to become involved in greater support for terrorist organizations was absolutely unacceptable. We could not allow it. Therefore I think it is very easy to justify our actions. Especially when one considers the enormous amount of pain we go to in an attempt to ensure minimal civilian casualties and collateral damage.

Yes Nick, there are some pretty compelling and sound arguments that the “pretenses” were false. Bush is a member of the Executive Branch of our government – whose employees hold their position as a public trust – are expected to fulfill trust in accordance with certain ethical standards and principals. These include abiding by the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as not using their offices to further private goals and interests. They are also subject to Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. The knowing concealment or omission of information that a reasonable person would consider important in deciding an issue is a form of fraud.

In September of 2002, Bush staged a photo opportunity with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders, after which he announced that Iraq posed a serious threat to the safety of the United States and the world, while concealing from Congress and the American people the material facts that he has no reasonable basis for this accusation, he had never extensively reviewed existing intelligence regarding any possible threat from Iraq, he had not requested an update intelligence assessment on Iraq and the United States intelligence assessment then in effect stated that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a nuclear weapons program, and the IC had consistently reported that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11 and no relationship with al Qaeda.

On September 4, 2002 Bush also claimed he was beginning an “open dialogue” with the American public, with Congress, and with United States allies to decide how to respond to Iraq, while concealing the material facts that he had requested a formal plan to invade Iraq nearly a year before, had been conducting significant military and nonmilitary planning and attacks against Iraq for a year, had directed significant military deployment to areas around Iraq, and was planning a massive air assault against Iraq’s air defense facility for the next day.

“…the legal question is not whether the President lied. The question is not wheter the President subjectively believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The legal question that must be answered is far more comprehensive: Did the President and his team defraud the country? After swearing to uphold the law of the land, did our highest government officials employ the universal techniques of fraudsters – deliberate concealment, misrepresentations, false pretenses, half-truths – to deceive Congress and the American people?’ ~ de la Vega

We attempted to impeach a president for a blow job. How embarassing is it to let a president get away with blatently lying to their coutnry.

Now, before you go questioning and breaking down my “opinions” listed above, please do a little research. This is all documented by the United States government, I am not reading the facts the way I want to, this is documented actions of members of our government.

To move on and answer some of your other questions:

It has never been our duty to decide that a leader of another country is harming its people so we should throw them out of power. That was the duty of the United Nations, and when they did not agree with our faulty logic, we decided to ignore them and move on to war without the support of most of the world. We are not the world police. And even if we were, there are nations out there who are doing a lot more harm the Iraq could have ever hoped of doing. There are countries still practicing genocide, infanticide, and ritualistic rape. Do not be fooled, we did not go to Iraq to put and end to his human rights violations. We went to Iraq because they were standing in the way of something we wanted.

There is not any proof that Saddam Hussein was involved in support of terrorists who wanted to attack America. His terrorists preyed mostly on his own people, who are living in worse conditions since Saddam was overthrown.

I am going to post a speech by Barack Obama witch very adequately conveys my feelings, even though it is from a couple of years ago. It is a little long, which is why I decided to post it over there, but please feel free to stop by and check it out www.norcalblogs.com/iconoclastic.

Posted by Post Scripts at 01:39 PM | Comments (2)

Iraq War Debated Part 3

by Nick Freitas

Is the war in Iraq illegal according to international law........Nope

Here are some of the claims that those who believe that this war is illegal have put forth.

The war in Iraq is illegal because we are members of the United Nations and the United Nations Charter requires the respect of national sovereignty, and rejects preemptive war.

This is in fact, and accurate statement. The trouble reveals itself when we apply it to the war in Iraq. Despite President Bush's speech outlining the argument for "preemptive warfare" made at the West Point Graduation of 2002, the war in Iraq was not "preemptive". For those internationalists on the left who supported the invasion of Iraq under a UN resolution in the first Gulf War; to attempt to claim that this one is preemptive shows a considerable lack of knowledge about international law.

The coalition signed a cease fire with Iraq provided that the Iraqi government abided by certain conditions. Amongst these were destruction of their WMD, and to cease attempting to build such weapons, allowing access of UN weapons inspectors to conduct inspections unhindered, oil sales would not be permitted to be used for rearming past a agreed upon amount, adherence to the no fly zone, etc. etc. I would also note that firing on US and British planes patrolling an agreed upon NO FLY zone is by international law an ACT OF WAR.

Now for my friends on the left who fancy themselves intellectually honest, can you please tell me which of the aforementioned conditions Saddam did not violate?

The answer is, none of them. Saddam, almost immediately began violating all of these conditions ranging from bribing members of the UN charged with administering the Oil for Food program, to expelling weapons inspectors from the country, to actually firing on US and British planes patrolling the no fly zone.

Now can someone please tell me what happens when one member of the cease fire agreement fails to carry out their end of the bargain? You guessed it; the other side gets to reinstate hostilities.

Now whether you buy this argument or not for going to war is irrelevant. The question was, does this war violate international law. Well sorry guys, the answer is no.

But does this war violate domestic law, specifically the Constitution.......Nope

Many conservative Americans believe that this war is illegal based off of Article 1, section 8, Clause 11 of the constitution, often referred to as the war powers clause, which states that congress alone has the power to declare war.

This fact in and of itself is a very powerful argument; however it does not stand up against the test of historical context.

I happen to be a pretty strict constructionist when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. This means that I believe that the the text should be taken literally, in order to maintain the original intent. Original intent is not as elusive as many on the left would like us to think.

For instance some liberals believe that the death penalty violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" portion found in the 8th amendment. Since the term "cruel and unusual punishment is subjective, we must look at what forms of punishment were permitted immediately after the 8th amendment was adopted, and whether or not there was any challenges to accepted practice based off of the amendment. The answer to the liberal accusation that the death penalty violates the constitution, is that maybe they should brush up on their history before dictating to the rest of us what the intent of the amender's was.

Using this logic we interpret the Constitution. So yes, the Constitution does state that only congress has the right to declare war. Does this fact prevent the United States from engaging in any conflict without a declaration of war? Well the founders didn't think so. From 1801 to 1815 the United States Navy fought an undeclared, yet widely supported, war against the Barbary Pirates. So at a time when most of the signatories of the Constitution were still alive, they recognized that the war powers clause did not prevent all military action.

I do believe that congress should take greater responsibility when it comes to recognizing their role in the approval of armed response; but what is happening in the War on terror has broad historical support dating back to the first years of our Republic.

In short, for those who missed it, this war is not illegal. You may call it anything you like from immoral to illogical, these are subjective statements, but you may not declare it to be illegal, and at the same time be considered honest.

Posted by Post Scripts at 01:36 PM | Comments (0)

June 29, 2007

Iraq War Debate Part 2a

by Meagan Dixon

I would like to start off by saying thank you to Nick. He so politely thanked me in his original post, and it was rude of me not to thank him! I think Nick is wonderful, and I appreciate him inviting me to participate in this debate where we can both talk about our opinions in a mature and adult fashion.

Secondly I would like to note that there were some editorial liberties taken with my original post. Many of the statements that were printed in bold were made that way by whomever posted my ideas to the site. Although I am not offended, I feel it made my thoughts look a little sensationalized, as if they were my main point. They were not. My ideas were not meant to be a sound-bite of information.

In response to Nick, I am going to just briefly go through the points he made a comment:

1. I disagree with the entire idea that Iraq may have had W.M.D’s. I have not personally seen any evidence of this being the truth, or of anyone who knew “top-secret” information thinking Iraq was arming themselves. I think this is a piece of sensationalized information that helped further a cause, not a fact.
2. I don’t feel that two wrongs make a right. Waging war on a country with falsified facts because they had done things to us before is not a legitimate reason. And I feel it is very important to remember that the people we are fighting today in Iraq had NOTHING to do with the terrorist acts that took place in other areas of the world. Those terrorist have long since left the war zone to continue planning harm and destruction.
3. It is not our job to police the world, and even if it was, there are countries in far more need of our help than Iraq. Iraq presented the best option because there was something we wanted, and it was located in Iraq.

I agree that we should not pull out of Iraq, but as I said, we need to stop being the aggressor and start being a helper. And I agree with your statements regarding the “war on terror” – most especially since it seems we are causing more terror than we are stopping. Battling against radical Islamic fascism, just like battling against people who still support the ideals of Hitler, is a noble battle. But the ideas behind the swastika were not beaten on the battle field, and neither will the battle against Islamic fascism. Right now we are teaching and preaching hate, and it is not until we teach love and acceptance will we begin to change the minds of those who rage and destruct.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:20 AM | Comments (1)

June 28, 2007

IRAQ WAR DEBATED Part 2

This is a reply the arguments against us being in Iraq posted by Meagan, see her previous comment below.

IRAQ WAR DEBATED Part 1

---"Fact 1: We have waged war on a country 8,000 miles away...."

OBJECTION! RELEVENCE? (Said in true courtrooml fashion) One can only assume that the author of this statement is attempting to convince the reader that this is a significant fact. Sept 11 proved in a practical fashion why it is not relevant, but it fly’s in the face of logic as well.

If I am 100 yards away from you, it could be said that I pose little threat to your physical safety. Give me a rifle, and now I become a very serious threat. The question is not one of physical distance or geographical location, but one of capability, actions and intent.

---"We (America) is bombing people whose only crime was that they were oppressed by a violent and cruel dictator."

I don’t see how this can be delivered as a fact. We have most decidedly not “bomb people” who’s only crime was living under a dictator. We launched attacks against strategic and tactical military targets in order to bring about the downfall of said regime. How would you have us conduct military operations? Unless your case is one that violence is never necessary.

---"Because of this decision we have over 155,000 troops deployed in Iraq, there have been over 3,500 US troop causalities (51% of those were under the age of 25), and over 25,000 US troops have been physically wounded – with 30% of US troops developing serious mental health problems within 3-4 months of returning home."

What exactly constitutes “serious mental health problems”? Are they temporarily or permanent? Do we really expect people to go to war and experience no changes in attitude or behavior what so ever? Did not every single person who has gone to Iraq so far, volunteer to serve in the military? Did they not realize that being part of the military means the possibility of going to war? Is war being traumatic, not an obvious and established fact, understood by those who volunteer? Are we to never fight wars because of this fact?

Suppose I tell you that 30% of mothers experience post partum depression to some degree. Would your solution be to cease reproduction? I can tell you from experience that many who serve are often very frustrated by the use of “mental health statistics” being used to undermine what service men and women consider to be a worthwhile mission.

---"Fact 2: Polls taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense showed that 82% of Iraqis “strongly” opposed the presence of coalition troops; less than 1% of Iraqis believed the Coalition forces were responsible for any improvement in security; 67% of Iraqis feel that things are worse now then they were when Saddam Hussein was in power."

If your position here is to state that a poll was taken, and that the results were as mentioned, then I submit that this is a fact.

If your position is that this is an accurate representation of the feelings of the average Iraqi, then you will need to provide more evidence then “hear say”. What were the questions asked in the poll? How were the questions posed? What region did the poll take place in? Were women as well as men asked the same questions? What time of day was the poll conducted? Polls conducted in the US are very different from those conducted in Iraq; what were the methods used for gathering this information?

My experience suggests to me that this poll was taken in the hopes of generating the desired response of the person taking it, rather than the actual sentiments of the average Iraqi.

---"Fact 3: On December 6, 2006 the Iraq War Study Group (IWSG) issued its 142-page final report, “The Way Forward: A New Approach.” IWSG urged the Bush administration to change course, in particular to begin the phased withdrawal of coalition troops and draw Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, into international consensus on the way forward. It also reported that Iraq is now on the verge of civil war. President Bush’s promulgation that the U.S. will eventually “win” if it just sticks with the Bush plan will accelerate the descent into civil war and heighten sectarian differences."

Ed Meese, a member of this panel, recently explained at the Hoover Institute how this study has been used by both sides of the spectrum to condemn the other. Iran and Syria have been complicit in allowing foreign fighters, as well as equipment flow into Iraq to kill US personnel. We should engage Syria and Iran, as they are state sponsors of terrorism in Iraq and the rest of the world.

Furthermore, the suggestion that a phased withdrawal and the handing over of responsibility to the Iraqi’s is a new idea, is ridiculous. This has been our focus from the very beginning. The devil, as they say, is in the details. Announcing a withdrawal time was NOT a suggestion of the ISG, and makes no sense from a military perspective.

---"Fact 4: According to a recent study of “the Iraq effect” by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror."

Once again, the fact presented here is the OPINION of two men. We are not told their methods of how they came to this “cause and effect” conclusion.

When a study is conducted, it is usually comprised of data, which is factual, mixed with a conclusion which is opinion. I would have to see the data, and the thought process to determine whether or not their argument is convincing. Otherwise this whole argument is simply a dressed up form of the “violence only begets more violence” argument, which I think is absurd.

Let me give you an example of determining a conclusion, or cause and effect relationship from factual data.

-Since the war in Iraq has started there have been no successful terrorist attacks on our soil. Therefore we should continue the war indefinitely to ensure this trend continues.

-The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have led to the killing or capturing of over 15,000 enemy combatants. Before these wars the United States had only been able to kill or capture terrorists and their supporters in small numbers.

-The Normandy invasion was a failure due to the fact that it was launched in an attempt to help end the war, but directly led to an increase of US casualties, and a 100,000 fold increase of violence against US personnel in France.

-The Normandy invasion was a complete success due to the fact that it provided a foot hold in an area which was needed to bring about the eventual collapse of a despotic and fascist regime.

The “facts” I presented you, represented by the events, numbers and data, are accurate. The conclusion I came too changed. Therefore to present opinions as fact, because they are supported by data, is simply not enough. You must impartially look at the data presented and determine if the conclusion is a fair one.

---"Fact 5: Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. Terror is violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. A Reign of Terror is a state or a period of time marked by violence often committed by those in power that produces wide spread terror."

Or…"Terrorism is premeditated; perpetrated by a sub national or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target."

I must tell you Meagan that you are confusing the act of instilling “terror” with our common understanding of “terrorism”. Every army form the dawn of time has sought to instill terror in the opposing army. This is not the same as an enemy targeting non-combatants in order to bring about a result they cannot hope to achieve by engaging the opposing force. To try and compare the two, I think is disingenuous, and forgive me, but a bit insulting.

You cannot honestly believe that there is no difference between the “terror” a combatant feels in the course of battle, and the act of terrorism which is directed against non combatants in order to get ones way.

Make no mistake Meagan, the only people really confused about the morals and culture of our military reside solely in America and those countries to which we do not fight. Our enemies in Iraq recognize our benign nature towards non-combatants and exploit it every chance they get. They do so with the full complicity of western media which is more than willing to ignore statements from the military at the same time that they report the statements of terrorist organization.

---"My Opinion: These are not facts, these are my truths. America’s actions in Iraq flirt dangerously with the definition of terrorism. Our actions in Iraq are facilitating a backlash that we never could have imagined from the terrorist community. Instead of waging war on terrorism, we have instigated a drastic response. And become more like the terrorists we condemn then the world saviors we view ourselves as. Continued military force in Iraq is only going to continue this trend. We are fighting an un-win-able war. I do not feel that troops should be completely pulled out of Iraq, because we have created such a tumultuous situation - we would be condemning those people to more hurt and death. But their focus should be changed from the aggressor to the supporter, and we should begin to enable the Iraqi people to take care of themselves. America invaded their country under false pretenses, and many innocent civilians have been killed in a war they had nothing to do with. I ask myself, how would American’s respond in this situation? And how can we justify our actions?"

--“But their focus should be changed from the aggressor to the supporter, and we should begin to enable the Iraqi people to take care of themselves.”

What would you have us do different Meagan? Almost every time I conducted a mission in Iraq, it was with the assistance of the Iraqi’s, or it was THEIR mission, to which I came along as an adviser.

And how do you define “supporter” vs. “aggressor”? Do you believe that “aggressive” action is not support? If that is the case, then I propose to you the following scenario.

You are in your front yard mowing your lawn, when all of a sudden you here gun shots coming form down the street. You look up to see 2 men with masks jump out of a car and run into your neighbor’s house. You quickly call the police.

When the police arrive, do you want them to,

a. Run in the house, and kill or capture the perpetrators who have apparently ambushed your neighbor with the intent to kill her,

or

b. Help you mow the rest of your lawn.

Which action by the police would constitute “support” in your mind? Well, they both would. Which form of support would you prefer in this given instance?

From my experience, it is when we are the most aggressive in Iraq that we receive the most support from the local populace. They want to know that we are going to provide stability by, through and with Iraqi forces.

---“America invaded their country under false pretenses and many innocent civilians have been killed in a war they had nothing to do with. I ask myself, how would American’s respond in this situation? And how can we justify our actions?”

One can argue that some of our “pretenses” were mistaken, but how can one accurately claim they were false? What was false about our intent to remove Saddam from power? What was false about our desire to prevent Iraq from continuing to be a state sponsor of terrorism? What was false about our desire to bring about the end of his human rights violations? What was false about our desire to see that he had in fact destroyed any illegal weapons stocks he had? None of these were false pretenses.

Saddam Hussein’s desire to become involved in greater support for terrorist organizations was absolutely unacceptable. We could not allow it. Therefore I think it is very easy to justify our actions. Especially when one considers the enormous amount of pain we go to in an attempt to ensure minimal civilian casualties and collateral damage.

Posted by Post Scripts at 12:14 PM | Comments (0)

Shocking Proposal

by Tina Grazier

He was a Reagan appointee but Judge Richard Posner has been associated with a number of very liberal ideas such as legalizing marijuana and LSD and the notion that selling babies on the open free market would result in better outcomes than government regulated adoption. The man is a bit eccentric to say the least but even so he managed to shock legal conferees from Australia when he suggested a number of “big brother” solutions to fighting terrorism. According to this story in The Australian:

A TOP-RANKING US judge has stunned a conference of Australian judges and barristers in Chicago by advocating secret trials for terrorists, more surveillance of Muslim populations across North America and an end to counter-terrorism efforts being "hog-tied" by the US constitution. ** Judge Richard Posner, a supposedly liberal-leaning jurist regarded by many as a future US Supreme Court candidate, said traditional concepts of criminal justice were inadequate to deal with the terrorist threat and the US had "over-invested" in them.

Several quotes from Judge Posner:

"We have to fight terrorism with our strengths, and our strengths evolve around technology, including the technology of surveillance," ** "We should think of surveillance as preventative, not punitive. We should think of controls that have nothing to do with warrants or traditional criminal justice to prevent abuses." ** "Criminal justice and war are the two responses we have to terrorism. Each comes with its own legal institutions and doctrines and regimes but the struggle against international terrorism doesn't fit either very well." ** "We have a very aggressive media and a huge and complex government where many people in the government are quite willing to talk to the press."

Discover more about Judge Posner at the site Wikipedia. The Judge’s thoughts (and those of his co-poster) can be found on his BLOG.

How strong is our will to defeat terrorists…and how much do we trust our government?

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:31 AM | Comments (0)

June 27, 2007

After Long Delay, Still No Banana

by Tina Grazier

Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They wrote the House rule that required the House Majority Leader to step down from his powerful position before his day in court. That miserable reality doesn’t alter the fact that the witch hunt for Tom Delay was in fact a political ploy from the gitgo:

AUSTIN — The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals today refused to reinstate criminal conspiracy charges against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and two co-defendants. *** DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and political consultants Jim Ellis and John Colyandro were accused of conspiring to violate state election laws in the 2002 elections for the Texas House. But lower courts threw out the indictment on grounds that conspiracy to violate the election code was not a crime until 2003. *** A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed.

Now convince me that Ronnie Earl, that old rattle snake, was clueless.

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:15 PM | Comments (0)

June 26, 2007

IRAQ DEBATE

Because this subject is so vital and so complicated, we have two very well read people on the subject who would like to debate each and then hear what you think about it? It should be lively!!!

Starting on the 26th Post Scripts will host a debate between, "Iconoclastic's" Meagan Dixon, and Nick Freitas, a long time poster. The debate will proceed as follows:

26 June: Both posters will submit their positions on the war, outlining 3-4 key points of their argument for or against the war.

27 June: Posters will decide first point to be debated and issue rebuttal and defense statements.

For the following 5-7 days the process will continue until each of the major points presented have been debated.

The debate will be concluded with a final statement from each poster.

**Note, Comments will not be posted while the debate is in progress. This will ensure that both debaters are able to focus on the arguments presented by the opposing side. Once the debate is complete, commenting will resume.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:31 PM | Comments (0)

IRAQ WAR DEBATED Part 1a

Nick Freitas' position....(see Meagan's below)

Since I only have 500 words (or so), I will dispense with most of the pleasantries and get to the point. First I would like to thank Meagan for the opportunity to debate this issue with her, and I am sure that we will both learn a great deal from the exchange.

Should we have gone into Iraq? I would argue yes, for the following reasons.

1. All available intelligence suggested that Iraq had not disarmed, and its lack of cooperation demonstrated that Iraq was not going to cooperate with weapons inspectors. Had Saddam allowed the inspectors full reign, it is still inconceivable to think that they would have been able to find hidden weapons cache in an area the size of Texas, when Saddam had had years to hide them after he had expelled the inspectors the first time.

2. The USS Cole, Khyber Towers, Saddam expelling inspectors out of the country, as well as many other incidents were perpetrated in part because the Middle East, from dictator to terrorist believed that the United States would retreat under fire. They came to this belief because of the fall of the Shah, the Beirut Barracks bombing, Somalia etc. and the subsequent reaction or lack of reaction from the west and specifically the US. The United States desperately needed to demonstrate that it would not accept this characterization and the terrorism that followed as a result. Iraq presented the best method for demonstrating this new stance, and producing a comprehensive rather than a temporary solution to the overriding problem.

3. Iraq presented the best option for the following reasons: 1. demographically there were disaffected groups which could be used to undermine Saddam. 2. Religion wise the Iraqi people are far more secular than others in the region. 3. A history of aggression against its Arab neighbors, and against the US directly. 4. it’s geographical position, and natural wealth meant that in the post war it had the best opportunity to be self sufficient economically and provide a military barrier against Radical Iran as well as providing an example of a successful Arab nation governed by the rule of law rather than the whims of a dictator.

We should continue our efforts in Iraq because a representative government governed by the rule of law in the Arab world is the best chance at a comprehensive solution to our problems in the Middle East. In order for us to be successful we have to understand that we are in an idealist yet practical struggle against a new and frightening form of fascism.

To this point I will concede, describing this war as a “war on terror” is a misnomer. Stating that we can “win” a war on terror is also a misrepresentation. We are in a war against radical Islamic fascism. Once more, there will always be radical Islamic fascists. If you determine victory as destroying every one of them, you can never “win” the war in the nature of that words traditional meaning. What you can do is win the important battles in this war, which will degrade Islamic fascism, to the same pathetic and insignificant level of that as those who still purport to support Hitler. These important battles are Iraq, Afghanistan, and a hundred other places throughout the world.

This notion that we can end this war is ridiculous. Wars end, but they are never “ended” by nations. Nations can merely win wars, loose wars, and fight wars. Nations as powerful as ours choose to loose, our hand is not forced by our enemies.

In the debate to follow I will demonstrate that fighting in Iraq was the right thing to do, morally, strategically, legally and politically. How we have fought it can and should be a constant source of debate, but the left wing notion that we should choose to loose this war shows a misunderstanding of history and the culture of our enemy. A misunderstanding, which we cannot afford.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:03 PM | Comments (1)

IRAQ WAR DEBATED Part 1

Meagan Dixon's position....

Meagan begin's....At the beginning of Grand Jury trials, the prosecutor reminds the Jury of their duty to be impartial, it is a reminder I feel many Americans need:

Please remember that you must decide the case based solely on the evidence that’s presented and the applicable law, without regard to prejudice or sympathy. In other words, your politics, and any personal feelings you have toward the defendants – positive or negative – should have no bearing on your deliberations.

I know that politics evokes emotion for many of us, but sometimes we need to step back and look at the facts, as opposed to the “truth”. Many times we blindly follow our leaders because of their political persuasion, instead of basing our opinions on factual evidence.

That is why I love the law, and I love looking at things from a legal standpoint, because, “the law requires, that people hear all the evidence before deciding thereby avoiding the rapid volley of sound bites that so regularly masquerades for debate on television.”

Fact 1: We have waged war on a country 8,000 miles away. We (America) is bombing people whose only crime was that they were oppressed by a violent and cruel dictator. Because of this decision we have over 155,000 troops deployed in Iraq, there have been over 3,500 US troop causalities (51% of those were under the age of 25), and over 25,000 US troops have been physically wounded – with 30% of US troops developing serious mental health problems within 3-4 months of returning home.

Fact 2: Polls taken in Iraq in August 2005 by the British Ministry of Defense showed that 82% of Iraqis “strongly” opposed the presence of coalition troops; less than 1% of Iraqis believed the Coalition forces were responsible for any improvement in security; 67% of Iraqis feel that things are worse now then they were when Saddam Hussein was in power.

Fact 3: On December 6, 2006 the Iraq War Study Group (IWSG) issued its 142-page final report, “The Way Forward: A New Approach.” IWSG urged the Bush administration to change course, in particular to begin the phased withdrawal of coalition troops and draw Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, into international consensus on the way forward. It also reported that Iraq is now on the verge of civil war. President Bush’s promulgation that the U.S. will eventually “win” if it just sticks with the Bush plan will accelerate the descent into civil war and heighten sectarian differences.

Fact 4: According to a recent study of “the Iraq effect” by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror.

Fact 5: Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. Terror is violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. A Reign of Terror is a state or a period of time marked by violence often committed by those in power that produces wide spread terror.

My Opinion: These are not facts, these are my truths. America’s actions in Iraq flirt dangerously with the definition of terrorism. Our actions in Iraq are facilitating a backlash that we never could have imagined from the terrorist community. Instead of waging war on terrorism, we have instigated a drastic response. And become more like the terrorists we condemn then the world saviors we view ourselves as. Continued military force in Iraq is only going to continue this trend. We are fighting an un-win-able war. I do not feel that troops should be completely pulled out of Iraq, because we have created such a tumultuous situation - we would be condemning those people to more hurt and death. But their focus should be changed from the aggressor to the supporter, and we should begin to enable the Iraqi people to take care of themselves. America invaded their country under false pretenses, and many innocent civilians have been killed in a war they had nothing to do with. I ask myself, how would American’s respond in this situation? And how can we justify our actions?

(editor's reminder) You may submit comments but they will not be posted until after the debate has closed.

Posted by Post Scripts at 12:42 PM | Comments (1)

Border Security Update

by Tina Grazier

An article by Randal C. Archibold posted in the International Herald Tribune, “28-mile virtual fence is rising along the U.S.-Mexico border,” finally begins to shed some light on the progress being made to secure our borders. Here’s the pertinent information:

…nine nearly 100-foot-tall towers with radar, high-definition cameras and other equipment (is) rising from the mesquite and lava fields…(in Sasabe, AZ). *** cameras, set off by radar, are to beam high-quality images of targets miles away to field commanders and agents, making it possible to determine almost instantly whether they are watching a family outing or a group of illegal immigrants. *** The information is to flow over a high-speed wireless network into laptops in dozens of Border Patrol vehicles…

… The Border Patrol said it was on pace to hire thousands of agents, with the goal of a total of 18,000 by the end of 2008, up from just under 12,000 in 2006…

… officials expect to have 370 miles of physical fencing by the end of next year.

The article, found here, also contains opinion, sniveling, criticism, excuses, explanations and hope.

Congressional democrats complain that there's too much secrecy surrounding the project dubbed "SBInet" or "project 28"...gee, why would anyone need to keep information from democrats? Sabotage comes to mind. Big government, tax raising democrats also express budget concerns...this is funny on a scale to huge to measure! *** Locals express concerns that officials will become Peeping Toms, peeking into bedrooms rather than watching for bad guys. *** Environmental concerns have ensured that terrorists will know the aproximate locations of the towers...the locations have been published...God help us.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:17 AM | Comments (0)

Buying A Used Car

by Jack Lee

In a few days we'll be doing a series here called, "How to buy a used car" and you don't want to miss it. It's exactly what the title implies! This will be a keeper series, a must read for anyone buying a used car some day or even selling a used car. Parents would be wise to copy this whole series and give it your son or daughter for their future reference. We'll talk about what the pro's look for on a trade-in, how to detect hidden body damage and spotting oil burning. We discuss engine noises and what they mean, is it a deal killer or merely a talking point to get a great price?

We'll show you how to do a 1 minute front end inspection to check for worn parts and what colors mean in the exhaust. We'll talk about Calif. smog laws and dealing with an unsmoggable vehicle, disc brakes and so much, much more! This is truly going to be a comprehensive series designed to educate you, save you money and keep your next used car purchase as headache free as possible! And the best part is you don't have to be a master mechanic, you'll read what Chico's best master mechanics have to say in a way that a non-mechanic can easily understand.

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:04 AM | Comments (1)

June 25, 2007

Tickets Now On Sale - Mainstream America

(Public Service Announcement)

Saturday 08-25-07 - 12 noon till 3 pm
Durham Park

As a special reward to our readers, a limited number of advance tickets is now available through Post Scripts for the Lars Larson - Mainstream America event now available. Call 345-0757 to reserve your tickets. They are going on sale tomorrow and they won't last long. Only 400 tickets will be sold and then sales are closed.

$15 ticket price includes lunch and drinks. Kids are just $5

Nationally syndicated talk show host Lars Larson will be the featured speaker along with our own Bruce Sessions, the North States #1 talk show host on KPAY. This will be the summers best political event. So come out and visit with candidates and elected officials. A number of informational booths will at the site too.

Music will be provided by Mohrs Sound. Honor Guard will area Sea Scouts.

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:26 PM | Comments (0)

June 23, 2007

A Thought for Better Government

By Jack Lee

It's been a fundamental belief of mine for many years that in order to have an optimal government (of the people and for the people) we need to adhere to a very simply formula and it goes something like this:

Fewer taxes lead to a smaller government and that equals more freedom. In other words, less equals more!

That’s basically the whole thing. It's not very complicated is it?

For me, it's a matter of restraining government from it's addiction to spend us into bankruptcy and then hold them back from passing all sorts of laws to cover everything from A to Z. Obviously, throwing vast sums of money at projects is wasteful if it's not spent wisely (look at public education in Ca). We just can't cover everything with a law, nor should we. Too often we punish the many for the bad acts of the few, i.e. assault weapons law and the infringement on the 2nd Ammendment. Too many laws is a sign of a society in collapse.

So, government ought to focus on what is it's prime responsibility, as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, and to a lesser emphasis in our State Constitution and let the free market, innovation, entrepenuers, creativity and democracy flourish, as they were intended.

If you want to reduce this to an even simpler format (or floormat as my former boss used to say), it means government should only do what the people can't do for themselves. And there's not too much the private sector can't do better and for less money than government.

As a conservative, I respect the rights of the individual to live as free they see fit. It's only when their freedoms interferes with my freedoms or yours, do I set a boundary.

That’s pretty much my whole philosophy on freedom and good government.

What do you think?

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:24 PM | Comments (2)

2 Year Old Genius

Two-year-old 'Matilda' becomes youngest ever girl in Mensa

By DUNCAN ROBERTSON

Last updated at 23:01pm on 21st June 2007

Her parents knew Georgia Brown was bright. After all, she could count to ten, recognised her colours and was even starting to dabble with French.

But it was only when their bubbly little two-year-old took an IQ test that her towering intellect was confirmed.

Read more here.

Posted by Post Scripts at 03:49 PM | Comments (1)

'Sicko' leaves top Democrats ill at ease

WASHINGTON — With the release of Michael Moore's "Sicko," a movie once again is adding sizzle to an issue that's a high priority for liberal politicians — this time comprehensive health insurance for all. But unlike Al Gore's film on global warming, which helped rally support on an equally controversial problem, "Sicko" is creating an awkward situation for the leading Democratic presidential candidates.

Rejecting Moore's prescription on healthcare could alienate liberal activists, who will play a big role in choosing the party's next standard-bearer. However, his proposal — wiping out private health insurance and replacing it with a massive federal program — could be political poison with the larger electorate.

Read more on this story.

Posted by Post Scripts at 03:46 PM | Comments (3)

Feinstein Acts Like A Royal Snob

by Jack Lee

After I read John Freitas' article on Diane Feinstein (see below), it made me frustrated and really mad, because this is not an untypical situation. Once these elite millionaires get elected they are automatically the "big expert" on every subject under the sun including matters of law enforcement. Hey Diane, that letter came from a 20 year police veteran who has served on the front lines his whole career. He's put his life in danger countless times while you, Ms Feinstein, were serving on an immigration committee and risking what. . . a nasty paper cut or a cross word?

People like Feinstein are so ready to tell you and guys like John why you are wrong, it's pathetic. It put's us on the defensive while the Feinstein's of this world stop learning and become insulated against any view but their own. For instance Feinstein refers to the latest immigration bill as getting a mixed reaction. A mixed reaction???? What??? #@!%^#& Is 80% against this bill....mixed? Not in my world! As I see it, Feinstein is ignoring the will of the people while she puts a spin on a bad bill. (treating us like mushrooms again)

In Feinstein's letter to John there's no acknowledgment he might have had something worthwhile to say, there was no validation that one thing he said might have been worthy, John just gets dismissed.

It's another case of, "Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out!"

Those primadonas (and I'm lumping a lot of politicians into this category) never once consider a highly dedicated and courageous professional like John Freitas might be absolutely right. Too often politicians are like this, too self absorbed, to even consider our thoughts and so good guys like John are dismissed in way that formerly only Royalty might have done to one of their servants. He deserves better and Feinstein should be ashamed.

Hang in there John, we're with you!

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:43 AM | Comments (2)

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:38 AM | Comments (0)

Americans and Mileage

A 2006 study found that the average American walks about 900 miles a year. Another study found that Americans drink an average of 22 gallons of beer a year. That means on average Americans get about 41 miles per gallon."

Not Bad!

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:50 AM | Comments (0)

No Drug Smuggler Left Behind (This is Soooo Good)

by Ann Coulter

A must read article! Follow this link.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:49 AM | Comments (0)

June 22, 2007

Quote of the Week

“Fundamentally I believe that American patriotism is different from other patriotisms. It’s not a blood-and-soil nationalism.... We are a nation based not on race or deep roots in a particular landscape, but on a proposition, on certain political and philosophical ideals.” —journalist and historian Jonathan Foreman

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:37 PM | Comments (0)

Life's ABC's

Submitted by Tinman...

A is for apple, and B is for Boat,
That used to be right, but now it won't float.
Age before beauty is what we once said,
But let's be a bit more realistic instead.

Now, A's for arthritis;

B's the bad back,

C is for chest pains, perhaps cardiac.

D is for dental decay and decline;

E is for eyesight, can't read that top line.

F is for fissures and fluid retention,

G is for gas, which I'd rather not mention.

H is high blood pressure--I'd rather it low;

I for incisions with scars you can show.

J is for joints, out of socket, won't mend.

K is for knees that crack when they bend.

L for libido, what happened to sex?

M is for memory, I forget! What comes next?

N is neuralgia, in nerves way down low;

O is for Osseo, the bones that don't grow!

P for prescriptions, I have quite a few,

Just give me a pill and I'll be good as new.

Q is for queasy, is it fatal or flu?

R for reflux, one meal turns to two.

S for sleepless nights, counting my fears.

T for tinnitus; there's bells in my ears.

U is for urinary; big troubles with flow;

V is for vertigo, that's "dizzy" you know.

W is for worry, NOW what's going round?

X is for X-ray, and what might be found.

Y is another year I'm left here behind,

Z is for zest that I still have--in my mind.

I've survived all the symptoms, my bodies deployed,
I've kept many doctors fully employed!
May your troubles be less, your blessings more.
And nothing but Happiness comes through your door.

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:28 PM | Comments (0)

Senator Feinstein Contacts Me!

by John Freitas

I recently wrote my Senators expressing my views on the proposed immigration bill and urged them to vote no.

A couple of days ago, I received a response letter from Senator Diane Feinstein, which consisted of six and one half pages, listing her reasons for supporting the bill.

Because of the length of the letter, I am only going to quote some of the points she makes and the responses I am sending her.

Libby would say I am probably just being “touchy”. But I found this form letter to be condescending and the way it was written seemed to assume a lot about the people she would have to send it to. Namely, she doesn’t seem to believe that anyone who would oppose this bill is very well informed nor would they have any real life experience with illegal immigration. She concedes that the bill “is not perfect” but feels it is a “good compromise.” She used the words “bipartisan bill” as if this was some magical phrase which somehow transforms a bad idea into a good one.

Here are some excerpts from the letter, with my responses.

“Dear Mr. Freitas:

Thank you for writing to me about the current immigration reform debate now going on in Congress.

I understand there have been mixed reactions to the bipartisan bill that is now being considered in the Senate and that there are very strong feelings about this issue. I believe that while this bill is not perfect, it is a good compromise. The current immigration system is not working-our borders are broken, our national security is compromised, and there is no feasible way to identify and deal with the 10 to 12 million undocumented people now living in the United States.”

“”Mixed Reaction”” Yes, there does seem to be mixed reaction, and it seems to be leaning against, significantly. This bill is not a good compromise as it, like the last bill of its kind, will not be enforced. You say that there is no feasible way to identify and deal with the 10 to 12 million undocumented people now living in the United States.

If municipal police departments were allowed to work in conjunction with Immigration services, many of these people would be identified and could be investigated and deported if found to be breaking the law. This is the same practice we use in identifying our citizens who have broken laws. If there is no way to identify and deal with the 10 to 12 million who are already here, how do you propose to collect the “fines” from the people as you pardon them for breaking our laws?

“I have served on the Immigration Subcommittee for over a decade, and while there have been many partial attempts to address immigration issues, this is the first comprehensive bill that has a chance to fix and reform the entire system. This bill is the toughest I’ve seen in my fifteen years as a U.S. Senator.

It adds 14,000 new border patrol agents over 5 years, 200 immigration prosecutors, enhanced border surveillance and fencing, and detention facilities that can house 27, 500 undocumented people at a time.

It creates tough new penalties for people who enter the U.S. illegally in the future. It also cracks down on employers who hire undocumented workers- providing for employer fines of up to $75,000 per unauthorized worker.”

I served as law enforcement officer in Southern California for two decades and have seen that the existing laws are not enforced, largely because of pressure from special interest groups, "The Race" (La Raza). Employers are required to insure that their employees have Social Security Cards. Any illegal alien who comes across the Mexican border knows to go to MacArthur Park in Los Angeles and you can buy the documentation needed to get a Social Security card. I am talking about the park itself, not the Mexican Consulate which is located across the street from the park.

Had you been in the Senate in 1986 you would have noticed, I assume, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. As the Mayor of a major California City, I would assume you still took notice of it. Well, this Current bill is largely a recapitulation, in spirit if not in actual wording, of that bill. It causes one to ponder, why didn’t that bill work? We were told then, that it was going to correct the immigration woes.

This time period was within the time period I cite as my two decades in law enforcement in a major Southern California City.

After the 1986 bill passed, many employers who questioned the documents of people already working or applying for employment, and for their trouble, they found themselves sued by the ACLU, for discrimination. I have heard many say, “go after the employers” and I would agree with that, if you have put into place a vehicle for employers to verify, without fear of repercussion, a potential employee’s legal status. If, having that, an employer continues to hire illegal aliens; he or she should be punished. Without such a vehicle, you will find it difficult to collect those proposed $75,000 fines legally, as employers will have a built in defense.

With the addition of these 14,000 new border patrol agents, I would guess that will keep the USAG’s office very busy micro-managing the operations of the Border Patrol.

“Finally, the bill creates a limited guest worker program. This program will ensure that individuals who want to come to work in the United States in the future will have a reliable and safe method to do so. Having a workable temporary worker program is important to prevent future individuals from coming to the U.S. outside of legal channels and creating a new class of illegal immigrants.”

Really, how? We are going to allow illegal aliens who are already here and have established an identity, to stay and work on a path to our most treasured asset, Citizenship, and as citizens eligible for minimum wage, not what they are getting now. Won't that cause even more "undocumented people to come in and work at a lower wage?

Hypothetically, if a terrorist had come here illegally or just over stayed on his visa and was attending flight school, tell me how this bill would identify and deport him? It seems more likely to allow him to stay with a legal status.

I agree with a workable, manageable guest worker program. But not until we have identified those who have already broken our laws and expelled them and secured our borders. This bill is a slap in the face of every immigrant who has waited and tried to immigrate legally.

Her parting shot which, I found very condescending, was...

“While it is easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize it is harder to stand up, take on the tough issues, make the hard decisions and do what is right to fix our immigration system. I want to commend Senators Kennedy, Spector, Salazar and Kyl for their hard work in undertaking this difficult issue and crafting this important legislation.”

“”Sidelines??”” Senator, as someone who was on the front lines for two decades, and having seen the opposition from those in other law enforcement agencies, including the border patrol on this issue, I can tell you that from my standpoint, you in the Senate are not even in the stadium, let alone on the sidelines. And speaking of being on the front lines, what do the people in the Border Patrol feel about this legislation? Are you implying that they are just on “the sidelines?” Don’t they question the merits of this legislation? Wouldn’t they be experts that you in the Senate would want to listen to on this matter? As far as making “hard decisions” They have to make them daily, and with much more at risk than any of the people whom you have mentioned in the Senate.

It is very obvious to anyone who has studied history, that this bill will do nothing to secure our borders or our nation, it is just a opportunity for some in the Senate, and sadly, this President to continue to pontificate on what is good for the unwashed masses (you know, your constituents) While appearing to do something.

The Senate should Listen to the majority of their constituents and not marginalize them as “ignorant” or “racists” or just uninformed, as the content of you letter seems to imply. I continue to urge you to vote no.

Sincerely
John Freitas

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:10 PM | Comments (2)

June 21, 2007

Medical Breakthrough!

Reports of a dramatic medical breakthrough in the science of genetics offers hope to Parkinson's patients:

In a pioneering study, researchers used the treatment to bring about significant improvements in the mobility of Parkinson's sufferers. They said it could also herald a breakthrough in the treatment of other neurological disorders, such as Alzheimer's or epilepsy.

The 12 patients involved in the study - a world-first human gene therapy trial for a brain disease - all reported a substantial reduction in their symptoms after having a human gene injected.

Read about the procedure in the story, “Gene breakthrough against brain diseases,”
by Roger Highfield, Science Editor in the Telegraph, UK.

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:08 PM | Comments (0)

They Call This Progress?

by Tina Grazier

The “Center for American Progress,” a Washington based left-wing think tank, has set its sights on the destruction of right wing talk radio. Seems they can’t abide the popularity it enjoys and so, in typical control freak fashion, they seek to put restrictions and regulation in place to make sure the programming “allowed” to float across our airwaves is “fair.” They will use the familiar tactic of appealing to the masses with a reasonable sounding phrase and so will speak of the “public airwaves.” But as Neal Boortz reveals in his website article, “The Attack on Talk Radio Begins in Earnest Today,” this little sham has its roots in a decades old political power play:

I know most of you have never really thought about this before, but this argument is ridiculously easy to destroy. On just what basis does the public own the airwaves? Is there a purchase contract somewhere that I just haven't seen yet? *** The answer is that there is no evidence of ownership. None. The public "owns the airwaves" only because the politicians in the early part of the last century said so. And that's it. They saw a new means of communication coming forward, a means of communication that had the promise of someday being more powerful than the Constitutionally protected printed word, and they wanted control. They wanted control, so they took it.

Liberals feel threatened by talk radio. They tried to succeed with their Air America, and all the George Soros and embezzled funds in the world didn't help them. So, in the liberal world, if at first you can't succeed, use the government to destroy your opponents.

Yep, that says it all. Personally I think it’s pretty amazing that these aging “free speech” flower children are now trying to use government power to stifle free expression…I mean who do they think they are Hugo Chavez…or maybe Fidel? Well, actually…

*******

There were a few things in the report,
“The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” that I found interesting. First they explain the illness:

Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, the combined news/talk format is estimated to reach more than 50 million listeners each week. *** Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive. *** Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk—10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk. *** A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.

Then they call for the cure:

This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three ways to accomplish this:
Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations. *** Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing. *** Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

What wasn’t in the report is that left-wing talk radio doesn’t sell! Ooops...guess that would make a difference.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:45 PM | Comments (2)

Iran Suspected in Bombing - When Are We Going to Hit Back?

by Jack Lee

"The U.S. military announced Thursday that 14 of its soldiers were killed in the past 48 hours,including five in a single bomb attack.

In one of the deadliest attacks, five U.S. soldiers were killed and four Iraqis, including an interpreter and three civilians,were killed on Thursday when a massive roadside bomb went off near their vehicle during combat moment to look at this list of soldiers and note how many have been killed by roadside bombs. You know that many of the explosives were sent from Iranian sources and possibly planted using Irania expertise and its not just happening in Iraq, its spreading into Afghanistan. If Reagan were president we would have launched air strikes 3 years ago into Iran and we wouldn't

operations in northeastern Baghdad, a military statement said." Iran has been caught numerous times importing specially designed high explosives to knockout armored vehicles to keep insurgents on the offensive. The size of the most recent explosion suggests it was likely one of the new types manufactured in Iran.

To date 3545 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq since March 2003, mostly due to roadside bombs, Please take a be having this problem.

I believe Bush has lost his nerve and I suspect he's being guided by other men behind the presidency. I say this because the current Bush policies are confusing and have little in common with the election promises we once heard. This President seems cut off, far removed from the thoughts and wishes of the majority of Americans.

As he insulates himself from the far left, he is also insulating himself from the idealism of common sense conservatives and moreover from mainstream Americans. I don't know what to expect from this man anymore. I really don't. It's incredibly disappointing.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:58 AM | Comments (0)

Skin and Bones Zellweger?

by Jack Lee

Actress Renee Zellweger best known for her roles in Bridgette Jones diary and the Edge of Reason seems to be wasting away from the cutesy curvy waif she played. Now she looks kinda bony from the neck down to her now knobby knees. The new look makes her look like one of those bobble heads you see cars.

Anorexia is not the look her fans want to see, is it?

According to the article I read Zellweger's ultra thin, size zero body comes from daily workouts and hiking in the Hollywood Hills...and probably lots of vomiting, but that's just my guess.

Being a celebrity must do weird things to the brain. Drunken Lindsey Lohan, Jailbird Paris Hilton, bald headed Britney Speers, dead Anna Nicole, ...all of these celebrutards have (or had in Anna Nicole's case) serious mental issues and/or substance addictions. Unfortunately they also had too much money and for people with no judgement, this always leads to excesses and personal distress. I ran this story in the spirit of diversity and because I thought Zellweger was better grounded than her twitty tabloid counterparts, but I guess not.

Maybe this is just my humble opinion, but I think women with a few extra pounds look far better than those who are slightly underweight, which seems to be what most women think they should be to be attractive to guys.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:01 AM | Comments (1)

MEDIA BIAS REVEALED (again)

News reporters give on average 9 to 1 to democrats verses republicans, so says Bill Dedman Investigative reporter at MSNBC. For details follow this link.

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:57 AM | Comments (1)

June 20, 2007

COOL!!

Posted by Tina Grazier

I guess we'll be calling them "The Whites"...the folks that exchange global warming nightmares for global cooling frights. Here's the scoop out of Canada with lots of ammo for green or white debunking purposes:

"Read the sunspots," by R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling *** Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C. *** The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." *** Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly.

The article has a whole series of links that feature "The Deniers: The National Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science."

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:55 PM | Comments (2)

Oh What a Knight!

Hard-Line Pakistani Wants Britain
to Knight Usama Bin Laden--FOX News, by Staff

An outraged Pakistani lawmaker is demanding that Britain's Queen Elizabeth II bestow the title ''Sir'' on the world's most wanted terrorist, Usama bin Laden, claiming it's only fair since she's done the same for the Muslim world's most hated author, Salman Rushdie. ''Muslims should confer the 'Sir' title and all other awards on bin Laden and [Taliban leader] Mullah Omar in reply to Britain's shameful decision to knight Rushdie''

As Libby might quip, "So there!"

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:25 PM | Comments (4)

Help! Save Us From Our Government!

By Jack Lee

California is well on its way to being the nation's #1 Nanny State with Democrats cheering and Republicans going down kicking and screaming.

Evidence one Dave Jones-D, Assemblyman from the 9th District. Dave can't write laws fast enough to save us from ourselves. His latest "nanny law" would prohibit rafters on the American River from consuming alcoholic beverages, "No Alcohol on the American River - AB 951 bans alcohol on the American River in Sacramento. The prohibition will apply to non-motorized vessels over the same summer holiday periods (Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day weekends) as covered by Sacramento County’s prohibition (covering the shoreline)." Dave has his shorts in bunch on AB 951, it's so crucial (in his mind) that he has invoked an "Emergency" hearing on the bill so it can be on the Governor's desk before July 4th when Dave thinks all Hell is going to break loose on the American river with rafters and tubers drinking beer.

Hey, are you college-age liberals listening here? Here's your boy cutting into your fun time, restricting your freedom and spoiling your 4th of July plans.

That's not very liberal of him is it? But, this is what liberals do, don't you get it? They pass lots of Nanny Laws and safety nets and it all comes with a certain loss of freedom, not to mention a loss of your money for taxes to pay for it all. But, I guess that money part doesn't bother you yet, you're still in college living off mom and dad, but just you wait till you see your first paycheck being eviscerated by taxes! It will be a rude awakening to the wonderful world of tax and spend liberals. Perhaps then you might begin to understand what Conservatives have been trying to tell you?

Boaters, rafters and the rental companies that make a living on this stretch of the American river say they don't want or need this new law. It's just one more unnecessary regulation and government intrusion and they note we already have laws to cover public drunkenness, possession of alcohol by minors, littering, disturbance of the peace, etc.,

However, supporters of the bill, like Mrs.Carmen Flores, the mother of a young man killed in 2006 in a single car accident after drinking and rafting, said, "If we only had this law last year my son would still be alive!" Police said drunk driving was the cause of her son's death. He apparently missed a turn at high speed and hit a telephone pole. "This is why Dave Jones is rushing to push this bill through!" Said Mrs. Flores.

Mrs. Flores my condolences, but if your son had not been driving too fast while "drunk" he might be alive today and that is the sad fact of it. To blame us for not having a law in place to stop drinking while rafting is understandable given your loss, but it's misplaced frustration. I'm sorry, but he made that choice and he's solely responsible for what happened. Consirder: Driving while intoxicated is a much tougher law than drinking while rafting...one would think if a law would be a deterence, it would be the tougher law ( DUI) , not a weaker law (rafting with a beer).

Common sense says if you could close down one area on this river, another area would just spring up. The bottom line here is "personal responsibility". That drunk driver didn't get far in life because of his own poor judgement and people like Dave Jones can't legislate away poor judgement. Oh, of course Dave can pass a law to affect all of us law-abiding folks by taking away our freedom to enjoy the American river as we so choose.

Liberal legislators like Assemblyman Dave Jones-D are always trying to help us by taking things away. They want to protect us from every conceivable risk from cradle to grave, but the very notion of freedom implies risk. So taking this to the most extreme example, when we're 100% risk free, then I we've lost 100% of our freedom. No thanks! I prefer to take some risks. Dave is also pushing hard for socialized medicine with more big government...and it figures. The same goes for another half dozen laws he's authored in the last 4 months, all enlarging goverment.

We've got to stop liberals like Dave Jones from helping us and instead help him . . . .out of office!

Posted by Post Scripts at 12:28 PM | Comments (3)

June 19, 2007

Arab Woman Takes On Radical Islam - It's Amazing

You will not believe what you are about to see on Arab TV. It gives you hope: http://www.filecabi.net/video/arab-truth.html

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:03 PM | Comments (0)

It’s a Beginning…

by Tina Grazier

Senator Elizabeth Dole and five other republican senators wrote President Bush today telling him that federal “policies” encourage illegal immigration. They also submitted a resolution in the Senate calling for changes in policies; actions Dole says can be taken without writing new law:

* Prosecuting migrants captured at the border rather than returning them to Mexico
* Enforcing the prohibition of in-state tuition
* Increasing the number of detention beds, border agents and investigators by years end
* Building 700 miles of border fence
* Increase and expedite removal proceedings and enforce the provisions for overstayed visas

"The federal government's failure to carry out the immigration laws on the books sends the message that this country is not really serious about securing our borders and communities and stemming the flow of illegal aliens. We don't need more empty promises - we need real proof that our borders are secure and that our laws are enforced."--Senator Dole

Well…it’s a beginning, I guess. There are other policies that invite illegal immigration and also need to be changed but they would require new law. One is the so called “anchor baby” rule that gives citizenship to all babies born here regardless of their parents status. Another is the free medical and services we offer. It is one thing to systematically welcome newcomers to our nation, it is another to offer the moon to all comers...particularly those who cheat the system.

The big "but" in Doles "beginning' is that we don't have much faith that the changed policies would be carried out any better than the ones we now have. The illusion of immigration control must be made real. A real fence might be a start.

The GOP must have gotten the message from back home. Try this related article in the LA Times:

"House Republicans introduce their own immigration bill," by Nicole Gaouette
WASHINGTON -- In a sharp rebuke to President Bush, House Republicans today introduced their own immigration reform and border security bill, a tough measure that would bar illegal immigrants from gaining legal status, require tamper-proof birth certificates for Americans, require employers to check the legal status of all workers and make English the nation's official language. The Secure Borders First Act stresses operational control over the border as one of its core principles. The bill would reject "amnesty" and insist that the administration do more to enforce existing laws.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:10 PM | Comments (3)

Quote of the Week

"The size of a man's character is measured by what makes him mad". Dale Carnegy

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:56 AM | Comments (0)

Violence Drops as Sunni's Vow to Fight Al Qaida

"Violence in Iraq's al-Anbar province has dropped dramatically since the beginning of the year, due in large part to friendly relations between coalition forces and 11 local sheikhs who have decided to ally with the U.S. in the fight against al-Qaida." Sunni leaders have decided to join the fight. Hear this NPR story.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:02 AM | Comments (0)

Thousands of pearls found in sunken Spanish galleon

KEY WEST, Fla. (AP) — Salvagers discovered thousands of pearls Friday in a small, lead box they said they found while searching for the wreckage of the 17th-century Spanish galleon Santa Margarita.

For more on this story click here.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:00 AM | Comments (0)

June 18, 2007

Dreaming in Green

by Tina Grazier

Let’s just go careening off...in every direction…with loads of regulations...and fines and taxes...and we'll force carbon trading schemes and "alternative" technologies...tra la! So happy and content are we to play at mattering that we’ll create new arguments if we have to...Al Gore can make a movie! The skeptics claim it’s just so much folderol…that we're playing havoc with the world’s economy and infrastructure...scaring little children and pressuring the pocketbooks and nerves of individuals. But we will smash all those silly worries because...WE must make a difference!

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey. The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

Oh, him. What would he know?

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:31 PM | Comments (3)

Talking Peace - Preparing for War

By Jack Lee

(Fatah fighters drive out Hamas from Gaza) Despite the ongoing diplomatic exchanges and peace talks, there are obvious signs that both Syria and Israel are preparing for war. The same might be said of Syria's axis of evil partner, Iran, except Iran has been on a high state of alert since we invaded Iraq, so their war footing is old news.

Last year President Bashar Assad of Syria said he was interested in peace with Israel but he also said he would consider war to regain the Golan, lost by Syria in the last war. The Golan Heights is a fairly small plateau, but it is home to 40,000 Israelis. Despite the development and farming, the Golan still looks like a battle ground, with shell holes and rubble. It's seen extremely heavy fighting twice in the last 50 years.

Speculation over war is rampant in the Middle-East as evidence by this excerpt from the Arab American Press, "Some observers predict a hot summer in the Middle East. They think Olmert will seek Bush's backing for another war in Lebanon, perhaps extending this time to Syria, to finish off their common enemies — Lebanon's Hizbullah and President Bashar al-Asad's regime in Damascus — in preparation for a joint assault on their ultimate nemesis, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Tehran." I say that's not likely. I would prepare for ice skating in Hades before we see the USA and Israel launching a joint forces attack on Iran. Still the rumors of war persist and the military maneuvers within Israel and Syria give credence to the speculation.

Factional fighting rage in both the Gaza and Beruit and that threaten the shakey peace and I refer to "peace" in loosest of terms.

Gold is up sharply today as well as crude, reflecting the new mid-east tensions.

That tension may also be in part because of our two naval battle groups that includes two carrier and 150 strike aircraft. They have assembled on the approaches to the Iranian coast. Or it could be because both Syria and Iran are funding Hezbollah fighters against the sovereign government of Lebanon and Hamas against moderate Fatah forces in the Gaza. Both areas, the Gaza and areas around Beruit, have been the scene of heavy fighting in recent days and weeks.

It is not inconceivable that Syria and Iran see an opportunity for broad fundamentalist battle front stretching from Tehran to Damascus using proxy fighters from both Hezbollah and Al Qaeda to do their dirty work. Obviously, once this area is destablized, it would make it easier for Syria to make a move on the Golan and for Iran to push harder in Iraq.

For more information try this link.

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:47 PM | Comments (1)

June 17, 2007

Once again I say…

“Hmmmmm”
by Tina Grazier

Last week I posted a story about the US and Israeli Air forces conducting exercises in the Southern Negev desert. I thought it was interesting and said as much. Seems I wasn’t the only one pondering the meaning of such activities at this time. An article over at “Frontpage Magazine” by P. David Hornik, “Training for the Next War,” cast a bit more light for those who might also be asking the question, “what is going on behind the scenes?”

The exercises were dismissed in Reuters as, “part of a multi-year working plan involving joint flights for the purpose of mutual learning,” by a military spokeswoman and as, “unconnected to the current situation in the country,” by an Israeli Military source. Our own Nick Freitas dismissed them, at least as an answer to the Iran nuclear problem. One way or the other, David Horniks article is worth a read:

The exercises, in any case, sparked interest and were reported in Arab media. They also manifest the fact that, despite reported Bush-administration disgruntlement with Israeli military capabilities after the summer 2006 war in Lebanon, U.S.-Israeli military cooperation continues at a high level.

Also on Monday all the Israeli outlets reported the successful launch of Israel’s Ofek-7 military spy satellite, a relief after its predecessor, Ofek-6, crashed into the Mediterranean shortly after launch in September 2004—and with the aging Ofek-5 already circling the earth for almost five years. The Ofek-7 is said to give Israel unprecedented capabilities and the Jerusalem Post says its “elliptical orbit reportedly takes it over Iran, Iraq and Syria every 90 minutes.”

One doesn’t have to be a conspiracy-monger to wonder if there’s some connection between the U.S.-Israeli air drills and the Ofek-7’s launch. It took, however, the Israeli scoop site DEBKAfile, which purports to have inside security information and not infrequently turns out to be right, to connect these dots in a single article.

From the DEBKAfile: Israel’s new Ofeq-7 satellite beams its first images to base Thursday June 14, 2007. With its successful launch Monday, Israel has acquired an essential intelligence asset for any war contingency…. military sources report that the launching was part of a seven-day US-Israeli air exercise taking place this week in the Negev which, though presented officially as a routine practice, reflects wide expectations of a Middle East war this summer. Israel thus launched the 300 kg Ofeq-7 in mock war conditions, displaying a cutting-edge capability reserved to the US and Russia.

The sad and savage events last week in Gaza make the situation, particularly in light of the military and financial support given to Hamas by the ayatollahs in Iran, even more immediate. After the Israeli failures in Lebanon last summer a strong plan is vital.

*******

More news to ponder...

“Israel plans attack on Gaza” by Uzi Mahnaimi:

ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there. According to senior Israeli military sources, the plan calls for 20,000 troops to destroy much of Hamas’s military capability in days. The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket attacks against Israel or a resumption of suicide bombings.

In a world in which defensive war is a relentless daily challenge, changing events make it difficult to anticipate and plan. I continue to be in awe of those who make it their business and life’s work to defend us. I watch, I wait and find myself continually saying, hmmmmmmmmm

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:46 PM | Comments (9)

Bad Bill on the Hill

by Tina Grazier

''This week we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong.'' –Senator Harry Reid

So goes the continuing saga on the Hill regarding “Immigration Reform”. Meanwhile, we "peons" in the heartland look for better ways to sound the alarms. My own search found me reading Michael Cutler over on “Counterterrorism Blog.” Michael is an expert on immigration issues and law enforcement having worked in the field over thirty years. He has been called to testify in Congressional hearings nine times. You can read his latest offering, "'Guest Worker Amnesty Program' Would Not Protect America,” by scrolling down a bit on the blog. Here’s a sampling:

The problem is that the United States is being inundated by aliens on a daily basis who manage to gain entry into the United States through a wide variety of methods. These vulnerabilities can be most effectively countered by having an adequate number of well-trained and well-equipped special agents operating within the interior of the United States, yet little has been offered to address this critical shortage of enforcement resources.

Those pushing the "Guest Worker Amnesty Program" who claim that our nation has attempted an "enforcement only program," and that this approach has not worked, fool no one! All that we have been provided with is the illusion of enforcement and it is the illusion that has failed to work! A Guest Worker Amnesty Program will not help to get our border under control, it will do just the opposite, providing a huge incentive to millions of aliens to run our borders with the hope (indeed, expectation) that they will be able to participate in this program!

It has been estimated that some 40% of the illegal aliens currently present in the United States did not run our nation's borders but rather entered the United States through a port of entry and then, in one way or another, violated the terms of their admission. Virtually no thought is being given about preventing aliens from gaming the bureaucracy to acquire immigration benefits through fraud even though a number of terrorists who have been identified as operating in our country in the decade leading up to the attacks of 9/11 used immigration benefit fraud to either enter the United States and/or embed themselves in the United States.

Michael Cutler’s article includes several related links that if read will find you better informed if not alarmed. He closes his piece with a quote (prayer) from Mohammed Atta:

"OH GOD, you who open all doors, please open all doors for me, open all venues for me, open all avenues for me.'

Making law that ends up aiding and assisting terrorists further would be madness...the mere thought is enough to depress as we end this Fathers Day. That's why you've also got to read Mark Steyn’s article, “Immigration bill is a fraud,” in the Sun Times. He reveals a little oops in Senator Reid’s comment quoted above and, as usual, finds a way to make the gloomiest subject a laughing matter...well, for the moment anyway.

Posted by Post Scripts at 07:14 PM | Comments (2)

THANKS DAD

My father used to play with my brother and me in the yard. Mother would come out and say, "You're tearing up the grass." "We're not raising grass," Dad would reply. "We're raising boys." - Harmon Killebrew

Gentlemen, Good fathers model the necessary things for a happy and successful life...commitment, self-discipline, honesty, responsibility, and loyalty are among the many things that act as an example for your children. But joy is one of the greatest gifts you bring to the family. The natural things that were the very essence of your own childhood, curiosity, a sense of adventure, spontaneous silliness and laughter, these are a blessing that will create memories to last a lifetime. On this day we thank you for the laughter and smiles that light up your childrens faces.

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:48 AM | Comments (1)

June 16, 2007

A View From the Right - Part II (Formerly What Steve Knows)

by Nick F.

Hi Meagan...

Just a couple of points here.

1. On the legality of the war that you bring up, I think we are going to discuss that part later, so I will leave it for now, but it is an interesting topic.

2. Your statements about the English language are correct, but I have to emphasize a point here. You may be an English major, but most are not. Words and definitions have meanings beyond their text book definition. One could almost claim that the literal definitions of liberal" and "conservative" have little in common with their "colloquial" definition. Perhaps a better definition for "modern liberals" is progressives.

Either way it is a it disingenuous for some one like Barbara Streisand to make such a comment in the context she was. Her very statement was a suggestion that while liberals fought communism, fascism, etc. conservatives did not. Again this does not take into account current understanding of the political terms.

I must also take issue with your version of extreme conservativeism. Only because, for the sake of argument we have to have a clear understanding of what were talking about when the terms are used in these pages. Edmund Burke is considered by many of us in the conservative movement as being the "Father of Modern Conservatism" and it would be difficult to see even an "extreme version" of his theory's in the embodiment of the KKK.

3. Personal experience. You must understand that while ones personal experience does not make their position more "right" than yours. It does make it more "valid" as long as there is a question of what actually happened. Any experience that you have, that I do not, automatically makes your opinion on that particular experience more valid. Whether or not your opinion is correct is still up for grabs, but you have to at least concede, THAT ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL we take the word of someone who has been there and done that over someone who has not.

My other points of contention will come out at a later date.

Anyway, its great to "read" you here again Meagan, and I look forward to discussing these issues with you in the future.

Nick

P.S.

On one point I want to defend you. I do believe that it can be considered completely patriotic to oppose a war EVEN when you have troops in contact. If we simply shut down debate whenever we had troops in harms way, it would run contrary to all of our principles about freedom of speech, and would provide politicians a shelter from having their actions called into check.

By the same token, those who do oppose a war should be careful to understand that while they have the right to do so, and in some cases a moral obligation, they must never lose sight of the fact that their actions have consequences which will be paid by the soldiers who have gone in their name.

If one feels the need to protest, it is incumbent upon them to be right! Furthermore they must present an alternative solution.

The end state of armed conflict is to destroy the enemies will to fight. By protesting the war in a Republic you are inadvertently assisting the enemy in this task. This reality cannot be avoided, therefore one must be careful on how they protest, and they should be reasonably sure that their position is just. If they have not made provisions to ensure these conditions then they are culpable for defeat; not in a legal sense, but certainly in a morale one.

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:57 PM | Comments (4)